canal example: proof of flatness

  • 50 Replies
  • 5593 Views
?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
canal example: proof of flatness
« on: April 28, 2013, 05:54:21 PM »
An argument often encountered in FE literature is the putative fact that engineers ignore earth's supposed curvature when designing/building bridges, railroads, tall buildings, and canals. I think the issue has been argued to a standstill regarding bridges and tall buildings. I'm not sure about railroads. It depends upon how much extra track and ties are truly needed. If the discrepancy is significant, cost factors could be affected, and cushy engineering jobs lost.

However I haven't looked much at canals yet. For a short canal, yes, one can say that simply digging a bit deeper here or there might suffice. But here is a case that we should look at, namely, the 100-mile Suez canal connecting the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. From Earth--Monthly Magazine Numbers 47-48, I find these pictures.

First, the full two-page spread of the canal:


Next, the image portion from the left-hand page:


Next, the image portion from the right-hand page:


Here is a brief discussion given in the article:


Is this a convincing case that encourages the opinion that the earth is flat? Or is it merely the case that the earth happens to be flattish in that area?
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2013, 06:41:40 PM »
The only thing this convinces me of is the fact that the author of EnaG is very confused about what it means for the Earth to be curved.

He says that one end of the canal would be lower than the other. Not really. What he means is that one end would be below a plane that is tangential to a point at the other end. Why is this even significant? If you pick a point in the middle of the canal, both ends would be "below" it in this way. The fact is, the concept of "sea level" means something a little different from a flat to a round Earth. A flat Earth would use rectangular coordinates (fixed distance from an X-Y plane) while the round model would use polar (fixed distance from a single point).
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2013, 07:22:41 PM »
Very near where I live, there is a 3km section of rail that has been made exactly straight, as in, like a laser beam (well, an un-refracted, no 'bendy light' laser beam at least ;) ). At the midpoint, you can place a spirit level on the track, and it reads level, but at each end, the spirit level indicates a slight downward slope toward the middle (and the ends are slightly elevated relative to the earth's surface). This is due to the earth's curvature.

As far as canals go, I doubt they would survey the entire length in one hit. I would imagine that it would be surveyed in sections of a few hundred metres at a time, which would not show much of an influence from the earth's curvature (there's only about a 2cm difference in 500m, for example). To put that another way, the canal is not surveyed as one, continuous straight line, but as a series of shorter lines, which follow the earth's curve fairly closely.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2013, 07:48:14 PM »
I'm no canal expert, but wouldn't the change in level not show because canals are divided into locks like this:



Also, I don't understand the "digging a little deeper" comment, it seems to me that the author is suggesting that the workers are digging in relation to some height in the middle rather than in relation to their immediate surroundings.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2013, 08:45:14 PM »
I'm still studying the topic. I just noticed that the Suez Canal has no locks. Wiki claims:

Quote
When first built, the canal was 164 km (102 mi) long and 8 m (26 ft) deep. After multiple enlargements, the canal is 193.30 km (120.11 mi) long, 24 m (79 ft) deep and 205 metres (673 ft) wide as of 2010.[2] It consists of the northern access channel of 22 km (14 mi), the canal itself of 162.25 km (100.82 mi) and the southern access channel of 9 km (5.6 mi).[3]

The canal is single lane with passing places in the "Ballah By-Pass" and the Great Bitter Lake.[4] It contains no locks;
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2013, 08:49:14 PM »
The article in Earth monthly mag says that a datum (reference?) line 26' below the level of the Mediterranean extends the length of the canal, parallel to the surface of water in the canal. The claim being made, then, is that for a 100-mile distance, there is no change in altitude. If the earth were spherical, I'd expect to see some evidence of it over any 100-mile stretch. So for spherical-earth theory, this patch of land must just be an exception.
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2013, 11:56:06 PM »
I'm sorry, but you are failing to comprehend just how much area the earth has on its surface when compared to the size of a canal or a building. Such planning would be tediously meaningless as the differences would be insignificant. As far as your theories about canals. The surface of water also curves so there is nothing there for the planners and designers to work out either.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2013, 12:00:40 AM »
I'm sorry, but you are failing to comprehend just how much area the earth has on its surface when compared to the size of a canal or a building. Such planning would be tediously meaningless as the differences would be insignificant. As far as your theories about canals. The surface of water also curves so there is nothing there for the planners and designers to work out either.

Nothing to apologize for, my dear old rotter.

So from a spherical earth point of view, you would say:

1. The same drawing could be drawn with a curve. The 26' line would be curved, and the beginning and end of the canal would be at the same 'level'.
2. The earth is so large that even over 100 miles, there is nothing to plan for.

So (1) implies that there is nothing to observe, and (2) implies that there is nothing to plan for. Is that the spherical view?
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2013, 12:26:35 AM »
I'm sorry, but you are failing to comprehend just how much area the earth has on its surface when compared to the size of a canal or a building. Such planning would be tediously meaningless as the differences would be insignificant. As far as your theories about canals. The surface of water also curves so there is nothing there for the planners and designers to work out either.

Nothing to apologize for, my dear old rotter.

So from a spherical earth point of view, you would say:

1. The same drawing could be drawn with a curve. The 26' line would be curved, and the beginning and end of the canal would be at the same 'level'.
2. The earth is so large that even over 100 miles, there is nothing to plan for.

So (1) implies that there is nothing to observe, and (2) implies that there is nothing to plan for. Is that the spherical view?

Well I for one don't speak for all round earthers. There are billions of us so yeah, but here goes.

1. It could be drawn with a curve sure, if you could find a piece of paper or computer with a resolution that could support it. I'm wagering that such a screen resolution would be astronomical. What would there be to gain from that? I'm not implying that there is nothing to observe, just that what's there is so measly that it'd be about as significant as bothering to add a spec of salt to your dinner cause it's not salty enough.

2. Again, it's not that there is nothing to plan for, it would just be tediously meaningless.

Also, where have you seen a 100 mile wide canal? Are you implying that the length of the canal is relevant? Water flows down mountains all the time and you don't usually see rivers misbehaving.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 12:39:53 AM by rottingroom »

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2013, 01:08:20 AM »
I don't follow your meaning wrt resolution.

Water might flow down mountains, but the drawing contends that a specific 100-mile canal exemplifies flatness, by being at the same level the whole way.
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2013, 01:46:42 AM »
I think I see the problem here. You seem to be interpreting "the same level" to mean "relative to a straight line", but it doesn't. In this context, it means "relative to sea level", or "relative to the centre of the earth" (more or less the same thing). The drawing is simply made flat to make it easier to put on a page. You'll notice that the horizontal and vertical scales do not match either. Again, this is to make it easier to put on a page. There is a lot of cheating like this when making small drawings of large objects.

To address the other points you made:

1. The same drawing could be drawn with a curve. The 26' line would be curved, and the beginning and end of the canal would be at the same 'level'.
2. The earth is so large that even over 100 miles, there is nothing to plan for.

1. Yes, it could. It could be drawn exactly to scale, and it would have a noticeable curve, yet the datum and the water level would still be parallel (or, if you prefer, concentric, since they are curves).

2. If the 100 miles is surveyed in lengths of 200m or so, there is no need to plan, because the surveying will follow the earth's curvature anyway (each surveyed section being a short line tangent to the earth's surface; picture an octagon, but with thousands of sides instead of just eight).

I hope all that made sense!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2013, 01:57:29 AM »
So Scin, in this instance, the FE people might be quite innocently deluding themselves. They might genuinely believe that they've got a flat-earth example, when in fact the exact same data set supports, or fits within, spherical-earth theory. Would you agree?
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2013, 02:08:47 AM »
Pretty much. If you assume a flat earth, this example works okay. If you assume a round earth, it still works okay. If you tried surveying longer sections (say, a few km) at a time though, you would very quickly find that the flat earth model falls apart, and allowances need to be made for curvature.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2013, 09:39:49 AM »
So Scin, in this instance, the FE people might be quite innocently deluding themselves. They might genuinely believe that they've got a flat-earth example, when in fact the exact same data set supports, or fits within, spherical-earth theory. Would you agree?

odes and Scintific Method :
Would you agree that just maybe "FE people might be quite innocently deluding themselves" on a few other matters on this forum ? (Or maybe innocently or otherwise ?)

Without a shadow of a doubt!  :)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2013, 02:15:35 AM »
"Very near where I live, there is a 3km section of rail that has been made exactly straight, as in, like a laser beam (well, an un-refracted, no 'bendy light' laser beam at least ;) )."

This comment is disingenuous.  As if anybody would build a 3 km long track with a gentle bow in the middle for the fun of it.  There is no use coming on this forum unless you can propose a SERIOUS reason why the earth might be globular.     


?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2013, 03:33:53 AM »
"Very near where I live, there is a 3km section of rail that has been made exactly straight, as in, like a laser beam (well, an un-refracted, no 'bendy light' laser beam at least ;) )."

This comment is disingenuous.  As if anybody would build a 3 km long track with a gentle bow in the middle for the fun of it.  There is no use coming on this forum unless you can propose a SERIOUS reason why the earth might be globular.   

Did you read the rest of the comment, or just the bit that you think supports your position?

...At the midpoint, you can place a spirit level on the track, and it reads level, but at each end, the spirit level indicates a slight downward slope toward the middle (and the ends are slightly elevated relative to the earth's surface). This is due to the earth's curvature.

The track is absolutely dead straight, no bends, no curves, straight. The earth curves away from it a little at each end, and the pull of gravity (which is generally toward the centre of the earth) is at a slight angle to the normal in opposite directions at each end. I would provide an illustration of my point, but haven't got around to uploading pictures for this site yet.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2013, 04:35:41 AM »
The track is absolutely dead straight, no bends, no curves, straight. The earth curves away from it a little at each end, and the pull of gravity (which is generally toward the centre of the earth) is at a slight angle to the normal in opposite directions at each end. I would provide an illustration of my point, but haven't got around to uploading pictures for this site yet.
Slow day so here you go :)

The curviture etc are exagerated for illustrative purposes.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2013, 04:41:02 AM »
Thanks Manarq! That illustrates my point perfectly! :)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2013, 06:04:48 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2013, 06:10:15 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

oh it must be because the earth is flat, thank goodness railroad engineers are in the "truth club" otherwise our rail system wouldn't work.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2013, 06:16:05 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

This is why: Australia Telescope Compact Array

There you go, you can go and shout conspiracy all you want, it ain't gonna change facts!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2013, 06:21:35 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

oh it must be because the earth is flat, thank goodness railroad engineers are in the "truth club" otherwise our rail system wouldn't work.

Or, maybe something about this story is not factual, whether the Earth is round or flat.  Hmmm?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2013, 06:25:42 AM »
Or, maybe something about this story is not factual, whether the Earth is round or flat.  Hmmm?

Come on down and check it out for yourself, I have a spare room, I'll put you up!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2013, 06:28:00 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

This is why: Australia Telescope Compact Array

There you go, you can go and shout conspiracy all you want, it ain't gonna change facts!

I asked a legitimate question.  You seem to be a little defensive about this space telescope array.  Do you work for them, or a government agency?  It's OK if you can't answer the question.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2013, 06:37:26 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

oh it must be because the earth is flat, thank goodness railroad engineers are in the "truth club" otherwise our rail system wouldn't work.

Or, maybe something about this story is not factual, whether the Earth is round or flat.  Hmmm?

oh boy jroa, you are inspiring! What if it is factual? hmmm

What's more likely.... the entire world is in on a global conspiracy or the .000000001% of the people here on TFEC are just crazy?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2013, 06:50:30 AM »
I asked a legitimate question.  You seem to be a little defensive about this space telescope array.  Do you work for them, or a government agency?  It's OK if you can't answer the question.

Sorry, I guess I should have answered your question more directly, but at least now you have a little background info to work with.

The track needs to be perfectly straight, as it is a reference point for the dishes when they are being aligned on a target. If the track were not perfectly straight, each dish would be pointing slightly off target, and no useful data would be gathered.

In answer to your other question, no, I do not work at the telescope (or for any other government agency). Sometimes I wish I did, because it would be amazing to be involved in some of the discoveries - and just general research - being done out there.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2013, 06:58:31 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

oh it must be because the earth is flat, thank goodness railroad engineers are in the "truth club" otherwise our rail system wouldn't work.

Or, maybe something about this story is not factual, whether the Earth is round or flat.  Hmmm?

oh boy jroa, you are inspiring! What if it is factual? hmmm

What's more likely.... the entire world is in on a global conspiracy or the .000000001% of the people here on TFEC are just crazy?

Argumentum ad populum is not a credible defense. 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2013, 07:02:56 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

oh it must be because the earth is flat, thank goodness railroad engineers are in the "truth club" otherwise our rail system wouldn't work.

Or, maybe something about this story is not factual, whether the Earth is round or flat.  Hmmm?

oh boy jroa, you are inspiring! What if it is factual? hmmm

What's more likely.... the entire world is in on a global conspiracy or the .000000001% of the people here on TFEC are just crazy?

Argumentum ad populum is not a credible defense.

not as the only defense sure, but as yet another piece to the everest sized stock pile of evidence that should be telling you the earth is round, it's admissible.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2013, 07:12:42 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

oh it must be because the earth is flat, thank goodness railroad engineers are in the "truth club" otherwise our rail system wouldn't work.

Or, maybe something about this story is not factual, whether the Earth is round or flat.  Hmmm?

oh boy jroa, you are inspiring! What if it is factual? hmmm

What's more likely.... the entire world is in on a global conspiracy or the .000000001% of the people here on TFEC are just crazy?

Argumentum ad populum is not a credible defense.

not as the only defense sure, but as yet another piece to the everest sized stock pile of evidence that should be telling you the earth is round, it's admissible.

A fallacy should never be used as evidence for anything.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2013, 07:22:05 AM »
Why would anyone bother to go through the trouble of making a relatively short, perfectly straight stretch of railroad tracks if the Earth is round?  What would be the purpose of getting laser precision on this stretch when tracks all across the Earth work fine without this level of precision?

oh it must be because the earth is flat, thank goodness railroad engineers are in the "truth club" otherwise our rail system wouldn't work.

Or, maybe something about this story is not factual, whether the Earth is round or flat.  Hmmm?

oh boy jroa, you are inspiring! What if it is factual? hmmm

What's more likely.... the entire world is in on a global conspiracy or the .000000001% of the people here on TFEC are just crazy?

Argumentum ad populum is not a credible defense.

not as the only defense sure, but as yet another piece to the everest sized stock pile of evidence that should be telling you the earth is round, it's admissible.

A fallacy should never be used as evidence for anything.

what fallacy? You didn't even indicate which piece of evidence is false let alone explain why it's false. If someone with BOP provides proof then the Con has to say why it's not good proof. You can't just say, "nope, that's wrong!" Otherwise we can just deny anything no matter what evidence is provided.

Oh wait, that's already what you do.