Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: dragonridr

IF this really had nothing to do with gravity and density was the reason everything falls straight down... we'd be able to pick out the flat earthers from a crowd.

They're the ones dragging their heads while walking

originally posted by: Akragon
no one assumes the earth is flat... no one!

Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles.

en.wikipedia.org...

You'd have known this with a 2 second search, and wouldn't have looked the fool by accusing me of lying about this!

Yet another of your countless BS arguments, thrown into the heaping pile.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your link says

Dutch mathematician Willebrord Snellius (a.k.a. Snel van Royen) introduced the modern systematic use of triangulation. In 1615 he surveyed the distance from Alkmaar to Breda, approximately 72 miles (116 km).
He underestimated this distance by 3.5%. The survey was a chain of quadrangles containing 33 triangles in all.

Snell showed how planar formulae could be corrected to allow for the curvature of the earth

Seems to me a few hundred years ago the grasped what you can't.

You have neve shown 1 piece of evidence to support your claim.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
no one assumes the earth is flat... no one!

Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles.

en.wikipedia.org...

You'd have known this with a 2 second search, and wouldn't have looked the fool by accusing me of lying about this!

Yet another of your countless BS arguments, thrown into the heaping pile.

Yes to your simplistic mind this would make YOU assume the world is flat... even though reading the entire paragraph corrects your stupidity

Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles. It is employed for small survey works where errors due to the earth's shape are too small to matter.

a reply to: Akragon

And their knuckles.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Weird lookin bunch eh

a reply to: Akragon

Wait - are you saying turbo dishonestly cherry picked from a source to make it say something that it didn't mean??

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You're the one saying there is a large engineering project that doesn't account for curvature. Name it. You're the one sayng curvature is not accounted for, prove it. Meanwhile, have some stuff you won't understand:

encardio.medium.com...

Level surface: It is defined as the surface, which is parallel to the earth’s mean spheroidal surface.

www.ianvisits.co.uk...

Had they used normal “street maps”, then Crossrail tunnels could have been seen deviations of up to 20cm per kilometer of tunnel — due to the curvature of the earth.

www.mathscinotes.com...

www.davidsenesac.com...

www.researchgate.net...

www.usna.edu...

docs.nframes.com...

From a surveying theodolite manual:

From software I use at work:

While NONE of them ever mention your 'rate' of 'curvature', claimed to be 8 inches per mile, squared!!!

If this 'rate' actually existed, it'd be fundamental knowledge for every surveyor, it would be applied in all surveying projects, of ALL sizes and scales, it would be written in textbooks on surveying basics, because it obviously WOULD be standard to know such a 'rate of curvature', if they're supposedly 'accounting' for it on 'large scale' projects...

I even ASKED you to show me any surveying documents or papers that mention your 'rate of curvature', and you cough up more nonsense, that never mentions this 'rate of curvature', in ANY of them!


What are we to conclude about your supposed 'rate of curvature', that is never even mentioned in surveying documents, or mentioned in any plane surveys (the real surveys), or even in the supposed 'geodetic' surveys (the phony surveys)? This shows that your 'rate' is complete BS, of course. And the surveyors KNOW it's BS, too. At least one of them, perhaps more, came forward and SAID it was all BS, as well.


Obviously, when they'd already claimed that Earth was a ball, and rotated around the Sun, and claimed the Sun was many million miles away from Earth, and was over 100x larger is size than the ball Earth, without any proof it even WAS a ball, they claimed it was a ball, based on their belief that a ball was the perfect shape of all, so they just 'assumed' Earth WAS a ball, the shape of perfection. The Sun and moon were claimed to be spheres, as well, while they are actually circular in shape, and are disks, not spheres, but that's another subject.

They just assumed all of that was true, and they measured how shadows changed over certain periods of time, and calculated Earth's circumference from it.

They claim it's slightly off from the 'real' circumference, today, that makes it seem more 'authentic', to adjust their previous 'estimates'.


And they claimed to know the Earth's 'circumference', and it's 'rate of curvature', from it's radius, measures 8 inches per mile squared, on the Earth's surface.

This 'measurement of curvature', or 'rate of curvature', is just another lie, based on other lies, or false 'assumptions', which they still claim are true, centuries later.


You claim they've measured all of it, proving Earth is a ball, yet only ONE of their measurements, in fact, is POSSIBLE for us to measure - 'curvature', or 'rate of curvature', claimed to be 8 inches per mile squared.

'Curvature' doesn't exist, proven to not exist, many ways, and the fact that those who SURVEY the Earth's surface, over miles, always assume it's flat, which is exactly the same as saying 'curvature' doesn't exist!

The clincher is that they NEVER mention a 'rate of curvature', which YOU do, which your liars do, and is the single measurement your side claims is true, and is proven to be a complete lie, when surveyors ignore it as if it doesn't exist, and never mention any 'rate of curvature', confirming that it doesn't exist.

That's what is proven here.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
no one assumes the earth is flat... no one!

Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles.

en.wikipedia.org...

You'd have known this with a 2 second search, and wouldn't have looked the fool by accusing me of lying about this!

Yet another of your countless BS arguments, thrown into the heaping pile.

Yes to your simplistic mind this would make YOU assume the world is flat... even though reading the entire paragraph corrects your stupidity

Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat.

That's correct.

So when you claimed...

"no one assumes the earth is flat... no one!

I proved you wrong, and you just confirmed it was wrong.

Plane surveyors always assume surfaces are flat. They are not 'no one', are they? No, they are people, who survey Earth's surface, and they always assume it's flat.

originally posted by: Akragon
Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles. It is employed for small survey works where errors due to the earth's shape are too small to matter.

I proved that people DO assume Earth is flat, when you claimed that 'no one' assumed it was flat.

That's not 'cherry picking', it directly refutes your claim as false. You didn't claim 'most people don't assume it's flat', you said NO ONE assumes it's flat. Right? So when I showed that people DO assume it's flat, you 'change the goalposts', and claim I am 'cherry picking', to not show that EVERYONE does not assume it's flat!!

Great argument!

Why can't you simply admit you are wrong, because you ARE wrong, and get over it?

a reply to: turbonium1

I'll gladly admit it... sometimes its assumed the earth is flat when the curvature is so insignificant it doesn't matter in the least... there... happy?

Still does nothing for your case what so ever...

By the way i was just wondering... are you Jehova's witness?

Learned recently some sects believe the earth is flat

They are NOT 'assuming' anything, this is called a 'cover story'. Not a good one, but any spin is better than no spin, as you would know, better than anyone!

When they claim to 'always assume' surfaces are flat, why don't you realize that if they DO believe surfaces are NOT flat, they believe surfaces are all 'curved', they'd never 'assume it's flat', knowing it is NOT flat, knowing it is CURVED, at a rate of 8 inches per mile squared!

They don't even MENTION any 'rate of curvature', it is only YOUR SIDE that claims it exists. Surveyors are the authority on this, so your 'rate' is proven to be BS right there.

The 'rate' cannot be excused away, and this alone destroys your argument.


Their ACTIONS, which are REAL, with actual results of their surveys, are the proof here. Not saying some BS about 'assuming it's flat', because it's small enough to 'assume' falsehoods about the surface, for absolutely NO reason at all, except for pure stupidity's sake! They aren't stupid, but they know other people are, and they'll believe anything, no matter HOW stupid it sounds!

A stupid claim of them 'assuming it's flat', while knowing that's BS, is a perfect example of this. Nobody with half a brain cannot see how stupid this would be, and yet, convince themselves it is NOT stupid, that it makes perfect sense for surveyors to assume it's flat!

If ALL the surface is curved, it doesn't matter what SIZE an area is, because it's still CURVED, right? Sure.

And surveyors would KNOW it is always curved, no matter how small in area, right?

And they'd all know the 'rate of curvature' is 8 inches per mile squared, right?


But they assume it's flat, because they know it's flat, otherwise, they'd be total morons, right?

They aren't the morons here, that's for sure.

a reply to: turbonium1

Maybe you should actually read the link you provided on surveying...

Geodetic Surveying

This is the science of locating and relating the position of objects on the earth relative to each other, while taking into account the size, shape and gravity of the earth

Again.. the only reason its assumed the area is flat (not the earth!)... is because the curvature of the earth is so small in that area its not even relevant to any equation in the calculations

Seriously dude... at the very least read the links you provide before making a fool of yourself

Though i suppose you're used to that

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

I'll gladly admit it... sometimes its assumed the earth is flat when the curvature is so insignificant it doesn't matter in the least... there... happy?

'Curvature' doesn't exist, that's why it's 'so insignificant''!

There's no reason to 'assume it's flat', if it's curved, right?

If it's 'insignificant', say it's flat, for no reason at all - is that your argument?

Why not assume it's curved, since it IS curved, whether it's 'significant' or not?

It WOULD be assumed to be curved, if it WAS curved, because there'd be no reason to say otherwise.


You could 'assume' a car is red, knowing it is blue, and say it's insignificant to assume it's red, so you assumed it was blue, for no reason at all! What fun this is!


The 'insignificance' excuse - 'assume' something you know is not true, but claim it is 'insignificant' to say the truth, in this case, so say what is NOT true, instead!

originally posted by: Akragon
Again.. the only reason its assumed the area is flat (not the earth!)... is because the curvature of the earth is so small in that area its not even relevant to any equation in the calculations

That's why they always calculate it as a flat area, and it works perfectly!

An area only 1/2 mile long would have a few inches of 'curvature', right?

Had they used normal “street maps”, then Crossrail tunnels could have been seen deviations of up to 20cm per kilometer of tunnel — due to the curvature of the earth. Maybe not a huge issue in some places, but that could have been catastrophic in central London as the Crossrail tunnels squeezed between gaps in other tube lines, sewers and modern foundations.

Didn't they just say that ONE km of 'curvature' could be 'catastrophic'?

And what did YOU claim? Oh, right, you said that 'curvature' is 'insignificant' for small areas. Those 'small' areas of up to, what was it? Right, areas of up to 260 km are 'small', and 'insignificant' to account for 'curvature!

So long bridges, railroads, the Chunnel, and so on, are all 'insignificant' to account for 'curvature', then?

Just the Crossrail tunnels were 'significant' to account for 'curvature', for each and every km of it?


Or perhaps what is really going on, is they spouted about how 'curvature' was 'accounted for' in this one, specific example, which goes against every OTHER structure in existence, just as long or longer, that would require just as precise, or more precise accuracy for it, while NEVER 'accounting for curvature'?

Trying to support a 'curvature' for a ball Earth, did the very opposite of that. It showed 'curvature' is BS, when they already have claimed that areas up to 260 km are 'insignificant', which means ANY areas up to 260 km, as no exceptions were made in that claim, it was for ALL areas, ALL projects, up to 260 km in size.


Yet, somehow, not a single surveyor needs to 'account' for it, on ANY projects, on EVERY project they've done, or will do in future, because it's 'insignificant' to account for 'curvature', on 'small areas', right?


Lies always fail, and this lie failed long ago, and gets worse all the time.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Curvature' doesn't exist, that's why it's 'so insignificant''!

Again. I posted the truth why the sun cannot be seen once it goes over the horizon. Its blocked by the curvature of the earth, and night is literally the shadow of the earth’s curvature.

Same with why the North Star cannot be seen, even with large light gathering telescopes, in the Southern Hemisphere. It’s blocked by the curvature of the earth.

Do the math. The sun should be seen on a flat earth at all times.




Again. The reason celestial navigation works is because the earth is demonstrably curved.

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

newcreeations.org...


It wasn’t until clock-making technology increased enough in roughly the 1700’s that celestial navigation fully matured.

The British were the first to master shipboard clock technology. It gave them a significant advantage in both war and trade, and therefore contributed to the rapid growth of their empire. I’ve been to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, and have seen some of these early shipboard clocks first hand.

The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But it’s not. It’s a sphere.

Math does not lie.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

Celestial navigation truly makes proponents of the flat earth model look silly.

Flat earth is the lie, the earth is demonstrably curved.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Yeah. A new page…

You still need to address this

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Let’s put it more bluntly.

The handicap and the blind can literally make it to the South Pole.

But the best minds of the flat earth society cannot provide any proof of their fictitious ice wall which should be literally the longest natural structure on earth, that should be off South America in the the direction of the drawn arrow on the useless flat earth map.



———
And address this
———

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: AncientHeru
a reply to: Phage

I want to see a live film of the entire planet from space.

And no, i don't have billions of dollars of technology at my disposal.

Adding to neutronflux's practical evidence (i.e., no need to see it from space), here is another example:

If the Earth were flat, then how do people in Perth, Australia see the same stars when they look directly south (such as the constellation Southern Cross, AKA Crux) at the same time as the people in Johannesburg, South Africa do when they look directly south.

According to the prevailing flat earth map, this would be impossible; "due south" for Perth is in a very different direction as "due south" for Johannesburg, as in the illustration below:

(By the way, this problem would be just as true if the stars weren't really many lightyears away, but rather on a dome, or the firmament, close to Earth as some flat Earth models say)

However, if Earth is a spheroid, this works very well. People looking south in Perth and Johannesburg at the same time to view the stars in the sky would both be looking the same direction. That is, they would be looking at the same groups of stars when they both look south at the same time:

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
Again.. the only reason its assumed the area is flat (not the earth!)... is because the curvature of the earth is so small in that area its not even relevant to any equation in the calculations

That's why they always calculate it as a flat area, and it works perfectly!

An area only 1/2 mile long would have a few inches of 'curvature', right?

Had they used normal “street maps”, then Crossrail tunnels could have been seen deviations of up to 20cm per kilometer of tunnel — due to the curvature of the earth. Maybe not a huge issue in some places, but that could have been catastrophic in central London as the Crossrail tunnels squeezed between gaps in other tube lines, sewers and modern foundations.

Didn't they just say that ONE km of 'curvature' could be 'catastrophic'?

No. That's not what they said. Read it again. They said a 20cm deviation as a result of curvature needed to be accounted for, otherwise the engineering wouldn't work.

And what did YOU claim? Oh, right, you said that 'curvature' is 'insignificant' for small areas. Those 'small' areas of up to, what was it? Right, areas of up to 260 km are 'small', and 'insignificant' to account for 'curvature!

Who said anything about 260km being insignificant?

So long bridges, railroads, the Chunnel, and so on, are all 'insignificant' to account for 'curvature', then?

Except no-one said that. Quite the opposite.

Just the Crossrail tunnels were 'significant' to account for 'curvature', for each and every km of it?

And every other large engineering project.

Or perhaps what is really going on, is they spouted about how 'curvature' was 'accounted for' in this one, specific example, which goes against every OTHER structure in existence, just as long or longer, that would require just as precise, or more precise accuracy for it, while NEVER 'accounting for curvature'?

Perhaps what is really goiung on is that you are absolutely failing to grasp the topic. Again. In so doing, you are deliberately misrepresenting and misquoting the sources you denied exist but have still ben provided.

Trying to support a 'curvature' for a ball Earth, did the very opposite of that. It showed 'curvature' is BS, when they already have claimed that areas up to 260 km are 'insignificant', which means ANY areas up to 260 km, as no exceptions were made in that claim, it was for ALL areas, ALL projects, up to 260 km in size.

Yet, somehow, not a single surveyor needs to 'account' for it, on ANY projects, on EVERY project they've done, or will do in future, because it's 'insignificant' to account for 'curvature', on 'small areas', right?

You have no clue. Stop pretending you have. Go read a book on how triangulation methods are used to survey long distances in geodetic survey, and why it's a good method to allow for the curve that every surveyor knows exists, just like every educated person knows it exists.

You are as qualified to comment on how surveying anf engineering is carried out as you are to discuss astronomy.

Lies always fail, and this lie failed long ago, and gets worse all the time.

Your lies get worse every week, and fail every week. Particularly the lies you tell yourself about your understanding of the world.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And Turbo doesn’t even get if there was no gravity with a dome /vault encasing the earth, because of gas laws, the pressure of the atmosphere would be uniform. The same at every altitude. Not this decrease in atmosphere pressure and density with an increase in altitude that should encourage items to fall up in a flat earth delusion with no gravity.

a reply to: neutronflux

Even more oddly, his eyes managed to skip right over the mercury barometer post I made, where the mercury (a very dense metal) is pushed up a glass column by air (a not very dense gas) exerting a DOWNWARD force, thanks to gravity.

It's almost as if he is just unable to address that kind of thing and wants to bury it in a wall of meaningless text.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
no one assumes the earth is flat... no one!

Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles.

en.wikipedia.org...

You'd have known this with a 2 second search, and wouldn't have looked the fool by accusing me of lying about this!

Yet another of your countless BS arguments, thrown into the heaping pile.

Funy how you left off the explination as to why.

Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles.It is employed for small survey works where errors due to the earth's shape are too small to matter

Notice it says on small jobs such as surveying a home. Why because the Earth is very big and the curvature is negligible until you deal with very large ojects. weird how you tried to hide that from your own source almost like you know the earth is a sphere and your trolling people.

This thanksgiving I am thankful for a spherical Earth, and all the ways it can be demonstrated the earth is spherical.