I Redid Eratosthenes’ Experiment — The Results Make No Sense on a Globe

So, what we looking at here is a small model of Eratosthenes' experiment on a flat Earth. What can we conclude from this? That this experiment can be reduplicated on both models. Eratosthenes was a Greek mathematician and librarian in the 3rd century BCE. He supposedly measured the Earth's circumference using simple geometry. He observed that at noon during the summer solstice in Cyene, which is modern Aswan, the sun was directly overhead and cast no shadow, while in Alexandria due north, vertical sticks did cast a shadow. By measuring the angle of the shadow in Alexandria and knowing the distance between the two cities roughly 5,000 stadia, he used basic trigonometry to calculate the Earth's circumference. His conclusion was that the Earth was spherical and about 40,000 kilometers in circumference. It's a very simple experiment. If the sun is directly overhead on one of the sticks, then it will cast no shadow, while the other stick will cast a shadow. This has supposedly proved the curvature of the Earth, and according to Eratosthenes, this cannot be reduplicated on a flat-Earth model. According to modern globe-Earth physicists, the only way that Eratosthenes' experiment can be reduplicated on a flat-Earth model and get the same results is if the sun is small and close, and not far away, on a flat-Earth model, which is exactly what flat-Earthers teach. So today we will be seeing, number one, if you can reduplicate this on a flat-Earth, and because in a flat-Earth model it requires the sun to be close and local, I will be proving that the sun is indeed close and local in our reality. So I will be attempting to reduplicate this on a flat-Earth model, and I will be proving that the sun is close and local. I'll also be debunking Eratosthenes' conclusion that the Earth is a sphere based on his experiment, and you'll see why. So according to modern globe-Earth physicists, on a flat-Earth model for this to work, the sun would have to be local, close, and the sunlight would have to spread like a spotlight, meaning that if the sun was close and local, like flat-Earthers say, then we would see the sun rays triangulate, and the sun rays wouldn't reach all places evenly. If flat-Earthers were telling the truth about the nature of the sun, you would see some spots brighter than others. But on a globe model, with the sun being so far away, 93 million miles, one complete half of the entire globe would be illuminated uniformly, and all of the sun rays would be parallel rays. Versus a flat-Earth model, if the sun is close and local, we would see crepuscular rays, and we would see hot spots. We wouldn't see uniformity. We would see certain places lit up brighter than others, because when you have a close local sun, the place that it's directly above would be the brightest. Versus a sun 93 million miles away, all of the sun rays would illuminate one side of the globe evenly. So that will be one thing we'll be observing today, whether our sun behaves in a way that's applicable to the flat-Earth model, or in a way that's applicable to the globe-Earth model. One of the reasons why a lot of globe-Earthers think this can't work on a flat-Earth model is because they are placing the sun where they want to place it at in our model. They're placing the sun 93 million miles away above a flat-Earth, but the sun on a flat-Earth model is a local, close light source, which is what I just went over. But if the sun was 93 million miles away above a flat-Earth, and it was shining down from a distant angle, both sticks would cast parallel shadows no matter how far apart they are. But according to globalists, because Eratosthenes only saw one shadow in one city, that isn't consistent with a flat plane and a distant sun. However, is it consistent with a flat plane and a local, close sun? Because this is the claim that flat-Earthers is making. So what we're looking at here is a small model of Eratosthenes' experiment on a flat-Earth. This is just a dry-erase whiteboard. I taped two highlighters onto it, I cut off all the lights in the room, and I got a bright light to be my sun, and then I put it into position directly overhead one of the sticks. As you can see, on this flat-Earth model of Eratosthenes' experiment, the highlighter that has the sun directly overhead isn't casting a shadow, but the other one is. We can even see when I shift the sun to the other highlighter that the shadow now shifts to the opposing highlighter. This is me reduplicating Eratosthenes' experiment on a flat-Earth model. Remember what we said earlier. The only way this can work on a flat-Earth model is if the sun is local and close, which you see I have it in this video. I'm making it work on a flat-Earth model. Eratosthenes' experiment had nothing to do with the Earth curving. It had everything to do with the sun being close over a flat plane and the sun acting like a localized spotlight, dispensing crepuscular rays just like a spotlight, and you can trace these rays back to a very close sun, and what's causing the shadow to be on one stick and not the other stick is all based on the way that the sun rays expand in the form of crepuscular rays. For example, if the sun is directly overhead, then those sun rays go straight down and they are in alignment with the stick that it's under. So you won't get a shadow casted around the base of the stick in any direction because if there was a shadow at all, it would be directly beneath the stick itself here at the bottom based upon the positioning of the sun. So all of the sun rays that would be blocked and create a shadow are being hidden by the stick itself because of this alignment. And people, that's all a shadow is, it's the absence of sun rays, which leads to why we have a shadow on the second stick and not on the first one. Because the sun is not directly overhead on this stick, then as the sun rays expand from the sun's position here, which would be Aswan, and this would be Syene, the sun's rays, the way that they are angled as they travel to Syene from Aswan, they would actually be blocked by the front of the stick versus the very top of it here. So the sun rays that are coming down vertically are being blocked, casting a shadow underneath the stick that you can't see. The reason you would get a shadow on this one is because the sun is not directly overhead on this stick and we're on a flat earth. So if the sun is here and the rays are angling in this direction, then the front of this stick is going to block those rays. And what is a shadow? It's simply the absence of sun rays. So if you can think about the size of the stick, all of the sun rays that's being blocked by the stick based upon their angle, the absence of all those rays that's being blocked will create this dark spot on the ground here that we call a shadow, which is simply an absence of the sun rays. And they are absent again. This stick is blocking them. When the sun gets directly overhead on this stick, there will be no shadow here. Just like I demonstrated in my experiment when I recreated this on a flat earth, when I moved the light back and forth from each side. So this has nothing to do with the earth curving. It has everything to do with the earth being flat and the sun acting as a localized spotlight that is close and where we actually see it at. Now there's one thing I need to do next, prove that the sun is indeed local and close. But before I do that, I know what many globe earthers are going to say. They're going to say, Sanchez, you ain't doing the experiment right. That's too small. It ain't up to scale. They're going to probably make up all kinds of excuses that sound something along those lines. So what I decided to do was just show you a professor reduplicating this same experiment on a globe earth model at an even smaller scale. I just want to dot my I's and cross my T's so that there will be no excuses. So we can see how the sun illuminates different parts of the earth by looking on this globe. Now, if you look really carefully, I think you can see a shadow right there of that boat. But if we were in Puerto Rico, it would be straight towards the sun. What can we conclude from this? That this experiment can be reduplicated on both models. But here's where the ---- hit the fan. If I'm able to prove on a flat earth model that the sun is local and close, well, that just debunks the globe earth model altogether. It debunks the idea of a sun 93 million miles away. Did Eratosthenes prove a spherical earth or did he prove a flat earth? Because I'm able to reduplicate this same experiment. And this proves that what Eratosthenes observed, just like what I'm observing, is how those shadows would behave on a flat earth with a close local sun. We're at a stalemate here. So how are we going to break this tie? Well, this is going to boil down to me proving a close local sun versus a sun 93 million miles away. Because remember, the only way I can reduplicate this on a flat earth model is a close local sun. This experiment proves it can work on both models. And to take this experiment even further, to strengthen the case of the flat earth argument, let's go ahead and prove that the sun is close and local. So how can we prove that the sun is close and is not 93 million miles away? Number one, my favorite proof to show here are pilots flying above the sun. They are looking down at the sun people. You can't look down at a sun that's 93 million miles away. If you are still doubting that that's the sun that they're flying above, let's observe this phenomena from the ground. Here is an image right here of the sun passing overhead. And as it's passing, it's moving through the clouds. If you observe this image, you have clouds in front of the sun and behind it. The clouds aren't 93 million miles away people, so the sun can't be if it's within the clouds. The ancient Hebrews said that the sun is indeed where we observe it at. If you still having problems wrapping your head around this, here is a mountain climber hiking above the sun. You gotta keep in mind, right, when this mountain climber was on the ground, he was looking up at the sun. When he climbed the mountain, he started looking down at the sun. Tell me how you can climb a mountain and look down at the sun people, if the sun is 93 million miles away. Here's another observation that let us know that the sun is close and the earth is flat. If you hold a piece of glossy photo paper level with the light, you can reduplicate what we observe when we seeing the sunset on the beach and you can reduplicate it to a T. And that's what science is all about. Being able to recreate what we see in our reality. If the earth was a sphere, all we would have to do, we would bend that piece of paper and then we would see what happened when the light reflects off of the surface and you will see, you will not get this same effect that we're getting when we're at the beach. I'm reduplicating our reality. Remember earlier what I said in a video, if the sun is close, like flat earth or say, we would see the sun rays triangulate like a spotlight, remember? And even chat GPT knows that. Check this out. Now the question is, do we see the sun rays triangulate? Do we observe the sun rays being crepuscular or parallel? This image right here proves that the sun rays are indeed crepuscular rays and that you can trace those crepuscular rays back to the source of the light that is emitting them. If you think that those sun rays you looking at is going to a sun that's 93 million miles away, you fail geometry class. Remember now what we said earlier in the video. On a flat earth model, the sun rays wouldn't be consistent. They would be inconsistent because when you have crepuscular rays versus parallel rays that are hitting uniform and illuminating an entire side of a globe, you would never see triangulation in a globe model. You would never observe crepuscular rays. You would only observe the sun rays parallel. Remember what we said earlier. If the sun was close and local, it will leave a huge bright spot under the area that it's at at any given time. In other words, you will get these bright hot spots that only exist in one part of the entire earth. And wherever that sun is at its brightest point, that brightest hot spot on the ground in that particular area, it's 12 o'clock. The sun is directly overhead. So if you observe the image on the screen, you will see this bright, this big, bright hot spot right beneath the sun. And the hot spot is only as wide as the sun's rays are expanding outward, just like a spotlight. Talking about basic geometry, it don't get more basic than this. Just so you can get another perspective of local light sources, here are street lights. Remember, you can trace those light rays back to the source that's emitting them. And just like this street light, you will see the light rays triangulate if the source of light is local and close. Versus on a globe model, a sun 93 million miles away, you will only see parallel rays coming in from all directions. Remember how we would observe the sun on a flat earth model if it was local and close. Its rays would hit the earth inconsistent. It wouldn't be uniform. It'll be hot spots in certain areas. The areas that the sun are close to at that moment will be the brightest. That would only be true if the sun is close and local over a flat earth. And as we can see in this image right here, the main rays of the sun that's expanding are all casting their own hot spot as they land in one single location on the entire earth. You would never see the sun rays triangulate and cast a single bright hot spot in one particular city in one location on earth if the sun was 93 million miles away. You know that the further you move a flashlight away from the wall, the bigger that the triangles base will expand. When you talk about how light project, imagine the sun being 93 million miles away. You would never see this kind of triangulation. If you think you will, again, you fail geometry. We're proving that the sun is local and close. The sun is so local and close. It's only 12 o'clock for you when the sun is directly above your head. As the sun move away from you, noon passes. The sun is the hour hand of a clock and the moon is the minute hand. The earth is a well-crafted time piece. And just another bonus fact, the Egyptians knew that the sun was close as well. This symbol of Aten, many people interpret this as the sun is on an astrological level. This symbol can be interpreted as crepuscular rays coming from a local sun. And here is some of my very own footage that I recorded when I was in San Diego. This right here is a very bright sunspot. You got to keep in mind this sunspot is only in one particular location on earth. You can't get this from a sun 93 million miles away. So the sun is where we observe it at right within the clouds. This is one of my favorite ones right here. Observing the sun directly over the stationary flatter from a doll cam. We up about a couple hundred thousand feet on this image right here. And what you can observe is a bright sunspot directly beneath the sun. And the sun can't be 93 million miles away leaving a spot in this one particular location on earth. This is a local light source and you can even see by the triangulation of the rays from this angle that we still get crepuscular rays even from this height because the sun isn't 93 million miles away. So I've just pointed out so many observations that prove that the sun can't be 93 million miles away. I've reduplicated Eratosthenes' experiment on a flat earth model. And I've also proven with simple geometry observing the sun rays and observing the positioning of the sun that the sun is local and close. So at this point I'll rest my case and let you guys get in the comment section and let me know. Did Eratosthenes prove a spherical earth? Did I debunk Eratosthenes' experiment? Does all of these facts prove the flat earth model? Get in the comment section and let me know what you think. Peace and much love.