Guide to the FLAT EARTH

a reply to: clarktron

Well your opinion is a falsehood. Our reality is that we aren't on a flat earth and those claims you linked about map distortions are completely true. It's one of the problems with projecting a 3d image onto a 2d surface. You lose proportionality.

a non-fisheye view of the horizon = seeming flat



funny how fisheye lenses are the only videos to show that pronounced curve

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: clarktron

Well your opinion is a falsehood. Our reality is that we aren't on a flat earth and those claims you linked about map distortions are completely true. It's one of the problems with projecting a 3d image onto a 2d surface. You lose proportionality.

Thanks for the personal attack. Not really trying to win anything over here, thanks. Just discussing ideas on a platform where these topics are "accepted" for exploration.

originally posted by: JohnAnon12358
It seems like "Flat-Earth" theory has been gaining a tremendous amount of circulation within alternative forums lately. I can only imagine this is meant to discredit any number of valid theories that may be leaking into mainstream awareness.

My thoughts also. Also wondering about the possible connection of this tsunami of flat earth info coming out of the woodwork to the "end times". I mean, flat earth basically goes along with the Bible(KJE). It has been proved that Jesuit started the globe movement(straight out of the Vatican). So yep, lets trust our super honest Catholic church, World Governments and Corporations....They have exceptional track records. Obviously they have our best interests in mind.

a reply to: clarktron

It has been proved that Jesuit started the globe movement(straight out of the Vatican).

by whom ? - citation required < gets popcorn >

the validity of a spherical earth was demonstrated 200 years before the advent of christianity by Eratosthenes

so your " jesuits " claim is utter twaddle

as we have a few " new " flat earth proponents , maybe they can RATIONALLY answer a few of the verifiable observations that falsify the flat earth claim [ its not a theory - its an assertion ]

1 - the terminator line at dusk / dawn on the equinoxes / solstices

2 - visibility of constalations and stars in the northern and southern hemispheres

3 - the ` mast first ` appearence of ships over the horizon

4- the effect of altitude on the visible distance of the horizon

5 - the fact that an aircraft at 10km atlitude an be seen at a greater distance that one at 1km altitude [ despite the fact that the distance is greater ]

6 - the demonstrable measurements of both latitude and longitude

note - none of these evidences require the govt or any external agency data - all can be calculated vmathematically or observed directly

sits back and waits

originally posted by: clarktron

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: clarktron

Well your opinion is a falsehood. Our reality is that we aren't on a flat earth and those claims you linked about map distortions are completely true. It's one of the problems with projecting a 3d image onto a 2d surface. You lose proportionality.

Thanks for the personal attack. Not really trying to win anything over here, thanks. Just discussing ideas on a platform where these topics are "accepted" for exploration.

Lol, that isn't a personal attack. It's just a statement of reality. Your opinion is wrong. In fact, it isn't an opinion at all. It's just wrong. We can prove that it isn't true.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature.

One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In leveling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

Kansas=flat as a pancake

The first, and only, study that we know of that directly compared the Sunflower State to a pancake was done by a trio of geographers in 2003. For their tongue-in-cheek analysis, they acquired a pancake from IHOP, cut out a sample slice and made a topographic profile of it using a laser microscope (assuring us that they would “not be daunted by the ‘No Food or Drink’ sign posted in the microscopy room”). They then compared their pancake to an east-west profile of Kansas taken from a 1:250,000 scale digital model of the state’s elevation data, and calculated flatness estimates for each.
A flatness value of 1.000 would indicate “perfect, platonic flatness.” The pancake was scored as 0.957, which the researchers said is “pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat.” The value for Kansas, meanwhile was ~0.9997, or “damn flat,” as they said.

a reply to: clarktron

That's is dumb reasoning. The curvature of the earth is too slight for such small scale projects to have to be accounted for when building them. Have you ever studied Calculus? Because if you had, then you'd know all about approximations of a curve and how they are obtained. They are obtained with marginally smaller lines because if you zoom in on a curve far enough, it ALWAYS looks straight. Go find a graphing calculator and input any function into it then zoom in considerably. I guarantee you it will appear straight.

The fact that we have satellites IN orbit RIGHT now that show that the earth is round should be proof enough. But hey, just go stare out into the sea. Notice you don't see the coast of the continent across the ocean? That's because the view drops below the curvature of the earth. Keep in mind, our eyes can see stars millions of light years away, but we can't see a continent a 1000 miles away from us.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth’s and water’s non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the floodtides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

No Satellites, aircraft yes. GPS is a hoax. US and British Military supposedly stopped using Loran - C in 2010. Why would the worlds elite military use archaic tech until just 2010? Radio Frequency. Show me a picture of a satellite in space.

a reply to: clarktron

Cern - built with the curvature of earth in mind? 17 mile circumference....

a reply to: clarktron

please do not lie - its undignified :

engineers do take into account the earths curvature when building suspension bridges

Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other.[3][14]

source 1

as for your " testimony " from messrs westwood and winckler - do you realise that you are dredging up crap from 1886 ?

surveying in the 19th century used chains and a theodolite that could only be used over a short distance

thus - every survey leg was at a tangent to the radius of the earth - and so APPEARED flat over multiple legs

several other long span bridges also exhibit this

originally posted by: clarktron
a reply to: clarktron

Cern - built with the curvature of earth in mind? 17 mile circumference....

Yes it was and it's certainly a factor in the plans for the upcoming FCC there.

To make matters more complex from a visualisation and planning perspective, the curvature of the earth has to be taken into consideration in any future design path.

... “It gets quite complicated because if we were to use sea level as our reference point this would imply horizontal. If it were the same distance above sea level around the ring then you would not be in the same plane because the machine would be following the earth’s curvature,” said Osborne. The best way to imagine it, he explained, is to think of the FCC as an enormous fixed disc that needs to be sunk in its entirety into the earth in order for it to be in the same plane.

With the effect of the earth’s curvature having considerably greater impact upon the necessary depth considerations for the larger FCC as compared to the 27km LHC, early calculations show that for an 80km ring, and to remain within slope parameters, the shafts might have to be at an average depth of 270m with a maximum overburden along the tunnels of up to 670m. This compares to an average shaft depth of 100m for the LCC, and a largest overburden of 170m.

www.tunneltalk.com...

originally posted by: clarktron
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature.

The grand stand at Daytona Raceway (just over a mile long from memory) is built to follow the curvature of the earth and is 7 inches higher in the middle than at the ends.

I guess we'd better tell the guys who built it what a dumb mistake they've made?

a reply to: clarktron

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet.

This says you're wrong, again.

Geodetic surveys involve such extensive areas that allowance must be made for the Earth’s curvature.

www.britannica.com...

Another reference to accounting for curvature

When the survey encompasses an area large enough for the Earth’s curvature to be a factor, an imaginary mathematical representation of the Earth must be employed as a reference surface.

www.britannica.com...

Need more or are you sharp enough to get it?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: clarktron

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet.

This says you're wrong, again.

Geodetic surveys involve such extensive areas that allowance must be made for the Earth’s curvature.

www.britannica.com...

Another reference to accounting for curvature

When the survey encompasses an area large enough for the Earth’s curvature to be a factor, an imaginary mathematical representation of the Earth must be employed as a reference surface.

www.britannica.com...

Need more or are you sharp enough to get it?

Actually, I heard the earth is indignant in regards to how we believe it is shaped.

"first stop killing me, then figure out my shape"

-Earth

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Thank you DenyObfuscation! The response from you was absolutely perfect. Thanks for that information.

originally posted by: clarktron
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth’s and water’s non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the floodtides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

No Satellites, aircraft yes. GPS is a hoax. US and British Military supposedly stopped using Loran - C in 2010. Why would the worlds elite military use archaic tech until just 2010? Radio Frequency. Show me a picture of a satellite in space.

How about sourcing that claim there buddy?

a reply to: Imagewerx

NASCAR is my Sh**. IF they account for the curvature then i am back on the Globe Model. Sounds snarky, but the truth. I always question authority, perhaps a little to far. I still cant deny all of the anomalies presented by the FE model.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure which claim? Loran - C or the Suez canal?