The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: TheMaster on August 06, 2019, 06:29:04 AM
-
A question for flat earth believers: How, do you think, is the "round earth" conspiracy working? How is it kept a secret? How does the conspiracy hire new people? How many people 'know' the 'truth'? Why hasn't it leaked yet?
-
A question for flat earth believers: How, do you think, is the "round earth" conspiracy working? How is it kept a secret? How does the conspiracy hire new people? How many people 'know' the 'truth'? Why hasn't it leaked yet?
Did you take a pause prior to writing the word, "secret?"
Are you of the opinion conspiracies, in general, exist?
-
A question for flat earth believers: How, do you think, is the "round earth" conspiracy working? How is it kept a secret? How does the conspiracy hire new people? How many people 'know' the 'truth'? Why hasn't it leaked yet?
Are you of the opinion conspiracies, in general, exist?
In general conspiracies can exist. But after some time the truth comes out, the earlier the bigger the conspiracy is.
-
A question for flat earth believers: How, do you think, is the "round earth" conspiracy working? How is it kept a secret? How does the conspiracy hire new people? How many people 'know' the 'truth'? Why hasn't it leaked yet?
Are you of the opinion conspiracies, in general, exist?
In general conspiracies can exist. But after some time the truth comes out, the earlier the bigger the conspiracy is.
Now, as to your use of the word secret...
If indeed, it was a secret, how could you possibly frame the question using the word "secret?"
-
I believe some flat earths think that the vast majority of people who work in their fields as professionals aren't in on the conspiracy, for example all of the employees of space agencies who work as engineers, scientists and such are unaware they're being fooled. I personally think if a small group of people on the internet who aren't experts in those fields have 'figured it out', I'm surprised the actual professionals haven't yet. I wonder how highly educated rocket engineers and physicists haven't managed to uncover it yet?
-
I believe some flat earths think that the vast majority of people who work in their fields as professionals aren't in on the conspiracy, for example all of the employees of space agencies who work as engineers, scientists and such are unaware they're being fooled. I personally think if a small group of people on the internet who aren't experts in those fields have 'figured it out', I'm surprised the actual professionals haven't yet. I wonder how highly educated rocket engineers and physicists haven't managed to uncover it yet?
What amazes me the most about the alleged conspiracy is how much "fake science" had to be created. Take orbital mechanics as an example. Or Buzz Aldrin's thesis “Line-of-Sight Guidance Techniques for Manned Orbital Rendezvous.” All of this just made up to further the vast conspiracy? Please.
-
I totally agree with the statements above. And I wonder why no flat-earther has replied yet. Do they know they are wrong?
-
I totally agree with the statements above. And I wonder why no flat-earther has replied yet. Do they know they are wrong?
Refrain from "me too" posts, and more generally, posts that don't contribute anything to the topic, warned. One liners like "do they know they are wrong" only serve to derail the discussion. Also, the thread isn't even 12 hours old and it is a topic that has been discussed a million times before so you aren't breaking any new ground here.
-
I totally agree with the statements above. And I wonder why no flat-earther has replied yet. Do they know they are wrong?
Refrain from "me too" posts, and more generally, posts that don't contribute anything to the topic.
Please show me ONE post of a flat earther that contributed to a topic. Then I will apologize.
-
I totally agree with the statements above. And I wonder why no flat-earther has replied yet. Do they know they are wrong?
Refrain from "me too" posts, and more generally, posts that don't contribute anything to the topic.
Please show me ONE post of a flat earther that contributed to a topic. Then I will apologize.
So you were on three warnings in a short period already. Moving to a three day ban now so you can take a moment to read the rules. If you decide to come back, please keep your whining, angst-filled posts in CN or AR. Thanks!
-
I believe some flat earths think that the vast majority of people who work in their fields as professionals aren't in on the conspiracy, for example all of the employees of space agencies who work as engineers, scientists and such are unaware they're being fooled. I personally think if a small group of people on the internet who aren't experts in those fields have 'figured it out', I'm surprised the actual professionals haven't yet. I wonder how highly educated rocket engineers and physicists haven't managed to uncover it yet?
Qualified surveyors use plane survey methods techniques on areas up to around 100 square miles - 250 km square . This is because no curvature can be found over that area that falls outside of instrument error limits .
In order to fit plane survey onto a sphere , geodesic survey , then spherical trig is applied to plane survey results to produce the globe . All easy to check online , I prefer the old text books myself .
Nasa uses geocentric coordinate systems in all it's rocket launches . Again easy to check . Look up launch characteristics for various satellites .These involve a non rotating flat earth coordinate system.
https://steemit.com/flat/@slopetester/15-nasa-research-papers-that-admit-flat-and-nonrotating
Mainly aircraft referred to in that link .
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a069296.pdf
This one involves rocket launch and orbital trajectory . A long technical read but it's interesting to read that a launch path up to 500 nautical miles is treated with the same non rotating flat earth system , and that coriolis effect is negligible in the equations.
Nasa seems to use this geocentric non rotating flat earth rather consistently - because it works I think . Why use it otherwise ?
-
I believe some flat earths think that the vast majority of people who work in their fields as professionals aren't in on the conspiracy, for example all of the employees of space agencies who work as engineers, scientists and such are unaware they're being fooled. I personally think if a small group of people on the internet who aren't experts in those fields have 'figured it out', I'm surprised the actual professionals haven't yet. I wonder how highly educated rocket engineers and physicists haven't managed to uncover it yet?
Qualified surveyors use plane survey methods techniques on areas up to around 100 square miles - 250 km square . This is because no curvature can be found over that area that falls outside of instrument error limits .
In order to fit plane survey onto a sphere , geodesic survey , then spherical trig is applied to plane survey results to produce the globe . All easy to check online , I prefer the old text books myself .
Most geodesic survey work is done these days with the aid of GPS satellites.
Nasa uses geocentric coordinate systems in all it's rocket launches . Again easy to check . Look up launch characteristics for various satellites .These involve a non rotating flat earth coordinate system.
https://steemit.com/flat/@slopetester/15-nasa-research-papers-that-admit-flat-and-nonrotating
Mainly aircraft referred to in that link .
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a069296.pdf
This one involves rocket launch and orbital trajectory . A long technical read but it's interesting to read that a launch path up to 500 nautical miles is treated with the same non rotating flat earth system , and that coriolis effect is negligible in the equations.
Nasa seems to use this geocentric non rotating flat earth rather consistently - because it works I think . Why use it otherwise ?
Couple of things about this. So flat earthers think that NASA is stating quite publicly that the earth is actually flat and stationary and all the while they claim NASA are liars. Strange irony in there.
This issue has come up many times. take one of the papers from that FE site your reference, regarding the SR-71. In it, it states, which is similar to the other papers cited:
"DIGITAL PERFORMANCE SIMULATION DESCRIPTION
Maneuver options include constant Mach and airspeed climbs, level accelerations, and constant g pushovers or pull-ups...
The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions that simplify the program while maintaining its fidelity for most maneuvers and applications: point-mass modeling, nonturbulent atmosphere, zero side forces, and a nonrotating Earth. The primary advantages of using the DPS over a piloted real-time simulator are that it is much easier to modify the aerodynamic and propulsion data tables, and the DPS easily allows back-to-back comparisons of vehicle performance using a maneuver flown exactly the same in each case de- spite a varying vehicle configuration."
The maneuvers being modeled have nothing to do with the shape of the earth, earth's orbit around the sun, the moon's orbit around earth, etc., Much like they also exclude from the model atmospheric turbulence and side forces. By your argument NASA is also claiming there is no such thing as wind.
It just makes for cleaner, faster, easier modeling to not include things that aren't relevant to the effort being examined.
-
I agree with your first statement . Easy for computing to be done that way
In geodesy , the earth is considered a sphere and mapping it so requires knowledge of spherical trigonometry . Taken from a 1946 University of London civil engineering text book , "elementary surveying"
The point being that no discernable curve is found in real plane survey . Over say 10 miles that's quite a bit of curve unable to show itself .
Re Nasa - point is that the geocentric model is used in all practicalities yet we are told we live in a heliocentric system . Look at the data for all satellite launches right back to Sputnik . All use geocentric coordinate systems . Are we to believe that the geocentric system is used because it's cleaner and faster ? It's just reality - if it wasn't we couldn't use it .
-
I agree with your first statement . Easy for computing to be done that way
In geodesy , the earth is considered a sphere and mapping it so requires knowledge of spherical trigonometry . Taken from a 1946 University of London civil engineering text book , "elementary surveying"
The point being that no discernable curve is found in real plane survey . Over say 10 miles that's quite a bit of curve unable to show itself .
Re Nasa - point is that the geocentric model is used in all practicalities yet we are told we live in a heliocentric system . Look at the data for all satellite launches right back to Sputnik . All use geocentric coordinate systems . Are we to believe that the geocentric system is used because it's cleaner and faster ? It's just reality - if it wasn't we couldn't use it .
I may be looking at the wrong document but this from the abstract from the one titled, "Equations of Powered Rocket Ascent and Orbit Trajectory":
"Equations of rocket and satellite dynamics are obtained at various levels of approximation and make possible analyses of powered rocket ascent, orbit injection, and subsequent orbital motion. Rocket and satellite trajectory are specified by these equations, which include the effects of earth's rotation and curvature. Various analysis techniques are given so that the investigator can choose the simplest one suited to his needs.
In most instances a powered rocket ascent will not cover a large enough ground range to necessitate taking curvature of the earth into account, but in some cases it will. To cover these cases, where ground range might be in excess of 500 n.mi., a correct treatment of earth's curvature effects is necessary, but it is absent from the references that have been discussed."
It goes back to what I'm saying; when things are relevant, they are included in the modeling, when they are not, they are excluded.
-
I understand what you are saying Stack , but I am trying to show how the OP's round earth conspiracy is actually carried out . Highly educated people model rocket launches using the flat earth because it works , it is relevant .
The SR71 flies at over mach 3 speed yet spinning globe earth is irrelevant . In what way could that be? The earth is supposed to be spinning around it's orbit constantly is it not .
The actual controlled scientific measurement of the earth using precision engineered instruments actually finds no curvature over an area of 100 square miles . If you find no curvature over that area ( and who sets that limit ? ) then how can the earth be a sphere ?
This is actual scientific experiment without assumption . But highly educated folk can ignore that because geodesy maps the earth as if it were a sphere , adding spherical trig where no curve is found.
That simple fact that plane survey finds no curve must be constantly ignored because we are all brainwashed to believe we live on a spinning globe .
It is not impossible to brainwash highly educated people into unwittingly carry on the deception .
-
I understand what you are saying Stack , but I am trying to show how the OP's round earth conspiracy is actually carried out . Highly educated people model rocket launches using the flat earth because it works , it is relevant .
The SR71 flies at over mach 3 speed yet spinning globe earth is irrelevant . In what way could that be? The earth is supposed to be spinning around it's orbit constantly is it not .
I get your point, but in that document, what they were modeling had no need for a spinning earth. So they removed the unnecessary; point-mass modeling, non-turbulent atmosphere, zero side forces, and a nonrotating Earth. It's what physicists do. Simplify. Focus. And again, by them removing 'nonturbulent atmosphere' to your argument, would mean they believe wind doesn't exist. For what they were modeling, "constant Mach and airspeed climbs, level accelerations, and constant g pushovers or pull-ups" apparently these factors didn't matter for what they were looking for.
As well, as referenced in the other document you cited, "Rocket and satellite trajectory are specified by these equations, which include the effects of earth's rotation and curvature." So I'm not sure where your interpretation comes into play here.
The actual controlled scientific measurement of the earth using precision engineered instruments actually finds no curvature over an area of 100 square miles . If you find no curvature over that area ( and who sets that limit ? ) then how can the earth be a sphere ?
I am unaware that no curvature is found over 100 square miles. For example, the folks at CalTech and MIT built a collider just over 4 km long. It required an intense engineering situation where the laser had to be straight, not 'level', but straight. It's called LIGO. From their site:
"Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts
This is actual scientific experiment without assumption . But highly educated folk can ignore that because geodesy maps the earth as if it were a sphere , adding spherical trig where no curve is found.
That simple fact that plane survey finds no curve must be constantly ignored because we are all brainwashed to believe we live on a spinning globe .
It is not impossible to brainwash highly educated people into unwittingly carry on the deception .
I am unaware that plane survey finds no curve. Citation requested. There's plenty in Geodetic Surveying that suggests otherwise.
-
I am unaware that no curvature is found over 100 square miles. For example, the folks at CalTech and MIT built a collider just over 4 km long. It required an intense engineering situation where the laser had to be straight, not 'level', but straight. It's called LIGO. From their site:
"Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts
Claims like these have been written and talked about for many years.
For instance, it was claimed the Verrazano Narrows Bridge in NYC towers were built to account for the curvature of the earth.
I believe the Port Authority was contacted for verification and they stated that was actually false.
-
I am unaware that no curvature is found over 100 square miles. For example, the folks at CalTech and MIT built a collider just over 4 km long. It required an intense engineering situation where the laser had to be straight, not 'level', but straight. It's called LIGO. From their site:
"Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts
Claims like these have been written and talked about for many years.
For instance, it was claimed the Verrazano Narrows Bridge in NYC towers were built to account for the curvature of the earth.
I believe the Port Authority was contacted for verification and they stated that was actually false.
It's not my claim or some random person's claim. The folks that actually designed and built LIGO state themselves that this is the case. I trust them more than I trust you on the matter.
-
https://books.google.com/books?id=6mMlDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA168&ots=fhaBCNVwoX&dq=ligo%20curvature&pg=PA168#v=onepage&q=ligo%20curvature&f=false
"The ends of each arm are actually situated several feet higher off the
ground than their starting point at the center station. That’s to compensate
for the Earth’s curvature."
It says that the ends of each arms are situated several feet off the ground than the center station to "account for the curvature if the earth."
Would it work if the earth was flat? Yes, it is possible to point a laser slightly downwards or upwards on a Flat Earth.
LIGO diagram:
(https://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/articles/confirming-the-first-ever-detection-of-gravitational-waves-by-analyzing-laser-interferometer-data/_jcr_content/mainParsys/image_1545705967.adapt.full.high.jpg/1523628233006.jpg)
I don't see anything criminal about a laser beam moving slightly upwards or downwards. They had to take steps to aim and align the components at some point. The set up does not appear to be a physical obstacle on a FE.
Laser beams also tend to diverge in size a bit, which may be attemptedly minimized, but still present.
Brief mentions of 'accounting for curvature' is generally insufficient evidence, as it could be either irrelevant for the conversation, mistaken information, or later adjusted.
-
https://books.google.com/books?id=6mMlDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA168&ots=fhaBCNVwoX&dq=ligo%20did%20not%20account%20for%20earth%20curvature&pg=PA168#v=onepage&q=ligo%20did%20not%20account%20for%20earth%20curvature&f=false
It says that the ends of each arms are situated several feet off the ground than the center station to "account for the curvature if the earth."
Would it work if the earth was flat? Yes, it is possible to point a laser slightly downwards or upwards on a Flat Earth.
I don't see anything criminal about a laser beam moving slightly upwards or downwards. They had to take steps to aim and align it at some point. The set up does not appear to be a physical obstacle on a FE.
Maybe you don't see anything criminal about it, but you're also not a physicist and engineer as part of the LIGO team that designed and built it. So your opinion has zero bearing on what may or may not be the level of precision CalTech & MIT were after. Your opinion about how you think it should have been engineered is neither here nor there.
Brief mentions of 'accounting for curvature' is generally insufficient evidence, as it could be either irrelevant for the conversation, mistaken information, or later adjusted.
It’s also 'briefly' mentioned here:
"Beam Tube Installation
LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth itself was a complicating factor when installing the vacuum tubes. It wasn’t enough for LIGO’s civil engineers to smooth a level path and assemble each arm’s tubes in a straight line. To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work. Reinforced concrete floors 75 cm thick under the interferometers minimize leak-through of seismic vibrations."
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum?
'Accounting for curvature' is considered generally insufficient by whom? Should we start applying your standard benchmark for insufficient evidence going forward to all FE claims?
Is, "To ensure a perfectly level beam path, the Earth’s curvature (more than a vertical meter over the length of each arm) was countered by GPS-assisted earth-moving and high-precision concrete work," too brief, irrelevant, mistaken or could be later adjusted?
- What constitutes 'brief'?
- How is the engineering of a facility where they claim they factored in earth's curvature not relevant to a discussion about a flat versus globe earth?
- Do you have evidence that they are mistaken? Perhaps you should let them know that they shouldn't have engineered the facility accounting for Earth's curve.
- Could it be later adjusted? What does that even mean?
-
[Geodetic
I am unaware that plane survey finds no curve. Citation requested. There's plenty in Geodetic Surveying that suggests otherwise.
Geodetic survey is nothing but the application of spherical trig to plane survey , so enables earth to be mapped on to sphere .
"Geodetic survey considers the earth as a sphere . Planes survey considers earth as a plane - the approximation being within the permissible error for areas up to about 100 square miles. The former involves knowledge of spherical trigonometry ."
From the introduction in the book " Elementary surveying " by Arthur Lovat D.Sc , A.R.C.S., A.M.Inst.C.E.
University reader in Civil Engineering at the University of London published in 1946. Page 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying#Plane_and_geodetic_surveying
You can see that even Wiki acknowledges this 100 mile square area in which earth is mapped as a plane .
The fact is , if trigonometric survey - which requires no assumption of shape of the area under scrutiny - finds no curve over 10 miles , then there is none unless it is so small that it cannot be accounted for within instrument error .
-
[Geodetic
I am unaware that plane survey finds no curve. Citation requested. There's plenty in Geodetic Surveying that suggests otherwise.
Geodetic survey is nothing but the application of spherical trig to plane survey , so enables earth to be mapped on to sphere .
"Geodetic survey considers the earth as a sphere . Planes survey considers earth as a plane - the approximation being within the permissible error for areas up to about 100 square miles. The former involves knowledge of spherical trigonometry ."
From the introduction in the book " Elementary surveying " by Arthur Lovat D.Sc , A.R.C.S., A.M.Inst.C.E.
University reader in Civil Engineering at the University of London published in 1946. Page 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying#Plane_and_geodetic_surveying
You can see that even Wiki acknowledges this 100 mile square area in which earth is mapped as a plane .
The fact is , if trigonometric survey - which requires no assumption of shape of the area under scrutiny - finds no curve over 10 miles , then there is none unless it is so small that it cannot be accounted for within instrument error .
In the book you cited above, I suggest you read the chapters on "Leveling" and "Angular Leveling". It gives you all of the ways and instruments used to determine curvature over distance. From plumb line leveling to bubble leveling, etc. Interesting stuff. And quite comprehensive as to the manners surveyors have used for decades if not centuries.
-
Where is the relevance ? No detectable curve anywhere in plane surveying up to 100 square mile area. Where is this addressed . Adding spherical trig to plane survey does not change a plane into a curved surface. Be specific .
-
Where is the relevance ? No detectable curve anywhere in plane surveying up to 100 square mile area. Where is this addressed . Adding spherical trig to plane survey does not change a plane into a curved surface. Be specific .
Where does it say, "no detectable curve..."? That's not what it says at all. It says:
"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.[14]
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."
What it's saying is that for the most part the type of surveying performed is dependent on the size and scope of the job, so to speak.
Again, read the first few pages in the chapter on 'Leveling' in the book you cited. (Chapt. 5, page 60) There are 3 types of level surveying: Differential (Gravitational), Trigonometric, & Barometric. Differential (Gravitational) being the most accurate. It doesn't simply take a plane state map and apply math to it. It's an actual survey where you measure contours, slopes, altitudes as well as and in respect to measuring the curvature of the earth. If you can understand the tools used, you can understand how they directly measure curvature.
-
I can see you are having a difficult time digesting the fact that surveyors/civil engineers do not account for curvature and consider , not assume , earth to be a plane up to some arbitrary 100 square mile area .
The methods of plain survey do not find curve . Gravitational survey uses the assumption that some magical force acts towards the centre of mass of an assumed spherical body .
-
I can see you are having a difficult time digesting the fact that surveyors/civil engineers do not account for curvature and consider , not assume , earth to be a plane up to some arbitrary 100 square mile area .
Do you regard that as significant? One thing people seem to struggle understanding is that models can be simplified and still be useful. In A-Level mechanics you don't take things like wind resistance into account when calculating the path of bodies falling under gravity. For most objects of a certain mass you're still going to get results close enough to be useful. For some applications you might need to take other things into account of course, it depends what you're doing. The scale of the earth is such that for many practical things one can consider it flat in calculations and still get results which can be used, just like for most calculations relativistic effects are ignored because it just complicates the calculations and the results from Newton's equations are accurate enough to be usable.
The methods of plain survey do not find curve . Gravitational survey uses the assumption that some magical force acts towards the centre of mass of an assumed spherical body .
I'm always bemused that gravity is sneered at as some "magical force" by people who believe in UA which is presumably powered by some "magical force"...
-
I can see you are having a difficult time digesting the fact that surveyors/civil engineers do not account for curvature and consider , not assume , earth to be a plane up to some arbitrary 100 square mile area .
The methods of plain survey do not find curve . Gravitational survey uses the assumption that some magical force acts towards the centre of mass of an assumed spherical body .
I can see you did not do the reading in the book you cited that I asked you to do. It would help your understanding of the subject if you did.
It's not that the methods of plane survey do not find curve. It's that they are not measuring for a curve. Hence the name, "plane" survey. Earth's curve is irrelevant to what is trying to be accomplished. And actually, Gravitational Surveying (aka Differential Leveling) doesn't assume anything. If you had read the chapter on leveling, you would understand this. Placing two instruments far enough apart with spirit levels leveled (bubble in the middle) pointed at each other will not be pointing directly, horizontally at one another. Each will be pointing slightly upward with respect to each other. From there, you can calculate your curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/BiUa7xb.jpg?1)
You wouldn't even have to know gravity exists, the bubbles do the work for you.
-
That little drawing shows why no buildings could be built parallel to one another using the principle of gravity acting toward the centre of mass . Do you understand that principle ?
We actually should see that a city 10 miles across , but there again civil engineers know there is no curve over that area so we don't
-
That little drawing shows why no buildings could be built parallel to one another using the principle of gravity acting toward the centre of mass . Do you understand that principle ?
We actually should see that a city 10 miles across , but there again civil engineers know there is no curve over that area so we don't
I'm not sure what you're asking or what your point is.
Where does it say, "civil engineers know there is no curve over that area...."? I can't find that. I do see that for most applications curvature isn't an issue that has to be contended with over that area. For example, two 10 story buildings, 10 miles apart, the tops of the building would be tilted away from each other by approximately 0.1447o. Does that microscopic amount matter to the civil engineer?
-
I found this forum because I made a search that found this specific thread. It looked very promising:
---'How, do you think, is the "round earth" conspiracy working? How is it kept a secret? How does the conspiracy hire new people? How many people 'know' the 'truth'? Why hasn't it leaked yet?'
It is an immensely important question, but it has denigrated into yet another detailed question about trig and engineering, eg:
[Geodetic
I am unaware that plane survey finds no curve. Citation requested. There's plenty in Geodetic Surveying that suggests otherwise.
Geodetic survey is nothing but the application of spherical trig to plane survey , so enables earth to be mapped on to sphere .
"Geodetic survey considers the earth as a sphere . Planes survey considers earth as a plane - the approximation being within the permissible error for areas up to about 100 square miles. The former involves knowledge of spherical trigonometry ."
From the introduction in the book " Elementary surveying " by Arthur Lovat D.Sc , A.R.C.S., A.M.Inst.C.E.
University reader in Civil Engineering at the University of London published in 1946. Page 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying#Plane_and_geodetic_surveying
You can see that even Wiki acknowledges this 100 mile square area in which earth is mapped as a plane.
The fact is , if trigonometric survey - which requires no assumption of shape of the area under scrutiny - finds no curve over 10 miles , then there is none unless it is so small that it cannot be accounted for within instrument error .
Can I ask if this be brought back to the original and proper subject?, that is:
How, do you think, is the "round earth" conspiracy working? How is it kept a secret? How does the conspiracy hire new people? How many people 'know' the 'truth'? Why hasn't it leaked yet?'