What did this man actually compute? He came with a fact: A difference in the length of a shadow on June 21 between Alexandria and Syene. That is a fact.
However, this is just the delta between two data-check-points.
He then measured the distance between the two places.
The next stage is is supposition: What would account for this difference in shadow length. Logically, a flat earth does not make sense. So, the took the circle as the explanation.
However, he only measured on one stretch from south to north.
Although very interesting, it is hardly proof, but rather a working hypothesis, if this should be geared to the form of our earth.
With this, I am not advocating for a flat earth, but rather, I am advocating to grasp what Eratosthenes was calculating and its value. It would not make the grade today to be put forward as a theory, as more testing is needed. So, the same thing should hold true between 50 and 60 Northern latitude and Southern Latitude.
Had that been done, it would have been falsified, as the earth does not resemble a circle.
Would it be permissible, based on his calculations to postulate another solution? If a circular earth is postulated then it can be concave, too, as the calculation leads to the same phenomenon.
In other words ..... this cannot be used as an argument for or against a flat earth.
That said, I would repeat my challenge to FE-people. Hire a boot, and navigate from Auckland to Buenaventura on the Columbian coast, measure headings, distance, speed and time. Let' s then see whether that conforms to FE, or a ball-type outside or inside.
However, so far, since 350 years and counting, the ball-type model holds for navigations with a marine-vessel.
What did this man actually compute? He came with a fact: A difference in the length of a shadow on June 21 between Alexandria and Syene. That is a fact.
However, this is just the delta between two data-check-points.
He then measured the distance between the two places.
The next stage is is supposition: What would account for this difference in shadow length. Logically, a flat earth does not make sense. So, the took the circle as the explanation.
However, he only measured on one stretch from south to north.
Although very interesting, it is hardly proof, but rather a working hypothesis, if this should be geared to the form of our earth.
With this, I am not advocating for a flat earth, but rather, I am advocating to grasp what Eratosthenes was calculating and its value. It would not make the grade today to be put forward as a theory, as more testing is needed. So, the same thing should hold true between 50 and 60 Northern latitude and Southern Latitude.
Had that been done, it would have been falsified, as the earth does not resemble a circle.
Would it be permissible, based on his calculations to postulate another solution? If a circular earth is postulated then it can be concave, too, as the calculation leads to the same phenomenon.
In other words ..... this cannot be used as an argument for or against a flat earth.
That said, I would repeat my challenge to FE-people. Hire a boot, and navigate from Auckland to Buenaventura on the Columbian coast, measure headings, distance, speed and time. Let' s then see whether that conforms to FE, or a ball-type outside or inside.
However, so far, since 350 years and counting, the ball-type model holds for navigations with a marine-vessel.