Skip to main content

How to prove the Earth is not flat, for yourself, using the Internet and a friend and mathematics.

It was suspected thousands of years ago that the earth is spherical,  or geodesic to be precise.  A papyrus from 230 B.C. Tells us what gave them the idea, and how we can improve on their work to form a conclusive proof:

Eratosthenes Finds Reasonably Accurate Diameter of Earth. 

Alexandria Eratosthenes peered into a well here,  at noon,  and came up with the diameter and
circumference of our planet!  The summer solstice, the Sun and a trip to Syene was all it took...........
Here is the experiment:

Two wells or (alternatively two sticks) actually does not prove the earth is round because it does allow for a tiny sun very much closer than the moon to the earth, to be possible. We now know that isn't the case so we can use two wells or sticks, but it's cheating because the ancients never knew this.

To prove it conclusively you actually need the geometry of three wells or sticks. By doing three in a line and three in a triangle. Too much trouble?

BUT NOTE: still DISPROVE the small sun theory using two sticks or wells, because using geometry and shadows you could eliminate the "close to earth" small sun theory,  and taking the distance of the required near sun, calculate the shadow angles and zoom the sun further away until it's far enough to match the known modern distances between your chosen cities work backwards. So it's still possible to ultimately prove it using two, and more mathematics but technically speaking the ancients never had that information. Nowadays we can easily just reset the odometer of a car or use GPS or maps.

You can cheat using a cell phone by phoning a friend a few hundred kilometers to your West and timing the gap between the sun disappearing over your horizon (on the shore of a lake, or ocean to guarantee eliminating hills and valleys unless the friend is very far away)

An experiment proving conclusively the earth can't be flat

And here is a slightly more complex one by an Islamic scholar in the 11th century.

How Al-Biruni Calculated the Circumference of the Earth Using a Mountain in the 11th century:

Nowhere in the observable universe can object's over a certain mass be flat or even potatoe shaped without gravity crushing it round. What makes you think only tbe earth is different.

Another aspect Flat-Earthers struggle to explain is timezones,  how it can be midnight somewhere and midday somewhere else,  and orbiting satellites and the space station you can view with your telescope. 

We saw from our first example that the angles don't correspond to the mathematics, let alone the problems the below invokes refuting gravity etc. It also can't account for complete darkness and relies on a domino effect of requiring everything from the moon landings to orbiting GPS satellites. broadcast satellites, the space station etc being fakes. Its a very needy and unrealistic chain of hundreds of refution points requiring every science discipline, every nations Space Agency, Broadcaster etc to be in on it.

They also don't explain how no moon or meteor,  or planet can be anything but round over a certain mass,  that way they fail to correctly understand gravity. It's a state of mind relying debate on every point of science having to have proof experiments done right in front of them otherwise they reject them. I have no issue with rejecting anything. Who am I to judge? But rejection of everything Scientific in an age of computers, cell phones and aereoplanes is apparently cognitive dissonance. There is a word for that. It's not skepticism, it's paranoia.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…