I can't explain now becase y keyboard is broken... I spilled beer on it... will write ore next week on this.
A 25,000 mi circumference East to West 360 degrees would neccessitate the same around North to South to North again, 360 Degrees.Circumference on a globe is assumed to be translated to the same miles from South rim to N pole to South rim, 25,000 miles-- on a flat earth projection.
(note: If Circumference is not 25,000-- then change that number to what is thought to be more accurate. Test distance for euqidistant latitude lines anywhere, say from 30N to 30S, or 60 degrees and multiply by 6 for example. If yo think circumference is 12,500 and radius 6,250 then apply numbers to Pythag. thm below.
So... using "standard" numbers, radius on flat earth 1/2 of 25,000 or 12,500. If that's the case then....
Rim circumference is 74,000 miles as determined below using Pythagorean theorum.
Ah... I guess that explains how flat earthers came up with ~ 75,000 circumference...
ReplyDeleteDidn't astronomers estimate 25,000 spherical circumference like 2000 years ago by studying stars?
~ 25,000 circumference
~ 7,900 diameter
~ 3,950 radius
Here is a you tube slide show I made July 2016 that got me started thinking about this stuff. Very short 40 second slide show. But more detail in comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfOqrNjnxD8
For some reason , my browser will cannot see comments anymore... great sond track thogh. Eratosthenes in Ancient Egypt calclated 25,000 with sn angles...nothing to do with star.... https://www.google.com/search?q=eratosthenes+circference&btnG=Search&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0
ReplyDeleteI havnt' reviewed Eratosthenes' calclation in light of flat earth since I discovered flat earth.. I'll look into it. I have not dterined that the Eratosthenes story is tre becase... he wold have had to have travelled to a second location very fast.... or had a essenger. WHEN I GET Y KEYBOARD FIXED I"LL DISCSSS ORE. sorry.
I'm a bit of a junkie for dubstep melodies...
ReplyDeleteYa Eratosthenes gets credit for the calculation.. I should research his method a bit more...
If you couldn't read the description for that YouTube slide show here it is...
Copy the image of Italy and the Adriatic sea from NASA's Juno footage (slide #12 of the following article):
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science...
Step 2:
Draw a circle that matches the size of the arc shown by NASA's image showing Italy and the Adriatic sea.
Super impose the NASA image onto matching model circle.
Step 3:
Copy a 3d image of Earth (Apple image used)
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/3d-ea...
Step 4:
Make sure the size of the 3d image copied is the same size as the model circle drawn in step 2.
Step 5:
Try to copy the same area of Italy and the Adriatic sea from the 3d Earth image from Apple, that is shown in the NASA image.
Step 6:
Make sure the size of the image copied of Italy and the Adriatic sea, from the 3d earth image, from has not changed in proportion, compared to the image it was copied from.
Step 7:
Super impose the 2nd image of the Italy and the Adriatic sea onto the model circle, next to the 1st image of the Italy and the Adriatic sea on the model circle.
Step 8:
Compare the size of both images.
Conclusions...
The NASA image shows an Italy that is covering more surface area than it would on a standard model of Earth.
Estimate which picture shows the correct sized arc: Apple's standard model of Earth? or NASA's image of Italy and the Adriatic sea? or neither?
Hypothesis: NASA's image is accurate; and Apple's image must therefore be inaccurate.
Also maintain these measurements that have long been calculated and assumed by astronomers for at least the past 2,000 years:
The Earth is basically spherical in shape, and approximately 25,000 miles in circumference.
A standard 3d image of Earth portrayed on a 2d plane can only show half of the Earth at once.
The Apple image only shows half of publicly known geographies: Africa, Europe, and Asia, are shown; and the Americas and Australia are not shown (assumed to be on the other half of the sphere).
If the publicly known geographies on Earth are all situated on the same 1 half of a sphere that is 25,000 miles in circumference, it would be possible to portray a 3d image of all publicly known geographies on a 2d plane.
If all publicly known geographies of Earth are only situated as to cover half of a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, that would make the area across the publicly known Earth, at its widest points, 12,500 miles, approximately.
Assume this scenario is accurate, and a picture of the area of Italy and the Adriatic sea is taken from high enough above Earth to reveal the arc of the basically spherical Earth.
If the publicly known geographies are only situated on half of a sphere, 25,000 miles in circumference, and 12,500 miles across at its widest points, approximately, this means the arc of the publicly known geographies is going to be less steep than is publicly imagined.
The NASA image of Italy and the Adriatic sea appears to take up more space on the standard globe model because I have over stretched it, through this exercise, by trying to match the steepness of its arc to that of the standard globe.
Also...
ReplyDeleteI guess if he was working alone, it would have taken Eratosthenes at least 1 year to calculate the circumference of Earth, as he would have to be at 2 different locations in Egypt at noon on the summer solstice to measure the difference between the angle of the sun at both locations at the same time. Either that, or he had a colleague who helped him measure the angle at one location, while he simultaneously measured the angle at the other location.
Fro wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
ReplyDeleteEratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt. He knew that at local noon on the summer solstice in Syene (modern Aswan, Egypt), the Sun was directly overhead. He knew this because the shadow of someone looking down a deep well at that time in Syene blocked the reflection of the Sun on the water. He measured the Sun's angle of elevation at noon on the same day in Alexandria.
----> so this wikipedia article does NOT refer to a colleage despite the rest of the story having fine detail....
------> We have to wonder what the SOURCE DOCent was for this story...
>>>Here's a cartoon fro 1962 that prports to tell the story again--- it's better than the wiki article since it has better diagras....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8On7yCU1EjQ
>>>fro this cartoon by IB we learn that he waited ntil the following year to easre the angle of the sn at noon in Alexandria.... and it was slightly different "at noon"-- on the solstice-- the 21st.
>>>What was the fallacy by Eratosthese IF the earth is indeed flat? The IB cartoon says he easred the angle of the sn on the solstice the NEXT year in Alexandria... sing an OBELISK. He sed THAT difference in ANGLE... and Distance between the two towns fro North to Soth... and calclated as being as being 1/50 of a circle....which works IF THE EARTH IS A SPHERE.... an assption.
>>>He didn't take into accont the flat odel... which wold ALSO prodce an angle... (what angle? 1/50 of 360= .2 x 360 = 7.2 deg.)... if the sn were LOWER... He ade the observation of PARALLEL shadows in one bilding... bt never noticed SN RAYS coing throgh clods are NOT parallel-- He "chose" to think that the ANGLE prodced cold ONLY be created by CRVED earth-- not realizing that the PARALLEL shadows observation was ONLY LOCAL- and NOT generalizable.
Here's another cartoon... that works a bit better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roXNZN1G_i8
>>>What is the fallacy in THAT cartoon? The first thing I noted was the depiction of the SN as HGE bside the earth- with the rays of the sn coing in at an angle at Alexandria. Elsewhere I've seen yotbe coentators say that IF the sn were 93 illion iles away, the sns rays wold be PARALLEL coing into the earth and that crvatre wold not be a signifficant difference. That ight be tre.
>>> Also.. Eratosthenese ALREADY had a ball theory-- and ade his observation confor to his idea. He didn't think to establish HOW HIGH the sn had to be to create that obelisk shadow in Alexandria.
If the distance between the towns was 5000 stadia and the angle was 7.2... then knowing 3 angles-- 90, 7 and ths 83 for a total of 180 inside a triangle-- and knowing the a=5000 distance, the forla for c and b cold be calclated. Bt that's Pythagoris. It sees Pythagors (520 bc) predates Eratothenese *(250Bc) not sre.
I fond a good video on this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk_NzMejP-0&t=13s
If Eratosthenes assumed a flat earth instead of a globe, he would have calculated the sun to be 3000 miles up because...
ReplyDeletethere are 8.6 stadia per mile.... so the distance between the two towns was 5000/8.6 = 581 or about 600 miles. The obelisk cast a shadow measuring 7 degrees. The remaining angle is therefore 180 less 90 less 7 or 83 degrees. That makes for a long hypotenuse for c.
Without doing the math and just using a ruler, a base of 6 gives a hypotenuse of about 6X as long... for 3600 miles and so the height of the sun would be about 3000 miles. I forget my geometry so I'll work this through another time.
Eritosthenes ASSUMED a globe to PROVE a globe-- circular reasoning to be sure. If he assumed earth as flat, he would have had an answer consistent with the suns spreading rays showing through clouds--- looking to be 3000 mi. up.
Stupid Eratosthenes. Stupid man. Stupid old Greek fool. Stupid Greeks. Stupid universities and colleges. Stupid media. Stupid stupid stupid. Except me and other youtubing flat earthers.