Flat earth theory?

a reply to: turbonium1

Surveyors do not consider the curvature of Earth, do not measure for curvature whenever surveying the Earth, for any project. Are you aware of that?

That is not true. Evidence, please?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Is the distance between lines of latitude variable on a flat world?
Doesn't that create problems with navigation?

Why would all those scumbags go around the world, destroying all flat Earth maps? Think hard, now. It might come to you.

Why haven't you addressed my points yet?

They went what ?, they went around the world did they ?

aroundDictionary result for around
Origin

Middle English: from a-2 ‘in, on’ + round.

a reply to: sapien82

Ha! Ha! You got him there.

a reply to: oldcarpy

that's it case closed !

I'll be here correcting your flat earth terminology !

"they went all over the flat earth plane , destroying flat earth maps ! "

flat earth terminology nazi !

but the nazis believed the earth was hollow

so its even more confusing now

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Is the distance between lines of latitude variable on a flat world?
Doesn't that create problems with navigation?

Why would all those scumbags go around the world, destroying all flat Earth maps? Think hard, now. It might come to you.

Why haven't you addressed my points yet?

They went what ?, they went around the world did they ?

"Around". You know, traveled the circumference of the inside face of the ice wall

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Spoil sport.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1

Surveyors do not consider the curvature of Earth, do not measure for curvature whenever surveying the Earth, for any project. Are you aware of that?

That is not true. Evidence, please?

Sure. First of all, they claim surveying is either plane, or geodetic....

In geodetic surveying the curvature of the earth is taken into account while calculating reduced levels, angles, bearings and distances. This type of surveying is usually employed for large survey works. Survey works up to 100 square miles (260 square kilometers ) are treated as plane and beyond that are treated as geodetic.[15] In geodetic surveying necessary corrections are applied to reduced levels, bearings and other observations.

en.wikipedia.org...-15

I've looked for examples of 'geodetic' surveying. Nobody seems to have any examples of it, they all mumble about how it's not very accurate, that it takes gravity into account (red flag!), that it is mainly useful for 'satellites' (another red flag!), and that's about it. When it talks about non-existent forces like 'gravity', that's the same garbage excuse for everything else.

So it's up to you to find an actual, verifiable, EARTH-BOUND example of geodetic surveying. Not some bs about how NASA used it in Earth orbit, taking 'gravity' into account, or so on. This is all worthless, unverifiable, unsupportable crap.


After you look further into the issue, you'll realize that NONE of the surveyors measure, or NEED to measure, any supposed 'curvature' of Earth. Of course, they say curvature is so insignificant in most cases, there's 'no need' to account for it!

Let's see what 100 square miles of surveying would mean to 'curvature', which is supposedly insignificant to that point...

earthcurvature.com...

According to the above curvature calculator, 100 miles would be 6668.41 feet of curvature....that's 'insignificant'!

The summit of Mt. Snezka is 5259 ft. high, and is the highest point in the Czech Republic. Add another 1400 feet, and you get the 'insignificance' of this supposed 'curvature', not considered by surveyors!!


If there were such curvature over 100 miles, it would literally be greater than most mountains on Earth, in total feet.

At what point do you realize how ridiculous it is? You already know that surveyors don't account for curvature on Earth - unless you can show me an example of it, on Earth, which would be at least 100 miles in distance...

Forget the Panama Canal, which is merely 40 miles long, without any curvature accounted for by surveyors!

Same here..

Qingdao Haiwan Bridge, also known as Jiaozuo Bay Bridge, is the world’s longest bridge over water at 41.58 km (25.84 miles)

www.cobaltrecruitment.com...

The Chunnel is only 31.5 miles long, so that's out.

Here's one - the Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge in China, which is 102 miles long. It doesn't account for curvature, either.

Here's another one, 180 miles long..

Curvature not allowed for in construction of railways. The London and North Western Railway between London and Liverpool forms a line of 180 miles. The highest point, midway, as at Birmingham station, which is 240 feet above the level of the sea at London and Liverpool. On a globe the chord of the arc between London and Liverpool would be at Birmingham 5,400 feet above sea level at London and Liverpool added to which the actual height of the station between of 240 feet and we have 5,640 ft. Not one inch was allowed for.


I could show many more examples, but the point is very clear by now.

I've proven you wrong. No curvature is accounted for by surveyors, as these examples prove beyond a doubt.


Don't stay in denial, it's simply about time you faced up to the reality here.

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Is the distance between lines of latitude variable on a flat world?
Doesn't that create problems with navigation?

Why would all those scumbags go around the world, destroying all flat Earth maps? Think hard, now. It might come to you.

Why haven't you addressed my points yet?

They went what ?, they went around the world did they ?

aroundDictionary result for around
Origin

Middle English: from a-2 ‘in, on’ + round.

I guess you've never heard of going around in a circle before.

At least from now on, you won't have to display your ignorance anymore.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: sapien82

Ha! Ha! You got him there.

Ignorance is quite contagious, it appears.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Is the distance between lines of latitude variable on a flat world?
Doesn't that create problems with navigation?

Why would all those scumbags go around the world, destroying all flat Earth maps? Think hard, now. It might come to you.

Why haven't you addressed my points yet?

They went what ?, they went around the world did they ?

"Around". You know, traveled the circumference of the inside face of the ice wall

And around the rest of the Earth, too. If you feel better calling it 'travelling the circumference', go ahead. Ignorance works well in your group, anyway.

So now that all of you realize that 'around', does not exclusively apply to spheres, we move ahead...

Surveyors don't account for curvature of Earth, no matter how long the structure is planned to be.

And of course, we know airplane instruments don't account for curvature, either. No matter how long the flight is.


I'd love to know where you got the idea of curvature on Earth, after ships didn't 'vanish', after surveyors don't measure any curvature, and after instruments on planes measure Earth as flat.

Planes and surveyors are perfect examples of proving the Earth is flat, since they use the very instruments which measure for curvature, if it existed. These instruments cannot be disputed in any way, try as you might.

When you scream about how 'science' proves the Earth is round, you might want to actually consider using 'scientific instruments', for once! But that wouldn't work, so forget I mentioned it!

a reply to: turbonium1

Says surveyors don't account for the curvature, provides link showing that surveyors account for the curvature . . . the scary thing is, I'm still pretty sure you're not actually trolling and are genuinely unaware of how idiotic your posts are.

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

Says surveyors don't account for the curvature, provides link showing that surveyors account for the curvature . . . the scary thing is, I'm still pretty sure you're not actually trolling and are genuinely unaware of how idiotic your posts are.

Surveyors DO NOT account for curvature. The link does NOT show that surveyors account for curvature, if you had actually read what it says about it.

I included geodetic surveying to show you that it is only 'lip service', to people like you, who would claim exactly what you have claimed - that they 'account for curvature', because they have an area of surveying called geodetic surveying.

In fact, geodetic surveying is not even provable, not done anywhere on Earth, and that's why it is only 'lip service'.


You ignore the fact no surveyors account for curvature on Earth, and point to non=valid, non-provable, non-Earth 'surveying, as if it were legit, and nothing else matters.

Look at the reality, it's very different than you believe it is.

a reply to: turbonium1

hardly ignorance if it was a joke , you dont have to keep that flat earth measuring stick up your ass all the time !

I am well aware of what you meant, I was just using the definition of the word to make a play on the word
Around to poke fun at the flat earth.

So gravity is false, scientists are scamming us all, surveys of large areas don't account for curvature and only you know the truth of this???
Yes, of course. And I have a bridge in Manhattan that I'd like to talk to you about selling.

originally posted by: turbonium1
When you scream about how 'science' proves the Earth is round, you might want to actually consider using 'scientific instruments', for once! But that wouldn't work, so forget I mentioned it!

You mean scientific instruments like a $20,000 laser precision gyroscope?

a reply to: turbonium1

Surveyors don't account for curvature of Earth, no matter how long the structure is planned to be.

Only in the case of small areas/structures. Here:

Round Earth Sense

They do for large projects eg the Humber Bridge, obviously. Wrong again, I'm afraid.

I'd love to know where you got the idea of curvature on Earth, after ships didn't 'vanish', after surveyors don't measure any curvature, and after instruments on planes measure Earth as flat.

Not true as has been demonstrated to you countless times.

I'd love to know where you got the idea of curvature on Earth, after ships didn't 'vanish', after surveyors don't measure any curvature, and after instruments on planes measure Earth as flat.

Nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

In fact, geodetic surveying is not even provable, not done anywhere on Earth, and that's why it is only 'lip service'.

Utter tosh:

Wiki: Geodesy

I still want to know how flat earth theory accounts for eclipses of the sun and moon
and how they are not observeable everywhere at once , as if the earth is a flat plane then surely an eclipse would cover the entire disc ?

given that the babylonians discovered and calculated eclipses in 3500-3200 BC and was the first astronomy known to man
so why then did they not postulate a flat earth theory , their views not hindered by NASA

a reply to: sapien82

magic