Sign into an existing account

A Critical Analysis of Eratosthenes' Methodology: Exposing Post Hoc Reasoning and Affirming a Flat Earth Perspective

Introduction

Eratosthenes' experiment, hailed as one of the earliest scientific proofs of a spherical Earth, relies on a set of assumptions that merit critical examination. By reassessing his methodology and observations through a flat Earth perspective, it becomes apparent that Eratosthenes' conclusions were shaped by post hoc reasoning. This paper argues that, had Eratosthenes not assumed the Earth was spherical, his observations would have logically supported the conclusion that the Earth is flat and stationary with a local Sun.

Re-evaluating Eratosthenes' Experiment

Eratosthenes' experiment involved measuring the angles of shadows cast by sticks (gnomons) in Syene and Alexandria during the summer solstice. In Syene, he observed that a stick cast no shadow at noon, while in Alexandria, a stick cast a shadow at an angle of approximately 7.2 degrees. Eratosthenes concluded that these differing shadow angles were due to the Earth's curvature, calculating the Earth's circumference based on this assumption.

Post Hoc Reasoning and Initial Assumptions

Eratosthenes' methodology presupposed a spherical Earth, leading him to interpret his observations in a manner that supported this belief. This approach exemplifies post hoc reasoning, where conclusions are tailored to fit pre-existing assumptions. Instead of independently deriving his conclusions from the data, Eratosthenes adjusted his interpretation to confirm the spherical Earth model.

Alternative Explanations for Eratosthenes' Observations

By considering observable phenomena from a flat Earth perspective, alternative explanations for Eratosthenes' observations emerge, challenging the necessity of a spherical Earth hypothesis.

Crepuscular Rays and a Local Sun

https://files.catbox.moe/likxfy.webp

Crepuscular rays, which appear to diverge from a point source, suggest a much smaller and closer Sun than the heliocentric model proposes. If the Sun were 93 million miles away, its rays should appear parallel. The fact that they do not supports the idea of a local Sun, which aligns with a flat Earth model. Eratosthenes might have observed these rays and hypothesized that the Sun's proximity could explain the differing shadow angles without invoking Earth's curvature.

Water Always Finds Its Level

Water consistently finds its level, from small bodies of water to vast oceans. This principle aligns perfectly with a flat Earth. The spherical Earth model complicates this straightforward observation, requiring gravitational explanations that seem unnecessary if the Earth were flat. Eratosthenes could have observed the flat surfaces of large bodies of water as evidence supporting a flat, stationary plane.

Selenelion Eclipse

During a selenelion eclipse, both the Sun and the Moon are visible in the sky simultaneously, contradicting the idea that the Earth's shadow causes the lunar eclipse. Eratosthenes might have witnessed this phenomenon and questioned the spherical Earth explanation. He could have proposed alternative causes for the shadow on the Moon, such as another object or effect, which fit better with a flat Earth model.

Atmospheric Refraction and the Apparent Horizon

Ancient scholars understood atmospheric refraction, which explains why objects appear to disappear from the bottom up. As objects move away, increased moisture and atmospheric conditions cause more refraction. Light particles from the bottom of the object refract downwards into the Earth, out of the observer's line of sight. This creates the illusion of an object being obscured from the bottom up, as if on a curved surface. Eratosthenes might have studied this effect and concluded that the apparent horizon did not necessitate a spherical Earth.

Observing Objects Beyond the Horizon

Eratosthenes would have definitely observed objects beyond a horizon that a curved Earth with the circumference he claimed would allow. If the Earth were truly curved, as he proposed, objects should disappear completely beyond a certain distance. However, numerous observations show that distant objects, such as ships or distant landmasses, remain visible beyond the supposed curvature limit, suggesting a flat and extended plane.

Logical Conclusions from Eratosthenes' Observations

Had Eratosthenes conducted his experiment without the assumption of a spherical Earth, his logical analysis of shadow angles, water level behavior, eclipse phenomena, atmospheric refraction, and observations of distant objects would have led him to a different conclusion.

Shadow Angles and a Local Sun

Eratosthenes would have observed that the differences in shadow angles between Syene and Alexandria could be explained by a local, smaller Sun casting divergent rays. This would negate the need for a curved Earth to explain the shadow differences. The hypothesis of a nearby Sun aligns with the observable behavior of crepuscular rays.

Water Level Behavior

By confirming that large bodies of water maintain a level surface, Eratosthenes would have found this consistent with a flat Earth. The natural behavior of water supports a stationary, flat plane rather than a curved surface, challenging the necessity of gravitational explanations required by the spherical Earth model.

Selenelion Eclipse and Alternative Explanations

Witnessing a selenelion eclipse, Eratosthenes would have concluded that the Earth's shadow was not responsible for lunar eclipses. This would prompt him to explore other explanations that fit a flat Earth model, such as another celestial object causing the shadow.

Atmospheric Refraction and the Apparent Horizon

Eratosthenes' observations of atmospheric refraction would have led him to understand that objects disappearing from the bottom up could be explained by light refraction. This would account for the apparent horizon without needing to invoke Earth's curvature, supporting the flat Earth model.

Observing Objects Beyond the Horizon

Eratosthenes would have recognized that the visibility of objects beyond the horizon contradicts the curved Earth hypothesis. This observation supports a flat Earth, where distant objects remain visible due to the extended, flat nature of the plane.

Possible Reasons for Eratosthenes' Post Hoc Reasoning

Several factors may have contributed to Eratosthenes' reliance on post hoc reasoning. The prevailing intellectual climate of his time might have favored the idea of a spherical Earth, influencing his interpretation of the data. Additionally, the desire to align with earlier scholars' theories, such as those of Pythagoras and Aristotle, who proposed a round Earth, could have led Eratosthenes to adjust his conclusions to fit this model.

Conclusion

Eratosthenes' conclusions about a spherical Earth were shaped by post hoc reasoning, driven by his initial assumptions. By reevaluating his observations through a flat Earth perspective, it becomes clear that his methodology could have logically supported the conclusion that the Earth is flat and stationary with a local Sun. Observable phenomena such as crepuscular rays, the behavior of water, selenelion eclipses, atmospheric refraction, and the visibility of objects beyond the horizon provide coherent explanations within a flat Earth model, challenging the necessity and validity of the spherical Earth hypothesis. This analysis underscores the importance of objective observation and logical reasoning in scientific inquiry, highlighting how initial assumptions can shape conclusions.