ONE question SERIOUS Question

Sure,

Let's pretend that it just simply always works for light period.

Explain how do you compensate for physical trajectory, sonic, radio/micro wave trajectory?

You're going to have to be more specific in your question.

If we ignore the details with the light bending theory (vertical image stretching etc.)

and just pretend that it simply works:

Then trajectory of everything else should function as if the world was flat.  Yet they don't.

Particularly large engineering projects also need to take this into account.

Taking this to a larger scale causes the problem of distances between locations on the planet in the real world vs. the various flat planet models that contradict every day airliner travels (or long road trips for that matter).

Then trajectory of everything else should function as if the world was flat.  Yet they don't.

Particularly large engineering projects also need to take this into account.

How large?

If they assume curvature of the earth, they are making some mistakes. Engineers are pretty notorious for cutting corners, relying on rules of thumb, approximating, etc. If they make sloppy estimates regarding the surface of the earth I imagine civilization  hasn't noticed much because civilization is pretty content with a shabby state of things in general. 

As an engineer I'm going to try to ignore the blanket insult you just levied despite all the continued advances in reducing tolerances across practically every industry and put it to you this way. 

One of the best battleship guns was on the Yamato and was a 18.1"/45 cal.

It had a maximum striking distance of 45,960 yards or 42.025824 kilometers.

Rounds fired from this weapon assume a round planet.  If the planet was flat, the rounds would hit short enough of the target based on round planet calculations (would be missing over 34 meters of drop (over 112 feet)) that the target not only would never get hit, but it would barely feel the mist from the round harmlessly splashing into water.

This is true of all long range ballistics, if you make calculations assuming a flat planet you will rarely hit your target, regardless if your country has a space program or not.

You're defense of "well engineers are sloppy" aside from being insulting is patently false in this example.

As an engineer I'm going to try to ignore the blanket insult you just levied despite all the continued advances in reducing tolerances across practically every industry and put it to you this way. 

One of the best battleship guns was on the Yamato and was a 18.1"/45 cal.

It had a maximum striking distance of 45,960 yards or 42.025824 kilometers.

Rounds fired from this weapon assume a round planet.  If the planet was flat, the rounds would hit short enough of the target based on round planet calculations (would be missing over 34 meters of drop (over 112 feet)) that the target not only would never get hit, but it would barely feel the mist from the round harmlessly splashing into water.

This is true of all long range ballistics, if you make calculations assuming a flat planet you will rarely hit your target, regardless if your country has a space program or not.

You're defense of "well engineers are sloppy" aside from being insulting is patently false in this example.

First draft fail, sorry: Accounting for relativity effects on a flat earth gets you pretty close to the same result as assuming a round earth.

Then, you keep asking: why not assume a round earth? A: Because experiments prove the earth is flat.

Engineers are not interested in Truth, only what is useful. In some cases, assuming a round earth model may be useful as a simplification of assuming a flat earth with relativity. However, this does not make the round earth model true. Truth can only be discovered through direct investigation and direct evidence, not theoretical speculation combined with indirect evidence, which is what scientists usually do.

It doesn't impress me that assuming the earth is round for the sake of an engineering calculation gets you a better engineering result. I am not an engineer and not interested in engineering. I am interested in the Truth not what is useful. 

First draft fail, sorry: Accounting for relativity effects on a flat earth gets you pretty close to the same result as assuming a round earth.

Not even remotely true.  If you consider the round velocity is in excess of 2000ft/second (over 1350 mph or 2200 kph, the distance a round could travel over a 112 foot drop (depending on angle of flight) would wind up grossly short of the target.

Then, you keep asking: why not assume a round earth? A: Because experiments prove the earth is flat.

And more experiments prove it is round.  Ignoring that the round model obey's significantly more laws of physics without requiring additional special explanations.   

Engineers are not interested in Truth, only what is useful.

You're mistaking engineers with politicians and businessmen.  Engineers (and most good scientists) inherently pursue as pure and accurate test data as possible so that it can be further built upon.  Shaky data makes progress extremely difficult as your initial estimates and approach will be signigicantly less accurate.  So the truth of what is actually going on is critical.  Our jobs litterally depend on accuracy.  If you are familiar with the Sigma6 model you have an idea of just how accurate we are expected to be each time, every time.

In some cases, assuming a round earth model may be useful as a simplification of assuming a flat earth with relativity. However, this does not make the round earth model true. Truth can only be discovered through direct investigation and direct evidence, not theoretical speculation combined with indirect evidence, which is what scientists usually do.

This is so inaccurate of a statement I don't know where to begin.  Engineers regularly use empiracle modeling from real world data because academic approximations are just that, approximations.  They are used as a starting point and then real world testing is done to compensate with further accuracy as there are almost always too many variables in any complex process to model sufficiently despite advances in computer technology.  They use round world models because they models are more accurate.  If another model was inherently more accurate it would be used in favor as a default equation approach, period.

It doesn't impress me that assuming the earth is round for the sake of an engineering calculation gets you a better engineering result.

That's unfortunate because it should.  It means that everyday performance and practices suggest a flat earth model is wrong, that is significant in that it means more data and testing has been performed along these lines than any given one off experiment.

I am not an engineer and not interested in engineering. I am interested in the Truth not what is useful.

You do realize that the "truth" and what is useful from an engineer's perspective are nearly always the same thing when developing an actual result or performing research?

If the basis that you build a project around is flawed you put the entire project in danger.  The degree that things are tested going into even a "quick" 1 year project is often far beyond the effort of a given N=1 field test.  Normally it is the N=1 that starts the research to characterize actual behavior to confirm understanding and predict behavior with sufficient accuracy to build upon.

Or to word it another way, your statement is the equivalent of saying "I'm not interested in how the world around me actually is, I'm interested in the truth".

As if these are different things.

But a larger issue here is that when faced with areas where the assumptions neccessary to support your model break down, your answer boils down to:

"I'm not interested in the results that contradict my model".

That is a small step from plugging your fingers in your ears and sticking your toungue out.  How can you possibly expect to support your own convictions if you refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit with your model.  That kind of behavior is considered appalling to any rational scientific or engineering approach. 

"damn...that breaks my current theory...well screw it...I'll pretend it doesn't matter or exist".

How can you have an intelligent conversation if you eventually come down to this?  Someone says something you don't like or do not inherently agree with so you dismiss it as unimportant?  How will you truly learn more than you currently know if you only pay attention to what comforts you?

While I'm being overly blunt it is hard not to when you throw insults at engineers as a whole and then go on to dismiss everything that contradicts the vision of your FE model.


This is upsetting as you come off with the approach that you intend to have a discussion about reaching "the truth" but your behavior suggests instead that you wish to lead people to where you have answers that you believe are complete and acceptable.  When someone digs past them and points out issues beyond them that are incomplete or unaccounted for, you stop having a conversation and either dismiss, ignore, or deflect.  This is an inherently unfair approach to just about anything.