Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

[Sparko]

What are "sagitta"?

"Level" is perpendicular to the gravity vector at the location of the aircraft. The nose of the aircraft remains level in this (true!) sense.

The 747 DOES change heading (azimuth) to stay on a great circle though.

Ask an airline pilot.

sagitta is the height of an arc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitta_%28geometry%29

john is ignoring that an arc following a curved earth is the same as a level flight on a flat earth. there is no sagitta to worry about.

[Sparko]

has John explained why hurricanes rotate counter clockwise while cyclones rotate clockwise?

[klaus54]

sagitta is the height of an arc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitta_%28geometry%29

john is ignoring that an arc following a curved earth is the same as a level flight on a flat earth. there is no sagitta to worry about.

Ya, I remember now. The Sagittal Theorem, the arc with altitude looks like a bow and arrow (sagittum).

But in context I had no idea what JM was using the term for in relation to Earth, whether flat or spherical.

It would have good if he just explained.

But good luck with that.

[klaus54]

has John explained why hurricanes rotate counter clockwise while cyclones rotate clockwise?

Magick Aether does what it needs to do. That's why it's Magick.

D'uh!!!!

Therefore, Helio and Round Rotating Earth is falsified.

[JohnMartin]

I said the nose stays horizontal with the rest of the aircraft meaning it stays orthogonal to the gravity vector at every location while it's cruising at constant altitude.

Who said the nose is tipped down???

I said the azimuth changes to maintain a great circle route.

The nose should be tipped down if the earth is curved. It's not, so it's not.

JM

[JohnMartin]

as I said there is no sagitta since the arc follows the curvature of the earth. IF the earth were flat, THEN the flight path along such a curve would have a sagitta. thus your objection is backwards and actually proves the earth is round.

The sagitta is the distance from the chord to the high point of an arc. If the earth is curved, then the flight is over an arc with a sagitta. If the flight does not account for the sagitta, then the flight is over flat ground. your statements are nonsense.

JM

[JohnMartin]

sagitta is the height of an arc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitta_%28geometry%29

john is ignoring that an arc following a curved earth is the same as a level flight on a flat earth. there is no sagitta to worry about.

An arc is an arc and a flat plane is under a level flight. You live in a physics fantasy world.

JM

[JohnMartin]

has John explained why hurricanes rotate counter clockwise while cyclones rotate clockwise?

Has Sparko explained how other large cloud masses seem to ignore this so called Coriolis force and just move along as though the force did not exist. No. Because the force does not exist, nor does the effect as explained in standard physics.

JM

[Roy]

Again, the only way crackpot pseudo-science has even half a chance of working is if it plays on something too complicated to fully understand, or it plays on an area of science where there are still questions. This one isn't even close.

It's clearly too complicated for John Martin to fully understand.

[Sparko]

The nose should be tipped down if the earth is curved. It's not, so it's not.

JM

John that makes no sense at all. Insane troll logic at it's finest.

[Sparko]

The sagitta is the distance from the chord to the high point of an arc. If the earth is curved, then the flight is over an arc with a sagitta. If the flight does not account for the sagitta, then the flight is over flat ground. your statements are nonsense.

JM

arcs.jpg

You only have to worry about sagitta on a flat earth. (right side). On a curved earth the arc follows the curve of the earth, making the flight a level flight with the terrain.

[Sparko]

Has Sparko explained how other large cloud masses seem to ignore this so called Coriolis force and just move along as though the force did not exist. No. Because the force does not exist, nor does the effect as explained in standard physics.

JM

I will do so once you explain why hurricanes always rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere while their counterparts in the southern hemisphere, cyclones, always rotate clockwise. You first.

[Roy]

The sagitta is the distance from the chord to the high point of an arc. If the earth is curved, then the flight is over an arc with a sagitta. If the flight does not account for the sagitta, then the flight is over flat ground. your statements are nonsense.

Transoceanic flights account for the sagitta by flying at a constant height above sea level rather than attempting to fly through the ocean. While the direct path ignoring the sagitta is technically shorter, airlines have found that crashing their aircraft into the sea and drowning all the passengers is not an effective business model.

[oxmixmudd]

Transoceanic flights account for the sagitta by flying at a constant height above sea level rather than attempting to fly through the ocean. While the direct path ignoring the sagitta is technically shorter, airlines have found that crashing their aircraft into the sea and drowning all the passengers is not an effective business model.

Isn't it simply amazing how many threads that look like they ought to spur lots of discussion languish after 2 or 3 pages, but John Martin has yet to put up a thread that ends in less than 70 pages, most of them were/are over 100, and while the specifics can get interesting (at least in the old geocentrism threads) it does seem that we are drawn like moths to the flame to the sheer inanity of what he says. It's like a circus show. We simply can't believe what we are seeing, and we must see more and more and more just to convince ourselves what we saw is what we saw



Jim

[Sparko]

Isn't it simply amazing how many threads that look like they ought to spur lots of discussion languish after 2 or 3 pages, but John Martin has yet to put up a thread that ends in less than 70 pages, most of them were/are over 100, and while the specifics can get interesting (at least in the old geocentrism threads) it does seem that we are drawn like moths to the flame to the sheer inanity of what he says. It's like a circus show. We simply can't believe what we are seeing, and we must see more and more and more just to convince ourselves what we saw is what we saw



Jim

more like a train wreck than a circus.