Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: turbonium1
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

You posted that the correction for it is from a surveyor's textbook.

That is documentation, taught, in textbooks and studied, by surveyors, pointed out by you.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: turbonium1
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

You posted that the correction for it is from a surveyors textbook, how is that not taught?

Because, if you read it again, you'll see that it is NOT taught. The textbook does not even mention that there is an actual RATE of 'curvature', that's how you KNOW it's BS. They talk about it as if it's included with refraction, which is nonsense. The actual RATE of 'curvature' is supposed to be known, so why don't the textbooks even MENTION it?

That's the reason that surveyor DID post it, in fact, to show they have it in a textbook, but it's BS, in fact. They know it's BS. They're well aware of a supposed 'rate of curvature', like everyone else is. They all know that if such a rate DID exist, they'd be the ones who would know it, and would've studied it, and account for it, in their surveys.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Because, if you read it again, you'll see that it is NOT taught. The textbook does not even mention that there is an actual RATE of 'curvature',

It instructs to compensate for it, although it isn't there?

That isn't teaching it, in a textbook, for surveyors?

Look, there is nothing wrong with you really believing that the earth is flat, it really doesn't make a difference in anyone else's life, but don't act like this one post, which can be interpreted in different ways, is making your argument, because it really isn't.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: turbonium1
Because, if you read it again, you'll see that it is NOT taught. The textbook does not even mention that there is an actual RATE of 'curvature',

It instructs to compensate for it, although it isn't there?

That isn't teaching it, in a textbook, for surveyors?

Look, there is nothing wrong with you really believing that the earth is flat, it really doesn't make a difference in anyone else's life, but don't act like this one post, which can be interpreted in different ways, is making your argument, because it really isn't.

You can believe that there is an actual rate of 'curvature', but it doesn't need to be mentioned in any of their textbooks, that's what I'd call an 'interpretation'!

It is making my argument, there's no doubt about that. How is that 'rate of curvature' going for you?

originally posted by: turbonium1
You can believe that there is an actual rate of 'curvature', but it doesn't need to be mentioned in any of their textbooks, that's what I'd call an 'interpretation'!

Yet you have mentioned the 8 inch per "mile squared" a boat load of times. Where did that come from?

It is making my argument, there's no doubt about that. How is that 'rate of curvature' going for you?

Serving me as well as the firmament. That is why I say it makes no difference to me.

You on the other hand seem to be real needy for one to be real.

I read the linked post made by the supposed surveyor.

It has a question by a member asking how the curvature of the Earth is accounted for in surveying. Another member answers the question correctly using the established formula for curvature and refraction. He then goes on to add his opinion that he has never used this formula in his work.

This post is then highlighted by the admin as the correct answer for the posed question.


The post does contain the correct answer - it is the formula used at the beginning of his post. Unfortunately, this post also contains his opinion. Torbonium is only looking at the opinion of one single surveyor, who we have no evidence that he is in fact a surveyor, and taking that opinion as fact and overrules the correct compensation formula he posted and used by every other surveyor in the world.

What does that make Turbo?

a reply to: turbonium1

Proof the earth is curved.

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

walter.bislins.ch...

a reply to: turbonium1

Can you “debunk” the Rainy Lake Experiment posted above.

Seems your just butt hurt cause it’s true, and proved beyond a doubt through experiment the earth is a sphere.

a reply to: turbonium1

You've already been given links from academic sites and references showing it is taught.

Small projects don't need to correct for curvature. Large ones do. Prove me wrong. The equipment used in surveying has it built in. Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
What does that make Turbo?

Way back in the thread I asked why TPTB would go through the trouble of lying about the shape of the earth, the answer was basically "flat earth proves god and flat earth would render them powerless".

Never mind the fact that TPTB seemed to have been doing just fine back when everyone "knew" the earth was flat. At least it explains their approach.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes, this is not about fact or conspiracy, it's about interpreted religion from one minor faction of Christianity. The OT & NT in the bible has phrases in it, which if you are utterly ruthless, can be interpreted as referring to a flat Earth if taken out of context and looked at in isolation from the rest of the supporting text. This is what is being defended in a wreckless manner by people like Turbo.

The fact is a flat Earth is never mentioned in any part of the bible - at all. The flat planes of Jericho and other cities and regions are mentioned, but never the Earth as a whole.

Their entire defence and reputation is based on misrepresentation, fabrication and ignorance.

Daniel 4:11

“The tree grew and became strong; Its height reached to the heavens, And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.”

You couldn’t see a tree from the whole earth on a globe.

originally posted by: AncientHeru
“The tree grew and became strong; Its height reached to the heavens, And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.”

You couldn’t see a tree from the whole earth on a globe.

That was a tree Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream and "seen to the ends of all the earth" sounds like a figure of speech. Just how tall would a tree have to be to be able to be seen from anywhere in the world even if it was flat?

originally posted by: AncientHeru
Daniel 4:11

“The tree grew and became strong; Its height reached to the heavens, And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.”

You couldn’t see a tree from the whole earth on a globe.

One of the biggest problems of religion are that its followers are willing to deny science, history, fact and logic to preserve their sacred texts. The fact that knowledge advances over time counters your belief that whoever your god is, it did not know everything. Your religion is debunked as BS.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I've said many times that religion as a moral code is fine. As a way of rationalising the world around us it falls down as our knowledge and understanding improves. Scientific understanding evolves and adapts as new infornation emerges, religious doctrine built on poor translations, misunderstood metaphor and political interference is seemingly immutable despite that new information.

What I can't understand is why people like turbo think their omnipotent God is incapable of creating the universe science shows us. Seems to me that turbo has no faith in the creator.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I guess you've never read the OT...

OT god is an incompetent twat... Not sure how anyone has faith in it

I’ve actually seen the firmament with my own two eyes.

Leonardo da Vinci “All sciences are vain and full of errors that are not born of Experience, the mother of all Knowledge.”

You guys can argue all you want with your books, your calculations and your theories, but at the end of the day you really have no idea because you haven’t experienced what your talking about.

The problem with science is not the art, but the findings from it. There is no denying math and physics as an art is correct. But you can fit any theory with science.

Nikola Tesla “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

You don’t realize the findings of science is your religion. And intelligences much smarter then you can lead you into any reality that you have no experience with through science.

originally posted by: AncientHeru
I’ve actually seen the firmament with my own two eyes.

Could you describe the circumstances and what you saw, in your own words?

Funny how flat earthers will blatantly lie to push their beliefs

Seen the firmament my ass... gesus

a reply to: AncientHeru

I’ve actually seen the firmament with my own two eyes.

Pics or it didn't happen.