Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

[klaus54]

I'm not interested in interacting with people who will use any excuse to take a dig at someone.

Even an obvious Catholic-mocking troll like the fake "JohnMartin"?

Mocking is the ONLY fit response.

[oxmixmudd]

You're. It's.



Y'all.

Now looki hiar, if I'ma gonna imitate that thar collquial twang, I'm allowed to immitate that thar grammatical an' spellin!

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

Even an obvious Catholic-mocking troll like the fake "JohnMartin"?

Mocking is the ONLY fit response.

He wasn't responding to him; it was nothing more than a gratuitous dig. And I don't think JM is any of those things; I think he's generally quite sincere (this thread being an exception).

[seer]

He wasn't responding to him; it was nothing more than a gratuitous dig. And I don't think JM is any of those things; I think he's generally quite sincere (this thread being an exception).

I agree...

[Sparko]

He wasn't responding to him; it was nothing more than a gratuitous dig. And I don't think JM is any of those things; I think he's generally quite sincere (this thread being an exception).

I am not sure this JM is the original and not just a troll who has come here to pretend to be JM and see how much he can mess with people. In his other threads he obviously ignores even simple explanations and reiterates some of the dumbest things possible, tailor-made to get people to think he is a moron and argue with him. Like not understanding simple perspective, which a third grader can grasp. He is being purposefully dense. The old JM would attempt to answer and debate his odd beliefs. This one just asserts nonsense, then repeats it while ignoring anything to the contrary. He is definitely NOT sincere.

[Raphael]

I am not sure this JM is the original and not just a troll who has come here to pretend to be JM and see how much he can mess with people. In his other threads he obviously ignores even simple explanations and reiterates some of the dumbest things possible, tailor-made to get people to think he is a moron and argue with him. Like not understanding simple perspective, which a third grader can grasp. He is being purposefully dense. The old JM would attempt to answer and debate his odd beliefs. This one just asserts nonsense, then repeats it while ignoring anything to the contrary. He is definitely NOT sincere.

He's from the same place. it makes me think it is the real JM

[One Bad Pig]

I am not sure this JM is the original and not just a troll who has come here to pretend to be JM and see how much he can mess with people. In his other threads he obviously ignores even simple explanations and reiterates some of the dumbest things possible, tailor-made to get people to think he is a moron and argue with him. Like not understanding simple perspective, which a third grader can grasp. He is being purposefully dense. The old JM would attempt to answer and debate his odd beliefs. This one just asserts nonsense, then repeats it while ignoring anything to the contrary. He is definitely NOT sincere.

Ok. I haven't bothered interacting with him since the crash.

[rogue06]

He's from the same place. it makes me think it is the real JM

I mentioned this before but I suspect someone trolled him about a flat earth and solid firmament and probably much to their surprise succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.

[JohnMartin]

I have to say that JM has come up with some of the best insane troll logic I've seen since the guy who claimed Adam and Eve naming things in the Bible proved that Genesis was completely true (because animals have names like "bear" and "lion" today).

So gravity in JohnMartinic Physics can't make water curve, even though it's the force holding the water in cups, pools, lakes, oceans, etc.

I suppose it would be better to say that gravity plus surface tension flattens the surface of water in a cup, since surface tension would normally make water into a sphere. Whatever shape gravity allows for water, surface tension tries to reduce the surface area of the water as much as it can.

It's really easy for most people to grasp this concept: Gravity is pulling down everything at every point on Earth. Obviously the surface of water is going to curve in the oceans.

Obvious? If its that obvious, why don't we see the 1,100 mile mountain between Tokyo and LAX? It never appears. The curved water is never seen locally either. What we do witness is local water surfaces are level. We also note long shore lines are also level. We also note flights over long distances do not account for curvature of the water surface. If flights did account for curvature the flight would continually climb and then descend over the earth's curved surface. What happens in a long flight. Ascent to 30,000 ft then a continued flight at the same altitude, then descent to landing. If the flight accounted for curvature the flight would ascend to 30,000 ft, then continue to ascend relative to the ascending earth's surface, then descend with the curved surface and descend from altitude to land. This does not happen, so flights are evidence of a flat earth surface. Where is there any evidence of a curved water surface on a lake, or ocean? It simply doesn't exist.

The claim that the base of ships is not visible is accounted for by 1. local heat effects on the air, 2. perspective, and 3. perhaps local disturbances in the water surface such as swell. For example when we see a ship that looks as though it has fallen below the horizon, we can use a telescope to focus in on the ship and what do we see? We see the base of the ship at a distance if the base was blocked by 1. or 3, or if the ship is within the fixed horizon of 2.

Perspective dictates that the horizon is fixed as shown in Picture 1. Visually parallel lines converge at a fixed horizon.

conv.jpg
Picture 1

The fixed horizon corresponds to the convergence at the horizon.

conv2.jpg
Picture 2

A boat over the fixed horizon is shown below.

conv3.jpg
Picture 3

The same boat would appear as sunken below the horizon, when in fact the boat is not seen because of the fixed horizon caused by perspective.

conv4.jpg
Picture 4

The perspective problem also relates to the horizon problem. On a curved earth, the horizon would always drop when viewed from height. The flat earth would always have a rising horizon when viewed from height. We see a rising horizon on earth, therefore the earth is flat.

conv5.jpg
Picture 5

JM

[JohnMartin]

John,

1. If the earth is flat, why isn't it day all over the earth at the same time?

The flat earth model has a small, local sun. See the model in the opening post.

2. How do you explain the sun setting below the horizon on a flat earth?

Perspective dictates the sun will seem to go over the horizon.

conv6.jpg
Picture 1.

This video explains perspective.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It does seem most if not all this 'idiots guide to pseudo-science' reference to the 'flat-earth' focusses on seeing things from distances 'too far' based on rudimentary calculations of the Earths curvature and based on an observing height of 0 feet. All of these issues are accounted for by

1) an observing height of >0 feet
2) atmospheric refraction
3) imprecise reporting of the conditions under which the object was seen

1) Observing heights on ships can be 50 feet or more, which can add 10 miles or more to the potential observed distance

2) Atmospheric refraction is a major contributor for objects less that 1/2 a mile tall, as the atmospheric refraction of astronomical objects at the horizon at 10^oC and normal atmospheric pressure is 54 minutes of an arc, which in fact would reposition an object 69 miles away by as much as 3200 feet. Atmospheric refraction is well known, the effect is strongest through the densest part of the atmosphere, and effects not just light transmission, but microwave radio transmission - giving an increased 'line of sight' transmission distance for microwave towers. In fact - IF the earth was flat, the increase in potential transmission distance for microwave towers would be SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the modest increase due to refraction. Think of all the money that could have been saved on microwave transmission towers if the world was actually not round!!!

Your claim concerning refraction is currently unsubstantiated.

3) imprecise reporting, not necessarily malicious, just inaccuracies and exaggerations: temperature, atmospheric pressure, precise height above sea level of the observing site, and a real and accurate distance measurement from the object would be required to determine if a true anomaly existed.

Same problem for those who think the earth is curved.

I'm not going to waste time on this beyond back of the envelope. And John, being who 'he' is, will consider it a 'victory' if his 'reported distance' from some tourist's exaggerated astonishment is even 1 meter more than what the calculations yield.

Nevertheless, this is all just so much garbage, good for low level entertainment like any piece of pulp fiction, and good for illustrating why such notions went the way of the dodo long, long ago.


Jim

Nothing substantiated yet.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It's hilarious the trollbat is now lecturing people on perspective when he was too stupid to understand the perspective related size issues with his Earth-moon-EPIC satellite pictures. :lol

I have a hunch you you've lost interest in slapping your mother around.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13039[/ATTACH]

Trollbat disproven!!

Wrong context.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Well Lao, you just ruined the flat earth theory for John! He believes the earth is stationary, but according to your post:

"13. What about gravity?
Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven. There is no gravity, only inertia. The Earth moves through space like a giant elevator. We do not fall off because we are kept down by inertia. The Earth has inertia."

The earth is in motion, therefore since God told John that the earth is stuck to a foundation and cannot move, that means it can't be flat or we would all float off into space because there is no gravity!

You ruined it for him!

Good bye relativity theory.

And

Prove the earth is moving.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Yep, you don't understand gravity vectors. Or pretend not to for trolling's sake.

You don't understand water.

JM

[Raphael]

I mentioned this before but I suspect someone trolled him about a flat earth and solid firmament and probably much to their surprise succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.

I posted that square flat earth picture as a joke, I didn't know it would be taken seriously.