Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

[klaus54]

Mount Kosciuszko. The horizon meets the eye level at the top, just as expected by the flat earth model.

JM

The horizon ALWAYS meets the eye if there's a clear view.

How far away is the horizon on Mt. K?

Show your calculations.

{ETA: In a flat-Earth model, wouldn't the horizon be BELOW eye level when viewed from a mountain top?}

[JohnMartin]

Also, on a flat earth you could never have a lunar eclipse, where the earth is between the sun and the moon and casts a shadow on the moon. Impossible since the earth never comes between the earth and moon on a flat earth.

Correct. The flat earth model never has the moon caste a shadow on the moon. Evidently the global earth model is miraculous.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Yes it does.

This is the 2D earth:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13133[/ATTACH]

Notice that Australia is nowhere to be seen. That is because it does not exist. It is merely something NASA made up to fool us into believing in a 3D world. And since Australia does not exist, that means that JohnMartin does not exist. He is just a NASA shill pretending to be an Australian nutjob. And if Australia and John do not exist, then his flat earth and geocentric universe are also non-existent.

That Coriolis effect is quite selective. Two storms in many cloud formations. Its as though the effect only ever exists where its needed. Apparently Antarctica is missing as well. Maybe you should fabricate another globe.

JM

[klaus54]

That Coriolis effect is quite selective. Two storms in many cloud formations. Its as though the effect only ever exists where its needed. Apparently Antarctica is missing as well. Maybe you should fabricate another globe.

JM

???

Baloney!

The Coriolis Effect is consistent.

[HMS_Beagle]

That Coriolis effect is quite selective. Two storms in many cloud formations. Its as though the effect only ever exists where its needed. Apparently Antarctica is missing as well. Maybe you should fabricate another globe.

JM

You're the idiot claiming the world is flat. Why don't you provide us with your map of the planet?

[JohnMartin]

What an idiot! He runs a calculation, gets a value larger than my own, then declares my point invalid by changing my claim!

I am not talking about seeing the curvature unaided. I am talking about being able to see the curvature using an optical referent (the ruler) and then discussing whether the deviation from that referent will be visible. All you've done is show that, if anything, the bulge is EASIER to see than I had calculated.





I didn't ignore refraction, it isn't an issue in this example.




John the troll tries to yank Jim's chain again by pulling a 'Bagdad Bob'. My response ->



Since 5 arc minutes is the angular resolution of the letters on the 20/20 line of an eye chart, anyone with vision (corrected or otherwise) that good can see substantially smaller detail than 5 arc minutes.

Go run the experiment yourself John. Heck, I was on an airplane this morning and just for grins ran the experiment from there. Amazing how big that bulge is from a height of 38,000 feet

But I've run the experiment myself john from about 25 feet up at a beach house. It's pretty cool, and it works quite well.


Jim

The arc may appear on a flat earth as well because your horizon is dictated by an equidistant line of sight, which forms a circular shape. You see the circular shape and think its curvature, when in fact its only an optical illusion created by the circular horizon.

You have ignored refraction and any other associated light phenomena such as perspective and convergence and mirages etc. The experiment is not scientific and assumes much.

You have also ignored flat earth evidence that show entire areas of cites which are seen from long distances. Such is not explainable on the global earth model.

JM

[Raphael]

Also, on a flat earth you could never have a lunar eclipse, where the earth is between the sun and the moon and casts a shadow on the moon. Impossible since the earth never comes between the earth and moon on a flat earth.

Correct. The flat earth model never has the moon caste a shadow on the moon. Evidently the global earth model is miraculous.

JM

You deliberately highlighted a portion of what Sparko said and to try and make it seem as if he said something else. that is dishonest.

Sparko clearly says that a lunar eclipse is caused by the EARTH being between the sun and the moon and [the earth] casts a shadow on the moon.

Your model can explain neither lunar nor solar eclipses.

[JohnMartin]

And I always wanted to go to Australia so I could see the world upside down, watch waterfalls flow up and all sorts of nifty things.

And now ... now - to find out its all a FAKE!!!

I'm soooooo disappointed.


Jim

You've also been disappointing for some time.

JM

[Sparko]

Correct. The flat earth model never has the moon caste a shadow on the moon. Evidently the global earth model is miraculous.

JM

Misreading my post doesn't get you off the hook. I said that the earth casts a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Cant happen on a flat earth. Troll defeated.

[JohnMartin]

The horizon ALWAYS meets the eye if there's a clear view.

How far away is the horizon on Mt. K?

Show your calculations.

{ETA: In a flat-Earth model, wouldn't the horizon be BELOW eye level when viewed from a mountain top?}

The horizon meets the eye for the horizon is level with the eye and not at a downward angle as expected with the globe model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

???

Baloney!

The Coriolis Effect is consistent.

Consistently selective according to the cloud formation.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

The arc may appear on a flat earth as well because your horizon is dictated by an equidistant line of sight, which forms a circular shape. You see the circular shape and think its curvature, when in fact its only an optical illusion created by the circular horizon.

You have ignored refraction and any other associated light phenomena such as perspective and convergence and mirages etc. The experiment is not scientific and assumes much.

You have also ignored flat earth evidence that show entire areas of cites which are seen from long distances. Such is not explainable on the global earth model.

JM

You have truly lost it John.

[Sparko]

Missed my post about the constellations too John. Very convenient.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post290597

[JohnMartin]

You're the idiot claiming the world is flat. Why don't you provide us with your map of the planet?

I'm currently agnostic about the flat earth. There seems to be some strong evidence both for it and against it.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Misreading my post doesn't get you off the hook. I said that the earth casts a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Cant happen on a flat earth. Troll defeated.

Incorrectly writing your post doesn't create a hook.

JM