*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 371
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
All you would need would be to spend about $100,000 for a couple of Theodolites. Then you could make a complete geodetic survey of Australia.  Of course you would have to understand the theory of the equipment and how it makes the measurements of the actual curvature of the earth.  You could also look up the survey data on line that the government does publish.  Since you probably don't trust the government you would be better to do your own research on the project so you would be completely satisfied with the result.  Probably there are topographic maps also available for a price if you are so inclined.  As for me, I'm totally satisfied to make the rough calculations and know that they are correct.   
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

I am not looking for assumptions or thought experiments. I am looking for detailed facts that prove Australia has the curvature.   

The sum of 194 miles of curvature has been posted.

Can you prove Australia does have the 191 miles of curvature (at center) by comparing it to the actual surface shape of Australia, and show us how you came to that conclusion?
You appear to be under the mistaken assumption that the height at the center of Australia should be 191 miles or some such. Height is measured as distance above sea level. Sea level also gains that 191 miles at the center of Australia. What exactly do you expect to be presented with? No, Australia doesn't have a height of 191 miles at it's center. That's silly, and foolish to think a topography map would show this. Is there something else you're attempting to drive at, or are you attacking a strawman?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 371
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Go back and look at reply #16 from Earthman.  I will confess that the concept of the round earth is a bit hard to visualize in terms that you can easily see.  On the diagram in reply 16 notice the towers at each end.  Notice that if they were moved a couple thousand miles so they were side by side they would not be parallel.  The main concept that is critical to realize is that vertical on the earths surface means that line that points towards the center of the earth.  If you had two lines separated by a couple of thousand miles, the angle between them would be about 35 degrees.  If you could actually dig a tunnel under Australia that connected to the ocean on each side the water would not have any tendency to flow because the sea levels would be the same at both ends.  The top of the tunnel would be about 190 miles below the surface in the center, give or take the heights of any mountains in the area.  Again, I know that this is difficult to visualize in real life.  The other concept to internalize is that water doesn't seek it's own level, but does seek the center of gravity on the earth.  Each drop of water seeks the center of gravity in the area where it happens to be at the time.  This assumes that there is no other forces on the drop of water such as a wind or tidal current for an example.  If this were not the case then you might expect that there would be a strong current in the Suez Canal since this connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea.  I have personally been thru the Suez Canal countless times and can assure you that any currents are just due to things like unequal rains between the two seas and other minor factors like that.  Since each drop of water individually seeks the center of gravity on the earth no matter where it happens to be you could see how the oceans could actually gently curve.  Yes, I admit that this effect is difficult to see because of numerous atmospheric effects.  Personally, I look at it this way, I went to sea for a living for the last 20 years.  Every map and instrument we have aboard the ship is based upon the earth being mostly spherical.  All our training with celestial navigation assumes that the earth is a sphere.  I have crossed just about all the oceans in the world over this period of time and haven't got lost even once.  This would not be possible if all the theory and practice we learned didn't work.  What more proof of the concept would you need?  I bet my life on the round earth and King Neptune hasn't gotten me yet.   
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 02:55:03 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Stack was the one who agreed with RonJ of 191 miles of curvature.

Tower A is on the east coast and set at sea level and tower B is on the west coast and set at sea level. According to Stack and Ronj, the center of Australia is 191 miles above the base of the towers A and B.

Stack provided the following conclusion.


On a Globe Earth, the center point of Australia would actually be 191 miles above sea level of towers A and B. And the elevation of Marla, Australia (near central Australia) would be 1076’ above Earth’s circular curve as dedicated.  The highest point above the east and west coast waters at center would be 191 miles plus 1076 feet.

In reality, in real life, tower A is on the east coast and set at sea level and tower B is on the west coast and set at sea level. According to elevation charts and topographical maps the highest point near center Australia that’s above the base of towers of A and B is only 1076 feet and not 191 plus miles

Australia does not belong to a Globe Earth. No land mass on this Earth has surface measurements of a sphere. Our Earth has horizontal oceans with landmasses sticking up out of the water.
If Earth were a Ball, elevation points would have to be established above and with Earth’s circular curve at different points for engineering purposes. The worlds languages would include a meaning for a curved horizon, like Curvizon. Our would world be much different. 

I know many will not agree, but the conclusion is Globe Earth believers cannot prove Earth's landmass has any curvature because topographical maps and engineering will prove them wrong every day.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 03:46:02 AM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 371
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
There would be no reason to have anything but a flat horizon even on a spherical earth.  All I ever saw at sea was a flat horizon.  That argument is irrelevant.  You can easily show that the earth is curved by constructing two towers.  Both towers must be exactly vertical.  That is, both towers have to be pointed at the center of the earth.  You can actually do that with a free swinging plum bob, but it's a bit more difficult because it can be blown around by the wind.  Now if these two towers are separated by a bit of distance I can assure by that they wouldn't be parallel.  There would be a small angle between them.  The distance between the bottom of the towers would be a little shorter than the distance between the top of the towers.  If the two towers are only separated by a mile or so, the difference would be in inches.  I confess, it would be hard to get an accurate measurement because the size of the earth is large.  Think about this;  take a swimming pool and then as accurately as you can measure its depth at some fixed point.  Then pour in a glass of water.  You must admit that the water level has risen by the contents of the glass of water, but could you measure the difference?  I rather doubt it.  You could put the whole contents of the pool into the sea and the difference would be even smaller.  With modern technology the characteristics of the spherical earth are known down to a gnat's ass.  Even the GPS in my iPhone is accurate to within 10 feet or so.  All that technology is based on the earth being a sphere.  You can't argue with the fact that the system just works.  Throw all the crazy ideas out the window, get in your car, turn on the GPS, and a voice will guide you to your destination every time.  I don't know what more proof you need.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 533
    • View Profile
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:


Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:



I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.

All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 05:21:54 AM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 371
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
I can see that you don't understand. I'm NOT aren't trying to put a 191 mile dome over Australia. It's just a way of doing a calculation of the earth's curvature.  You really can't see or feel the curvature in your everyday life.  I fully agree with that.  However, again, you couldn't feel the increase in the water depth of a swimming pool if you put a glass of water into it either.  That doesn't mean that there wasn't a change in water depth, because you know for a fact that there was, but you still can't feel it.  Some things you just can't feel from common everyday experience, but that doesn't mean that they aren't true.  The base of the towers of the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco are about 2 inches narrower than at the top.  I know, it's not a big deal, but it still has to be true because of the curvature of the earth.  Humans are so small and the earth is so large, on a relative basis.  You probably don't understand just how you can hear someone talking on the radio in your car, but you know that they do, so you know the technology does work.  The earth's curvature is like that as well.  It's always there even if you can't feel it. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
I can see that you don't understand. I'm NOT aren't trying to put a 191 mile dome over Australia. It's just a way of doing a calculation of the earth's curvature.  You really can't see or feel the curvature in your everyday life.  I fully agree with that.  However, again, you couldn't feel the increase in the water depth of a swimming pool if you put a glass of water into it either.  That doesn't mean that there wasn't a change in water depth, because you know for a fact that there was, but you still can't feel it.  Some things you just can't feel from common everyday experience, but that doesn't mean that they aren't true.  The base of the towers of the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco are about 2 inches narrower than at the top.  I know, it's not a big deal, but it still has to be true because of the curvature of the earth.  Humans are so small and the earth is so large, on a relative basis.  You probably don't understand just how you can hear someone talking on the radio in your car, but you know that they do, so you know the technology does work.  The earth's curvature is like that as well.  It's always there even if you can't feel it.

Thank you for your input!
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 533
    • View Profile
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:



I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.

All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.

I think where you're getting tripped up is that in RE theory sea level is not a horizontal plane just like any landmass is not a horizontal plane, both are part of the same sphere. Does that make sense?

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:



I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.

All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.

I think where you're getting tripped up is that in RE theory sea level is not a horizontal plane just like any landmass is not a horizontal plane, both are part of the same sphere. Does that make sense?

Oh, I know what the RE theory is, it's just like gravity it can't be proven. No trip up here.

Thanks for your input.
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:



I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.

All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.

I think where you're getting tripped up is that in RE theory sea level is not a horizontal plane just like any landmass is not a horizontal plane, both are part of the same sphere. Does that make sense?

Oh, I know what the RE theory is, it's just like gravity it can't be proven. No trip up here.

Thanks for your input.
The path of the sun and measured distances prove a round earth, as you know.

All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.

I think you should see how elevation and sea level are determined. It's far more complex than you let on:

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???

HorstFue

Maps:
Are there any maps based on a flat Earth? No, not a single one. Even those mono-polar or bi-polar "models" presented by flat earthers are obviously nothing else than projections of a globe earth.

All maps are based on a spheroid. Most have spherical coordinates on them, others have descriptions how to translate coordinates to spherical ones. Some need small corrections/shifts to match the WGS84 ellipsoid used with GPS, as these are referenced to another ellipsoid, which locally fits better than WGS84  (e.g. Croatia charts are based on the Bessel ellipsoid).
Each major countries have national mapping services. There are, I don't know how many, other commercial mapping services. There is a crowd workers project OpenStreetMap with more than 1,000,000 contributors and various donators of greater data chunks, to build a global database. All this fits together with no issues. I never heard of significant inconsistencies between charts of different mapping services. Even maps created a few centuries ago - with allowance of some inaccuracies, due to their limited resources - match modern maps.
Mapping services or others derive myriads of printed and electronic maps from their base data, verified by odometers and compasses in cars/ships/airplanes by millions of users each and every day.

Directions and distances are derived from this data by using formulas of spherical trigonometry based on a oblate spheroid with mean radius of 6371km, either "realtime" with electronic charts or "offline" - which gives the map scale and projection - on printed charts.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 371
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
On my last ship we used WGS84 and British Admiralty charts.  We liked to stick with the WGS84 charts but as I recall there were some random areas where you needed to have an 'Admiralty' chart.  Every ship is required by international regulations to carry certain charts.  The chart list depended upon where our expected area of operation might be.  It was strange sometimes because we might have had a WGS84 chart for a larger general area but needed a 'Admiralty' chart for the approach to a particular port.  It really didn't matter because the chart areas overlapped a bit and you could seamlessly go from one chart to the next.  We had a large chart table with drawers below that were maybe 6 feet wide and 8 inches tall.  That way the large charts could lay flat and didn't have to be folded and could be pulled out and placed on the chart table easily.  The navigation officer could then lay his instruments on the chart and draw the necessary lines.  All the paper stuff is still required by international regulations, I believe, but we also had electronic charts.  The ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System) now is also a requirement. I downloaded and updated all our electronic charts on a weekly basis.  The navigational officer had to hand update the paper charts too, but he got overtime for that.  Take a quick look at the history of Gerardus Mercator and you can appreciate how modern charts got their start 100s years ago.  Mercator was willing to bet his very life that his view of the earth was the correct one.  Sailors operating on the high seas have been verifying that view everyday since.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.

I think you should see how elevation and sea level are determined. It's far more complex than you let on:



No one can prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they have it would have been posted it by now.
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
The English language contains words that are used to scientifically describe the surface of our oceans. Words with meanings of curvature are not chosen.

Science describes the surface of the oceans as horizontal for an important reason. The truth about the shape of Earths surface waters is needed for engineering purposes, otherwise nothing would work right. But any one is welcome to believe it is round.

Because the ocean is one continuous body of water, its surface tends to seek the same level throughout the world. However, winds, currents, river discharges, and variations in gravity and temperature prevent the sea surface from being truly level. Source National Geographic  -

lev·el
[ˈlevəl]
NOUN
a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/sea-level/
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 07:44:42 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 371
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Yes, actually you can 'prove' it.  It just depends on what YOU would consider as proof.  For some you actually have to directly see something with your own eyes to believe it.  That procedure is fraught with difficulties.  There are plenty of YouTube videos that can explain curvature, if you choose to believe it.  Many will say those video must be fake.  Sometimes you can't even believe what you actually see with your own eyes.  Think that's wrong? Just visit a good magician and he will 'school' you.  Personally, I believe in math and science.  Theories were developed and then tested.  Is everything perfect?  No.  The theory that has actually worked for me in my everyday working life has been that the earth is an oblate spheroid.  If I had a land job and drove to work everyday and never had any other view except the land locked one, I could believe in a flat earth view myself.  Really, it wouldn't matter much anyway.  However, these days, much of the everyday goods you consume are produced in Asia.  That can be good or bad, but that's another subject.  Those goods largely arrive in the USA via container ship.  These ships are just glorified trucks that travel on the earth's oceans.  Soon these will probably be autonomous and won't have a human crew aboard.  At the present time there are human crews aboard.  The whole system is set up with the globe earth as the underlying principles.  Many of us spend 4 or 5 years at a merchant marine academy to learn the science behind getting from point A to point B on the globe.  Each and every thing is based upon the globe earth paradigm.  After we graduate we go to work on a ship and turn all that theory into practice.  It all seems to work.  That's why I believe.  Do I really need further proof?  No.    What kind of proof do YOU need?   
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Yes, actually you can 'prove' it.  It just depends on what YOU would consider as proof.  For some you actually have to directly see something with your own eyes to believe it.  That procedure is fraught with difficulties.  There are plenty of YouTube videos that can explain curvature, if you choose to believe it.  Many will say those video must be fake.  Sometimes you can't even believe what you actually see with your own eyes.  Think that's wrong? Just visit a good magician and he will 'school' you.  Personally, I believe in math and science.  Theories were developed and then tested.  Is everything perfect?  No.  The theory that has actually worked for me in my everyday working life has been that the earth is an oblate spheroid.  If I had a land job and drove to work everyday and never had any other view except the land locked one, I could believe in a flat earth view myself.  Really, it wouldn't matter much anyway.  However, these days, much of the everyday goods you consume are produced in Asia.  That can be good or bad, but that's another subject.  Those goods largely arrive in the USA via container ship.  These ships are just glorified trucks that travel on the earth's oceans.  Soon these will probably be autonomous and won't have a human crew aboard.  At the present time there are human crews aboard.  The whole system is set up with the globe earth as the underlying principles.  Many of us spend 4 or 5 years at a merchant marine academy to learn the science behind getting from point A to point B on the globe.  Each and every thing is based upon the globe earth paradigm.  After we graduate we go to work on a ship and turn all that theory into practice.  It all seems to work.  That's why I believe.  Do I really need further proof?  No.    What kind of proof do YOU need?

Please allow me to rephrase my statement.

No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.

The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 07:52:04 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 533
    • View Profile
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.

How so?