Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

[JohnMartin]

The Flat Earth Model

I have decided to open a thread on the flat earth model. I have recently come across some physical evidence that is worth consideration. If the earth is flat, then much of what we think occurs on a global earth, actually occurs on a flat earth. If the flat earth is real, then somebody, such as the supreme author of nature put it there. If so, maybe the secular age in which we live will come to an end.

The bulk of the initial evidence will come from a debate entitled - Professor Fetzer's Flat Earth Debate with Deep Inside The Rabbit Hole Dave

Before the evidence is examined, it is best to review the videos given below that show how the flat earth model works.

Flat Earth model introduction – See the video below for details –

Short version -

Longer version -

The Evidence

Some of the evidence for a flat earth will be presented in summary form below -

Evidence 1 - A Rising, Flat Horizon

No matter how high you are the horizon moves to eye level. On a globe, the curvature of the earth would cause the horizon to drop down as the observer rises. The left side of the picture shows the low earth horizon that is expected in the global earth model and contrasts the horizon with the high earth horizon that is observed from a balloon.

balloon.jpg
Picture 1

Shot of Dubai with a straight, flat, high horizon


dubai.jpg
Picture 2

Flat horizon on top of Mt Everest with a close sun


everest.jpg
Picture 3

Horizon rises with viewer no matter how high you go.

high plane.jpg
Picture 4

The rising, flat horizon is a strong suggestion that the earth is flat, contrary to the global earth model which predicts the horizon to be curved and low.

Any comment on the above evidence is appreciated.

Request - Someone please bump for more information of following posts.

JM

[Raphael]

That would be a surprise to my brother's in-laws who on a recent flight from SA to visit us in NZ they flew over the south pole.

South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and South America are pretty close together. Flat earth debunked.

[JohnMartin]

Evidence 2 - Objects are seen from long distances on a flat earth

If curvature is understood as the vertical drop in ground level from the viewer on the ball, the formula for the curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. Where the object viewed from a distance the object should drop as follows -

Converted to meters the formula changes to 0.3014 x 8 x miles x miles/12 = 0.2 x miles x miles
1 mile - 8 inches
2 miles - 0.8 m
3 miles - 1.81 m

Miles meters
4--- 3.21
5--- 5.02
6--- 7.23
7--- 9.85
8--- 12.86
9--- 16.28
10--- 20.09

The Statue of Liberty is 362 ft or 110 m high. At that height, the statue should only be seen from the sea at about 22.5 miles. Apparently the statue can be seen from 60 miles away. At that distance the statue should be 723-110 = 6134 m below the horizon. Therefore the statue should not be seen. The long site distance from the sea provides evidence for a flat earth, contrary to expectations of the global earth model.

liberty.jpg
Picture 1


The Lighthouse shown below is 180 ft or 56.8m high. At such a height the statue should only be seen from the sea at about 16.5 miles. It is reported that the lighthouse can be seen from sea at 42 miles. At that distance there is 354 m curvature. This means the lighthouse should be 354-56.8 = 297m below the horizon.

lighthouse.jpg
Picture 2

Islands off Italy can be seen for up to 125 miles away. The curvature formula dictates a fall of about 3,130 m. The islands should not be seen from the Italian shore according to the global earth model.

italy islands.jpg
Picture 3

Grat salt flat 90 miles wide is perfectly level. Should have over 1 mile curvature and yet is flat. The flat is impossible on a ball earth.

flats.jpg
Picture 4

Many other examples are presented on Youtube such as Chicago. Where the distances are seen over the great lakes. The lake is about 60 miles across, which means Chicago should be 723 m below the horizon.

The standard curvature formula dictates an observer can see objects of known height from a known distance. When the curvature formula is used on a global earth, many objects should not be seen from a distance, such as the statue of liberty, light houses and men at the far end of flats and Chicago. Such well documented phenomena seems to be strong evidence for a flat earth.

JM

[Raphael]

My cousin visit Antarctica a little while ago (she's an awesome photographer). Guess what, there really is a South Pole.

[JohnMartin]

That would be a surprise to my brother's in-laws who on a recent flight from SA to visit us in NZ they flew over the south pole.

South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and South America are pretty close together. Flat earth debunked.

This is some evidence to consider in due course.

Evidence 3 - shadows from the Sun indicate a close sun

Sun rays pass through the clouds at angles that indicate a close sun.

csun 1.jpg
Picture 1

The sun angles through the clouds are comparable to lamp light passing through a tree. The light spread indicates a close sun.

csun 2.jpg
Picture 2

The spread of light can be tested locally by cardboard cut with holes. The light from the distance sun is parallel through the cardboard. The light through the same cardboard from the close lamp is at many angles.

csun 3.jpg
Picture 3

Similar examples are given in another video called My Perspective, where the suns angles are shown in 2d and 3d, showing the sun lighting up the valley from different angles.

csun 4.jpg
Picture 4


csun 5.jpg
Picture 5

Such evidence for a close sun is consistent with the close sun in the flat earth model and not the global, model which typically states the sun is millions of miles from the earth.

JM

[JohnMartin]

My cousin visit Antarctica a little while ago (she's an awesome photographer). Guess what, there really is a South Pole.

The flat earth model has a south pole around the edge of the earth as shown in the above videos in the first post.

Evidence 4 - Change in sun size at sunset.

The setting sun changes size as the sun sets over the horizon. The change in sun size lends support to a close, small sun, for a distant, large sun would not change size.

A larger sun during the day.

sset1.jpg
Picture 1

A smaller sun as the sun sets.

sset 2.jpg
Picture 2


Evidence 5 - Eratosphenes experiment

It is argued that the earth's curvature was calculated many centuries ago by Eratosphenes. The problem with the usual explanation is that the curvature of the earth is assumed in the experiment. When the earth is assumed to be flat, the sun can be calculated to be only about 3000 miles above the earths surface. The Eratosphenes does not demonstrate the earth's curvature, and may provide some further evidence for a close, small sun.

erat 1.jpg
Picture 3

erat 2.jpg
Picture 4

erat 3.jpg
Picture 5

JM

[JohnMartin]

Evidence 6 - Hot Spots on clouds below a close sun

The sun seen from a high balloon shows a hot spot on the clouds under the sun. The hot spot indicates the sun is close, like a small torch above the clouds, as opposed to the expected lack of hot spot with distant sun.

hspot.jpg
Picture 1

Another video argues for a close sun in "Flat Earth and the Sun's rays. Sun looks close(check newest videos, this one is outdated)".

JM

[Raphael]

http://antarcticanz.govt.nz/travelli...private-visits <--- you can pop over the ditch and actually fly to Antartica (from Christchurch) and look at it from the airplane window. It's not that big of a continent (and certainly not a massive thing bigger than the double the diameter of the earth.

What's more (and keeping in mind this map is a flattened mercator) look at the time it takes for a tsunami to travel from Chile to NZ roughly the equivalent of what it takes to reach the US.....with your flat earth model it wouldn't even reach 1/4 of the way in that time (because of the absurd distance it has NZ from South America).

Not to mention how a volcano in Chile grounded flights in Western Australia (which your model has on the opposite end of the disc) with it's ash cloud.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...t-flights.html

chile_4hr.jpg

Oh, and although you try claim that the don't exist, we have all those pesky satellite photos showing that the earth is a globe.

Also you model fails to account for the phases of the moon, as well as lunar and solar eclipses (and several other things I will let the other have fun with).

Flat Earth debunked, and NZ beat Australia in the Sydney Sevens, and tomorrow the Chappell Hadlee cup will be ours when we win the cricket in Hamilton. Off to bed. Ki Ora.

[Leonhard]

Many other examples are presented on Youtube such as Chicago. Where the distances are seen over the great lakes. The lake is about 60 miles across, which means Chicago should be 723 m below the horizon.

Yes, and in the very same video a weather reporter explains how this is can be done due a mirage effect, that can occur on rare occassions. The youtubers response is basically to present a button called • Edited by a Moderator • and pressing it. That's not exactly a very heavy argument John Martin. It merely amounts to outright denial.

Moderated By: rogue06

Watch the language there.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Leonhard]

The flat earth model has a south pole around the edge of the earth as shown in the above videos in the first post.

Evidence 4 - Change in sun size at sunset.

The setting sun changes size as the sun sets over the horizon. The change in sun size lends support to a close, small sun, for a distant, large sun would not change size.

A larger sun during the day.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13019[/ATTACH]
Picture 1

A smaller sun as the sun sets.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13023[/ATTACH]
Picture 2

So he pointed a camera straight up at the sun... how did he take into account the effect of glare? I mean he could do it quite simple by adding a small dark lens of the type usually used when studying sun spots. That would cut out the glare and you should get the same angular diameter of the sun (sans minor atmospheric aberations).

Also how did he take into account the atmospheric effects on the suns apparent size when the sun is very close to the horizon?

It is argued that the earth's curvature was calculated many centuries ago by Eratosphenes. The problem with the usual explanation is that the curvature of the earth is assumed in the experiment. When the earth is assumed to be flat, the sun can be calculated to be only about 3000 miles above the earths surface.

That would seem to conflict somewhat sharply with the argument you've had of the 'not parallel' sun beams. In that image, if we take the basic premise correctly, the sun should be located only a few miles above the clouds. Not thousands of miles.

[Yttrium]

Hmm. This makes me wonder about geosynchronous satellites. We launch them. We make lots of use of them. We can verify their existence by their signals, or just by looking at them with a telescope. So how do we arrange for them to stay in one place? If gravity is acting on them, they fall, since they're not, like, in orbit or anything over a flat Earth. They have to be stationary over one spot on Earth. But as we all know from JohnMartinic Physics, rockets and thrusters can't possibly operate in space. Momentum could carry the satellites to their destinations, but what would stop them at their destinations, just at around 22,300 miles away? Is there some sort of sticky space there?

[HMS_Beagle]

Now that the JohnMartin impostor troll* has tipped his hand I'm curious to see how far this latest trolling effort goes. I'm guessing not very far - too much work and too little ROI.

*On a lark I Google-searched and found some old JohnMartin posts. The difference in writing style has me convinced the clown posting now isn't the same goofy but harmless JohnMartin we had a few years ago.

[klaus54]

Hmm. This makes me wonder about geosynchronous satellites. We launch them. We make lots of use of them. We can verify their existence by their signals, or just by looking at them with a telescope. So how do we arrange for them to stay in one place? If gravity is acting on them, they fall, since they're not, like, in orbit or anything over a flat Earth. They have to be stationary over one spot on Earth. But as we all know from JohnMartinic Physics, rockets and thrusters can't possibly operate in space. Momentum could carry the satellites to their destinations, but what would stop them at their destinations, just at around 22,300 miles away? Is there some sort of sticky space there?

Yes. Geostationary satellites are at the altitude of the Sticky Aether (SA). SA exists only at that altitude. The remainder of space is filled with a combination of Aether Flows (AF) and Aether Eddies (AE) -- or whatever kind of Aether is necessary to explain any particular cosmic phenomenon.

The Simultaneous Opposite Directions Aether (SODA) is especially fascinating.

[Catholicity]

Now that the JohnMartin impostor troll* has tipped his hand I'm curious to see how far this latest trolling effort goes. I'm guessing not very far - too much work and too little ROI.

*On a lark I Google-searched and found some old JohnMartin posts. The difference in writing style has me convinced the clown posting now isn't the same goofy but harmless JohnMartin we had a few years ago.

Google search JohnMartin and Geocentrism, problem: he rabidly defends his position on the internet everywhere....

[HMS_Beagle]

Google search JohnMartin and Geocentrism, problem: he rabidly defends his position on the internet everywhere....

Well, if this is the same JohnMartin then his degenerative brain disease must have gotten lots worse in the past few years.