Conflicting rate of curvature?

Where is your source?

You just quoted this statement, the source must be close at hand.

Please post the source.

That was not a quote, it was acquired knowledge put into my own words. I do wish you would read my posts properly, I would have thought the following line would have given it away:

How do I know about this? I grew up virtually right next to it, and have had the opportunity to see this remarkable piece of engineering with my own eyes.

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 06, 2013, 03:44:52 PM

Your first question about what direction I think gravity pulls in a RET situation?  We are taught that it pulls towards the center of the "globe", or in the general direction of down.  I'm not sure why you asked that or why it's relevant to my question?

It's relevant to the question it was in reply to, as it explains how water can be held in a "fixed curvature", as you put it.

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 06, 2013, 03:44:52 PM

Your answer as to the "rate" or curvature of the "globe/Earth":
 
"Giving the curvature in inches per mile can be misleading. If I do the calculation over 1 mile, I get 8.6 inches (close enough to your quoted value). If, however, I do it over, say, 100 miles, I get 71.6 feet per mile. You can do these calculations yourself easily enough if you understand trigonometry."

OK... a drop of 71.6 feet over 100 miles IS 8.6 inches per mile.

I guess unless we hear from anyone else, the "rate" is 8 - 8.6 inches per mile.

With THAT said it is incontrovertible proof that there is NO curvature to the Earth based on past experiments measuring "rate of fall" (or convexity) of Earth over water.  Such experiments have been discussed countless times and stated in different ways.  NO "rate of fall" can be calculated anywhere over water. 

Conclusion:  The Earth is Flat, there can be no other explanation

Pay attention. I didn't say "71.6 over 100 miles" I said "71.6 feet per mile". Over 100 miles it would be ~7,160 feet. This can be confirmed by going for a fly (which I have done countless times in my life), and noting that, when at 7,000 feet, you can see about 100 miles. Standing on the ground, you can see for about 3 miles. From about 100 feet above the ground, you can see roughly 12 miles. I've personally verified all of this, and I consider it to be pretty sound proof of curvature. I encourage you to go and verify it for yourself as well, and/or come up with a credible alternative explanation for it.

EDIT: No, I didn't stuff up my calculation, the fact that 71.6 feet divided by 100 is about 8.6 inches is just a coincidence. It threw me off when I first did the maths, so I triple checked it, and it is most definitely right. As an added note, the drop over 6,000 miles is 3,981 miles, or about 3500 feet per mile. If you can tell me why that is, I'll refrain from calling you names.

I served in the Navy for 4 years, but to tell the truth, I never was much of a true sailor. Like a lot of other persons who were specialists in their own specialty ratings , I was more of a technician. I never did get interested is such things as navigation, etc. Maybe I should have been.

 But all of that aside, the curvature of the so-called "Round Earth" or more specifically a spherical earth was apparent from my observations. I do know from personal experience that I could see much farther to the horizon if I was high on the 04 Deck of the ship than when I was on the Liberty Boat at sea level. Height of the observer has to be taken into account when determing the distance to the horizon, which proves the curvature of the earth. (That was the reason for those "Crow's Nests" being placed so high on those masts on those old ships.) Of course this could also be said for the Flat Earth, but no curvature would have to be taken into account in that case.

A Theoretical Question for the Flat Earth Experts.:
Theoretically speaking, if you could go high enough above the earth, and if the earth was flat, why couldn't you see the whole Flat Earth as a disc and see the Ice Ring , etc. ? (This is based on the Unipolar Map of the Flat Earth. But this poses a problem.)One post said "There is no Flat Earth Map." And you also couldn't go high enough since Flat Earthers also say "There is no space flight" and you couldn't get high enough.

Also, why if you go high enough, you can only see half of the earth ? (A "Round Earth" that is.) OOOOPS !!!!!! Sorry about that one. Flat Earthers also say  those photographs are all fakes and just drawn to show a spherically shaped earth.

P.S. Don't ever say the words "Flat Earth" to a sailor or an ex-sailor. You might find their reply to be highly embarrassing to you. If the earth was flat why couldn't I see Honolulu or San Diego much farther out at sea than I could ?. Oh, right, the old "perspective".  But there were such things as binoculars and telescopes. They didn't work on those "sinking ships" also.

Go ahead sir, prove it.  Find one.  JUST ONE!  Of all the miracles created by man and huge distances spanned by tunnels, bridges, Railroads, Highways and Canals across the entire world, please fine me JUST ONE that took into consideration the "curvature" of your Basketball-shaped Earth.

anything using a spirit level.

That was not a quote, it was acquired knowledge put into my own words. I do wish you would read my posts properly, I would have thought the following line would have given it away:

Quote from: Scintific Method on December 08, 2013, 09:06:45 PM

How do I know about this? I grew up virtually right next to it, and have had the opportunity to see this remarkable piece of engineering with my own eyes.

Well, it sure looked and sounded like a quote when it was made in response to my request for proof of ANY Engineered structure that used the "curvature" of Earth in it's mathematical or Engineering Construction calculations.

OK, so you made that up.  Fine.

Now, go back to my original response and please find one, JUST ONE, man-made structure of ANY TYPE that uses "curvature" of the Basketball-shaped Earth in it's design, mathematical or Engineering calculations.

I happen to know that you will not find such evidence because there are NO structures that take into consideration the "curvature" of the Earth.

If there was a Spherical Earth, it would be ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to calculate for the fall related to the curvature when constructing/Engineering long projects.

But since the EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE, you will not find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of an engineered structure with Engineering calculations related to the "curvature" of the Earth.

But I'll be waiting, just in case you find one, JUST ONE, example.

Or, you could just admit that defending Round Earth Theory is impossible because EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE.

But since the EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE, you will not find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of an engineered structure with Engineering calculations related to the "curvature" of the Earth.

I have a question... why?

I mean all calculations between two point are made by the engineers based on a round earth so you're not going to drop short due to curvature and the only really long constructions are tunnels and bridges and they both have tolerance built in anyway and meander up and down far more than round earth curvature.

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 09, 2013, 12:11:50 AM

But since the EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE, you will not find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of an engineered structure with Engineering calculations related to the "curvature" of the Earth.

I have a question... why?

I mean all calculations between two point are made by the engineers based on a round earth so you're not going to drop short due to curvature and the only really long constructions are tunnels and bridges and they both have tolerance built in anyway and meander up and down far more than round earth curvature.

I don't think calculations between two (distant) points ARE made by engineers based on a round Earth. 

As a matter of fact, we are trying to fine ONE, JUST ONE, example where calculations ARE made based on the curvature of Earth.

However, it seems no one can find one, JUST ONE, example of any engineered structure that calculated based on the curvature of the Earth. 

Therefore, Engineers apparently do NOT make calculations based on the curvature of Earth, or a Round Earth, but they apparently make calculations based on a Flat Earth.

So now you know.

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 09, 2013, 12:11:50 AM

But since the EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE, you will not find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of an engineered structure with Engineering calculations related to the "curvature" of the Earth.

I have a question... why?

I mean all calculations between two point are made by the engineers based on a round earth so you're not going to drop short due to curvature and the only really long constructions are tunnels and bridges and they both have tolerance built in anyway and meander up and down far more than round earth curvature.

Yes. If you use a round Earth calculation and expect a round Earth result, you get one.  Congratulations. 

OK, so you made that up.  Fine.

So I made that up? Prove it! I know with certainty that you can't, because I didn't!

Now, go back to my original response and please find one, JUST ONE, man-made structure of ANY TYPE that uses "curvature" of the Basketball-shaped Earth in it's design, mathematical or Engineering calculations.

I happen to know that you will not find such evidence because there are NO structures that take into consideration the "curvature" of the Earth.

There you go again, making big claims without being able to back them up (have you actually gone through the plans for every structure ever built, looking for these calculations?), and ignoring the examples that have already been given (thanks, hewholikespie!). And you wonder why I call you ignorant!!

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 09, 2013, 12:11:50 AM

OK, so you made that up.  Fine.

So I made that up? Prove it! I know with certainty that you can't, because I didn't!

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 09, 2013, 12:11:50 AM

Now, go back to my original response and please find one, JUST ONE, man-made structure of ANY TYPE that uses "curvature" of the Basketball-shaped Earth in it's design, mathematical or Engineering calculations.

I happen to know that you will not find such evidence because there are NO structures that take into consideration the "curvature" of the Earth.

There you go again, making big claims without being able to back them up (have you actually gone through the plans for every structure ever built, looking for these calculations?), and ignoring the examples that have already been given (thanks, hewholikespie!). And you wonder why I call you ignorant!!

Chill out.  If you didn't make it up, where did it come from?

Remember, it's impossible to prove a negative.  YOU say there are countless projects that use curvature in their Engineering calculations.  Well, where IS one?

I can't dig through construction plans looking for non-existing calculations, but YOU, since you claim there are so many projects that use "curvature" calculations in project engineering, should just go get ONE to show us.

Good luck with that.

Quote from: Spank86 on December 09, 2013, 12:18:54 AM

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 09, 2013, 12:11:50 AM

But since the EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE, you will not find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of an engineered structure with Engineering calculations related to the "curvature" of the Earth.

I have a question... why?

I mean all calculations between two point are made by the engineers based on a round earth so you're not going to drop short due to curvature and the only really long constructions are tunnels and bridges and they both have tolerance built in anyway and meander up and down far more than round earth curvature.

Yes. If you use a round Earth calculation and expect a round Earth result, you get one.  Congratulations.

jroa, I sure hope you're here to defend truth, justice and Flat Earth.  The RE Theorists are trying to gang up on me.  Not that they're having any success, mind you.

Arguing with a RE Theorists is like dueling with a blind man.  Not a lot of competition.

I am here to defend truth. 

I am here to defend truth.

What do you think of my arguments so far?  (remember, I'm a brand-new FEer)

I don't think calculations between two (distant) points ARE made by engineers based on a round Earth.

I think you missed my point. Assuming a hypothetical round earth... why would they need to be?

As a matter of fact, we are trying to fine ONE, JUST ONE, example where calculations ARE made based on the curvature of Earth.

And I'm saying it would be highly unlikely to be necessary since the only long distance structures are relatively independent of round or flat earths. they work either way. the only ones I can think of that might not be are like the one scientific stated.

Therefore, Engineers apparently do NOT make calculations based on the curvature of Earth, or a Round Earth, but they apparently make calculations based on a Flat Earth.

So now you know.

so you think all engineers believe in a flat earth and somehow neglected to mention?

Quote from: Spank86 on December 09, 2013, 12:18:54 AM

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 09, 2013, 12:11:50 AM

But since the EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE, you will not find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of an engineered structure with Engineering calculations related to the "curvature" of the Earth.

I have a question... why?

I mean all calculations between two point are made by the engineers based on a round earth so you're not going to drop short due to curvature and the only really long constructions are tunnels and bridges and they both have tolerance built in anyway and meander up and down far more than round earth curvature.

Yes. If you use a round Earth calculation and expect a round Earth result, you get one.  Congratulations.

so do you think the engineers all believe in a flat earth and are using flat earth calculations?

Chill out.  If you didn't make it up, where did it come from?

No need to chill, I'm highly amused! I got that information from personal experience and observation, so it's a little hard to provide a citation.

YOU say there are countless projects that use curvature in their Engineering calculations.

Nope, not me. I have no doubt there would be a few out there that actually had to take it into account (hence my response to your (negative, and therefore unprovable and unsound) claim that there were none), but I leave it to others to find them. I have a perfect example of a structure that compensates for the earth's curve only a few k's from where I live now, and a number of other observations not related to the current topic that prove beyond doubt that the earth is round.

I can't dig through construction plans looking for non-existing calculations, but YOU, since you claim there are so many projects that use "curvature" calculations in project engineering, should just go get ONE to show us.

Good luck with that.

Again, not my claim, I leave the legwork on that one to those who made it.

Where is your source?

You just quoted this statement, the source must be close at hand.

Please post the source.

"The whole basis of an array is that only the signal being tracked is common to every antenna. By correlating all the data from all the antennas, the common signal can be separated out. All of the project's key components were designed and manufactured within the Division of Radiophysics or by Australian industry. The telescope's engineering manager John Brooks, said the project required a level of precision and quality control probably unprecedented in Australian civil engineering. For example, the 3-kilometre-wide gauge rail track laid on thousands of tonnes of granite ballast had to be accurate to within plus or minus 0.5 millimetres from end-to-end while accommodating the curvature of the Earth."

Brad collis.

from here, search for "curv"

http://www.csiropedia.csiro.au/display/CSIROpedia/Australia+Telescope+Compact+Array

Thanks Spank, I actually was looking for that!

Scintific Method:

You said:  "Really? Never? Can you prove that there has never been a long man-made structure that included calculations of curvature?"

When you get nowhere by name calling you get down to your last, most desperate hope at smearing the obvious with your fanciful imagery.  You want me to prove a negative?

You want ME to prove there has never been something?  Anything?  LOL.  Silly boy.  Don't you know it's the act of desperation to ask your opponent to prove a negative?

UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, that turns the tables!

It is YOU who MUST prove a positive (or admit defeat... which you will!).

So... PROVE there HAS been a man-made structure that took into account the "curvature" of the Basketball (Earth).

Go ahead sir, prove it.  Find one.  JUST ONE!  Of all the miracles created by man and huge distances spanned by tunnels, bridges, Railroads, Highways and Canals across the entire world, please fine me JUST ONE that took into consideration the "curvature" of your Basketball-shaped Earth.

When you can NOT find JUST ONE example, please return immediate with an appropriate apology for your confusion over such simple matters.

If, however, you DO find JUST ONE EXAMPLE of an Engineering Calculation (of any type structure, anywhere on Earth) that takes into consideration the "curvature" of your Basketball-shaped Earth, I will glad apologize for the "ignorance" you have repeatedly claimed I have.

I eagerly await your response:

PROVE IT!!!

The following italicised paragraphs are taken from the Wikipedia article on the Humber Bridge

Bridge statistics

The bridge's surface takes the form of a dual carriageway with a lower-level foot and cyclepath on both sides. . There is a permanent 50 mph (80 km/h) speed limit on the full length of the bridge.

Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 m (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 m (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 × 4.75 m (14.8 × 15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 m (10 ft) in winds of 80 mph (129 km/h). The towers, although both vertical, are 34 mm (1.3 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.[8] The total length of the suspension cable is 71,000 km (44,000 miles). The north tower is on the bank, and has foundations down to 8 m (26 ft). The south tower is in the water, and descends to 36 m (118 ft) as a consequence of the shifting sandbanks that make up the estuary.

The following paragraph is from the wikipedia article on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases.

This is a link from a website dealing with civil engineering. It concerns compensationg for the curvature of the earth:

http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html

Quote from: jroa on December 09, 2013, 01:01:30 AM

I am here to defend truth.

What do you think of my arguments so far?  (remember, I'm a brand-new FEer)

I skipped a couple of pages in this thread. So I don't know if you have gotten the drop on RE figured out yet.
8" over  the first mile, much more drop in proceeding miles.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
 This chart shows the drop, and how to figure it out.

Quote from: sixstringthing on December 09, 2013, 01:07:43 AM

Quote from: jroa on December 09, 2013, 01:01:30 AM

I am here to defend truth.

What do you think of my arguments so far?  (remember, I'm a brand-new FEer)

I skipped a couple of pages in this thread. So I don't know if you have gotten the drop on RE figured out yet.
8" over  the first mile, much more drop in proceeding miles.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
 This chart shows the drop, and how to figure it out.

Just a quick note on that chart; it's only good up to a point, and the same applies to the accompanying calculation. If you're going to calculate the total drop over a given distance, there are two ways to do it properly:

For drop perpendicular to the tangent line (as in my diagram earlier in this thread, with drops 'a', 'b', 'c', and 'd'):
    drop = radius - (cosine((distance / circumference) * 360) * radius)

For drop perpendicular to the surface at the given distance (as in the diagram linked to by hoppy):
    drop = (radius / (cosine((distance / circumference) * 360)) - radius

Distance and circumference must be in the same units, but radius can be any units you like, just remember that the equation you use will give an answer in those units (so if you want an answer in feet, use the radius of the earth in feet: 20,925,524.9). Also, a quick note on the second equation: it will only give a meaningful answer if ((distance / circumference) * 360) < 90.

To anyone about to jump in and rave on about this being "bullsh*t fake maths made up to confuse the general population", I remind you that this is basic trigonometry as taught in high schools, and can be derived from first principles if you put in a little effort (been there, done that).

Enjoy!

As I have asked before show me "sinking ship on flat and glassy sea with no swell "

Here a set I took a month or two ago.

I did say sinking, not shrinking.

I did say sinking, not shrinking.

That's what you get when something is moving away from you! Compare the width to the height though, and you'll notice the height decreasing more rapidly than the width, and the hull being almost completely obscured by the 3rd frame. Pity about the mirage though... 29silhouette, do you think you'd get an opportunity to take a few more shots at a time when the atmospheric effects aren't so prevalent?

Quote from: tappet on December 10, 2013, 02:44:54 AM

I did say sinking, not shrinking.

That's what you get when something is moving away from you! Compare the width to the height though, and you'll notice the height decreasing more rapidly than the width, and the hull being almost completely obscured by the 3rd frame. Pity about the mirage though... 29silhouette, do you think you'd get an opportunity to take a few more shots at a time when the atmospheric effects aren't so prevalent?

I wonder if they'd mind if someone went and painted horizontal stripes on the pillars of the bridge?

When I see sinking ships there is swell and I can see the ships large and with clarity with the naked eye like this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Aground_Tauranga_Pukehina_5_Oct_11_4.jpg


http://www.rgbstock.com/bigphoto/nDpW942%2Focean
And when there is no swell I see ships like this.

When I see sinking ships there is swell and I can see the ships large and with clarity with the naked eye like this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Aground_Tauranga_Pukehina_5_Oct_11_4.jpg


http://www.rgbstock.com/bigphoto/nDpW942%2Focean
And when there is no swell I see ships like this.

It could just be me, but there appears to be more swell in the 2nd photo...

It would also appear that the horizon is closer than the ships in every case except perhaps the middle ship in the 2nd photo, an impossibility if the earth were flat.

I did say sinking,

It is 'sinking'.  It's disappearing from the bottom up.  The water is flat, and not glassy, but it was glassy near shore and I could see the bridge reflected across the water.  If it ever is 'glassy' to the horizon, it'll be like trying to look across a mirror anyway.

not shrinking.

It's moving away from me.  What effect is supposed to take place then?

29silhouette, do you think you'd get an opportunity to take a few more shots at a time when the atmospheric effects aren't so prevalent?

It's pretty hit or miss with the atmospheric problems.  I was looking toward the bridge once, saw a bulge in the water, was wondering what the heck I was looking at, and then noticed the bridge above also had a big upward bump.  It was moving and flattening out.  Just a random gust of different temperature air.

Hopefully I can catch that tug and barge again, and spend the time to track it further.  Had a few other pictures of a ferry, that bridge, and hillside from two different elevations from the same time I took those tug photos.  I'll see if thread is still here (might have been deleted with the server mess appears that's been restored) or if imageshack is working enough to let me see my pictures I uploaded.

How on Earth could gravity hold water in a fixed curvature around a basketball shaped object?  It just doesn't make sense and is downright incomprehensible. 

...verbally abuse knuckleheads who buy into the insane idea that this thing we live on is shaped like a basketball and water is curved.

So you have never looked at a desktop globe, and are unable to visualize water on the surface of said sphere, yet those who can, are the knuckleheads?