Many people who support globe earth over flat earth point to Eratosthenes' experiment in Ancient Egypt where he was able to determine a distance between two poles at noon and by calculating the length of the shadow cast by one pole, thereby was able to determine the curvature of the earth for that segement, then by extrapolating to a sphere, was able to calculate the size of the earth. However, much less known is the flat earth interpretation where the distance of the sun from the earth, rather than being 93 million miles as Eratosthenes though, is actually 3,000 miles. With the sun being so low, the shadow case by one of the poles would be explained by the geometric triangle created by angle of the sun over the first pole, thereby casting a sshadow of a certain length past the second post. Explain this reasoning in a clearer manner and don't disparage the flat earth interpretation as you usually are wont to do. Keep it fair and respectful to the flat earthers. Thanks.
Okay, I will explain the flat-earth interpretation of Eratosthenes' findings regarding shadows and the Earth's shape, focusing on how it accounts for the observed shadow differences using a closer, smaller sun.
**The Core Idea: Local Sun, Not a Curving Earth**
The flat-earth model doesn't deny that shadows of different lengths were observed in different locations at the same time. It challenges the interpretation of that observation as evidence of a curved surface. Instead, it proposes:
1. **A Smaller, Closer Sun:** Rather than being 93 million miles away, the sun is much closer – often estimated around 3,000 miles. It's also significantly smaller than commonly believed.
2. **Localized Sunlight:** This closer sun doesn't illuminate the entire Earth at once in a uniform way. Instead, it acts more like a spotlight, casting its light down in a localized area. The further you are from the point directly beneath the sun (the subsolar point), the lower the angle of the sun in your sky.
3. **Geometric Explanation for Shadow Lengths:
** Consider two poles at different locations. If the sun is relatively close and shining down at an angle, the pole closer to the subsolar point will have a smaller angle relative to the sun. Thus, the pole closer to the subsolar point has a smaller shadow than the pole which is more distant from the subsolar point.
**How It Works in Practice (According to Flat-Earth Theory)
**
Imagine two poles, A and B, separated by a known distance. Pole A is closer to the sun's "spotlight" than Pole B.
* **Pole A:** The sun is more directly overhead. The angle between the pole and the sun is smaller, casting a short shadow (or, at a specific time, no shadow at all if the sun is directly overhead).
*
**Pole B:** The sun is at a lower angle in the sky. The angle between the pole and the sun is larger, casting a longer shadow.
In the flat-earth model, the difference in shadow length isn't because Pole B is "further down" on a curve, but because the sun's rays are reaching Pole B at a lower angle due to its distance from the sun's direct illumination. The flat earther's explain that this "angle difference" is because the poles are different distances from the sun, not that they are separated by the curve of a globe.
**Essentially, the observed shadow differences are explained through:**
* **Perspective:** The angles change with distance from the sun.
* **Distance:** The two poles are different distances from the sun.
**Analogy:**
Think of it like shining a flashlight (representing the sun) on a flat table.
If you hold the flashlight almost directly overhead, objects on the table will cast short shadows. As you move the flashlight further away and angle it down, the same objects will cast longer shadows, even though the table (the "earth") is flat.
**Important Note:**
This is a straightforward explanation of the flat-earth reasoning. It's not an endorsement or validation of the theory. The flat earth model is in contradiction to many aspects of science. This information is presented to explain the concept without bias or disparagement.
4
Responses