Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

[GaryA]

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge towers prove you wrong...

It does no such thing...

First - the Wikipedia website is one of Satan's best tools today for altering the true meanings of things as well as recorded history. I would never trust it [blindly] to be telling me the [complete/full/total] truth about anything. I would recommend to anyone to use the highest possible amount of scrutiny when reading anything on that site.

The only thing it is actually good for is to observe the modern view - what people currently think or are being led to believe.

Second - the bridge towers could have sustained error in construction while being built without any 'curvature' calculations.

Show us an affidavit from those who did the construction declaring the use of 'curvature' calculations.

Show us the actual construction plans with clear evidence of 'curvature' calculations.

Third - even if someone were to use 'curvature' calculations on the construction of something, it does not automatically follow that it is 'proof' of any actual 'curvature'.

In this particular example, 1-5/8" is not a make-or-break amount of distance. (Even if true, it will not cause the bridge to fall down.)

Fourth - were the top and base distances actually measured with accuracy? (Or, is it just an assumption based on a calculation?)

This [article/idea/suggestion] has 'multiple fallacy' written all over it...

 

[RaceRunner]

The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

 

[RaceRunner]

A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

 

[RaceRunner]

The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.

 

[GaryA]

Such as?

Here is one I have posted twice already in this thread:

Please pay really close attention to the reality that is indicated and illustrated in this video:

 

[VARob]

Here is one I have posted twice already in this thread:

Easily explained:

"Though it’s about as far from the equator as the Arctic, and though it’s also largely frozen, Antarctica is in many ways the Arctic’s opposite. The Arctic is an ice-covered ocean basin surrounded by landmasses; Antarctica is a continent surrounded by a vast ocean. Roughly the size of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined, Antarctica extends from 60°S to the South Pole. Most of the continent lies within the Antarctic Circle, 66°33'39" south of the Equator. Geographers divide the continent into three regions: East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula."

^^^ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/antarctica-colder-arctic-it’s-still-losing-ice ^^^

Read the full article. It might help you understand.

This one too:

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/polar-temperatures/

It's written for kids, easy to understand.

 

[GaryA]

Such as?

You are welcome to check out my 'Ball Earth Conundrums' thread. However, be informed that it has been littered/trashed with various posts that illustrate very clearly-and-plainly that the cowardly people who submitted those posts - are purely intimidated by - and, are afraid to actually address - the 'conundrums' presented. So, you might be distracted by a bunch of intermingled with the posts-of-substance in the thread.

Just remember - the thread is not about 'Flat Earth' - it is 100% about 'Ball Earth' - which is the reason I have not posted in that thread the video from my previous post to this thread. (Because, technically, it is a 'Flat Earth' video - albeit, the content of the video is perfectly suited for the thread.)

 

[GaryA]

Easily explained:

Nope... (not buying it)

There is no possible way in the world that - according to the "workings" of the Ball Earth model - it should be a veritable never-ending frozen wasteland from 56 degrees South and further - while, as far as 80-something degrees North there exists a full spectrum of season, temperature, plant life, animals, etc.

All "equivalent" North/South points on a Ball Earth model Globe get the same amount of sunlight. (within a year cycle)

This cannot be disputed - it is Ball Earth 101.

Why would the climate in the "equivalent" north be so much different than in the "equivalent" south?

45 degrees north versus 45 degrees south
50 degrees north versus 50 degrees south
55 degrees north versus 55 degrees south
60 degrees north versus 60 degrees south
65 degrees north versus 65 degrees south
70 degrees north versus 70 degrees south
75 degrees north versus 75 degrees south
80 degrees north versus 80 degrees south
85 degrees north versus 85 degrees south
90 degrees north versus 90 degrees south

It is not just about the "poles" or the "Antarctic continent" - it is about 'everywhere'.

 

[VARob]

Nope... (not buying it)

One day you will.

 

[VARob]

You are welcome to check out my 'Ball Earth Conundrums' thread. However, be informed that it has been littered/trashed with various posts that illustrate very clearly-and-plainly that the cowardly people who submitted those posts - are purely intimidated by - and, are afraid to actually address - the 'conundrums' presented. So, you might be distracted by a bunch of intermingled with the posts-of-substance in the thread.

Just remember - the thread is not about 'Flat Earth' - it is 100% about 'Ball Earth' - which is the reason I have not posted in that thread the video from my previous post to this thread. (Because, technically, it is a 'Flat Earth' video - albeit, the content of the video is perfectly suited for the thread.)

Your thread is appropriately located in the "conspiracy" section of this site.

 

[RaceRunner]

In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

 

[RaceRunner]

The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

 

[RaceRunner]

If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

 

[GaryA]

One day you will.

Or, perhaps, something you might not expect:

Flat Earth topics are not about importance but about entertainment.

What will be entertaining is - when God shows everyone the truth about His Creation...

Jaws will drop.

Mouths will gape.

Eyes will pop.

Minds will marvel.

Hearts will howl.

Pride will cease.





Well - okay - if it were not so sad, it would be entertaining...

 

[GaryA]

Your thread is appropriately located in the "conspiracy" section of this site.

Well - the 'Ball Earth' belief system is the direct result of the largest conspiracy in existence today...

So - anything that questions the 'Ball Earth' model is automatically a conspiracy? Is that what you are saying?

 

[GaryA]

45 degrees north versus 45 degrees south
50 degrees north versus 50 degrees south
55 degrees north versus 55 degrees south
60 degrees north versus 60 degrees south
65 degrees north versus 65 degrees south
70 degrees north versus 70 degrees south
75 degrees north versus 75 degrees south
80 degrees north versus 80 degrees south
85 degrees north versus 85 degrees south
90 degrees north versus 90 degrees south

- at every point on the line of latitude of each offset - whether on land or at sea.

(Of course, 90 degrees [offset] is only considered to have one point.)

"Think about it..."

 

[GaryA]

So - anything that questions the 'Ball Earth' model is automatically a conspiracy? Is that what you are saying?

The usual "answer" to a 'Ball Earth conundrum' question:

"We cannot give a satisfactory explanation - so, the question itself must be some kind of conspiracy."

Also:

"We cannot give a satisfactory explanation - we just believe what we are told and never question it!"

 

[Dino246]

In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

No reference = no credibility. You could be making up stories. See GaryA's post 1981 to me.

 

[Dino246]

The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

Firstly, that's an incorrect formula for the application. Secondly, your description fails to account for the fact that the elevation of the track need not change an inch for the arc to exist over the face of the Earth.

 

[RaceRunner]

The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.