Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: turbonium1

You

He EXPLAINED that he never accounted for 'curvature'

And the Individual explained why.

Observations made at each station at exactly the same time, cancels the effects of curvature and refraction

Is that a false statement.

a reply to: turbonium1

Now.

The subject at hand your so desperately trying to change.

In the context you said you were going to study up on tides..

Can’t handle the current topic, so you need to change the subject.

You changing the subject is just you admitting there is gravity.

Answer the questions turbo.

What causes tides. How’s that research going?

What causes tidal bores, and some rivers to run backwards at high tide.

What force causes a spring to extend in a hanging spring scale when loaded down in accordance with Hooke’s law.

Why cannot you make a spring in a hanging spring scale with mass compress up when a load is placed on if there is no gravity.

What causes a rope to stretch before it lifts its load off the ground.

Why are load ratings for ropes, and why are they in pounds? Not mass or density? Since you insist things “fall” because of density.

What force overcomes the forces of cohesion and adhesion for a water drop to travel down a glass window when there is enough weight to the water drop.

Why are there clear and accurate calculations for converting potential energy of gravity to kinetic energy backed by extensive experimentation who’s calculations are totally void of any terms of density. Now explain that in the terms of your fantasy the only reason things fall to earth is solely due to density? Seems your model is not even supported by math and real world physics.

Flat earth is a lie.

If there is no downward force called gravity, I should be able to bench press two or three tons.

If there is no downward force called gravity. Why does an elevator exert more energy than what is accounted for in the friction of bearings by whole magnitudes to carry people and loads up?

a reply to: turbonium1

Well. Look at that.

There is a term for the strain on a rope due to gravity…

Physics Definition of Tension

sciencing.com...

Tension is a contact force transmitted through a rope, string, wire or something similar when forces on opposite ends are pulling on it.

For example, a tire swing hanging from a tree causes ​tension​ in the rope holding it to the branch. The pull on the bottom of the rope comes from gravity, while the upwards pull is from the branch resisting the rope's tug.

Well.

Look at that. Another problem solving for force with no terms relating to density….

Mathematically: ​F​g ​= F​t where ​Fg​ is the force of gravity, and ​Ft​ is the force of tension, both in newtons.

Recall that the force of gravity, ​Fg​, is equal to an object's mass times the acceleration due to gravity ​g​. So ​F​g ​= mg = F​t.

For a 10-kg tire, the force of tension would thus be ​Ft ​= 10 kg × 9.8 m/s2 = 98 N.

In the same scenario, where the rope connects with the tree branch there is also ​zero net force​. At this end of the rope, however, the force of tension in the free-body diagram is directed ​downwards​​.​ However, the ​magnitude of the force of tension is the same: 98 N​.

Another real world problem solved, backed by experimentation, in terms of gravity. Where is you proof mass and density absent of gravity can cause a downward force on a hanging rope? And result in the physic’s definition of tension?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Once again, the reason objects don't go upward into the air, and fall down when in air, is due to their mass being greater than that of air. It's that simple.

Why do you think objects of greater mass than air would RISE UP into areas of lesser mass?

Why does mass care what direction down is? What makes "down" so special that things with a mass higher than the mass of air fall in that direction?

a reply to: turbonium1

Your reading comprehension skills aside it was classic. You posted evidence from a surveyor who tells you curvture exixts. Classic almost as good as the flat earthers that released the video on Netflix proving with their own experiments the earth is round.

You have gone to disproving your self this is hardly fair at this point lol.

a reply to: dragonridr

Turbo isn’t going to let that bone go while people post the fact a downward force called gravity really does exist, and how it makes solving for real world physics problems possible.

Turbo needs a distraction. From the fact Turbo has zero credible explanations for tides, tidal bores, and why some rivers have back flow at high tide up to twice a day.

99.9995% of the world's population knows what shape the earth is. I don't know why we continue to entertain idiots like this, or why we or anyone needs to justify fact and truth to someone so obtuse and retarded.

A good friend once told me not to interrupt anyone making a cnt of themselves because they make you look like one too. Over to you Turbo, you have the floor.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

He EXPLAINED that he never accounted for 'curvature'

And the Individual explained why.

Observations made at each station at exactly the same time, cancels the effects of curvature and refraction

Is that a false statement.

You can't be that clueless, can you?

That list you have no clue about, comes from a textbook on land surveying basics, word for word, as you'll see in the links below...

image.slidesharecdn.com... 89135
www.slideshare.net...


THIS is what he DID say, AFTER he posted the list from the textbook....

"17yrs in the field of civil engineering as a land surveyor completing projects requiring dead nuts accuracy spanning tens of miles horizontally as well as hundreds of feet vertically using astonishingly precise instrumentation to calculate each known empirically definable variable including adjustments for thermal atmospheric refraction and optical refractory parallax, while maintaining tolerances as little as one one/hundredth of a foot.

Never have i visually observed, nor do my instruments indicate evidence of, and NEVER have i “adjusted” my collected observational field data or implemented any equation variable to account for a spherical geography."

Note the words in bold. He first says he made adjustments for refraction and parallax, and in the next paragraph, he points out that he has NEVER adjusted for 'curvature', or implemented any equation variable to account for it.

Do you get it now? He posted the 'official', or textbook list, to explain that the parts about 'curvature', are complete BS.
This list came from a textbook on 'surveying basics', and like many other textbooks, they include false info, wrong info, outdated info, and so forth. Surveyors are the experts, they know how to measure, and account for external factors like refraction, and topographical features, etc. It's what they do every single day, year after year. And he's done it for 17 years.

He posted this in a Civil Eng. forum, so when he put in that list, he assumed those on the forum thread, KNEW where the list came from - a civil eng. textbook.

I didn't know where the list came from, but I certainly knew it wasn't HIS list, or his words, from the rest of his post, slamming the 'curvature' part as BS.

When an expert says that there's no 'curvature' to account for, to measure with precise instruments, over tens of miles in distance, don't try putting words in his mouth, especially after I TOLD you it wasn't his list, he posted it to show the part about 'curvature' was BS.

So when you STILL post part of the list, and suggest it was HIS 'statement', you - sorry to say - start to look like a fool.

Anyway, I've clearly showed you where that list originated, and the reason why - so he can explain to us why the parts about 'curvature' are BS.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Your own quote proves you wrong he's explaining how you can avoid having to calculate Earth's curvature. Hes not claiming it doesn't exist!

here is his quote

Using short observation distances (25 m) equalized for backsight and foresight

Air below is denser than air above Air below is denser than air above, Line of sight is bent downward which Negates earth curvature error by 14%.

Now notice he said he used short observation distances namely 25 meters. So of course in 75 feet you don't have to concern yourself with earth curvature.

Then next he says your line of sight is bent downwards negating the curve by 14 percent on top of his short measurement.

See he's not saying it's not there he's telling you how to avoid calculating it as a surveyor. His solution was simply more measurements to avoid the math.

I find it funny you debunked yourself

In the end, your post is both funny, and extremely ironic, at the very same time.

a reply to: turbonium1

Is that before or after the bit that says 'How to eliminate errors due to curvature'?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Is that before or after the bit that says 'How to eliminate errors due to curvature'?

That IS the bit that says it, but he attributed it to the surveyor, not the actual source, which I had no problem finding online.

I think you should read my posts, as it seems you're unaware of what's going on here.

a reply to: turbonium1

You cannot handle there really is gravity. Can you.


You

It's better to say you don't know what causes the tides, or don;t know for sure what causes them, than to keep claiming 'lunar gravity' or whatever causes it, because that's complete BS. Even if 'gravity' DID exist, it doesn't work. Lies upon lies don't solve sh&(t, and never will.

I've not looked into the theory I mentioned in depth, but hope to soon, among other theories as well.

Have you found a better mathematical model to what causes tides, tidal bores, and what makes some rivers back flow at high tide than gravity.


Anyway. More proof a downward force called gravity exists.

I can build a column out of mega blocks. And even though the blocks are stacked to rest perfectly straight, the column starts to move about and lean of its own accord. Why.

I think it’s related to Self-buckling.

You’ll be happy. This actually has density as a term.

Self-buckling

A column can buckle due to its own weight with no other direct forces acting on it, in a failure mode called self-buckling. In conventional column buckling problems, the self-weight is often neglected since it is assumed to be small when compared to the applied axial loads. However, when this assumption is not valid, it is important to take the self-buckling into account.

Elastic buckling of a "heavy" column i.e., column buckling under its own weight, was first investigated by Greenhill at 1881.[1] He found that a free-standing, vertical column, with density
ρ
rho , Young's modulus
E
E, and cross-sectional area
A
A, will buckle under its own weight if its height exceeds a certain critical value:

l
max
≈
(
7.8373
E
I
ρ
g
A
)
1
3
[displaystyle l_[text[max]]approx left(7.8373,[frac [EI][rho gA]]right)^[frac [1][3]]]
where
g
g is the acceleration due to gravity,
I
I is the second moment of area of the beam cross section.

The formula has density in it, but still needs the acceleration of gravity as a term to make it accurate.

If there is no downward force called gravity, by would columns self buckle?

a reply to: turbonium1

You know when you win an argument with a troll. They ignore the actual question, ignore the current topic of the tread, and try to change the subject.

You behavior shows gravity is real.

a reply to: turbonium1

By the why…

The actual source your “reference” was invoking

Types of errors in Levelling

concretecivil.com...

The context of the answer is in the question, “ putting the curvature of the earth in to account how leveling is carried out?”

Now. What is meant by “leveling”?

A good place to start…

Curvature and Refraction in Surveying and Leveling Through History. Old Books, etc.

www.metabunk.org...

I would suggest you drop the subject where you don’t understand leveling, has nothing to do with actual structure design such as the proper placement of bridge columns over a long span, and your taking the whole thing out of context.

Your just going to look more ignorant and prove your arguments are based on blatant falsehoods.

a reply to: turbonium1

You should read your own posts, they debunk you with no involvement from anyone else.

Large scale geodetic surveys correct for curvature.

Large scale engineering projects correct for curvature.

That's what surveyors, engineers, and those who teach them, all say.

Every time you get made to look like an idiot you change the subject. Time to do it again.

I still can't believe turbo is going, this is what the second Epic flat earth thread we have been in?

I can't believe they have the energy and all these posts to support what is clearly a fallacy to anyone.

WHy are you wasting your time with this still ?

its been nearly 3 years or something crazy like that

how about you make some experiments to prove the flat earth yourself , and we can do your experiments and see if they work and share results.

lets put this to bed once and for all , although some may not as it serves as a good source of entertainment and disbelief

Why would the navy have to do this if the earth isnt curved

earths curvature and battleship artillery calculations





Like I said WW2 would probably still be going on, all those missed shots

a reply to: turbonium1

So. What is the surveyor’s definition of level? I think this has been pointed out to you by other people?

Surveying and Tables

Wentworth

jessekozlowski.wordpress.com...

The type of leveling you are referring to is evidently “ Reciprocal Levelling”

Reciprocal Levelling | Curvature and Refraction Correction
Reciprocal levelling helps in compensating for the error due to curvature and refraction and also the line of collimation errors in surveying. It is one of the best methods to eliminate curvature and refraction errors.
In reciprocal levelling, the level is set up on both sides of the levels. Two sets of staff reading are taken. This helps in compensating for the error due to curvature and refraction & also the line of collimation errors in surveying.

www.apsed.in...

Link to video

Reciprocal Levelling : Curvature and Refraction Correction | Surveying

m.youtube.com...

There is more than one way to conduct leveling

10 Types of levelling in surveying| Two Pages test levelling

www.civilknowledges.com...

This method is interesting…

[Updated] A Guide on Geodetic Survey and Monitoring

www.encardio.com...

When there’s a large area, usually beyond 100 square kilometres, the surveying requires the consideration of curvature of the earth. Such type of surveying serves as the definition of geodetic survey.

a reply to: neutronflux

I actually have experience in surveying. I never had to compensate for curvature because the bodies of water I surveyed were never large enough, though we did occasionally have to take 'join' surveys together.

Just because we did not have to compensate for curvature does not mean there is no curve. Turbo is trying to claim that small surveys like mine where the curve is so slight it can be ignored means there is no curve.

Just as his total lack of experience with telescopes doesn't prevent him from claiming expertise in astronomy, he is trying to pretend a level of knowledge he absolutely does not have to contradict people with direct experience of the subject. He needs to change horses again.