[AATW]

lol The "Turning Torso globe proofsie" is one of the most cherrypicked observations in history.

Cherrypicked is your get out of jail free card for any observation which doesn't match what you want to believe.
In what sense is it cherry picked? Are there lots of observations of this building from similar distances where you can see all of it?

You can even clearly see how it seems to get compressed not only due to perspective but due to atmospheric conditions as well. Otherwise damn, did the curvature do that too?

I didn't notice that but feel free to demonstrate that. But yes, the atmosphere does have an effect on observations. Certainly at the furthest distances the building is less clear because of visibility. What's your explanation for where the rest of the building has gone? Why does more of it disappear with increasing distance?

If things were really following the imaginary exponential curve that globers desperately believe exists, things would gradually tilt exponentially as well along with it. There are zero observations that show any tilt whatsoever. I wonder why?

Indeed. At the furthest distance the building would be tilted away from you. At an angle of...0.45 degrees. You're surprised that's basically impossible to discern?

Not to mention that they desperately have to dimiss the many long-distance observations that match FE

Can you provide an example?

[Dual1ty]

What a guy. Has to constantly contort his answers and do constant quote-mining and misrepresentations to make his beliefs work (well, to pretend they work anyway). And dismiss anything that doesn't fit his beliefs.
 
Imagine 6400 posts of that without getting paid...

[Action80]

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat.

Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.

I have made no such claim.  The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation).  Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.

Of course you did. You wrote that the telescope would need to be leveled. If it is already leveled once and remains on the same level ground, affixed to that point, that's your claim.

You claim the object disappears because a telescope mounted as described eventually ends up somehow pointing up.

The telescope needs to be leveled AT EACH OBSERVATION POINT.  Level is perpendicular to the pull of gravity which makes it tangential to the surface.  Since the earth is round the angle of that tangent plane changes at each observation point resulting in the telescope pointing higher relative to the target as the distance between them increases.

Damn, you need to report this to the surveyors in Kansas...They got their stuff all wrong there...not.../sarcasm.

[Dual1ty]

Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".

[Dual1ty]

How normal people measure the curve:



How globe-believing zealots measure the curve:



+

[Realestfake]

How globe-believing zealots measure the curve:



+

Hey, if you’re unprepared for debating this why do you even bother? You’re not even making a point. It’s no wonder you’re on *that* side of the debate (:

[ichoosereality]

Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".

For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account.  For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.

[Dual1ty]

Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".

For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account.  For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.

lol The "LIGO GPS curvature proofsie" card. "GPS is mapped to follow the curve, so the curve exists because we use GPS and it works!". "We accounted for curvature because the GPS says so". 

No, it's not just small structrue. No one accounts for curvature no matter the size of the structure. If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.

[AATW]

If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.

And how on earth could anyone do that? Even if they were presented, how would you know they were used? LIGO mention accounting for the earth's curve on their website.
Your response is a predictable "nuh-uh!".

I've said this to you before, you set the bar of proof insanely high for anything which doesn't fit your worldview. Anything which does you seem to happily accept because you saw a YouTube video which says it. It's good to question things, but you seem to do so extremely selectively.

[Dual1ty]

LIGO mention accounting for the earth's curve on their website.
Your response is a predictable "nuh-uh!".

No, my response was what it was.

I would appreciate if you didn't tarnish the thread with your opinions.

[andiwd]

Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".

For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account.  For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.

lol The "LIGO GPS curvature proofsie" card. "GPS is mapped to follow the curve, so the curve exists because we use GPS and it works!". "We accounted for curvature because the GPS says so". 

No, it's not just small structrue. No one accounts for curvature no matter the size of the structure. If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.

Sometimes though the existing maps aren't accurate enough. Here's some details going into digging the cross-rail tunnels under London. Due to the small gap that the tunnels had to go through, between existing infrastructure and other tunnels, existing maps were found to only be accurate to 20cm per KM in a 3d space due to the curvature of the Earth. So a new co-ordinate system was produced.

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/
https://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

The following link talks about how engineers and surveyors are attempting to display routes of long train infrastructure on a 2d plane on blueprints. You will probably be interested in figure 1 showing a simplified version of the ratio that has to be applied to convert from one to the other.

https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/document/advances-in-engineering-survey-grid-transformations-for-rail-infrastructure/

To demonstrate the reasons for using the HS2 Snake Projection, imagine a line approximating the route from London to Birmingham. Measuring the line first in British National Grid, and then measuring again in HS2 Snake Projection would reveal an apparent increase in length of 60 metres. In fact, the length of the project on the ground did not change – it is just that the British National Grid is a best-fit for the whole country which means the map distortion is far in excess of what is appropriate for precision engineering required on projects like HS2.

[Dual1ty]

Sometimes though the existing maps aren't accurate enough. Here's some details going into digging the cross-rail tunnels under London. Due to the small gap that the tunnels had to go through, between existing infrastructure and other tunnels, existing maps were found to only be accurate to 20cm per KM in a 3d space due to the curvature of the Earth. So a new co-ordinate system was produced.

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/
https://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

The following link talks about how engineers and surveyors are attempting to display routes of long train infrastructure on a 2d plane on blueprints. You will probably be interested in figure 1 showing a simplified version of the ratio that has to be applied to convert from one to the other.

https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/document/advances-in-engineering-survey-grid-transformations-for-rail-infrastructure/

To demonstrate the reasons for using the HS2 Snake Projection, imagine a line approximating the route from London to Birmingham. Measuring the line first in British National Grid, and then measuring again in HS2 Snake Projection would reveal an apparent increase in length of 60 metres. In fact, the length of the project on the ground did not change – it is just that the British National Grid is a best-fit for the whole country which means the map distortion is far in excess of what is appropriate for precision engineering required on projects like HS2.

You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.

[markjo]

You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.

Do you realize that a mathematical model of the ball earth can make predictions can can be verified in reality but won't work on a flat earth?  It may not be possible to measure the curvature to your satisfaction, but it is possible to verify the consequences of that curvature.

[Dual1ty]

You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.

Do you realize that a mathematical model of the ball earth can make predictions can can be verified in reality but won't work on a flat earth?

This is an unfortunate comment because it shows that you haven't looked at the material that your globe-defending friend provided.

It explains that you can project the imaginary ball's curvature onto a flat plane no problem by using the so-called "Snake Projection" method, and it is mathematically valid.

  It may not be possible to measure the curvature to your satisfaction, but it is possible to verify the consequences of that curvature.

You mean that you are personally satisfied that it exists, which is different. In reality, proving things exist in nature has nothing to do with satisfying personal desires, or with opinions. If you can't understand that, you are definitely on the wrong forum.

[markjo]

You do realize that this is essentially the same thing as saying that "GPS proves the curvature" like ichoosenonsense claimed, right? It's all done on paper from a mathematical model of the ball Earth. In reality no one has measured the curvature. Ever.

Do you realize that a mathematical model of the ball earth can make predictions can can be verified in reality but won't work on a flat earth?

This is an unfortunate comment because it shows that you haven't looked at the material that your globe-defending friend provided.

It explains that you can project the imaginary ball's curvature onto a flat plane no problem by using the so-called "Snake Projection" method, and it is mathematically valid.

Please explain why projecting the image of a round earth onto a flat surface should invalidate any predictions that a round earth model would make.

  It may not be possible to measure the curvature to your satisfaction, but it is possible to verify the consequences of that curvature.

You mean that you are personally satisfied that it exists, which is different.

No, I meant what I said.  Personal satisfaction has nothing to do with it.