# Lighthouse dipping lights

• 627 Replies
• 15768 Views
?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #240 on: March 01, 2021, 01:02:36 PM »
Trains do require a level track on which to run scpeti.
So like I asked, you have a train that needs to go from a few m above sea level at a port.
It needs to go to an inland town at an elevation of 100 m.
Do you have the track level so it is ~100m above the ground at the port? Or 100 m below ground at the town?
Or do you not have it level?

Just what magic requires trains to run on a level track? Why can't they run on an inclined track?

These guys want everyone to believe that a train is somehow continuously running uphill on a globe.
No, that is just the blatant lie repeatedly spouted by FEers to pretend there is a problem with the globe, based upon in intentional misrepresentation of how the globe actually works.

Following the level surface of the globe is not running uphill.

You do not even have a clue about the topic here.

Read the topic title again. This thread isn't about mythical gravity.
You should try reading the actual topic and understanding the model you hate so much.
If you did, you would understand the significant of gravity.
And there is nothing mythical about gravity, no matter how much you hate it and want to pretend it doesn't exist.

?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #241 on: March 01, 2021, 01:03:27 PM »
They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth.
You ignoring it doesn't mean they aren't.
They are using a model which specifically has Earth being curved.
It even has the semi-major and semi-minor axis of Earth.

Again, remember this diagram:

You are clearly showing that level is not the same all over Earth.
Level, on a RE, is perpendicular to the direction towards the centre of Earth.
This means it curves, and this curvature is in the vertical direction.

There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.

But it seems now that you want to pretend that level needs to be the same everywhere on Earth you pretend that it isn't level?

Again, this shows it isn't simply you not knowing any better. It is intentional deceit.

Go take that diagram, and draw a level line at the light house and at the ship.

It is your blind irrational hatred which makes you think the globe doesn't make sense.

No. It's not hatred. It's called waking up to the endless amount of bull crap I've realised we're all subjected to from cradle to present
It sure seems to be, with you reduced to repeatedly lying about it including with pathetic insults like calling it bull crap.
You have no actual argument against it.

Soooooo, booth the bridge towers are also plumb then, even though we get told they're tilted away from each other by a small margin?
This is plumb, is it?
You people need to make your mind up.
No, you just need to stop playing dumb and pretending to be such an idiot.
We aren't changing our minds. We aren't contradicting ourselves.
It has been explained to you repeatedly.
The towers ARE plumb. They "tilt away" because plumb lines ARE NOT PARALLEL!
They tilt away because the curvature of Earth means plumb lines will diverge as you go up away from Earth.

Again, it doesn't take a genius to understand this.
A complete imbecile would be capable of understanding it.

Again, this is the simple diagram that shows it:

The lines which intersect the centre are plumb (i.e. they are aligned to the direction of down, i.e. towards the centre of Earth, perpendicular to the level surface). Notice how even though they are plumb, they are not parallel and if you pick any 2 they appear to tilt away from each other.

But you don't like, because it shows you are wrong, and it shows that your strawman against the RE is pure nonsense. There is no magical meeting of the towers in the middle.
If you go to any of the towers, they are still plumb, yet pick any 2 towers and the separation between the tops will be greater than the bottoms.

If that was your reality then skyscrapers would be so out of plumb as to be in danger of simply falling over.
Only if they were designed by someone like you playing dumb and trying to have them point upwards at the north pole, rather than plumb for the location.

Or are you trying to appeal to the tiny difference in angle as you move across the comparatively tiny skyscraper?

Your so called plumb and level on your so called globe is absolute utter nonsense.
Stop just spouting the same ignorant crap and prove it.
Either prove that it is nonsense, clearly explaining why; or stop repeating the same lie.

And again, directly related to the OP, which you keep on dodging, WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE LIGHTHOUSE ON A RE regardless of height and distance?
Do you have any justification at all, or is just another blatant lie from you?

#### Mikey T.

• 2561
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #242 on: March 01, 2021, 01:25:58 PM »

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #243 on: March 02, 2021, 01:50:30 AM »

What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #244 on: March 02, 2021, 02:02:00 AM »

Quote
There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.

They would be a level sight from the boat if it was on your silly global Earth set up. Look at the tilt and get your head around it.

The person on the boat would be looking level in normal reality but you people are the one's that think the sight has to dip below level to see opposite objects.
The nonsense is laughable.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 02:03:32 AM by sceptimatic »

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #245 on: March 02, 2021, 02:05:16 AM »

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Get your crayons out and show me. I ask for the simplest form of explanation, so let's see it.
Your attempts at ridicule are so mild they're almost pleasant.
I welcome the child like explanations.

#### Jura-Glenlivet II

• Flat Earth Empathiser
• 3425
• Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #246 on: March 02, 2021, 02:45:33 AM »

This is the amount of tilt you get over a 20 mile length, close up and then encompassing the span, it's hardly discernible so your appalling drawing is redundant.

The 0.02 (mile) equals just over 100 feet, and the pink line links the tops of the two lines 20 miles apart, looks level doesn't it? Well within real viewing limits of seemingly level.
This is why scale matters.

Click to expand

Drawn to scale in Rhino.
Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

High Priestess of the “Society for the Promotion of Arbitrary Moderation” (SPAM)

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #247 on: March 02, 2021, 03:21:02 AM »

This is the amount of tilt you get over a 20 mile length, close up and then encompassing the span, it's hardly discernible so your appalling drawing is redundant.

The 0.02 (mile) equals just over 100 feet, and the pink line links the tops of the two lines 20 miles apart, looks level doesn't it? Well within real viewing limits of seemingly level.
This is why scale matters.

Click to expand

Drawn to scale in Rhino.
Tilt is tilt. It is not level and would increasingly build over distance.
Also don't forget to add in the opposite tilted object.

Your globe is absolutely nonsensical.

#### Jura-Glenlivet II

• Flat Earth Empathiser
• 3425
• Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #248 on: March 02, 2021, 03:40:56 AM »

Those two lines reaching up are radius lines from the centre of the earth (so plumb), so they both have tilt opposite to each other, but it hardly noticeable because of the size of the earth.

It is your argument that is absolutely nonsensical.

Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

High Priestess of the “Society for the Promotion of Arbitrary Moderation” (SPAM)

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #249 on: March 02, 2021, 04:08:56 AM »

Those two lines reaching up are radius lines from the centre of the earth (so plumb), so they both have tilt opposite to each other, but it hardly noticeable because of the size of the earth.

It is your argument that is absolutely nonsensical.

8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.

Have a word with yourself.

#### Jura-Glenlivet II

• Flat Earth Empathiser
• 3425
• Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #250 on: March 02, 2021, 04:26:29 AM »

The drawings, to scale shows the tilt, too little to notice over 20 miles, that shows you all you need to know.
Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

High Priestess of the “Society for the Promotion of Arbitrary Moderation” (SPAM)

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #251 on: March 02, 2021, 05:50:50 AM »

The drawings, to scale shows the tilt, too little to notice over 20 miles, that shows you all you need to know.
8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.

#### Jura-Glenlivet II

• Flat Earth Empathiser
• 3425
• Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #252 on: March 02, 2021, 05:55:19 AM »

I'm sure you've ignored this before but for those that care.

Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

High Priestess of the “Society for the Promotion of Arbitrary Moderation” (SPAM)

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #253 on: March 02, 2021, 06:02:47 AM »

I'm sure you've ignored this before but for those that care.

Ahhhh, right, so you're bending the vision over a curve now, are you.

One minute you tell us that ships are going over the curve and that's why we don't see them fully and the next our sight curves around.You people need to make up your mind.
That diagram is absolute utter utter utter nonsense, in the absolute extreme.

#### Stash

• 7299
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #254 on: March 02, 2021, 06:10:47 AM »

What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.

So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled."
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

What is your evidence that they didn't account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London even though they said they did?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #255 on: March 02, 2021, 08:16:25 AM »

What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.

So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

They said they went to the moon. They said they sent contraptions to mars.They said they sent 70's probes billions of miles through a solar system and passed so called planets and took photo's of them and sent that data back to Earth.
And all the rest of the absolute sickening, disgusting rubbish.
But people still sit there in awe. Too much star trek and star wars and such, in my opinion.

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.

#### Stash

• 7299
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #256 on: March 02, 2021, 08:25:52 AM »

What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.

So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

They said they went to the moon. They said they sent contraptions to mars.They said they sent 70's probes billions of miles through a solar system and passed so called planets and took photo's of them and sent that data back to Earth.
And all the rest of the absolute sickening, disgusting rubbish.
But people still sit there in awe. Too much star trek and star wars and such, in my opinion.

I don't see how "they" regarding space travel, have anything to do with engineering and building subways in London. That's really weird that you would make such a connection. Do you use the Space "they" as your argument for everything you don't believe regardless if it has to do with space or not?

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.

So your argument amounts to "The Crossrail engineers are lying"?

That seems to be your argument for everything - When confronted with any evidence that is contrary to your indoctrinated belief, you simply say it's a lie. Never provide any evidence to counter, it's just a lie. Got it.

But just to be clear, the Crossrail engineers are lying, right?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #257 on: March 02, 2021, 08:31:26 AM »
I don't see how "they" regarding space travel, have anything to do with engineering and building subways in London. That's really weird that you would make such a connection. Do you use the Space "they" as your argument for everything you don't believe regardless if it has to do with space or not?
You can think what you like about they.
If I mention those engineers you talk about I'll mention them.
Otherwise, they mean others. Which you obviously know, of course but you feel free to act like you want and you can pat yourself on the back.

Quote from: Stash

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.

So your argument amounts to "The Crossrail engineers are lying"?

That seems to be your argument for everything - When confronted with any evidence that is contrary to your indoctrinated belief, you simply say it's a lie. Never provide any evidence to counter, it's just a lie. Got it.

But just to be clear, the Crossrail engineers are lying, right?
Do you know if they're telling the truth?
Do you have any proof they're telling the truth?
Proof.
I want proof from you. Do you have it?

#### Stash

• 7299
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #258 on: March 02, 2021, 09:24:56 AM »
I don't see how "they" regarding space travel, have anything to do with engineering and building subways in London. That's really weird that you would make such a connection. Do you use the Space "they" as your argument for everything you don't believe regardless if it has to do with space or not?

You can think what you like about they.
If I mention those engineers you talk about I'll mention them.
Otherwise, they mean others. Which you obviously know, of course but you feel free to act like you want and you can pat yourself on the back.

It's weird that you apply aerospace "they" and your distrust in them all the way over to Subway engineers. Like I asked, do you always apply the aerospace "they" to things you don't believe in?

Quote from: Stash

So, no.....I do not believe anyone takes account of any curvature unless they are curving down and back up under bumpy terrain or even flattish terrain, or mountains, or hills.....etc.Definitely not spinning balls in space.
Absolute nuts.

So your argument amounts to "The Crossrail engineers are lying"?

That seems to be your argument for everything - When confronted with any evidence that is contrary to your indoctrinated belief, you simply say it's a lie. Never provide any evidence to counter, it's just a lie. Got it.

But just to be clear, the Crossrail engineers are lying, right?

Do you know if they're telling the truth?
Do you have any proof they're telling the truth?
Proof.
I want proof from you. Do you have it?

Yes, the proof is that the Crossrail project was a success and it was engineered and built based upon amazing pre-planning and very carefully monitored construction with extremely tight tolerances that is full documented. And there is no evidence that the approach documented and executed was a lie.

Do you have any proof that there is a breathing dome with a carbonite crystal emanating holographic Sun, Moon and stars projected on it?

I mean, at least I have documentation and the completed project, all of which exist in the physical world, as evidence/proof of how the project was designed and constructed. What more do you want? You can actually ride on/in the completed project.

So yeah, here we are: If anything doesn't fit your belief system, without evidence, you just say someone is lying or something is fake. Again, why do you even bother responding to anyone if your sole argument is that?

?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #259 on: March 02, 2021, 12:25:24 PM »
Simple logic is what I'm using.
You might think you are, but to any sane person you are just repeatedly throwing logic out the window.

Quote
There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.
They would be a level sight from the boat
Thanks for admitting you are just being extremely dishonest.
This shows you KNOW that on a RE, level is not the same direction everywhere. Instead it is based upon location on Earth.
That means a level line, which is level everywhere along it on the RE WILL CURVE!

That isn't difficult to understand.
So why do you need to continually pretend to not understand?

And no need to dishonestly pretend you are getting confused over level in your fantasy, vs level in reality/the RE, as you were clearly trying to describe level for the RE.

And the same kind of reasoning applies to plumb lines.

Tilt is tilt. It is not level and would increasingly build over distance.
Your globe is absolutely nonsensical.
And as your previous admission has shown, this is just more dishonesty from you.
You know the globe makes sense.
You know that level tilts as you move around the globe.

This means 2 level objects in different locations will have that level tilted w.r.t. each other.
Likewise, it means any 2 plumb lines in different locations will be tilted w.r.t. each other.

There is no contradiction or problem for the globe.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is the case for anyone honest enough to actually think about it.

The tilt discussed regarding the towers is purely due to the curvature of Earth making the 2 plumb lines tilt w.r.t. each other.

It seems to make sense for anyone, except those with an irrational hatred against it, who decide to repeatedly lie to pretend it doesn't make sense, even though they cannot show any fault with it.

The RE not being the FE, and not following the incorrect claims of the FE does not mean it doesn't make sense.
For a RE it is quite clear what level and plumb mean, and the simple fact is that their orientation depends upon your location.

8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.
Yes. A mile is 63 360 inches.
So for 1 mile, that drop is 8 parts in 63360, or 0.01%, practically nothing.
For a shorter distance like you suggested before, 1/32 of a mile, then that is 1980 inches for the distance and 1/128 inches.
That is 0.0004 %, even less, and practically nothing.

So yes, as a measurable drop, it is hardly noticeable.

If you would prefer it as an angle, then for 1 mile, you have 8 parts in 63360 which equates to an angle of 26 arc seconds, again, hardly noticeable.

So perhaps you should go away and have a word with yourself.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 12:27:00 PM by JackBlack »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17721
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #260 on: March 02, 2021, 12:36:38 PM »

What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.

So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled."
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

What is your evidence that they didn't account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London even though they said they did?

Please demonstrate that surveyors actually accounted for, or needed to account for, the curvature of the earth, rather the lack-of-direct-evidence description you presented about how something "could result in distortions".

Surveyors are told that the corrections in the London Survey Grid can be ignored for large portions.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 12:52:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### JJA

• 4202
• Math is math!
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #261 on: March 02, 2021, 12:47:04 PM »
They said they went to the moon. They said they sent contraptions to mars.They said they sent 70's probes billions of miles through a solar system and passed so called planets and took photo's of them and sent that data back to Earth.
And all the rest of the absolute sickening, disgusting rubbish.
[/quote]

So... because you can't understand how any of that works, it must be all lies.

It can't be that maybe, you simply can't understand it?

What's more likely, the entire world is out to get you, lies and conspiracies everywhere just to fool you... or maybe... you just could be wrong?

#### Stash

• 7299
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #262 on: March 02, 2021, 01:58:54 PM »

What are you using to claim "They are not factoring in any curvature of Earth," when they clearly state they are? I don't understand your argument. It's right there in black & white.
Simple logic is what I'm using.
Even land survey does not use any curvature but the trouble is, you people won't see reality. You prefer to think curving is level. It's absolutely nuts...but, it is what it is, I suppose.

So your argument is that the Crossrail engineers did not account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London?

Even though they said they did?

"The UK National Coordinate System, Ordnance Survey National Grid (colloquially called BNG, based on the OSGB36 datum) [2], was determined when the original Crossrail scheme was developed in the early 1990s to be too coarse for the engineering accuracy required by Crossrail, as it could result in distortions of up to 200mm per kilometre travelled due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Therefore a new projected coordinate system was required, to minimise the grid distortion within the Crossrail area.  This became London Survey Grid (LSG)[3] and combined existing OS survey stations with new ones, reducing the overall distortion to 1mm per kilometre travelled."
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/

What is your evidence that they didn't account for the Curvature of the Earth in their surveys for planning and implementing the long running tunnels under London even though they said they did?

Please demonstrate that surveyors actually accounted for, or needed to account for, the curvature of the earth, rather the lack-of-direct-evidence description you presented about how something "could result in distortions".

Surveyors are told that the corrections in the London Survey Grid can be ignored for large portions.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

Umm, "demonstrate"? It's demonstrated right in the link paper you posted. They created a new survey called "The London Survey Grid" and right in your paper they describe the datum used and the parameters set. You already posted the description of it.

In the description you took from the paper just what do you think is a "Transverse Mercator Projection" they referenced? Well it's a projection from a globe, which is what they used:

Again, right there in the paper, they define the London Survey Grid parameters:

Why did they use something like WGS-84?

The World Geodetic System (WGS) is a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations

All demonstrated right there in the paper you provided.

And ultimately, you debunked yourself: "...large portions could be ignored..." What about the other "portions" that couldn't be ignored?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17721
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #263 on: March 02, 2021, 04:56:46 PM »
If surveyors are told that they can just ignore it, it is not evidence that it was used.

We can all see how desperate you are to turn a sentence you google searched about something that "could result in distortions" into "surveyors accounted for curvature" or "surveyors needed to account for curvature", when none of that is expressly stated.

#### Stash

• 7299
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #264 on: March 02, 2021, 05:08:17 PM »
If surveyors are told that they can just ignore it, it is not evidence that it was used.

Ummm, using the quote you referenced, "The distortion is such that for large portions of the area projection corrections can be ignored.", "large portions" is not "all". Meaning there were "portions" that did require projection corrections. Reading comprehension 101.

We can all see how desperate you are to turn a sentence you google searched about something that "could result in distortions" into "surveyors accounted for curvature" or "surveyors needed to account for curvature", when none of that is expressly stated.

Desperate? Hilarious. The entire document references using WGS-84 and a Spheroid with a Transverse Mercator Projection, all Globe specific, as the foundation for the London Survey Grid, the creation of which is what the whole paper is about. That's not "googling" to find keywords. It's the whole bloody paper that YOU referenced. Talk about desperate, you're trying to deny what's written in black & white in a paper you posted. Amazing the lengths you'll go to.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #265 on: March 02, 2021, 11:03:28 PM »

I mean, at least I have documentation and the completed project, all of which exist in the physical world, as evidence/proof of how the project was designed and constructed. What more do you want? You can actually ride on/in the completed project.

So yeah, here we are: If anything doesn't fit your belief system, without evidence, you just say someone is lying or something is fake. Again, why do you even bother responding to anyone if your sole argument is that?
Don't you also have documentation about men on the moon and probes passing by pluto and billions of miles into space and what not?
You're sitting there on your arse and you are reliant on stories that you accept as truth in every way shape and form. That's fair enough but don't go and try to tell me that you know this as fact, because you don't. You accept it as fact.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #266 on: March 02, 2021, 11:06:12 PM »
Simple logic is what I'm using.
You might think you are, but to any sane person you are just repeatedly throwing logic out the window.

Quote
There is nothing level about what's in that diagram.
Really?
Because you were claiming the black lines you added as the level sight from the boat and a level sight from the lighthouse.
They would be a level sight from the boat
Thanks for admitting you are just being extremely dishonest.
This shows you KNOW that on a RE, level is not the same direction everywhere. Instead it is based upon location on Earth.
That means a level line, which is level everywhere along it on the RE WILL CURVE!

That isn't difficult to understand.
So why do you need to continually pretend to not understand?

And no need to dishonestly pretend you are getting confused over level in your fantasy, vs level in reality/the RE, as you were clearly trying to describe level for the RE.

And the same kind of reasoning applies to plumb lines.

Tilt is tilt. It is not level and would increasingly build over distance.
Your globe is absolutely nonsensical.
And as your previous admission has shown, this is just more dishonesty from you.
You know the globe makes sense.
You know that level tilts as you move around the globe.

This means 2 level objects in different locations will have that level tilted w.r.t. each other.
Likewise, it means any 2 plumb lines in different locations will be tilted w.r.t. each other.

There is no contradiction or problem for the globe.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is the case for anyone honest enough to actually think about it.

The tilt discussed regarding the towers is purely due to the curvature of Earth making the 2 plumb lines tilt w.r.t. each other.

It seems to make sense for anyone, except those with an irrational hatred against it, who decide to repeatedly lie to pretend it doesn't make sense, even though they cannot show any fault with it.

The RE not being the FE, and not following the incorrect claims of the FE does not mean it doesn't make sense.
For a RE it is quite clear what level and plumb mean, and the simple fact is that their orientation depends upon your location.

8 inches per mile squared tells you all you need to know about whether it's hardly noticeable.
Yes. A mile is 63 360 inches.
So for 1 mile, that drop is 8 parts in 63360, or 0.01%, practically nothing.
For a shorter distance like you suggested before, 1/32 of a mile, then that is 1980 inches for the distance and 1/128 inches.
That is 0.0004 %, even less, and practically nothing.

So yes, as a measurable drop, it is hardly noticeable.

If you would prefer it as an angle, then for 1 mile, you have 8 parts in 63360 which equates to an angle of 26 arc seconds, again, hardly noticeable.

So perhaps you should go away and have a word with yourself.
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
The first mile is 8 inches drop. After that it becomes massively worse for you lot. And you know it, which is why you attempt to diminish it by using the figures like you have. Laughable inthe extreme.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 27328
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #267 on: March 02, 2021, 11:08:36 PM »

So... because you can't understand how any of that works, it must be all lies.

It can't be that maybe, you simply can't understand it?

What's more likely, the entire world is out to get you, lies and conspiracies everywhere just to fool you... or maybe... you just could be wrong?
You don't understand how it works. You are totally reliant on fictional set ups and go with them.
All the data is there for the starship enterprise. Is that real?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 12:05:28 AM by sceptimatic »

?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #268 on: March 02, 2021, 11:35:28 PM »
Please demonstrate that surveyors actually accounted for, or needed to account for, the curvature of the earth, rather the lack-of-direct-evidence description you presented about how something "could result in distortions".

Surveyors are told that the corrections in the London Survey Grid can be ignored for large portions.

http://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

I see you ignored the part which clearly highlights that they chose a projection specifically to minimise the distortions in this location.
The fact that they need to pick a specific projection to do that is how they are accounting for the curvature.

?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #269 on: March 02, 2021, 11:39:58 PM »
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
I didn't say it is actually nothing, just practically nothing.
I showed quite clearly how small and insignificant that drop is for a direct measurement.

If you want it to be significant, you need quite a long distance, like those in long distance photos where you see the bottom of these distant objects obscured, as if they have dropped below the horizon. I wonder why....

You not liking that wont change that fact.
Just like you not liking what level and plumb means won't magically change it.

Again, the towers you continually lie about are pumb and that means that the curvature of Earth means the tops are further apart than the bottom.

You don't understand how it works.
Just because you choose to remain wilfully ignorant doesn't mean everyone does.
Just because you choose to not understand how anything works doesn't mean everyone doesn't understand.