Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review r egarding 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. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”
200 Proofs Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball Videobook By Eric Dubay
- Thread starter Spherical
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
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.
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 .”
physically impossible .”
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.
A
How different the view of the ant compared to the view of the human. The ant thinks that all things are enormous, while for the human all those enormous things are small. Put the ant on a ball the size of a house and he can't tell the difference of that to when the same ant is placed in an empty parking lot. The ball and the parking lot are both flat to the ant, but to the human they are not.
How can an ant be right when he insists to the human that the ball is flat?
It's a matter of only using supportive evidence to argue that the world is flat, and all evidence otherwise is classified as falsified.
Yet, the earth being flat while all other cosmic objects, ie, the sun, and the other planets in our solar system as our nearest example, are spherical.. the flat earth dogma is inconsistent with the naked eye observational evidence.
How can an ant be right when he insists to the human that the ball is flat?
It's a matter of only using supportive evidence to argue that the world is flat, and all evidence otherwise is classified as falsified.
Yet, the earth being flat while all other cosmic objects, ie, the sun, and the other planets in our solar system as our nearest example, are spherical.. the flat earth dogma is inconsistent with the naked eye observational evidence.
not naked eye observable evidence from a height great enough to see the curvature. for example, the picture you're ignoring, that you earlier submitted as proof, even though the horizon obviously - even to the naked eye before i put a horizontal line in the image - curved. you're neatly ignoring that and using a different picture.
that picture, too, shows curvature though.
i added some horizontal lines using illustrator.
the top image shows curvature.
the bottom image shows curvature.
all of these images look like they are made with a computer-assisted panoramic image production function in a modern DSLR camera. the way this works is that a camera has a limited field width, so a series of multiple images are taken and then patched together to form the panoramic shot. each individual picture does not show a wide enough field to see the slight curvature of the very large diameter (relatively) earth. the panorama software takes advantage of this, and they are patched together by lining up the horizon line. so these images are artificially generated to show a flat horizon.
even using this method though, by compressing the width of them a little bit to exaggerate the differential in the horizon level, and putting an actual horizontal line up to compare with, you can still see slight curvature in both of the images that were taken from a height -- moreso from space, obviously, because it is a greater height.
the human eye has a narrow field of vision. we don't see a very wide angle of the horizon at any particular time, unless we're on a mountain top or up in a plane or something, so that that field of view extends a further distance. when we look around in a circle, our brain does something similar to what the panorama software in a camera does - it stitches the images together using the apparent flat horizon line. this is why it looks flat to us on the surface of the earth, where we can't see far enough for our narrow-angle view to encompass enough horizon to notice the curvature. but when we look out from the top of a mountain, and can see a very wide angle of the horizon, we can easily see curvature with the naked eye.
that picture, too, shows curvature though.
i added some horizontal lines using illustrator.
the top image shows curvature.
the bottom image shows curvature.
all of these images look like they are made with a computer-assisted panoramic image production function in a modern DSLR camera. the way this works is that a camera has a limited field width, so a series of multiple images are taken and then patched together to form the panoramic shot. each individual picture does not show a wide enough field to see the slight curvature of the very large diameter (relatively) earth. the panorama software takes advantage of this, and they are patched together by lining up the horizon line. so these images are artificially generated to show a flat horizon.
even using this method though, by compressing the width of them a little bit to exaggerate the differential in the horizon level, and putting an actual horizontal line up to compare with, you can still see slight curvature in both of the images that were taken from a height -- moreso from space, obviously, because it is a greater height.
the human eye has a narrow field of vision. we don't see a very wide angle of the horizon at any particular time, unless we're on a mountain top or up in a plane or something, so that that field of view extends a further distance. when we look around in a circle, our brain does something similar to what the panorama software in a camera does - it stitches the images together using the apparent flat horizon line. this is why it looks flat to us on the surface of the earth, where we can't see far enough for our narrow-angle view to encompass enough horizon to notice the curvature. but when we look out from the top of a mountain, and can see a very wide angle of the horizon, we can easily see curvature with the naked eye.
no it doesn't. that's just a lie you keep spreading, that your little you-tube god tells you.
what you really need to be asking yourself is why is the horizon not flat in the picture you posted thinking it was flat?
and the really important question you need to ask yourself is why have you replaced the true God with such an easily and often debunked and disproved theory?
why do you make such an idol out of this idiocy?
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 ball25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!
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.
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.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT]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.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
"Olber’s Paradox" states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, " Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star." In fact Olber’s "Paradox" is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a "failure." Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.
The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.
Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.
If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west. In actual fact, however, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, often directly back into the muzzle.
- Status