Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

[Sparko]

What a joke.

JM

Yes. You are.

[Sparko]

Apparently they fell over plenty of times. They did it inside an oven as well. Its simply no believable. They didn't have the technology to get to the moon, let alone move around safely on the moon. The landings are a fraud.

Where did those moon buggies come from? Quite large weren't they and those pods were quite small. I guess they were waiting for them when they landed at the local studio. Apparently the space pods just move through 2000 degree space without feeling the temperature and the van Allen belt twice without affecting the astronauts. Those guys could also throw away their suits before they left the moon as well. No need for a suit, we will open the pod door in 200 degree heat and no atmosphere, take a loooong breath, and then throw the suit out. After that, then reconnect with the orbiting ship, then head back home. No problems at all.

NASA is a faith based initiative. Not much substance their at all.

JM

they didn't throw out their space suits you idiot. They left the life support packs. Here is HOW they did it:
http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-k...214768/?no-ist

[Sparko]

Why don't you do us a favor and go down there for a while?

JM

Already did. that's why I know you are full of crap.

[Yttrium]

Let's see now, I think I have a few minor problems with a Flat Earth. I'll just write them up here while I'm waiting on news on the New Hampshire primaries.

1. We've measured distances from place to place. They conform to a globe and not a Flat Earth. Just look at travel times for flights in the Southern Hemisphere. They're too short for the Flat Earth model's expanding Southern Hemisphere.

2. We've thoroughly explored the surface of the world by land, sea, air and satellite. There are no edges to it. We can keep going around and around.

3. We've thoroughly explored Antarctica. See here. There are four other continents that are larger. Antarctica isn't the edge of the Earth. Neither is the North Pole, for that matter. Or anywhere else.

4. We have a space station and a horde of satellites buzzing around the Earth. You can go watch the satellite launches. They're pretty impressive. You can spot them with a telescope, and point antennas at them to catch their signals to verify their existence. And their thrusters, gyros and magnetotorquers work just fine, thank you. We track them as they go around the Earth. They provide us nice images of the Earth for various purposes, in many different formats, including optical and radar. Geosynchronous satellites are much higher than where the Flat Earther's place the Sun, and they would just kersplat back onto a flat Earth with nothing to hold them up.

5. Tides. They do in fact coincided with the Moon's revolution around the Earth. They work just like we would expect, given the gravitational interaction between the Earth and Moon.

I could go on and on, but frankly I'm starting to feel silly making a list like this.

[Raphael]

1. We've measured distances from place to place. They conform to a globe and not a Flat Earth. Just look at travel times for flights in the Southern Hemisphere. They're too short for the Flat Earth model's expanding Southern Hemisphere.

Given that JM is Australian you think he would already know this point

Flying direct from Auckland, New Zealand (using my country rather than his) it is a 10,324km flight to Buenos Aires*. Flying direct to Los Angeles it is a 10,498 km flight*. Using John's model in the OP the Los Angeles flight should be significantly shorter. AND the quickest route would take us over the North Pole rather than across the Pacific Ocean.
Once again, John's model has been proven false.




* source for flight data: http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/sched...mp;language=EN

[Sparko]

Given that JM is Australian you think he would already know this point

Flying direct from Auckland, New Zealand (using my country rather than his) it is a 10,324km flight to Buenos Aires*. Flying direct to Los Angeles it is a 10,498 km flight*. Using John's model in the OP the Los Angeles flight should be significantly shorter. AND the quickest route would take us over the North Pole rather than across the Pacific Ocean.
Once again, John's model has been proven false.




* source for flight data: http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/sched...NZ&language=EN

obviously the airlines are in on the conspiracy and are lying about the flight paths. in fact, everyone but flat earthers are in on the conspiracy. you too. and me.

[HMS_Beagle]

Where did those moon buggies come from? Quite large weren't they and those pods were quite small. I guess they were waiting for them when they landed at the local studio.

JM

Trollbat stupidity on display, example #8254

The real thing

Idiot.

[oxmixmudd]

So Jim can see what the rest of us cannot see. Apparently the curvature is so small over 8 miles or so that we shouldn't see curvature. When refraction is taken into account, as Jim says it should, we should always see something else again. what are we to see, whatever we are to see to affirm the globe, that's what we are to see.

A ruler to the eye? I suppose whenever the ruler moves the earth ain't curved no more. If the ruler is a little bent then the earth is doubly curved. If we have a drink or two, the earth is no longer sober.

What a joke.

JM

No - I can see what anyone with 20/20 vision can see. Consider:

The mean radius of the Earth is 3959 miles. This means that, standing on a seashore with calm seas at 6ft in height (perhaps a bit optimistic for me), I could see about 3 miles. But the waves are crashing there and seeing the horizon well would be a bit hampered by that. So I'm going to scoot over to a pier that is 20 feet over the ocean. From the pier, I can see about 5.5 miles (this is fairly easy to calculate as (3959.0038² - 3959²)^0.5.

Now, 5.5 miles represents about (5.5/24875)*360*60 = 4.78 minutes of an arc. Now, let's grab an 18" ruler and hold it 18" from our eyes. (if we are over 40, let's grab and 36" ruler and hold it at arms length ) And lets place the ruler so each end touches the horizon of the sea meeting the sky. At a distance equal to the length of the ruler, and the ruler directly in front of us we subtend about 60 degrees of the field before us. 60 degrees is nice in that is an equilateral triangle, which means the amount of ocean from the left to the right side of the ruler at the horizon is equal to the distance we can see, or about 5.5 miles.

So what this means then is that the visual angle subtended by the curvature of the Earth from one side of the ruler to the other is 4.78 minutes of an arc. And that means that the 'bulge' of the ocean at the center of the ruler is 1/2 that, or about 2.4 minutes of an arc.

What does that mean? Well, the 20/20 line of a vision chart contains letters that subtend about 5 minutes of an arc, and the acknowledged visual acuity of the human eye is generally put at 1 minute of an arc.

So what this means is that, from the pier, you should see a 'bulge' of ocean in the center of the ruler held at a distance equal to its length with each end touching the sky/horizon border that subtends an angle about the same as the bottom part of the capitol E on the 20/20 line of a vision chart.

So, pick a clear day, and make sure you are at least 20 feet above the ocean, and you should be able to see the bulge.

Incidentally, theoretically, you can see it from the shore line itself if seas are calm and your vision is good. But that is getting close to the 1' limit.

The higher up you go, the easier it is to see the bulge.



Jim

[Poor Debater]

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.

Since the horizon actually does drop as elevation increases, evidence supports round earth. In the old days, celestial navigation required a correction for the "dip of the horizon", and it has been actually measured as far back as the 11th century.

Score: round earth 1, flat earth 0.

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.

The higher you go, the rounder the horizon and the lower it gets. Here's a photo from VERY high that shows the Earth's horizon VERY low and VERY curved:

[JohnMartin]

2000 degrees?

I was close -

The thermosphere extends from about 56 miles (90 km) to between 310 and 620 miles (500 and 1,000 km). Temperatures can get up to 2,700 degrees F (1,500 C) at this altitude. The thermosphere is considered part of Earth's atmosphere, but air density is so low that most of this layer is what is normally thought of as outer space. In fact, this is where the space shuttles flew and where the International Space Station orbits Earth. This is also the layer where the auroras occur. Charged particles from space collide with atoms and molecules in the thermosphere, exciting them into higher states of energy. The atoms shed this excess energy by emitting photons of light, which we see as the colorful Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis. - See more at: http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atm....BFBVyFrs.dpuf

http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

How can a space pod travel through this? Wouldn't the temp fry everything? Seems so.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Since the horizon actually does drop as elevation increases, evidence supports round earth. In the old days, celestial navigation required a correction for the "dip of the horizon", and it has been actually measured as far back as the 11th century.

Score: round earth 1, flat earth 0.



The higher you go, the rounder the horizon and the lower it gets. Here's a photo from VERY high that shows the Earth's horizon VERY low and VERY curved:

Rising and falling horizon of ball and flat earth from t0:30.

Flat earth horizon rises to eye level in the Red Bull Balloon T3:58

https://youtu.be/_Ih_Qq-WBYY?t=240

The picture of the earth from space is a fraud. Composite pictures of the earth by NASA have been shown to be photo-shopped images and composites. There is no definitive evidence of a globe ever photographed from space.

You can check the flat earth claims by climbing a mountain and noting the horizon rising to your eye level as you climb. If the earth was a globe, the higher you climbed, the lower you would have to look down to see the horizon.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No - I can see what anyone with 20/20 vision can see. Consider:

The mean radius of the Earth is 3959 miles. This means that, standing on a seashore with calm seas at 6ft in height (perhaps a bit optimistic for me), I could see about 3 miles. But the waves are crashing there and seeing the horizon well would be a bit hampered by that. So I'm going to scoot over to a pier that is 20 feet over the ocean. From the pier, I can see about 5.5 miles (this is fairly easy to calculate as (3959.0038² - 3959²)^0.5.

Now, 5.5 miles represents about (5.5/24875)*360*60 = 4.78 minutes of an arc. Now, let's grab an 18" ruler and hold it 18" from our eyes. (if we are over 40, let's grab and 36" ruler and hold it at arms length ) And lets place the ruler so each end touches the horizon of the sea meeting the sky. At a distance equal to the length of the ruler, and the ruler directly in front of us we subtend about 60 degrees of the field before us. 60 degrees is nice in that is an equilateral triangle, which means the amount of ocean from the left to the right side of the ruler at the horizon is equal to the distance we can see, or about 5.5 miles.

So what this means then is that the visual angle subtended by the curvature of the Earth from one side of the ruler to the other is 4.78 minutes of an arc. And that means that the 'bulge' of the ocean at the center of the ruler is 1/2 that, or about 2.4 minutes of an arc.

What does that mean? Well, the 20/20 line of a vision chart contains letters that subtend about 5 minutes of an arc, and the acknowledged visual acuity of the human eye is generally put at 1 minute of an arc.

So what this means is that, from the pier, you should see a 'bulge' of ocean in the center of the ruler held at a distance equal to its length with each end touching the sky/horizon border that subtends an angle about the same as the bottom part of the capitol E on the 20/20 line of a vision chart.

So, pick a clear day, and make sure you are at least 20 feet above the ocean, and you should be able to see the bulge.

Incidentally, theoretically, you can see it from the shore line itself if seas are calm and your vision is good. But that is getting close to the 1' limit.

The higher up you go, the easier it is to see the bulge.



Jim

For the earth's curvature to be observed at 5.5 miles, is equivalent to observing the sagitta of a 3959 mile radius circle, with a chord length of 5.5 miles. The standard sagitta formula is here http://www.mathopenref.com/sagitta.html

In the most familiar acuity test, a Snellen chart is placed at a standard distance: 6 metres (or 20 ft in the US). At this distance, the symbols on the line representing "normal" acuity subtend an angle of five minutes of arc, and the thickness of the lines and of the spaces between the lines subtends one minute of arc. This line, designated 6/6 (or 20/20), is the smallest line that a person with normal acuity can read at a distance of 6 metres (20 ft).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snelle...28ft.29_vision

Also you have ignored refraction in the example, and any other causes of light distortion. You have also ignored the fact that objects such as Reunion island can be seen from Mauritius Island, which is about 230km away. At this distance the curvature would predict one island lower than the other by about 8x142x142x0.3014/12 = 4,051m

This simple observation which is repeated in similar ways all over the earth is direct support for a flat earth.

Jim has not demonstrated his thesis.

Jim has provided no solid evidence for a curved earth.

Even if Jim claims a smaller acuity of normal sight, of say 1 arc minute or less, he has not demonstrated that such curvature is seen by his experiment. He has only provided evidence for the theoretical possibility of seeing the curvature, if it exists. Even so, he has ignored refraction (rather conveniently).

JM

[JohnMartin]

Trollbat stupidity on display, example #8254

The real thing

Idiot.

All done in an oven.

Those buggy seats would have burnt the space suits off.

The suits are pressurized, but those astronauts seem to grab anything with ease. No pressure on those fingers to stifle motion at all. Just grab that tool and work away as though you were on stage, er . . . on the moon.

What a load of crap.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Given that JM is Australian you think he would already know this point

Flying direct from Auckland, New Zealand (using my country rather than his) it is a 10,324km flight to Buenos Aires*. Flying direct to Los Angeles it is a 10,498 km flight*. Using John's model in the OP the Los Angeles flight should be significantly shorter. AND the quickest route would take us over the North Pole rather than across the Pacific Ocean.
Once again, John's model has been proven false.




* source for flight data: http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/sched...NZ&language=EN

R- 3959 miles

10,324km = 6415 miles

6415/24862.52 =0.258 = 92.88 degrees

3959 sin 46.44 = 2868 miles

sagitta = 1229 miles - This is the height of the water mountain between Auckland and Buenos Aires. Of course the mountain is never encountered. Hence the problems with the flat earth model ignore the major problem with the global earth model. No flight measures are taken to climb and descend the water mountain.

What a joke.

JM

[JohnMartin]

they didn't throw out their space suits you idiot. They left the life support packs. Here is HOW they did it:
http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-k...214768/?no-ist

Still more problems -

only taking off their suits when the LM pressure had been brought back up to normal.

The lunar explorers did not ditch the suits themselves, but rather the 84-pound Portable Life Support Systems (PLSS). The PLSS units, worn like backpacks, supplied enough air for four hours on the surface.

So now no pressure in the cabin, which means the astronauts breathed from what? Nothing in the pod, nothing in the PLSS units, for they were being thrown out. How? What a load of crap.

How did they pressurize the cabin and where did the air come from?

JM