When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

Maybe he didnt know thr mechanics of it all.
From what i gathered he was asking someone to dig a 200ft hole.

Maybe plata doesnt know jow to survey.
Two guys start at the beach holding survey sticks.
They slowly leap frogging inland.
One point is recorded in relation to the last.
So the end, they have an estimated ft above sea level.

This is a bit off topic , but it is related to surveying.
I took a course in " Elementary Plane Surveying " in Junior College.
The Lab part of the course was in the actual use of surveying instruments
The Lab was divided into 2 men teams.
You started from a point in a quadrangle on the campus and took measurements as you surveyed to a bench mark and then back to your starting point.
You were supposed to get the same elevation at the same place from where you started.
As I remember this was quite a long Lab exercise.

Yeah, and I would be ashamed of myself for claiming and defending that blunder. I know they now claim it's the columns but anything can be tweaked to give people a illusion or thought of a Globe. Your bridge means and proves nothing, except it does prove if Earth were a Globe all bridges would be engineered for Globe curvature and not a gimmick one.

I couldn't care less if "the curvature of the earth was taken into account when designing the bridge". Maybe it was but any difference would not show in a photo like that!

But you say "the water is supposed to curve with the bridge". Why? A bridge does not curve like that to follow the earth's curvature - there is no connection!

Even if the water was "supposed to curve" there is no way it would be visible in a photo like that.

As I have stated numerous times, the horizon from a low altitude should look (almost exactly) straight and horizontal.

So your claim "maybe there was an issue with gravity when the photo was made" is simply ludicrous.

You ignored the explanation of the straight horizon all the other times, so let's try again:
On a sphere, the water horizon is a circle all 360° around the observer and from a low altitude that circle is seen edge-on so looks almost exactly straight.[/i]

But even if the horizon did curve with the radius of the earth we could use the famous 8" x (miles square) formula to work out the drop either side of the centre in that photo.

The "the Verrazano-Narrows bridge is 13700 feet long" so half the length is 6850' or 1.3 miles.
So the water at each end might be lower than the water in the middle by a whole 8" x 1.3² = 13.5".

No one in their right mind would suggest that we could see a 13.5" deviation from straight in a distance of 13700 feet!

So your meme, as are all the others, totally ridiculous.

There is no curvature engineered into the Panama Canal. But when you add curvature it becomes flooded.

This is why you're a flat Earther.  You don't understand the subject you're arguing about.  85ft above sea level, means it's 85 feet above sea level.

Quote from: SpaceCadet on July 31, 2019, 11:10:49 AM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 11:02:36 AM

There is no curvature engineered into the Panama Canal. But when you add curvature it becomes flooded.

The problem is you don't even understand what you are trying to debunk. If you did, you wouldn't keep spouting all that

And just like a kid with fingers in his ears singing "la la la la I can't hear you" you refuse to listen to explanations.

In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings. Are you seeing it yet?

Just to give you a sense of scale, the red line in the top box and the inset represents the full length of the Panama Canal in relation to the size of Earth and the degree to which there is curvature present for such a short distance.

What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?

Do you really not understand the globe model?

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?

Do you really not understand the globe model?

It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"

If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel

I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472

Please link your source that "the actual engineering construction of the canal places.. yada yada yada.. underground plane.. yada yada.. under 131' of seawater.. yada yada.."


The first paragraph of your meme was heading in the right direction, then you spiraled off into some inane babble...

Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean.

Quote from: Stash on July 31, 2019, 05:39:19 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?

Do you really not understand the globe model?

It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"

If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel

I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472

You are wildly misinterpreting Macario's original image and applying some sort of bizarre near logic to it. Globe model:



Gatun is 85' above SEA LEVEL not above an "underground plane".

Are you being cheeky or do you really have no concept as to how the globe model works?

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:55:46 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 31, 2019, 05:39:19 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

What don't you understand about the words "sea level"? Why are you replacing that term with "underground plane"? There is no such thing. Otherwise everything on the planet when expressed as height would be, "X feet above the 'underground plane'". That literally makes no sense. Do you say that Mt Everest is "29,000 feet above the underground plane"?

Do you really not understand the globe model?

It's clear what I mean. "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines"

If we lived on a Globe it would be expressed as Sea Curvevel

I am using the Globe Earth model and Macarios's language. See....

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191472#msg2191472

You are wildly misinterpreting Macario's original image and applying some sort of bizarre near logic to it. Globe model:



Gatun is 85' above SEA LEVEL not above an "underground plane".

Are you being cheeky or do you really have no concept as to how the globe model works?

No, I used his words in his Model Earth drawing and used his drawing. I noticed you removed his words and that plane line. Why?

The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?

Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!

"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.

And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 11:19:16 AM

In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings. Are you seeing it yet?

In spherical world engineers measure from Mean Sea Level.
Not from some imaginary straight line underground.
Not from some point 18 miles away.

Engineers know that builders will measure from Mean Sea Level as well.
Not from that imaginary straight line.

For that straight line nobody cares in reality.
It means nothing.

Mean Sea Level is the level where the water would be if there was no land there.

You replied to these words "In a spherical world engineers would include curvature in their engineering profiles and drawings." Your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote in bold.

But you measured from the imaginary straight line, for your Globe Earth Model to show how much surface curvature there should be between oceans and where to place sea level (at 216') and where to place Gatun Lake.  Did you forget about this? See what you posted in the following link.

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82582.msg2191475#msg2191475

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?

Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!

"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.

And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"

I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.

Oh, I see, many are mad because I used Macarios' Globe Earth model drawing of curvature pertaining to the Canal and used his words as a tool to debunk a Globe.

Interesting!

How many here like my avatar?

Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.

Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.

You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?

Quote from: sokarul on July 31, 2019, 07:15:12 PM

Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.

You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?

Yes.

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:18:28 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 31, 2019, 07:15:12 PM

Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.

You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?

Yes.

I can't wait!!

Thanks!

You’re welcome.



Anyways. As already explained to you 100 times. The Panama Canal follows the curvature. 85 feet above sea level is 85 feet above sea level.

Quote from: sokarul on July 31, 2019, 07:15:12 PM

Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.

You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?

We have no problem to solve. You have!

But curvature of any landmass is rather useless because landmasses have so many "ups and downs" that 216' in 36 miles would never be noticed.

And the curvature across place like Lake Pontchartrain have been demonstrated often enough. 

Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

And there's plenty more if you really want to be shown that water does really "curve".

You’re welcome.



Anyways. As already explained to you 100 times. The Panama Canal follows the curvature. 85 feet above sea level is 85 feet above sea level.

You said yes to "verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal" but gave a different argument. So I assume you can't do it?

Boats going over a alleged curve is a different issue. Some don't understand the science behind a surface mirage. You know, that image that heat and humidity creates near a flat surface and blocks the view?

Please stay on topic.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 06:52:40 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?

Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!

"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.

And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"

I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.

The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?

Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!

Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:18:28 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 31, 2019, 07:15:12 PM

Please note, you did not and will not ever debunk the globe.

You know, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. Can you do it?

We have no problem to solve. You have!

But curvature of any landmass is rather useless because landmasses have so many "ups and downs" that 216' in 36 miles would never be noticed.

And the curvature across place like Lake Pontchartrain have been demonstrated often enough. 

Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

And there's plenty more if you really want to be shown that water does really "curve".

I ask that you please stay on topic.

Thanks.

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 06:52:40 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?

Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!

"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.

And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"

I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.

The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?

Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!

Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?

Oh, I have yet to get to the Suez Canal and the part of the Nile that flows for a 1000 miles north with only a one foot of drop.  Stay tuned!

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 31, 2019, 07:49:27 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 06:52:40 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?

Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!

"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.

And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"

I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.

The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?

Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!

Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?

Oh, I have yet to get to the Suez Canal and the part of the Nile that flows for a 1000 miles north with only a one foot of drop.  Stay tuned!

If it's anything like the "evidence" you have presented so far, I literally cannot wait!

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:53:33 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 31, 2019, 07:49:27 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 06:52:40 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?

Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!

"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.

And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"

I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.

The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?

Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!

Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?

Oh, I have yet to get to the Suez Canal and the part of the Nile that flows for a 1000 miles north with only a one foot of drop.  Stay tuned!

If it's anything like the "evidence" you have presented so far, I literally cannot wait!

In the mean time. you should actually try to verify the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. You might be a hero!

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 31, 2019, 07:57:23 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:53:33 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 31, 2019, 07:49:27 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 31, 2019, 06:52:40 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on July 31, 2019, 05:22:21 PM

The elevations are not measured from any "underground plane connecting ocean coaslines".
Why would you suggest that when the diagram shows sea-level extending in a continuous curve from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans?

Can't you even read the diagram of the "Profile and Yardage Estimate" you posted? All elevations are measured from Mean Sea Level, look!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom left!

Look at the "Mean Sea Level" near the bottom!

"Mean Sea Level" never means the straight line joining two oceans.

And as NotSoSkeptical says, "Why does your blue sea level follow the continental slope that goes beneath the ocean?"

I expressed "underground plane connecting the oceans (0' elevation) coastlines". O' elevation is mean sea level.

The two points you connected are at 0' elevation MSL at those two points only. Why are you connecting them, then claiming that imaginary line represents sea level?

Your "underground plane" IS NOT SEA LEVEL!

Now, you can actually solve your problem by actually verifying the surface flatness of literally ANY 36 mile stretch of water on earth. Can you do it?

Oh, I have yet to get to the Suez Canal and the part of the Nile that flows for a 1000 miles north with only a one foot of drop.  Stay tuned!

If it's anything like the "evidence" you have presented so far, I literally cannot wait!

In the mean time. you should actually try to verify the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. You might be a hero!

I have actually been outside during sunrise / sunset.

In the mean time. you should actually try to verify the surface curvature of any landmass or canal. You might be a hero!

And I suggest in the mean time, you actually learn how curvature and elevation work.  "Sea-level" is an elevation of 'zero' that follows Earth's curvature through land, not an elevation that runs in a straight tangent between coasts.

You lose.

What's your next question that you don't understand?