You can actually prove it yourself the same way the Ancient Greeks did.
How?
Pretty brilliant, actually. A guy named Eratosthenes had heard that in a specific city (Syene) during the summer solstice, there were areas where the shadows simply disappeared. This would happen, they knew, because during the summer solstice, in that spot, the sun was DIRECTLY overhead.
If the sun is DIRECTLY overhead a pole sticking out of the ground, it will cast no shadow. You can see this effect today.
So what Eratosthenes realized was that if the sun was directly over Syene and cast no shadow, then he could go to a nearby city and see that there were, in fact, shadows being cast there.
So he had three pieces of information:
1) There sun was DIRECTLY over Syene and cast no shadows (so, a shadow angle of 0 degrees).
2) At that exact same time in Alexandria, shadows were being cast with a 7.2 degree angle.
3) He roughly knew the distance from Alexandria to Syene.
Using this information, he was able to calculate pretty closely how big the Earth must be for these calculations to make sense.
You can perform a similar experiment much more easily using a smart phone and a friend in a different city, but the principle is the same if you got the math skills.
terrific im glad you brought this up. I pose a question:
Is it possible for this experiment to produce these results only in the heliocentric model? is there perhaps another cosmological model that works? Does this possibility invalidate the so called proof?
The mere possibility that my next bowl of soup might have been poisoned by an assassin whose family has waited eight generations to take revenge on my bloodline unbeknownst to me also exists.
But it does not stop me from eating until the evidence of such an assassin becomes apparent.
I can’t let hypotheticals paralyze my ability to exist. You operate on the best evidence you have until that evidence is proven wrong or is usurped by better evidence.
I can accept that the earth might not be round, but the mere possibility is not considered scientific controversy. And the mere possibility of something being wrong is not an empirical argument against it.
My original request was for you to demonstrate the earth to be globular without citing space agencies. I am trying to help you realize that what you accept as evidence is clearly not. Eratosthenes did not prove the earth to be round lol. The earth can be flat with a local moving sun and produce the same results. Demonstrating the earth to be a spinning globe moving through space is no easy task, and I doubt you can do it. You start with the assumption that it is such and then find evidence to support the assumption. The funny part is, your direct observation of reality would indicate to you the earth is flat and motionless. People choose to defy their own senses to support a model of reality bestowed upon them by a very questionable authority.
You make a very nice argument on its face. Can you demonstrate how the earth is round to me without citing NASA or any space agency?
You can actually prove it yourself the same way the Ancient Greeks did.
How?
Pretty brilliant, actually. A guy named Eratosthenes had heard that in a specific city (Syene) during the summer solstice, there were areas where the shadows simply disappeared. This would happen, they knew, because during the summer solstice, in that spot, the sun was DIRECTLY overhead.
If the sun is DIRECTLY overhead a pole sticking out of the ground, it will cast no shadow. You can see this effect today.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/04/lahaina-noon-when-shadows-disappear.html
So what Eratosthenes realized was that if the sun was directly over Syene and cast no shadow, then he could go to a nearby city and see that there were, in fact, shadows being cast there.
So he had three pieces of information:
1) There sun was DIRECTLY over Syene and cast no shadows (so, a shadow angle of 0 degrees).
2) At that exact same time in Alexandria, shadows were being cast with a 7.2 degree angle.
3) He roughly knew the distance from Alexandria to Syene.
Using this information, he was able to calculate pretty closely how big the Earth must be for these calculations to make sense.
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm#:~:text=So%20Eratosthenes%20hired%20bematists%2C%20professional,to%20be%20about%20250%2C000%20stadia.
You can perform a similar experiment much more easily using a smart phone and a friend in a different city, but the principle is the same if you got the math skills.
terrific im glad you brought this up. I pose a question:
Is it possible for this experiment to produce these results only in the heliocentric model? is there perhaps another cosmological model that works? Does this possibility invalidate the so called proof?
The mere possibility? No, absolutely not.
The mere possibility that my next bowl of soup might have been poisoned by an assassin whose family has waited eight generations to take revenge on my bloodline unbeknownst to me also exists.
But it does not stop me from eating until the evidence of such an assassin becomes apparent.
I can’t let hypotheticals paralyze my ability to exist. You operate on the best evidence you have until that evidence is proven wrong or is usurped by better evidence.
I can accept that the earth might not be round, but the mere possibility is not considered scientific controversy. And the mere possibility of something being wrong is not an empirical argument against it.
My original request was for you to demonstrate the earth to be globular without citing space agencies. I am trying to help you realize that what you accept as evidence is clearly not. Eratosthenes did not prove the earth to be round lol. The earth can be flat with a local moving sun and produce the same results. Demonstrating the earth to be a spinning globe moving through space is no easy task, and I doubt you can do it. You start with the assumption that it is such and then find evidence to support the assumption. The funny part is, your direct observation of reality would indicate to you the earth is flat and motionless. People choose to defy their own senses to support a model of reality bestowed upon them by a very questionable authority.
That's fine.
The experiment is based in sound logic either way.
EDIT: Have you actually... looked at the primary site that is hosting all this stuff you keep linking me to?
https://www.big-lies.org/index.html
Yikes. It needs a layout that's more organized and less like a wall of text, for one. Viewing it on an IPhone.