Rivers, Railways and the curve of the earth
The assertion “If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here.” seems reasonable enough. Of course the answer by globe earth people is that gravity magically neutralizes all the forces caused by the globe earth’s movement and rotation in multiple directions simultaneously. But this is not science, but faith in some magic unexplained and not yet understood force we call gravity.
However other points made in this section by the flat earthers are not solid. To investigate the globe earth model we have to at least accept the basic assumptions of the model and globe earth model presupposes there is a force, gravity, pulling everything to the center of the earth. This may or may not be true. But to test their model we have to presume this force exists. So if this force does exist on a globe earth that would nullify the presumption that on a globe earth many rivers would be flowing uphill. On a globe earth elevation is measured as distance above sea level and, according to their model uphill and downhill are measured in terms of the distance above sea level, the curve of the earth is irrelevant and does not need to be taken into account in civil engineering projects [railways, canals, etc].
So the conclusion is although the globe earth model does not account for our inablility to measure the forces resulting from the earth being “a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space”, it does give a reasonable and logical [although not necessarily correct] explanation allowing gravity, a force pulling everything towards the center of the globe earth, to effectively make the curve of the globe earth appear to us to be flat for all practical purposes.
Supporting Flat Earth Proofs
- 3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here.
- 4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill.
- 5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot…
- 6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.
- 7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects.
- 8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account…
- 9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.
- 10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool…
- 11) …We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves…
- 12) …It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth…
32 Replies to “Rivers, Railways and the curve of the earth”
Amen, These observations can be validated and infidelity contradict the ball theory.
You can not just say “these observations can be validated…” You have to validate them. So please explain how these observations can be validated.
I have personally used my high powered laser with a friend on the other side of a 2 mile wide lake and proved to ourselves that there was NOT a curve of 32 inches. Im not sure of why the coverup started in 1952, but encyclopedia Britannia changed the flat earth to globe earth the following year. This qas the same time the Mr. Bird explored the south pole
curious if the earth is thousands of miles wide/long.flat or round where do we get a 32 inch curve after only 2 miles? was there any curve at all? was it 100 percent straight? I am neither for or against the flat earth I am just curious because the math says it should have a curve but if its that huge would the curve be so dramatic as 8 inches in 1 mile? and does this not take into account anything else like the fact that the ground goes up and down has hills and mountains so if the earth is flat or round as a whole would not the other terrain effect this process of checking?
Obvious to anyone not blinded by flattism but all public works will be a of a small limited distance. relative to the size of the earth.
Curvature on a 6400 KM sphere will be minimal over say 100m .
How much would it be?
If you are unable to calculate this then what makes you think you can evaluate whether the earth is flat or spherical?
Scientists and mathematicans can work this out and ALL of them think the earth is a sphere.
Eagerly anticipate flat earther answers!
You stated: “Obvious to anyone not blinded by flattism but all public works will be a of a small limited distance. relative to the size of the earth.”
Really? What about the Great Wall of China? Any evidence the Chinese were confused by Earth’s supposed curvature? The total length runs into thousands of miles. You don’t think they would have noticed a directional curvature of ~8.5 inches per mile squared?
Have a great day!
Mr. On the Level. Better to think through the things you write before writing them. The Chinese just built the wall on their border. And they already know the actual length of their border. They know the length and built the wall. It doesn’t matter what the shape of the earth is. They know the length of their border and they build a wall there. Your point is irrelevant nonsense.
Mr. and or Ms. Flat Earth Facts,
Your reply bears mere cursory and ultimately little relation to my post! It had little to do with wall’s length except relative to earth’s supposed circumference. The main thrust pertains to the Chinese engineer’s ability to perceive directional arching/curvature mutation over the span of the project. Hence they would notice a directional logarithmic downward curvature in the wall as opposed opposed to a wavy but ultimately flatter/level course.
Without doubt the engineer’s new the length and directional curvature if any of their project, that was my point!
However, your reply proved one very important fact, that you could benefit from a course in reading comprehension.
Thanks for the amusement and…
Have a great day!
My sentence should read “Without doubt the engineer’s knew the length and directional curvature if any of their project, that was my point!”
Here is your mistake Mr. On The Level: “…the Chinese engineer’s ability to perceive directional arching/curvature mutation over the span of the project. Hence they would notice a directional logarithmic downward curvature in the wall as opposed opposed to a wavy but ultimately flatter/level course.”
There is no “logarithmic downward curvature” in the wall. This exponential increasing of the curve is a function of viewing the ball from a distance. Because of the curve as you get further away the same drop of a few feet per mile appears much greater than a few feet. But the actual drop is still only a few feet a mile. Even if you are a hundred miles away, it is still only dropping a few feet when you are 101 miles a way. But it looks like it drops much more from a distance.
So there is no actual “logarithmic downward curvature in the wall” the ‘curve’ in the wall is never more than a few feet a mile and as I have mentioned before, they just measure the distance between the two pillars, and that is the distance of wall they build, it does not matter what is the shape of the earth.
Hope it clarifies things a bit.
Flat Earth Facts,
Just a parting questions for you. Do you think Chinese Great wall builders would or would not notice that the vertical wall columns would increasingly & directionallly deviate from their initial parallel orientation over the project span? The column peaks increasingly pointing away from the initial ones would draw notice don’t you think? If not, why not?
Please note the questions in my posts remain unanswered. Do you comprehend them or simply dont have a good answer?
Of course they would not notice. You are having problems comprehending reality. The columns are always vertical, they would have used a plum-bob to make sure they are straight. It always points to the center of the earth. You are talking of a difference of inches in a mile. So they have no way of measuring so accurately and of course they would not notice it. It does not increase. You have your flat earth horizon distance calculation, it only appears to increase as the miles increase. But actually the difference is only inches in the mile. It never gets more than that. So you have not properly thought these things through at all. The columns are always vertical and all they know is the distance between one column and the next. And it makes no difference if that distance is flat of very, very, very slightly curved. They have measured the distance and whatever that distance is, that is the distance, no matter what shape the earth is.
I agree with Flat Earth Facts here – even if they did notice some small curvature over the length of the Wall, we cannot conclude from this the overall shape of the Earth, which is so big. It may be that in that portion of the Earth there are some geographic undulations fooling us – which could be even in a flat Earth or round Earth.
Actually, we are too small compared to the size of the Earth to comment on its shape, being within the system – it is like ants crawling on a flat plate or a round apple, commenting on what is the shape of the object they are on. We have to take guidance from someone outside.
Must disagree with you. Chinese builders being quite the adept rice/bean counters would notice a drop of 8 1/2 inches per mile squared. After all their women had to prepare the requisite “sticky rice” to cement the bricks ( joke, but true ). Bricks and resources would be carefully husbanded, counted and measured. Over flat regions even small discrepancies would be noticed. The Chinese also boast the world’s longest bridge, over 170 miles over water if I remember correctly, directional downward curvature in the bridge would also have been noticed.
The Suez and Panama canal builders would have glommed onto the curvature if it existed as well since all these more modern builders had telescopes and the ability to see surface water and land tens of miles distant not just 3 or so miles out from the shore.
Thanks again and have a great day!
You still have not understood the point…
There is no drop of 8.5 inches per mile squared.
Please try to understand this.
Actually it is only 8.5 inches per mile drop, no matter how many miles.
They only build the wall one mile at a time. So they are concerned with that distance and that drop will only ever be 8.5 inches. Even after building 100 miles of wall there is still only an 8.5 inch drop to the 101 mile point.
8.5 inches in a mile. There are 63360 inches in a mile. So 8.5 inches out of 63360 inches, it is not measurable. The natural irregularities of the ground are so much more than this.
So you need to think about this. The very slight curvature of the earth is totally irrelevant for construction projects.
As far as seeing too far, like seeing things over the water that you apparently should not be able to see, that is a different thing altogether. There may be something in that. But this idea that the curve of the earth would have been noticed by the builders of the wall of China or the canals is totally wrong based on the misunderstanding of the 8.5 inches per mile squared rule.
Thanks for the reply and continued effort to educate me on your point that given our small size relative to the supposed globe curvature no one would pick up on minor discrepancies, and your probably correct. In fact, I do understand your point. It just seems to me that when it comes large engineering projects like suspension bridges over a hundred miles long comprised of straight connected beams and trusses minor discrepancies of say 17.7 feet vertical drop over 5 miles would be noticed.
In fact, I read at one point in the US regulations required engineers to take into consideration Earth’s supposed curvature in their projects. This resulted in confusion and construction problems and eventually the practice was abandoned.
Hi. Yes of course if there was a 17.7 feet difference over 5 miles that is not significant. That would be 5280 (feet in a mile) X 5 = 26400 feet. So a discrepancy of 17.7 feet over 26400 feet is not noticeable. It would never be noticed if it was there.
But, my point is not that. My point is there is no 17.7 feet difference. This is more-or-less an illusion. It is quirk of the geometry of the globe. Actually on every mile it is only differing by 8 inches, or whatever it is per mile. As I pointed out before, they are building the bridge not all at once together, but mile by mile. So for every mile they build the bridge by the time they get to the next mile the difference due to the curve of the earth is only 8 inches. Then they build the next mile and they get to the next mile point with a difference due to the curve of the earth of only 8 inches. So they have built 2 miles and 16″ difference. And so it goes on, adding only 8″ difference per mile for every additional mile. So for a 5 mile bridge the difference due to the curve of the earth is only 8 x 5 = 40 inches. Only three feet difference over 5 miles. So that is nothing at all. And it never gets more than 8 inches per mile, even if you go on building 100 miles, the actual difference due to the curve of the earth is only ever going to be 8 inches per mile.
Now due to the geometry of the sphere and looking at a distance the drop appears to increase in a squared ratio, increasing more and more as you get further away, that is due to the effect of viewing the sphere from a distance. It is more-or-less an illusion. Because the actual drop for each additional mile is only ever 8 inches. The thing is it looks more and more as you view it from the distance.
So this is the great mistake of the flat earthers…
Here, I have to disagree with Flat Earth Facts on the point that the total drop will be just the “sum” of the individual drops of only 8 or so inches per mile on a perfectly spherical Earth (assuming no geographic irregularities).
The drop on a perfect sphere, with respect to the original vertical, is proportional to the “square” of the surface distance, not proportional to the surface distance. This can be shown by simple trigonometry. The exact drop on a sphere of radius R miles, on travelling a distance of d miles (along a circular curve), is R * (1- cos (d/R)), which if you approximate for a very small d/R ratio, becomes, 2*d^2/R. So the total drop in the vertical direction from the “starting” point is proportional to the square of the distance (d^2), not to the distance (d).
When you say that after you go forward by one mile, the next drop over the next mile is only about 8 inches or so, that is true in a sense. But that new drop you are noticing is from a new vertical, not from the original vertical, so it is another vector, with another direction. So you cannot add two vectors with different directions just by adding their magnitudes. The actual drop from the original point along the original vertical would be more than just 8+8 inches.
I do agree though that it would be difficult to notice this while “staying on the Earth’s surface”. This is because, to calculate the drop from the original vertical we would have to continue on the original horizontal, which means that after some time we have to “get off” the Earth and stay in that original horizontal to measure the actual vertical drop from the original point, which is difficult to conduct, due to gravity. But from above (from the sky), the vertical drop of several feet – not inches, as you mentioned – for several miles of distance on the surface, should be visible.
Again, I do not conclude anything about the overall shape of Earth from this local experiment, but on a perfectly spherical Earth, this curvature drop should be visible, not from the Earth, but from the sky.
Hi. We don’t disagree, you misunderstand. I agree that the drop is there, in a squared ratio over distance. So the actual drop from the first mile to the second mile will be only 8 inches, but from the first mile to the second mile will be more than 16 inches. And the drop from the first mile to the hundredth mile, will be a lot.
That is because of the geometry of the globe, as I have said. You are going around the globe and increasing the angle more steeply as you get further away from your starting point. So the steeper the angle gets the more distance your mile will cover. But this is because the angle is changing from the initial starting angle.
My point is that this is not relevant if you are building a bridge or a canal. And this idea that the canal builders or the wall builders would notice and have to account for the curve that the flat earthers have is just totally incorrect.
So what you are saying is correct if you start at a point and increase the distance from that point. As you get further away from that point each mile is still only a mile, and still only dropping the same 8 inches actually, but it is changing its angle around the globe and as the angle gets steeper as it goes around the curve that same mile drops down increasingly lower in relation to your position.
It stats off almost flat, only dropping 8 inches. But in the next mile, it still only drops another 8 inches actually, in relation to the first mile point, but from the starting point it will seem to, not only seem to, it will actually drop lower than 16 inches because it is going around the curve so the second mile will be at a steeper angle going around the curve than the first mile. So it will drop down more in the second mile, in relation to the starting point, than the first mile dropped down in relation to the starting point.
But this is totally irrelevant to bridge builders, wall builders, railway builders, canal builders, etc. They are building one mile at a time. So they are building from one mile to the next mile, and for them the drop will always only be a constant 8″ per mile, even if their wall, canal, etc, is 1000 miles long. They will never need to account for the curvature of the earth, they will never encounter it at all. Because they will never experience a drop of more than 8 inches per mile.
The drop does not increase actually over distance. That is the mistake of the flat earthers. The drop is always the same 8″ drop from one mile to the next. And that is what the builders experience. They will never see any evidence of the curve, even if the earth is a globe because this 8 inches in a mile is so insignificant that it can not be measured or noticed. Natural changes of level on the land are so much more than this that it can never be measured or noticed.
So there is no actual increasing of the drop over distance. The drop is always only 8 inches per mile. But because as you go around the curve the angle of that mile drop increases then the actual drop around the globe increases. It increases from the initial eight inch drop up to the maximum drop of one mile in a mile, when it has moved 90 degrees around the globe! But that is only in relation to the starting point and that has no impact whatsoever on the wall builders, the canal builders etc. Because for them it is still only dropping 8 inches per mile.
It always only drops 8 inches per mile. But the drop relative to the starting point increases as the angle increases as it goes around the curve.
So the drop is always a constant 8 inches per mile from one mile to the next. It never changes.
So all these flat earth proofs relying on the incorrect assumption that the drop increases over distance are totally incorrect, totally bogus. The drop does not increase at all. The drop is always the same. All that is changing is the angle in relation to the angle of the first mile.
Hopefully you can understand. It is a very important point. Yes, it is dropping, if you look at the globe, but the drop is only 8 inches per mile, that never changes. What is changing is only the angle relative to the angle of the original mile.
Well, in one paragraph, you state:
“So the actual drop from the first mile to the second mile will be only 8 inches, but from the first mile to the second mile will be more than 16 inches. And the drop from the first mile to the hundredth mile, will be a lot.”
However, a few paragraphs later, you state:
“The drop does not increase actually over distance. That is the mistake of the flat earthers. The drop is always the same 8″ drop from one mile to the next.”
It is sentences like these that make me misunderstand you. It also depends on what you mean by “actual”. “Actual” drop can be from the original point, which will actually, be huge. Or, you can mean “actual” to state what builders “actually” see in practice. When you mention an “actual” drop, you have to mention from what point you are measuring the drop.
Anyway, the drop does “actually” increase by a large amount, much more than 8 inches, from the original point, but builders won’t “actually” see it and I agree, it is irrelevant for construction projects. But, it should be visible from the photographs from the sky, and I think some Flat Earthers also hint at this. Sometimes, we don’t see “any” curvature drop in pictures for very long bridges as well, which should have a curvature drop from end to end.
Stop nit picking.
This post is talking about “Rivers, Railways and the curve of the earth.” So we are talking about the flat earth misconception that the curve of the earth would have to be taken into account by the builders of canals, railways, bridges, the great wall of China etc.
That is the context of everything we are discussing here.
So in this context “actual drop” means the drop experienced by the builders of canals, railways, bridges, etc. Which flat earthers mistakenly believe will increase over distance and thus impact these great construction projects.
So what we are establishing here is that is a mistake. Flat earthers are wrong. The constructors of these great engineering projects will never experience any significant drop or discrepancy because of the curve of the earth. The drop or discrepancy due to the curve of the earth, for them, is constant. Never more than 8 inches per mile. Which is a totally insignificant number which would never ever impact anything at all.
There is no increase of the drop over distance. You need to read my previous message again. What is changing is the angle. Not the drop. Drop is always the same. About 8 inches per mile. All that is changing is the angle. And that is what makes it appear that the drop is increasing over distance. As I have said, a result of the geometry of the globe.
Actual drop is not from the original point. Actual drop is what the builders of these great engineering projects experience. And that is never more than 8 inches per mile…
Ok. Thank you.
Nit picking, according to dictionary, means “the habit of finding small mistakes in somebody’s work or paying too much attention to small, unimportant details”. Well, I do not think these are small, unimportant details – a small twist of meaning of a word can change a lot of interpretation in scientific context. So, I am not nit picking.
Anyway, such detailed conversations seeking clarity can be a consequence of incomplete definitions of the usages of various terms by the author. Now that you have defined what you meant by an “actual” drop, I agree, it does not increase by more than about 8 inch per mile.
Flat Earth Facts,
Thanks again for further clarifying your point. However, everything you stated is from a manual workers/builders. Fortunately builders use surveyors and they would easily spot the 17.7 foot drop over five miles unless of course as in the Bedford Level Experiment no discrepancy existed over 6 miles because in fact no curvature could be found. Modern Chinese bridge builders use surveyors last I checked.
Have a great day!
Hi On the Level
Firstly the point of this post is to establish that the idea that great engineering projects do not need to account for the curve of the earth proves the earth is flat is wrong, incorrect, totally invalid, absolutely not an indication that the earth is flat at all. Because there is no actual drop that increases over distance that the builders of such projects would ever encounter. Because there is no difference in the drop during the first mile and during the hundredth mile. That has been clearly established and I have clearly proven that the tiny difference created by the curve of the earth, which is never more than 8 inches per mile, is so small that it is impossible to measure in reality and will never effect anything for the engineers. I think you can agree with this point.
Your other point now is that, yes, constructors would not notice, but surveyors would notice it. However that is also an incorrect speculation.
“Nowadays there are also many types of accurate and compact EDM instruments integrated with an electronic theodolite and known generically as a Total Station. These instruments can also measure with an accuracy of about ±1 part per million, but are generally capable conduct a measurement only for shorter lines of about one kilometre.” (https://structural-analyser.com/domains/Surveying/chapter04/)
So the equipment surveyors have can only make accurate measurements up to about one kilometre away.
And you have to understand how it works, it is a laser at one end of the measurement and a retro-reflector [like the ones NASA say they have on the moon] that will reflect the laser beam back in the exact direction it came from, ie: it will reflect back to the laser where it will be detected and the distance will be calculated by accurately measuring the time it takes and taking into account the speed of light.
So this will give a very accurate measurement of the distance between the reflector and the laser. But they have no way of measuring the height with this method. It is only giving them the very accurate distance between the laser and the reflector. So they can not measure the height or know anything about what is happening on the earth below. As long as they have got line of sight view between the laser and reflector, they can measure the distance.
In theory it is possible to measure distances of up to 30 kilometres with this technology, it is not actually limited to one kilometre only, but the point is the equipment generally used by surveyors can only accurately measure up to one kilometer.
That is because they are not concerned really any greater distance. As I have tried to explain noting is constructed ten miles at a time, it is done in sections. So they survey each section and build it mile by mile. So they are always reseting their measuring point and will never see any curvature due to the globe earth nor will it ever affect them in any way at all.
So it is possible to accurately measure a distance between two points if you can put a laser at one end and a reflector at the other end as long as you have got line of sight vision between the two points. So they accurately measure the distance of the satellites for example with this. You can accurately measure the distance to the space station, and they say they can even accurately measure the distance to the moon with the same system.
Problem is with measurements from point to point on the earth, because of the curve, you can’t get line of sight vision for that long.
BUT THIS DOES NOT AND CAN NOT MEASURE HEIGHT FROM THE EARTH.
So your statement: “Fortunately builders use surveyors and they would easily spot the 17.7 foot drop over five miles.” Is wrong, incorrect, mistaken. They have no way at all of measuring “drop”. There is no method, no technology available for this. All height measurements use sea level as the reference. And you know that curves around with the earth. So as far as height measurements the only possible measurement is they can get very very accurate measurement of any point based on its height above sea level. There is no way at all that a surveyor can measure drop over a distance. It is impossible. There is no technology, no method, no way of making such a measurement.
Best to try to understand what you are talking about rather than just imagine what surveyors can do.
Hi Flat Earth Facts,
Sorry for again going “off-topic”, as you will claim that estimating the drop between the ends of the bridge is not even related to this article and not worth commenting, but I have to make an observation about surveying based on your comment, finding currently not another post in this website to make this comment.
Actually, we do NOT need to know the exact “drop” from end-to-end by surveying to establish the fact that the Earth’s surface (at least that portion of Earth) is flat or curved (also, maybe surveyors didn’t care much for the exact drop earlier which is why they did not develop the technology). Here is how I think we can make an experiment. I do not know if someone has done this or not.
We can fire a laser from a point high enough in the sky from above the bridge and note the distance between the laser point and a point on the bridge (which, according to the website you showed, can be done accurately, right?). Then, we measure the distance from the laser point to another point on the bridge which is, say 5 miles apart. Also, we know the angle between the 2 directions the laser was fired. Now, the 2 points on the bridge plus the laser point makes up a triangle. With the 2 points on the bridge, plus the angle of the laser, we can find the length of the third side.
If the length of the third side roughly equals the distance of the bridge on the surface, then the Earth’s surface (or, that portion) can be said to be flat. On the other hand, if it does not deviate by what is predicted by the “square of the mile” rule (5 miles^2), then we have a case that what the Globe Earthers is the curvature of the spherical Earth is wrong.
So, we do not need to know the exact drop to establish this.
Yes. It’s possible to do. You would have to do it over a big distance to really show it convincingly. But certainly, the technology is there to measure the distance very accurately between the laser and the reflector. If you can hold yourself up there in the sky steadily enough and measure the angle accurately enough, they would be very serious problems actually. Problem with the laser is it gets quite wide fairly quickly. So it sounds good in theory, but the only thing you can really measure accurately with this is the distance between the laser and the reflector. Because the beam gets quite wide after 10 miles or whatever, you can not really target it very precisely. And holding yourself completely steady and staying in one place in the sky, it is not so easy either.
Actually most of these experiments, they sound like they should work, but then there are difficulties in executing them with sufficient precision. And I think, firstly it would be very expensive, and even if you did it the results would be inconclusive because yes, you can measure the distance accurately between the laser and the reflector but exactly targeting the reflector and exactly measuring the angle, it is not so easy to do in reality.
Flat earth facts,
Hmm! You seem to have missed what I stated. The surveyor would most likely not be able to measure precisely the amount of declination but like the Bedford Level test they would observe any declination from a straight path and ultimately if observing the progress of a bridge from shore over water should observe it decline and disappear beyond approximately three miles if said curve existed.
Surveyors may use electronic theodolites, lasers and such to carefully measure construction say within a kilometer but they also have at their disposal optical equipment to ascertain the progress of their project and they lay of the terrain. Your own statement that surveyors can theoretically measure up to 30 kilometer in 10 mile increments proves my point. Beyond 3 miles they shouldn’t be able to view the surface water at all due to Earth’s curvature. In fact, land surveyors for over a century have seen and coursed projects much farther than that without impediment.
My dad was an engineer with a telephone company and among the first to layout and install fiber optic cables decades ago. Surveyors worth their salt before then and now could chart and visualize their projects over extended distances.
You mentioned measuring distances to the moon and such using lasers and I suppose we could add to that radio/ microwave and perhaps infrared or uv radiation. In fact, such methods are not true measurement because their based on often inaccurate assumptions regarding the speed of light and the medium it passes through. People have been brainwashed into thinking the speed of light is a constant ~186284 miles or ~300K km per second. In fact, light is not a constant velocity and can vary greatly based for example on the medium it passes through. Some dense fluids have been known to reduce the velocity to as little as 17k km per second or less. Electromagnetic or more realistically ethereal action can alter it further. Not to get to far off track, but you’ve made many assumptions that would take time to unravel.
The assumption regarding regarding NASA’s supposed retro-reflector can be handled by the fact that long before NASA claimed to land on the moon they bounced/reflected radio and other frequencies off the lunar surface going back at least to the 1940’s. Engineers have claimed for a long time the lunar surface has the strong ability to direct radiation back to
it’s source much like a reflector. IOW an artificial reflector was likely unnecessary.
Within the last few years line of sight radio propagation ( ~30 MHz or more ) have become more prevalent and or popular in some regions. Such radio transmission frequencies can be easily blocked by obstructions. Nevertheless, in many areas these operators with transmitters and receivers in their yards are communicating with others 50 miles or more away. This would again seem unlikely given Earth’s supposed curvature. It’s claimed atmospheric’s can add 15% or so to the radio horizon, but the distances operators manage to operate at go far beyond that. Their exists a great deal of empirical evidence for flat earth, but merely a pile of excuses for the mounting inconsistencies in the globe model.
Infrared photography can reveal mountains and geological forms beyond 150 miles away without Earth curvature reduction. Geological formations so distant that visual spectrum imagery becomes impossible due to atmospherics becomes plain in other frequencies. I could go on and on. The globe model is falling due to technological advance and over obsession with the ability to measure precisely 17.7 feet five miles away simply isn’t the issue. The ability of humans to ascertain the reality of their environment and observe the facts at hand is the issue. IMO, the Chinese bridge engineers never considered Earth’s curvature in their planning because it was never an issue to begin with.
Have a great day!
Hi On the Level. Not much point in going through so many tangental points. Not possible to respond to all of that. But yes. I agree with you, there are inconsistencies with what we observe and what we would expect to observe from a globe. It is true that we can sometimes mysteriously see things that should be far below the horizon and could never be visible on a globe with the dimensions they have given us. This is perhaps the strongest indication that there may be something wrong with our perception of where we are situated in the universe, in my opinion. But that has nothing to do with this post.
The point of this post is just to illustrate that this so-called flat earth proof: “If the earth was a globe engineers would have to take this into account while they are constructing big projects, they never do, therefore the earth is flat.” Is totally incorrect, totally wrong, a mistake based by an incorrect assumption that the drop increases over distance, when in reality the drop never changes, the drop is always only 8 inches per mile, and it is too small to measure, totally insignificant, this drop has no impact at all on these great engineering projects and they will never notice the curvature of the earth and never need to include it in their calculations, even if it is
a globe. I have discussed it extensively already. But that is the only point for this post. There are, of course, other points, but they are for other posts.
Go down to chilly or the south pole and see it for yourself. So spinning 1,000 m an hour and traveling 3 rifle shot speeds around the sun there’s no way that we could see the same star systems every night and you couldn’t guide a boat across the ocean by looking at the stars cause you’d be lost. Locomotives can only climb at 3% grade That right there tells you it’s flat or the next time You’re in an airplane take a picture and show me the curv
These are all bogus ideas.
Firstly the movement. If you are moving and the system you are in is also moving then you don’t feel any movement. It is called a ‘frame of reference’. Imagine you are in an airplane flying at more than the speed of sound, we used to have commercial airliners which did that. Inside everything is totally as if you were stationary. You can walk up the isle towards the front of the plane or down the isle towards the back of the plane and not feel any difference at all. Even though you are walking with the faster than the speed of sound direction of the plane or against it. The movement of the plane is irrelevant because you are within the frame of reference of the plane and everything: you, the plane, the seats, the air in the plane, everything, it is all moving with the airplane.
As far as the stars. Globe earthers have put them light-years away, which makes any movement of the earth irrelevant. Earth rotating is not going to change the stars you see. It is only going to make the stars you see rotate. So you will always see the same star systems because on the globe earth you are always looking in the same direction in the sky from any point on the earth. Earth’s North Pole is always pointing to the Polestar and South Pole is always pointing to the southern celestial pole. So you will always see the same stars from the same point on the globe. However, flat earthers can not explain what we see in the sky presuming the earth is flat.
As far as locomotives climbing up the curve, firstly the curve on a globe 8000 miles across is less than 3%, but even if it was more than 3% locomotives would not have to climb up it due to the magic of gravity, a force pulling everything towards the center of the earth. So gravity adjusts the curve of the earth to a flat plane so locomotives will not have to climb up the curve of the earth. It is similar to the frame of reference, when you are in the airplane traveling at the speed of sound, inside you can not feel any movement at all.
As far as seeing the curve, you can not see the curve when you are on a globe or ball from the surface or from a small distance from the surface, like a plane flying ten miles above it. As you rise above a globe every point at the horizon remains at the same distance from your eyes. So every point on the horizon will remain at the same level. So it is impossible to see any curve when rising up from a globe. So you can’t take a picture of the curve from an airplane on a globe earth.
Actually, we would not feel the movement only if the system in which we are in is either stationary, or moving uniformly with constant speed in a straight line.
If the frame of reference “accelerates” or “decelerates”, we would also feel the movement, because our tendency to remain the way we are and not to change our speed in a straight line is being affected. We surely feel if the plane slows down or changes direction or tilts. But we don’t feel if the plane moves with uniform speed in a straight line.
So, your statement that “If you are moving and the system you are in is also moving then you don’t feel any movement.” is, strictly, not correct. It should be “If you are moving and the system you are in is also moving with constant speed in a straight line, then you don’t feel any movement.”
Yes. Of course this is true. If the field of reference is moving in a straight line at a constant speed then that motion is irrelevant and unmeasurable within the field. However if the field is not moving at a constant speed or not in a straight line then there will be forces that can be felt / measured from this movement within the field. If an airplane [the field] is moving in a straight line even at 600 miles per hour you feel nothing. But if it turns you feel it, and if it accelerates or decelerates [lands or takes off] you feel it. Also even rotation, that has an acceleration component to it, so if the field is rotating around something that will exert some force on the objects within the field…