1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 09, 2018, 07:34:17 AM »

Apologies, please find some details in the link below:

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

2

Flat Earth Theory / Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 08, 2018, 10:49:10 PM »

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?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Everything is a Sphere (Sun, Moon, other planets)... except the Earth?

« on: February 08, 2018, 09:31:04 PM »

I think it’s a fair question, it does seem strange that our planet would be the only known recorded object in the universe that is not a sphere. I mean the changes of that statistically would be astronomical.

But, why would out planet have a completely separate set of rules to operate by? Some of the other planets have their own moons, but none have their own suns, yet they are lit by some master light source. You can all see that using telescopes with your own eyes. This light source would have to be enormous, and by default would light us.

Also, if we are shooting up constantly to generate what we call gravity or universal acceleration, what are we leaving behind? I mean everything would have to travel with us at the same rate, but you can see the stars and planets in the sky curve round using time lapse video or photography. Anyone can do this at home, I have (it’s cool!) the models don’t explain those images.

If we’re universally going up, there would be no star light streaking in the sky: http://photographyblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Slow-Motions.jpg

It would be motionless, but instead we can record and see the movement of the Earth rotating on an axis.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Car in Space

« on: February 08, 2018, 09:18:43 PM »

The car was heading towards Mars, but they’ve calculated the tradgectory and it is likely to miss, swing past and continue to head into space. Although there is an asteroid field that may, or may not, stop it’s advance onwards.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Car in Space

« on: February 08, 2018, 08:54:19 PM »

I guess my question would be (by the way hi, first time poster!):

Why would Elon Musk spend all this time, effort and money on the line to do something fake? He has a business to run, profits to make, Space X cost a large fortune to fund, build and finally generate results. He also has plans to take it further and make it s profitable enterprise. I can’t see why he would possibly agree to do this, and then fake it. I mean, what would be the point? He’s a business man, a smart one. There’s just no reason why he would agree to build a rocket and pretend it works, fake the images, and pretend to release a car into space. What would he possibly gain from doing that?

I can see exactly what he’d lose, along with the money and effort of setting the whole thing up, if he was ever proven to be a fraud he would destroy his name, business and everything else. You wouldn’t risk that for... well that’s my block. He doesn’t need money, he’s a private business so he doesn’t need the government or NASA. He did this himself.

Help me out here.

Either: It was real, and it was a huge event showing a private organisation launching a rocket (and car) into space. Promoting his achievements, business and name.

Or: It was fake. Pointless. Could destroy everything for him should he ever be discovered.

That’s my question.