Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You don't actually understand what has been posted, never mind what your point is.

Claiming that everyone who could prove how wrong you are is some sort of shill (for whom? Why?) is just lazy and cowardly, just like your unwillingness to actually do astronomical observations is lazy and cowardly.

Labelling people as shills is just pathetic - you can either prove them wrong or you can't (top hint: you can't). The information they present is either false or it's not (top hint: it's not).

Small surveys for small projects do not need to account for curvature. Big surveys for big projects do. The people who do those projects all say that. They're right, you're wrong.

Where did these people who say they account for 'curvature', study this very important subject, of 'curvature'? This MUST be found in many textbooks, surely!

It must be taught in schools, in textbooks, if they claim to 'account for curvature' on their 'large' projects!

And if they claim that 'curvature' must be 'accounted for', in large areas, of some sort, why did the surveyor with years of experience say that 'curvature' is crap, never measured, never accounted for, never adjusted for?

He obviously doesn't believe 'curvature' is EVER 'accounted for', at all.

Someone who claims to 'account for curvature', must have studied the subject, somewhere, in schools, in textbooks, right? If not, then he's full of crap, and a liar, right?


Unlike you, I'm not impressed by someone claiming something, without any proof, or explanation for it.

That's what the surveyor who posted did - he explained that 'curvature' is NOT accounted for, isn't measured, or ever adjusted for, in any surveys he's done.

You believe someone who just says it's accounted for! How is it actually 'accounted for', doesn't matter to you!


And why would it only matter for so-called 'large projects'? How would 60 feet of 'curvature' not matter? Because it doesn't exist, obviously!

a reply to: turbonium1

You mean like how air resistance is negligible in many an experiment?

Anyway

And through experiments, it’s proven the is curved.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

Of course, you all now realize he NEVER said it, NEVER supported 'curvature' - it was just the opposite, in fact.

I don’t care that you have taken this out of context. Because the actual reality is the earth is curved. It’s proven by documented experimentation.

It all started about 2000 years ago.

He realized that if he knew the distance from Alexandria to Syene, he could easily calculate the circumference of Earth. But in those days it was extremely difficult to determine distance with any accuracy. Some distances between cities were measured by the time it took a camel caravan to travel from one city to the other. But camels have a tendency to wander and to walk at varying speeds. So Eratosthenes hired bematists, professional surveyors trained to walk with equal length steps. They found that Syene lies about 5000 stadia from Alexandria.

Eratosthenes then used this to calculate the circumference of the Earth to be about 250,000 stadia. Modern scholars disagree about the length of the stadium used by Eratosthenes. Values between 500 and about 600 feet have been suggested, putting Eratosthenes’ calculated circumference between about 24,000 miles and about 29,000 miles. The Earth is now known to measure about 24,900 miles around the equator, slightly less around the poles.

www.aps.org...

Flat Earth and Refraction with Oil Platforms Hillhouse and Habitat

www.metabunk.org...

Oil rigs off the coast of Santa Barbara give us some great opportunities to view the curve of the Earth. But they also provide great opportunities for refraction to confuse the issue. How do we know it's not just refraction on a flat earth that just LOOKS round? I've added the oil-rigs to my refraction simulator, so people can experiment with what refraction is capable of doing. Also to demonstrate that you can't actually make a Flat Earth look round with refraction.

An oversimplification.
But it is documented light refraction bends light so objects over the horizon can be seen.

But the oil rig at sea is a more accurate account because of water finding it’s level, and the surface of the sea literally maintain sea level, vs the chaos of land above sea level. And it’s changed is elevation.

And the oil rig account holds true to the cited experiments below.

Spherical earth wins again through experimentation. No room for your “illusions”....

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

Nice try, But flat earth looses against actual data, measurements, and standards.

a reply to: turbonium1

Perspective in the Flat Earth Theory

www.spacecentre.nz...

Constellations

The perspective argument is also used by flat-earthers to explain why different constellations are seen in different parts of the world. In the flat Earth model, as you move away from a constellation it gets smaller until it vanishes into the distance, while new constellations become visible in the direction you're moving towards.

This is easily disproved by simply measuring the size of any constellation. For example, the famous three stars of Orion's Belt have an angular diameter of 4.5 degrees. This is absolutely consistent. No matter where you see this group of stars from, it is always the exact same size.

When a constellation sets, it moves below the horizon one star at a time, from the bottom of the constellation first. This doesn't fit the perspective explanation at all.

The weather helps disprove the flat-Earth hypothesis

www.washingtonpost.com...

The sun would never set

Have you ever experienced nighttime? Then you’ve witnessed proof that the Earth isn’t flat.

Flat Earthers say the sun is 32 miles wide — or about the diameter of the city of Houston. And they argue that the sun rides around in circles about 3,000 miles above the Earth.
If this were the case, the sun would never set. Because the Earth is supposedly flat, there would be nothing for the sun to set below if it were to travel along such an arc.

I crunched the numbers based on what the flat-Earth proponents say. Even in the dead of winter, the sun would never drop below 14.7 degrees altitude in Washington, D.C. That’s about the same height the sun appears around 7 p.m. on July evenings.

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

newcreeations.org...


Celestial Navigation


The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But it’s not. It’s a sphere.

Math does not lie.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

Celestial navigation truly makes proponents of the flat earth model look silly

The reality is. You have to treat many an item as the earth being spherical for them to work.

Flat earth is the proven dysfunctional lie for manny a thing.

originally posted by: sapien82
Why would the navy have to do this if the earth isnt curved

earths curvature and battleship artillery calculations

Like I said WW2 would probably still be going on, all those missed shots

a reply to: turbonium1

Just posted lots of items the proves the earth is demonstrationaly spherical.

a reply to: turbonium1

You haven’t even came close to “debunking” spherical earth. All you have done is State your poorly educated opinion.

You were wrong in your thinking there is no downward force labeled gravity, and your wrong about the earth being flat. And you are wrong in your thinking the earth is not spherical.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Unlike you, I'm not impressed by someone claiming something, without any proof, or explanation for it.

That's what the surveyor who posted did - he explained that 'curvature' is NOT accounted for, isn't measured, or ever adjusted for, in any surveys he's done.

You seem to be impressed enough by one claim that you are here using that as proof for days/pages.

Where is the proof or explanation of what that one surveyor said?

That is even overlooking the fact that he didn't negate the curvature of the earth, it is mentioned over 100 times in his post, he just said he can avoid calculating it if he makes an enormous amounts of short measurements.

What is obvious is that you just can't grasp what he actually said and how it applies in real life.

originally posted by: neutronflux

Perspective in the Flat Earth Theory

www.spacecentre.nz...

Constellations

The perspective argument is also used by flat-earthers to explain why different constellations are seen in different parts of the world. In the flat Earth model, as you move away from a constellation it gets smaller until it vanishes into the distance, while new constellations become visible in the direction you're moving towards.

This is easily disproved by simply measuring the size of any constellation. For example, the famous three stars of Orion's Belt have an angular diameter of 4.5 degrees. This is absolutely consistent. No matter where you see this group of stars from, it is always the exact same size.

When a constellation sets, it moves below the horizon one star at a time, from the bottom of the constellation first. This doesn't fit the perspective explanation at all.

Actually, it is due to perspective.

The author somehow assumes that there is one, single 'Flat Earth argument', which is BS. This alone shows the author doesn't know what he's talking about. How does he not even know that there is not one, single argument made by all the people in the world who support the Earth as flat? And why don't YOU know that by this point? Unless you just copied and pasted this, without any idea if it's valid or not....

First of all, claiming that if a constellation has the same 'angular diameter' at any point seen from Earth, somehow 'proves' there's no perspective, is BS.

Even better, the author had no idea that the last part of his sentence about the Flat Earth argument - that a constellation appears smaller "...until it vanishes into the distance." IS due to perspective!

So is this..

"When a constellation sets, it moves below the horizon one star at a time, from the bottom of the constellation first."

That's done with.

The weather helps disprove the flat-Earth hypothesis

www.washingtonpost.com...

The sun would never set

Have you ever experienced nighttime? Then you’ve witnessed proof that the Earth isn’t flat.

Flat Earthers say the sun is 32 miles wide — or about the diameter of the city of Houston. And they argue that the sun rides around in circles about 3,000 miles above the Earth.
If this were the case, the sun would never set. Because the Earth is supposedly flat, there would be nothing for the sun to set below if it were to travel along such an arc.

I crunched the numbers based on what the flat-Earth proponents say. Even in the dead of winter, the sun would never drop below 14.7 degrees altitude in Washington, D.C. That’s about the same height the sun appears around 7 p.m. on July evenings.

Why do you keep posting this garbage, I've long since explained this to you!

Once again, this is due to PERSPECTIVE. You cannot take the angle above Earth, and say 'Look at the angle of the Sun, it would ALWAYS be seen from anywhere on Earth, if it was flat!'

We cannot see objects beyond 3 miles from the surface, unless if they're high enough on the ocean, or high above the Earth, and they also cannot be seen with more distance from the viewer.

The ONE similarity, where ALL objects, whether on, or ABOVE the Earth, suddenly begin to 'vanish', is when they reach the horizon. What makes an illusionary 'line', straight across our view, block out every single object in the sky?

Because the horizon is our limiting point, or vanishing point, that blocks out objects in the distance, and (gradually, in the case of our Sun) blocks out their LIGHT, as well.

It comes down to your claim that the horizon is where all objects on Earth's surface, or seas, just suddenly 'curve down', and vanish, even though they were completely visible up to that point, or almost at that point.

As I've told you, what happens when a boat goes from the shoreline, directly out to the horizon, 3 miles out? The ship remains completely in view, until it reaches the horizon, right? And then, the ship suddenly vanishes, within a few moments, going past the horizon, right?

If Earth was curved, the ship would GRADUALLY, and CONTINUALLY, go out of view, while it goes GRADUALLY over that curve. Not vanish all at once, when it reaches the horizon, as if it went off a frickin' CLIFF or something!

Such arguments are ridiculous, obviously. A curved surface would make the ship continually curve downward, in case you don't know that yet. No curve makes the ship completely visible, until it reaches the horizon, where perspective makes the ship 'vanish' from sight. This is how objects on a plane, flat surface act, when in the distance, after they reach the vanishing point of this flat plane. They were completely visible, on the flat surface, until they reached the horizon, which is the vanishing point, and beyond that, they suddenly go out of sight.

Anyone knows a curved surface would make the ship CONTINUALLY go out of view, from the bottom, to the top of it.

The horizon does not act like some sort of magical 'cut off' point, that's utterly ridiculous!

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: sapien82
Why would the navy have to do this if the earth isnt curved

earths curvature and battleship artillery calculations

Like I said WW2 would probably still be going on, all those missed shots

If they really DID such a stupid thing, to first believe that 'curvature' exists, and second, that they must 'account for it',....I'm sure that WW2 would still be going on!

Your 'chart' shows an upward trajectory, yet the shell goes over a surface that supposedly curves downward!

That little chart sure proves 'curvature' exists!

originally posted by: daskakik
You seem to be impressed enough by one claim that you are here using that as proof for days/pages.

Where is the proof or explanation of what that one surveyor said?

That is even overlooking the fact that he didn't negate the curvature of the earth, it is mentioned over 100 times in his post, he just said he can avoid calculating it if he makes an enormous amounts of short measurements.

What is obvious is that you just can't grasp what he actually said and how it applies in real life.

I've tried explaining what he said to you, and how he applies it in real life, again and again, but you still can't grasp it. that's the actual problem here. Nice try switching it around, but it won't work.

Let's try it one more time, with a step by step process, just to make it as simple as possible...

Here's the entire post, in sections, put in italics, and I've added my comments, below each section...

The formula for computing the combined effect of curvature and refraction is:

C + R = 0.021K2

Where C = correction for curvature

R = correction for refraction

K = sighting distance in thousands of feet

How to eliminate error due to Curvature and Refraction
Proper field procedures (taking shorter shots and balancing shots) can practically reduce errors

Wherever possible, staff readings should be kept at least 0.5 m above the ground,

Using short observation distances (25 m) equalized for backsight and foresight

Air below is denser than air above Air below is denser than air above, Line of sight is bent downward which Negates earth curvature error by 14%.

Simultaneous Reciprocal Trigonometrical Heighting

Observations made at each station at exactly the same time, cancels the effects of curvature and refraction


Okay, look at the above section. I've posted the exact same thing - WORD FOR WORD - from a textbook.

Which means, THIS SECTION IS FROM A TEXTBOOK. The surveyor did NOT SAY THIS, it is from a textbook!

Do you understand that now? He's simply posting what is from the textbooks on surveying basics. I found it online, in a few seconds.

Okay, we know it's from a textbook, right?

Now, the question is, WHY did he post it?

Because you still think he is saying that he DOES all this, simply because he POSTED it, for some reason, it's obvious that you need to read what HE ACTUALLY SAID, following the textbook section above it...

17yrs in the field of civil engineering as a land surveyor completing projects requiring dead nuts accuracy spanning tens of miles horizontally as well as hundreds of feet vertically using astonishingly precise instrumentation to calculate each known empirically definable variable including adjustments for thermal atmospheric refraction and optical refractory parallax , while maintaining tolerances as little as one one/hundredth of a foot.

Now we know why he posted that piece from a textbook, which goes over a 'procedure'. on 'how to account for curvature' in it.

He doesn't say he follows this 'procedure'. He is saying it is nonsense.

He says that he's surveyed projects spanning tens of miles, yet never talks about doing it in little 25 m sections, at the same time ANOTHER surveyor does the next 25 m section, and so on! Not only that, but how in hell is this supposed to 'account for curvature' anyway? They already said they assume the surface is flat, for such 'small areas' they survey, and that they do NOT 'account for curvature' at all! How would a 25 m section of land, piece by piece, be 'accounting for curvature', after they also say they do NOT 'account for curvature'?

You see that you've made 2 completely different claims about 'accounting for curvature' here? Which one do you think is the correct claim? You cannot have both, in case you don't know that yet.

There's another problem you have - you claim 'curvature' has a know rate of 8 inches per mile squared, up to a few hundred miles or so, which means, it would work within the areas they DO survey, right? But it's completely dismissed, and ignored, by surveyors. The textbooks don't ever mention there is an actual, MEASURABLE, rate of 'curvature', either. What's worse, they assume the surface is always FLAT!

If you really believe 'curvature' exists, and that it's 'accounted for', you should realize it's NOT 'accounted for', there is NO mention of a 'rate of curvature' at all, and that they always assume the surface is flat.

Now back to his comments above..

...to calculate each known empirically definable variable including adjustments for thermal atmospheric refraction and optical refractory parallax..

He says that he calculates and adjusts for REFRACTION. However, the textbook shows a 'procedure' that supposedly accounts for refraction AND 'curvature, at the same time! But he does NOT say he accounts for 'curvature' at all, only for refraction. The textbook combines them as one thing, so we know he does NOT use this 'process' for 'curvature', and does NOT support what it claims. Get it?


Never have i visually observed, nor do my instruments indicate evidence of, and NEVER have i “adjusted” my collected observational field data or implemented any equation variable to account for a spherical geography.

The phenomenon asserting spherical global geography is not included as applied to engineering and construction in the physical world.


Clear as can be, no? He says that he has NEVER 'accounted for curvature' at all, in 17 years of surveying areas up to tens of miles. NOT because he says that he 'accounts for curvature' by that process in a textbook. He says he NEVER has accounted for 'curvature', and that this 'process' is total BS, and if you can't grasp that yet, then you're in denial.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Here's the entire post, in sections, put in italics, and I've added my comments, below each section...

I saw that, even the 17 yrs comment, somewhere else and it wasn't formatted like that. That is why I said curvature was mentioned over 100 times.

The thing is I think I know why he doesn't have to, the average surveyor couldn't actually even take a measurement of a 100 miles, he is stuck taking short measurements, like the textbook says, regardless.

I mean according to you:

We cannot see objects beyond 3 miles from the surface

ETA: By the way that answer in that forum doesn't offer proof or an explanation, which was what I was calling you out on. Some guy said what you want to hear and you ran with it like it is gospel.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: turbonium1
Here's the entire post, in sections, put in italics, and I've added my comments, below each section...

I saw that, even the 17 yrs comment, somewhere else and it wasn't formatted like that.

The thing is I know why he doesn't have to, already explained it to you as well, but here we are.

He doesn't have to account for something that cannot be measured, is never adjusted for, and is never seen, never 'accounted for' because a textbook claims it can be, unlike real things which ARE adjusted and calculated for, like refraction.

It doesn't fit your fairy tale story, but it's no reason to pretend he supports 'curvature'. We both know he said it's complete BS.

Don't be afraid of the reality. Nothing is worse than staying in denial, while you really DO know that it's complete BS. That's not a good way to live.

Cheers.

a reply to: turbonium1
No, BS is you saying you need proof and an explanation and then clinging to a post that offers neither.

I actually wouldn't lose a thing if the earth turned out to be flat. You on the other hand need it to be flat to bolster your religious faith. You need to stop lying to yourself and projecting.

As for his claims being valid or not, it was YOUR side that actually posted this to begin with, if you don't know that.

It was your side that tried holding it as being from an experienced surveyor, who SUPPORTS 'curvature', in fact.

And it is from this site...
www.aboutcivil.org...

It was written in 2016, and another civil engineer selected it, in 2019, as being the 'Best Answer', to the question about how 'curvature' is accounted for in surveying projects.

So that's two different experts, on a site for those experts, with only one small reply that said 'geodetic surveying' accounts for 'curvature', so I'd say that his claims, supported by another expert, are absolutely legit. Even the one who said it's accounted for in geodetic surveying doesn't dispute his claims about being no curvature measured, accounted for, in their surveys. He doesn't know if geodetic surveyors DO 'account for curvature', he just assumes they aren't lying about it (think again)

And, that makes 3 experts who all agree on there being no 'curvature' at all, in REAL surveys.

originally posted by: turbonium1
As for his claims being valid or not, it was YOUR side that actually posted this to begin with, if you don't know that.

I don't have a side and it is still BS for you to say you need proof and an explanation and continuously use that post, when it offers neither.

ETA: By the way, they didn't say the curvature didn't exist, they said they didn't have to account for it.

Maybe they always assume the surface is flat, and never account for 'curvature', and don't learn about this 'rate of curvature', which is 8 inches per mile squared, which would be rather IMPORTANT to know, and account for....because 'curvature', in fact, is completely made up BS?

No, can't be. They just have no 'need' to account for it, even if it has an ACTUAL RATE OF CURVATURE. They don't even have to KNOW that 'curvature' has an actual rate of curve!

Not one textbook on 'curvature', nothing about it's 'rate', but they sure 'account for it', don't they?

Here's the main point - if 'curvature' exists, and actually HAS a known rate of curvature, of 8 inches per mile squared, this clearly would be documented, studied, and 'accounted for', like everything ELSE is, like refraction. In fact, this 'rate of curvature' would be one of the first things surveyors WOULD learn about, in classrooms, and in textbooks. How can an actual RATE of 'curvature', NOT be known, understood, written in textbooks, unless it does NOT exist? That's what proves it's BS, beyond a doubt. A 'phantom' feature of the Earth's surface, that doesn't exist, but had to be invented, in order to support the grotesque ball Earth lie.

a reply to: turbonium1
Your the only person I have ever come across who can say we can't see past 3 miles but can imagine someone making a 100 mile measurement. That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

But aside from that, can you point out the proof and explanation that the poster offered that fulfilled your requirement of those two important things?

ETA:

Here's the main point - if 'curvature' exists, and actually HAS a known rate of curvature, of 8 inches per mile squared, this clearly would be documented, studied, and 'accounted for', like everything ELSE is, like refraction.

It is, except in this one post by this one surveyor that you are clinging to.

Also, it is 8 inches per mile, not mile squared. Squared miles are area not linear.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: turbonium1
Your the only person I have ever come across who can say we can't see past 3 miles but can imagine someone making a 100 mile measurement. That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

But aside from that, can you point out the proof and explanation that the poster offered that fulfilled your requirement of those two important things?

I've told you that he's a member of the site, and his post was supported by another member of the site, as best answer. His post has never been disputed by any other member of that site, for his claims about no 'curvature' found, or measured, or accounted for, in surveys.

You're the one who doesn't seem to believe he's legit, with absolutely no basis for that conclusion, other than it crushes your fairy tale story.

You're suggesting he is lying about all this, or making it all up, and everyone else is on board with it, on that civil engineering site?

On nothing more than that you cannot handle the serious implications of it being true, you just can't think it is true, is that about it?

Where is it documented, taught, in textbooks, and studied, by surveyors, or any other field? Saying it is, doesn't cut it. Prove it is, and skip the BS

originally posted by: turbonium1
You're suggesting he is lying about all this, or making it all up, and everyone else is on board with it, on that civil engineering site?

No. I'm just saying that the post doesn't go into detail about his day to day and therefore should not fulfill the proof and explanation, mainly the explanation part of your requirements. But it does allow you to read what you want into it.

On nothing more than that you cannot handle the serious implications of it being true, you just can't think it is true, is that about it?

I already said, makes no difference to me. Flat or sphere doesn't matter to me. Not one implication, serious or otherwise.

Like I said, I'm not you, I don't have to have this be true one way or the other.