Trigonometry is not an assumption. It gives real results that surveyors have used for centuries. Aristarchus first calculated the distance to the sun and the moon over 2,000 years ago. Our more accurate modern measurement involved radar measurement of the distance to Venus and some trigonometry.
I guess you think "2+2=4" is merely an assumption.
The only thing you know is how to spell Eratosthenes.
I never said trigonometry was an assumption. Calm down.
I said the calculation around Earth's distance from the sun involved assumptions.
I'm not sure you're comprehending what I mean. The variables involved in the calculation were not taken from empirical evidence (aka, not scientific evidence).
Don't believe me? Great! Find out for yourself.
Without those assumptions, we cannot calculate anything. I think until a few minutes ago, you had no idea that assumptions were involved. If the assumptions are incorrect, the entire calculation is ruined.
That's simply false. When I use the word assumption, I'm talking about a number that does not come from empirical evidence.
Eratosthenes assumed the earth was spherical in his experiment. Without that assumption, his experiment proves nothing. That was an earlier point, and the claim is 100% true.
Gravity itself is an assumption.
And yes, our distance to the sun is calculated using assumptions.
If the earth were flat, Eratosthenes would have found the sun to be directly overhead at both places. There would be no calculation of the circumference of the earth or of its radius. The distance to the sun and moon involve measuring parallax.
Trigonometry is not an assumption. It gives real results that surveyors have used for centuries. Aristarchus first calculated the distance to the sun and the moon over 2,000 years ago. Our more accurate modern measurement involved radar measurement of the distance to Venus and some trigonometry.
I guess you think "2+2=4" is merely an assumption.
The only thing you know is how to spell Eratosthenes.
Just give it up.
I never said trigonometry was an assumption. Calm down.
I said the calculation around Earth's distance from the sun involved assumptions.
I'm not sure you're comprehending what I mean. The variables involved in the calculation were not taken from empirical evidence (aka, not scientific evidence).
Don't believe me? Great! Find out for yourself.
Without those assumptions, we cannot calculate anything. I think until a few minutes ago, you had no idea that assumptions were involved. If the assumptions are incorrect, the entire calculation is ruined.
Simple measurements on the ground and trigonometry are all you need. No assumptions whatsoever.
That's simply false. When I use the word assumption, I'm talking about a number that does not come from empirical evidence.
Eratosthenes assumed the earth was spherical in his experiment. Without that assumption, his experiment proves nothing. That was an earlier point, and the claim is 100% true.
Gravity itself is an assumption.
And yes, our distance to the sun is calculated using assumptions.
If the earth were flat, Eratosthenes would have found the sun to be directly overhead at both places. There would be no calculation of the circumference of the earth or of its radius. The distance to the sun and moon involve measuring parallax.
Of course, all of this assumes you can do math.