Lighthouse dipping lights

  • 627 Replies
  • 14354 Views
*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #300 on: March 05, 2021, 04:31:21 AM »
I'm not following. You think putting in a massive subway expansion system with km's of tunnels underneath London where there's a couple 100 years worth of crowded infrastructure already there is just a matter of sticking a shovel in the ground and digging a straight line wherever you want to go? Just that new Crossrail stretch of long running tunnels from Liverpool St to Shenfield alone is like 32 KM. You think you can just bore in a straight line for 32 KM without any plans?

The darker lines are for the Crossrail project. The lighter shaded stuff is all of the Tube that was already there (Not to mention all of the other underground infrastructure, e.g., sewer, electrical, communications, etc.):



Yeah, skepti says, "...just dig under it in a straight line or whatever." Sure, just whatever... You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
You need to pay more attention.

I have no issue with avoiding obstacles and I've alrteady mentioned about digging down and such.
My argument is in you saying they're using the curve of the Earth to do what they do in avoiding stuff.

You know this because you read something and accept it as the truth.
You have no clue, so why don't you admit it.

Yep, because I read some stuff. And that stuff is evidence: The survey plans, the site construction plans, etc. that reference the survey plans which were used to successfully construct a massive 21 billion dollar subway expansion underneath London that you or I can ride today. So yeah, the cold, hard evidence leads one to say yeah, they did what they say they did.

What is your evidence? Your "evidence" is based solely upon your belief system which dictates that they couldn't have done what all of the real evidence shows they did, so they must be lying. Your "evidence" is only your faith. And that is less than convincing and less than adequate.

*

JJA

  • 4160
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #301 on: March 05, 2021, 04:33:37 AM »
Quote from: JJA

You are unable to wrap your mind around the theory, and you mistake your failure for the theory being gobbledygook.
I agree I can't wrap my mind around it. There's a good reason for that. A similar reason why I can't wrap my head around ghosts being dead people or gods being superpowered dead people.

And, nobody has ever explain what it is. Including you.

There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

Quote from: JJA

Hint: If the entire world is confusing and impossible to make any sense of, maybe... it's not the world that is confused.
That doesn't make any sense.

It's ok.  Just go back to bed.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #302 on: March 05, 2021, 05:37:13 AM »
Yep, because I read some stuff. And that stuff is evidence: The survey plans, the site construction plans, etc. that reference the survey plans which were used to successfully construct a massive 21 billion dollar subway expansion underneath London that you or I can ride today. So yeah, the cold, hard evidence leads one to say yeah, they did what they say they did.

What is your evidence? Your "evidence" is based solely upon your belief system which dictates that they couldn't have done what all of the real evidence shows they did, so they must be lying. Your "evidence" is only your faith. And that is less than convincing and less than adequate.
You read a few books and such and that's your evidence.
Have you read Harry Potter?
Has anyone you know?
Is that evidence that it's all a reality or do you know it's not a reality because the book says so....or does it...and do you know for sure it is not factual even though it may be sold as fictional?


You only know what you are told. If you cannot verify the facts then you have to accept that the evidence is circumstantial to you and you choose to believe on that premise.
You could not take any of it to a court of law and submit it as evidence and expect it to be accepted.


Just admit that and we can move on.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #303 on: March 05, 2021, 05:38:42 AM »
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #304 on: March 05, 2021, 06:17:15 AM »
Yep, because I read some stuff. And that stuff is evidence: The survey plans, the site construction plans, etc. that reference the survey plans which were used to successfully construct a massive 21 billion dollar subway expansion underneath London that you or I can ride today. So yeah, the cold, hard evidence leads one to say yeah, they did what they say they did.

What is your evidence? Your "evidence" is based solely upon your belief system which dictates that they couldn't have done what all of the real evidence shows they did, so they must be lying. Your "evidence" is only your faith. And that is less than convincing and less than adequate.
You read a few books and such and that's your evidence.
Have you read Harry Potter?
Has anyone you know?
Is that evidence that it's all a reality or do you know it's not a reality because the book says so....or does it...and do you know for sure it is not factual even though it may be sold as fictional?


You only know what you are told. If you cannot verify the facts then you have to accept that the evidence is circumstantial to you and you choose to believe on that premise.
You could not take any of it to a court of law and submit it as evidence and expect it to be accepted.


Just admit that and we can move on.

I absolutely could take all of the documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc., to a court of law and it would be accepted as it was signed off on by a billion people involved in the project. Not to mention that the project was constructed and completed using all of the said documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc. It's verifiable and such documentation would completely be entered in as valid evidence. Documentation is the core of many, many court cases. Your notion is absurd and incorrect.

*

JJA

  • 4160
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #305 on: March 05, 2021, 06:29:17 AM »
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.

What is stopping you from doing your own research?  It's not anyone's job here to explain things to you, that's YOUR job to learn it.

I understand it perfectly well.  You don't, that's your problem.

Do your own work for once.


Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #306 on: March 05, 2021, 02:03:49 PM »
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #307 on: March 06, 2021, 12:56:28 AM »
I absolutely could take all of the documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc., to a court of law and it would be accepted as it was signed off on by a billion people involved in the project. Not to mention that the project was constructed and completed using all of the said documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc. It's verifiable and such documentation would completely be entered in as valid evidence. Documentation is the core of many, many court cases. Your notion is absurd and incorrect.
Taking that to a court of law to give out as proof of a globe would get you nowhere.
You're hanging onto this like a tired monkey hanging onto a tree branch over a pool full of crocodiles that haven't eaten in 24.5 days and who just happen to love tired hanging monkeys as their dessert after having just eaten an old dead hippo that fell into the pool and expired.  ;)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #308 on: March 06, 2021, 12:58:46 AM »
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.

What is stopping you from doing your own research?  It's not anyone's job here to explain things to you, that's YOUR job to learn it.

I understand it perfectly well.  You don't, that's your problem.

Do your own work for once.
I'll leave it at that with you. You can't explain because you do not know.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #309 on: March 06, 2021, 12:59:53 AM »
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?
8 inches per mile squared.

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #310 on: March 06, 2021, 01:47:31 AM »
I absolutely could take all of the documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc., to a court of law and it would be accepted as it was signed off on by a billion people involved in the project. Not to mention that the project was constructed and completed using all of the said documentation, construction plans, surveys, etc. It's verifiable and such documentation would completely be entered in as valid evidence. Documentation is the core of many, many court cases. Your notion is absurd and incorrect.
Taking that to a court of law to give out as proof of a globe would get you nowhere.
You're hanging onto this like a tired monkey hanging onto a tree branch over a pool full of crocodiles that haven't eaten in 24.5 days and who just happen to love tired hanging monkeys as their dessert after having just eaten an old dead hippo that fell into the pool and expired.  ;)

I do appreciate your effort in attempting to describe my state of being.

But you misunderstand. I'm not saying I would take it to court as proof of a globe earth. I would take it to court to prove that the London Grid Survey took a globe earth projection, WGS-84 spheroid calculations & measurements into account and based all of the plans used to construct the Crossrail expansion project on it. As evidenced by the survey itself as well as all of the plans that were carried out by the myriad construction teams. And the project was successful. So, your honor, they were not lying.

As a byproduct of the evidence showing all of their efforts conforming successfully to a globe earth, one could argue and construe that in doing so, a globe earth is a viable reality.

However, all I'm pointing out is that the evidence shows conclusively that globe calculations and measurements were baked into the plan and executed in accordance with that plan. They were not lying. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that may else speak to in terms of the shape of the earth.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #311 on: March 06, 2021, 02:27:48 AM »

8 inches per mile squared.
A simple formula that you really don't appear to understand. Because you don't understand you misinterpret what you expect to see.
I don't expect to see it. I can't see it because I do not live on a globe.
8 inches per mile squared seems to be the accepted drop as far as globalists go...or do you want to change it?
Or you can explain the drop over each mile if you think it's wrong.

Enlighten me or you can go into a frenzy and have a pop. It's up to you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #312 on: March 06, 2021, 02:30:55 AM »
I'm not saying I would take it to court as proof of a globe earth. I would take it to court to prove that the London Grid Survey took a globe earth projection, WGS-84 spheroid calculations & measurements into account and based all of the plans used to construct the Crossrail expansion project on it. As evidenced by the survey itself as well as all of the plans that were carried out by the myriad construction teams. And the project was successful. So, your honor, they were not lying.

As a byproduct of the evidence showing all of their efforts conforming successfully to a globe earth, one could argue and construe that in doing so, a globe earth is a viable reality.

Basically you obviously, are.


Quote from: Stash
However, all I'm pointing out is that the evidence shows conclusively that globe calculations and measurements were baked into the plan and executed in accordance with that plan. They were not lying. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that may else speak to in terms of the shape of the earth.
It conclusively proves nothing.
It proves tunnels were dug to avoid obstacles. That's it.

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #313 on: March 06, 2021, 02:36:35 AM »
I'm not saying I would take it to court as proof of a globe earth. I would take it to court to prove that the London Grid Survey took a globe earth projection, WGS-84 spheroid calculations & measurements into account and based all of the plans used to construct the Crossrail expansion project on it. As evidenced by the survey itself as well as all of the plans that were carried out by the myriad construction teams. And the project was successful. So, your honor, they were not lying.

As a byproduct of the evidence showing all of their efforts conforming successfully to a globe earth, one could argue and construe that in doing so, a globe earth is a viable reality.

Basically you obviously, are.

Quote from: Stash
However, all I'm pointing out is that the evidence shows conclusively that globe calculations and measurements were baked into the plan and executed in accordance with that plan. They were not lying. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that may else speak to in terms of the shape of the earth.
It conclusively proves nothing.
It proves tunnels were dug to avoid obstacles. That's it.

Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #314 on: March 06, 2021, 02:50:34 AM »
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?
8 inches per mile squared.
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.

So again, can you explain why Earth being round renders the light house invisible, rather than simply having Earth obstruct the view if you are far enough away?

*

JJA

  • 4160
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #315 on: March 06, 2021, 04:13:26 AM »
There is an entire internet out there with wiki pages, online courses and thousands of people in scientific forums ready to help you understand the basic theory of gravity in simple, easy to understand ways.

If none of that helps, if it's all still too confusing for you... maybe you should stop blaming me for failing to make you understand. 

So you don't have a clue. That's all you had to say.

What is stopping you from doing your own research?  It's not anyone's job here to explain things to you, that's YOUR job to learn it.

I understand it perfectly well.  You don't, that's your problem.

Do your own work for once.
I'll leave it at that with you. You can't explain because you do not know.

I can't MAKE you understand.  That's up to you.  You have shown time and time again you are either incapable or unwilling to try and learn even the simplest concepts.

You live in a world of ignorance only you can fix.  Nobody else can do it for you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #316 on: March 06, 2021, 05:26:37 AM »


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #317 on: March 06, 2021, 05:30:55 AM »
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.
Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?
Not unless you are very high up.
But again, that depends on distance.
You are claiming the curvature of Earth alone magically makes it invisible, regardless of how far away you are.

So can you explain why Earth being round should make it invsible regardless of how far away it is and how high you are, rather than it merely obstructing the view making the visibility dependent upon height and distance?
8 inches per mile squared.
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.

No I didn't.
You won't get far coming up with that gunk.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #318 on: March 06, 2021, 05:32:17 AM »


I can't MAKE you understand.  That's up to you.  You have shown time and time again you are either incapable or unwilling to try and learn even the simplest concepts.

You live in a world of ignorance only you can fix.  Nobody else can do it for you.
Then calm down and stop trying to engage me if you think it's futile. Or carry on in this vein.

You need to stop whining like a bairn.

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #319 on: March 06, 2021, 11:03:01 AM »


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #320 on: March 06, 2021, 01:07:16 PM »
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.
No I didn't.
You won't get far coming up with that gunk.
Yes you did, repeatedly.

For example, here:
So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.
And there are plenty more examples in this thread.

So are you going to defend your claim?
Or will you now change your claim to what we have been saying all along, that your ability to view a distant object on a RE depends upon its height, your distance to it and your elevation?
Noting that the latter matches the observations of the OP.

*

JJA

  • 4160
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #321 on: March 07, 2021, 04:40:32 AM »


I can't MAKE you understand.  That's up to you.  You have shown time and time again you are either incapable or unwilling to try and learn even the simplest concepts.

You live in a world of ignorance only you can fix.  Nobody else can do it for you.
Then calm down and stop trying to engage me if you think it's futile. Or carry on in this vein.

You need to stop whining like a bairn.

You are the one who keeps demanding everyone explain things to you here. 

I'm just reminding you that you can learn on your own, but you have to be willing to try.  You complain that nobody here can explain gravity to you, well that's not out job.  If you can't figure it out on your own, that's entirely your problem.




*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17720
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #322 on: March 07, 2021, 08:05:00 AM »


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

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


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #323 on: March 07, 2021, 08:24:49 AM »


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.
They dug tunnels. They negotiated obstacles in their way. So what. It does not prove a globe so don't waste your time with it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #324 on: March 07, 2021, 08:27:17 AM »
Which would then appeal to both height and distance.
Again, you claim that is not the case, and simply by Earth being round you wouldn't be able to see the light house at ANY distance.
No I didn't.
You won't get far coming up with that gunk.
Yes you did, repeatedly.

For example, here:
So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.
And there are plenty more examples in this thread.


Stop wasting my time with this utter garbage.
That's no example of what I said.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27021
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #325 on: March 07, 2021, 08:28:58 AM »
You are the one who keeps demanding everyone explain things to you here. 
I'm convinced about you now.
The fact you cannot understand what I told you last time and have to repeat it.....hmmmmm.
I knew it.

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #326 on: March 07, 2021, 11:03:12 AM »


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

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



We've been through this already. "Large portions" is not "ALL portions". Get it? So they didn't have to account for it everywhere, probably due to boring distances involved. But there were "portions" where they did.

Additionally, the plans used for construction reference the London Survey Grid, which is built upon WGS-84 and Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., Globe measurements and calculations.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17720
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #327 on: March 07, 2021, 01:33:10 PM »


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

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



We've been through this already. "Large portions" is not "ALL portions". Get it? So they didn't have to account for it everywhere, probably due to boring distances involved. But there were "portions" where they did.

Additionally, the plans used for construction reference the London Survey Grid, which is built upon WGS-84 and Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., Globe measurements and calculations.

You are not a surveyor on the project and have not quoted any. So we can take your assumptions and toss them in the garbage.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2021, 04:04:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Stash

  • 7236
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #328 on: March 07, 2021, 01:59:24 PM »


Yes, it conclusively proves tunnels were dug using globe earth calculations and measurements to avoid obstacles. And they successfully avoided the obstacles by doing so. That's it.
No it doesn't.
It proves tunnels were dug. End of story.

Sure it does. Massive engineering/construction projects like something of the magnitude of Crossrail needs 100's if not more extremely detailed plans for every aspect. From boring, to cementing the tubes, to running the electrical and HVAC infrastructure to stations needs, to you name it. You can't deny that detailed plans are required.
And all of those plans reference the London Grid Survey measurements & calculations. All plans were predicated on the WGS-84 data and a globe projection provided by the survey. Period.

Without any evidence, all you are saying is that the plans are fake and all involved from Engineering all the way through to Construction are lying. If you want to rely solely on your sense of "logic" and faith in your theory, all of it faked and all of them lying is logically implausible.

Crossrail isn't the only example. For example, even the Chunnel project had to be re-surveyed because England and France relied on two different globe projections. So the RTM87 grid was created, unifying the effort using a singular Transverse Mercator globe projection.  I guess they are all lying too and somehow got it right even though they were wrong.

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

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



We've been through this already. "Large portions" is not "ALL portions". Get it? So they didn't have to account for it everywhere, probably due to boring distances involved. But there were "portions" where they did.

Additionally, the plans used for construction reference the London Survey Grid, which is built upon WGS-84 and Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., Globe measurements and calculations.

You are not a surveyor on the project and have not quoted any. So we can take your assumptions and tops them in the garbage.

That's funny, you're not a surveyor either yet you state this assumption just above here:

Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.

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



Why is it that you as a non-surveyor quote a surveying document, but I can't? Not to mention, your quote just mentions "large portions". Not ALL. Again, reading comprehension 101.

Also not to mention, in the same document you cite as a non-surveyor, it clearly states that the London Survey Grid created for the Crossrail effort uses the WGS-84 spheroid model with a Transverse Mercator Projection, i.e., a Globe:



Your weak attempt at "Large portions" and making up rules as to who is qualified to cite a source and who is not and not applying said made up rules to yourself, well, all of that is tossed in the garbage. Try harder.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #329 on: March 07, 2021, 02:27:29 PM »
Actually, surveyors are told that the distortions due to curvature can be ignored for large areas on the London Survey Grid. You have yet to show that they actually accounted for curvature.
Due to the specific projection used to make that curvature insignificant.
If the curvature didn't need to be accounted for, they could use any map.

But that is just for main surveying, not not specific projects that require highly accurate measurements.