[Mediator]

In the wiki there’s a section called: A hundred proofs the Earth is not a globe, where it states:

“Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.”

His is true, in fact, as they go underground they can generally come out with slight high changes without much bother. Due to the size of the Earth going under is easier in the respect. But there is no mention of bridges.

The Verrazano-Narrows bridge, linking New York to Stanton Island, is a huge structure, and as part of the problems of building above ground did have to take into account the curvature of the Earth.

“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.”

The Humber bridge in the UK is another example:

“The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 m (10 ft) in winds of 80 mph (129 km/h). The towers, although both vertical, are 36 mm (1.4 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.”

So, why take these calculations into account, if the Earth is flat? I mean the Earth is huge, so these are minor adjustments, agreed, but they are still required to make sure the bridges line up. The curvature does legitimately come into play here. Can anyone explain the need for these adjustments using the FE model?

[Rushy]

From what I'm reading, all you've done is stated that the towers are 41.275mm apart on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge and 36mm apart on the Humber bridge. You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction. Considering the height of the towers on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge, a different of 41.275mm would only require a 1.95e-4 variation (as if both the towers were level and exactly 90 degrees with the ground), that is, one of the towers could lean 1e-8 degrees in a single direction and achieve a lean causing an increase of 41.275mm at the top versus the bottom. You're telling me that those towers are undoubtedly 90 degrees vertical to the ground? I highly doubt that.

This kind of proof would require that you not only measure the top of the towers accurately (who measured that, may I ask?) but also that you verify the distance difference of the towers is not just due to one happening to lean 0.00000001 degrees in a direction it isn't supposed to.

[Mediator]

Apologies, please find some details in the link below:

http://mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/

[SpaceCadet]

From what I'm reading, all you've done is stated that the towers are 41.275mm apart on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge and 36mm apart on the Humber bridge. You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction. Considering the height of the towers on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge, a different of 41.275mm would only require a 1.95e-4 variation (as if both the towers were level and exactly 90 degrees with the ground), that is, one of the towers could lean 1e-8 degrees in a single direction and achieve a lean causing an increase of 41.275mm at the top versus the bottom. You're telling me that those towers are undoubtedly 90 degrees vertical to the ground? I highly doubt that.

This kind of proof would require that you not only measure the top of the towers accurately (who measured that, may I ask?) but also that you verify the distance difference of the towers is not just due to one happening to lean 0.00000001 degrees in a direction it isn't supposed to.

Cue the standard flat earth response - "you have no proof that this is very true and I doubt it therefore your evidence is false".

It's amazing the hoops flat earthers require round earthers to jump through before their evidence can be accepted while on their own presenting far less or nothing at all to support their claims.
The wiki says "Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.”
Yet no supporting documents to show this. No surveying hand books. No design drawings. Nothing. Then when a round earther mentions a specific case with specific numbers it is discounted outright because

You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction.

[Sydney]

From what I'm reading, all you've done is stated that the towers are 41.275mm apart on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge and 36mm apart on the Humber bridge. You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction. Considering the height of the towers on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge, a different of 41.275mm would only require a 1.95e-4 variation (as if both the towers were level and exactly 90 degrees with the ground), that is, one of the towers could lean 1e-8 degrees in a single direction and achieve a lean causing an increase of 41.275mm at the top versus the bottom. You're telling me that those towers are undoubtedly 90 degrees vertical to the ground? I highly doubt that.

This kind of proof would require that you not only measure the top of the towers accurately (who measured that, may I ask?) but also that you verify the distance difference of the towers is not just due to one happening to lean 0.00000001 degrees in a direction it isn't supposed to.

Cue the standard flat earth response - "you have no proof that this is very true and I doubt it therefore your evidence is false".

It's amazing the hoops flat earthers require round earthers to jump through before their evidence can be accepted while on their own presenting far less or nothing at all to support their claims.
The wiki says "Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.”
Yet no supporting documents to show this. No surveying hand books. No design drawings. Nothing. Then when a round earther mentions a specific case with specific numbers it is discounted outright because

You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction.

You are projecting. This is a narcissistic trait. You have the backing of trillions of dollars of documents and audios and videos that support a globe and even they all cannot agree... much less many of them blowing whistles. Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do, much less the media bludgeon used to silence those, or encumber them with problems. Because of this uneven struglle and unfair set of ever changing rules against the FE people, it takes a serious and intelligent person to stand up against the establishment and present legitimate questions that this financial GIANT will never answer truthfully. We have no whistles to blow because the evidence we do present is already written in the books of old and brought to our awareness by the human spirit of curiosity, intelligence and logic.

How can you ad hominem someone who asks an honest question about his life and the creation around him and instead of getting/giving truthful answers such as, "Well, this is what we believe but it is only proven to be so on a white board at MIT or NASA." the person is told that this is the way it is and if you step out of line you will be squashed.

You did point out some numbers, but perhaps through your lack of understanding engineering in this particular model, which you brought to our awareness, you just refuse to understand that more numbers are needed... particular the blueprints or the planning typed up from those blueprints.

I mentioned "narcissist" because that is what narcissists do. They project, they change the rules with word salad and eventually begin to ad hominem the truther to demean their character or make it seem like wanting the truth outside of the "truth" is worthy of guilt and shame.

Respect

[AATW]

Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do

Or, and this is just my own crazy theory, but maybe it's because there isn't a whistle...
Why would a flat earth be such a terrible truth that "they" (whoever they are) have to keep from us?

You want to prove a flat earth? If you believe the model as presented in this Wiki and the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles away then all you have to do is do some observations from a few locations known distances apart. If the moon and sun are as close as you supposed they don't have to be that far apart for you to get measurable differences in angles.
Do some triangulation and voila, there's your proof, there's your Nobel Prize.
That is literally all you have to do. I have said this numerous times on here, it is always ignored.

I await your results with bated breath...

[JohnAdams1145]

You are projecting. This is a narcissistic trait. You have the backing of trillions of dollars of documents and audios and videos that support a globe and even they all cannot agree... much less many of them blowing whistles. Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do, much less the media bludgeon used to silence those, or encumber them with problems. Because of this uneven struglle and unfair set of ever changing rules against the FE people, it takes a serious and intelligent person to stand up against the establishment and present legitimate questions that this financial GIANT will never answer truthfully. We have no whistles to blow because the evidence we do present is already written in the books of old and brought to our awareness by the human spirit of curiosity, intelligence and logic.

How can you ad hominem someone who asks an honest question about his life and the creation around him and instead of getting/giving truthful answers such as, "Well, this is what we believe but it is only proven to be so on a white board at MIT or NASA." the person is told that this is the way it is and if you step out of line you will be squashed.

You did point out some numbers, but perhaps through your lack of understanding engineering in this particular model, which you brought to our awareness, you just refuse to understand that more numbers are needed... particular the blueprints or the planning typed up from those blueprints.

I mentioned "narcissist" because that is what narcissists do. They project, they change the rules with word salad and eventually begin to ad hominem the truther to demean their character or make it seem like wanting the truth outside of the "truth" is worthy of guilt and shame.

Respect

You probably think it's a "word salad" because you don't actually understand the physics involved. If anything, the pages on the FE wiki are a word salad, and they won't even admit this. Are you aware of why FE has no financial/scientific backing? It's probably because most people with finances are smart enough to put their money with the experts who have demonstrated proficiency in making things work. This is why no respectable research institution puts money toward "creation science," flat earth, or anti-vaxxers.

If you actually understood the experimental validation of all of the physical laws that govern our universe (hint: Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws at slow speeds), then you wouldn't be saying all of this. Of course, this requires a basic physics education, which you appear to show contempt for and therefore probably lack (sour grapes?).

The only reason why you think the evidence doesn't agree is because you don't understand it. Plain and simple.

[Sydney]

You are projecting. This is a narcissistic trait. You have the backing of trillions of dollars of documents and audios and videos that support a globe and even they all cannot agree... much less many of them blowing whistles. Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do, much less the media bludgeon used to silence those, or encumber them with problems. Because of this uneven struglle and unfair set of ever changing rules against the FE people, it takes a serious and intelligent person to stand up against the establishment and present legitimate questions that this financial GIANT will never answer truthfully. We have no whistles to blow because the evidence we do present is already written in the books of old and brought to our awareness by the human spirit of curiosity, intelligence and logic.

How can you ad hominem someone who asks an honest question about his life and the creation around him and instead of getting/giving truthful answers such as, "Well, this is what we believe but it is only proven to be so on a white board at MIT or NASA." the person is told that this is the way it is and if you step out of line you will be squashed.

You did point out some numbers, but perhaps through your lack of understanding engineering in this particular model, which you brought to our awareness, you just refuse to understand that more numbers are needed... particular the blueprints or the planning typed up from those blueprints.

I mentioned "narcissist" because that is what narcissists do. They project, they change the rules with word salad and eventually begin to ad hominem the truther to demean their character or make it seem like wanting the truth outside of the "truth" is worthy of guilt and shame.

Respect

You probably think it's a "word salad" because you don't actually understand the physics involved. If anything, the pages on the FE wiki are a word salad, and they won't even admit this. Are you aware of why FE has no financial/scientific backing? It's probably because most people with finances are smart enough to put their money with the experts who have demonstrated proficiency in making things work. This is why no respectable research institution puts money toward "creation science," flat earth, or anti-vaxxers.

If you actually understood the experimental validation of all of the physical laws that govern our universe (hint: Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws at slow speeds), then you wouldn't be saying all of this. Of course, this requires a basic physics education, which you appear to show contempt for and therefore probably lack (sour grapes?).

The only reason why you think the evidence doesn't agree is because you don't understand it. Plain and simple.

According to you, yes? Fortunately, I do not need your approval for anything. I am content in my research and intuition and instinctive powers at present. Your reactions to my other posts compounds my hunger to keep searching. Your narrative and tone is the same. Respect

[Sydney]

Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do

Or, and this is just my own crazy theory, but maybe it's because there isn't a whistle...
Why would a flat earth be such a terrible truth that "they" (whoever they are) have to keep from us?

You want to prove a flat earth? If you believe the model as presented in this Wiki and the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles away then all you have to do is do some observations from a few locations known distances apart. If the moon and sun are as close as you supposed they don't have to be that far apart for you to get measurable differences in angles.
Do some triangulation and voila, there's your proof, there's your Nobel Prize.
That is literally all you have to do. I have said this numerous times on here, it is always ignored.

I await your results with bated breath...

I saw a video where this very thing was done. It was quite interesting in that the same formulas used for RE to project the Moon's distance (I'm pretty certain it was the Moon) could also be used for the FE theory. The person was in the Eastern part of the USA and his mate was in the Western half, I believe. They performed the function and came out almost exactly as predicted. It came down to punching in the numbers on a 3rd party scientific calculator on a website that is not caught up in this debate. I'll try to locate the video and post it here.

How would you explain the crepuscular Sun rays from the angular standpoint? They always seem to show a near rather than a distant Sun. No need to post any pics or vids, as I am certain you are familiar with this FE paradigm. I would like to read your thoughts and views on that.

[inquisitive]

Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do

Or, and this is just my own crazy theory, but maybe it's because there isn't a whistle...
Why would a flat earth be such a terrible truth that "they" (whoever they are) have to keep from us?

You want to prove a flat earth? If you believe the model as presented in this Wiki and the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles away then all you have to do is do some observations from a few locations known distances apart. If the moon and sun are as close as you supposed they don't have to be that far apart for you to get measurable differences in angles.
Do some triangulation and voila, there's your proof, there's your Nobel Prize.
That is literally all you have to do. I have said this numerous times on here, it is always ignored.

I await your results with bated breath...

I saw a video where this very thing was done. It was quite interesting in that the same formulas used for RE to project the Moon's distance (I'm pretty certain it was the Moon) could also be used for the FE theory. The person was in the Eastern part of the USA and his mate was in the Western half, I believe. They performed the function and came out almost exactly as predicted. It came down to punching in the numbers on a 3rd party scientific calculator on a website that is not caught up in this debate. I'll try to locate the video and post it here.

How would you explain the crepuscular Sun rays from the angular standpoint? They always seem to show a near rather than a distant Sun. No need to post any pics or vids, as I am certain you are familiar with this FE paradigm. I would like to read your thoughts and views on that.

Do you agree that 2 locations is insufficient to calculate the distance to the moon if you do not know the shape of the earth?  If there is any doubt about the distance it does seem odd that this has not be confirmed years ago.

[AATW]

I saw a video where this very thing was done. It was quite interesting in that the same formulas used for RE to project the Moon's distance (I'm pretty certain it was the Moon) could also be used for the FE theory. The person was in the Eastern part of the USA and his mate was in the Western half, I believe. They performed the function and came out almost exactly as predicted. It came down to punching in the numbers on a 3rd party scientific calculator on a website that is not caught up in this debate. I'll try to locate the video and post it here.

Please do. I have suggested this numerous times on this site, yours is the only response and even then it's just "I saw a video once...".
If you could find it then it would be good to look at.

How would you explain the crepuscular Sun rays from the angular standpoint? They always seem to show a near rather than a distant Sun. No need to post any pics or vids, as I am certain you are familiar with this FE paradigm. I would like to read your thoughts and views on that.

I know I like to tease Tom when he shouts "Perspective!" in answer to everything but in this case that really is the explanation. Are these rail tracks parallel?



Parallel lines can appear to be emanating from a closer source because of perspective, that would be true if the sun was thousands or millions of miles away.
What can't happen because of perspective is long shadows at sunset or clouds being lit from below and shadows being cast upwards. That can only occur because of a sun which is physically on the horizon and disappearing below it as the earth rotates.

[JohnAdams1145]

You are projecting. This is a narcissistic trait. You have the backing of trillions of dollars of documents and audios and videos that support a globe and even they all cannot agree... much less many of them blowing whistles. Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do, much less the media bludgeon used to silence those, or encumber them with problems. Because of this uneven struglle and unfair set of ever changing rules against the FE people, it takes a serious and intelligent person to stand up against the establishment and present legitimate questions that this financial GIANT will never answer truthfully. We have no whistles to blow because the evidence we do present is already written in the books of old and brought to our awareness by the human spirit of curiosity, intelligence and logic.

How can you ad hominem someone who asks an honest question about his life and the creation around him and instead of getting/giving truthful answers such as, "Well, this is what we believe but it is only proven to be so on a white board at MIT or NASA." the person is told that this is the way it is and if you step out of line you will be squashed.

You did point out some numbers, but perhaps through your lack of understanding engineering in this particular model, which you brought to our awareness, you just refuse to understand that more numbers are needed... particular the blueprints or the planning typed up from those blueprints.

I mentioned "narcissist" because that is what narcissists do. They project, they change the rules with word salad and eventually begin to ad hominem the truther to demean their character or make it seem like wanting the truth outside of the "truth" is worthy of guilt and shame.

Respect

You probably think it's a "word salad" because you don't actually understand the physics involved. If anything, the pages on the FE wiki are a word salad, and they won't even admit this. Are you aware of why FE has no financial/scientific backing? It's probably because most people with finances are smart enough to put their money with the experts who have demonstrated proficiency in making things work. This is why no respectable research institution puts money toward "creation science," flat earth, or anti-vaxxers.

If you actually understood the experimental validation of all of the physical laws that govern our universe (hint: Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws at slow speeds), then you wouldn't be saying all of this. Of course, this requires a basic physics education, which you appear to show contempt for and therefore probably lack (sour grapes?).

The only reason why you think the evidence doesn't agree is because you don't understand it. Plain and simple.

According to you, yes? Fortunately, I do not need your approval for anything. I am content in my research and intuition and instinctive powers at present. Your reactions to my other posts compounds my hunger to keep searching. Your narrative and tone is the same. Respect

An important part of seeking truth is knowing what you don't know. I suggest before discounting all of modern physics you take an AP physics practice test or do a few problem sets from an introductory physics course. Then you will know your grasp on the science you disagree with. If you do fairly well, then you should seek to learn more.