Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"

They're not talking about any 'curvature' of Earth's surface here.

They say the top surface of the rails are not flat, which likely means they are ROUNDED, while all remains level, which is NOT curved, because they don't SAY it's curved, or a level to Earth's 'curvature', anywhere at all.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
They are quite clearly stating that they are following the curvature of Earth.

The ideal line being an arc of a circle is quite clearly saying it is curved, and that curve having the same radius as the Earth is clearly saying it is following the curvature of Earth.

Earth is flat, and shaped as a large circle. That's what they're referring to here.

Pure BS.

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 16, 2022, 01:59:48 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 07, 2022, 02:32:07 AM

<snip>

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!

It can and has been measured.  Such measurements exist and, in very rare cases, are accounted for in engineering design and construction. 

Hydrodynamic test facilities are one of those few very rare situations.  In these facilities, a tow carriage rides on rails towing a model through long water filled basins to obtain flow data across the model.  Some basins are so long that the rails must be constructed to match the curvature of the water in very long tow basins.

The top surface of the rails must be constructed “level rather than flat and the ideal line is an arc of a circle with a radius equal to the radius of the Earth” (page 7 of the pdf linked below).  And constructed to a very tight tolerance (±0.005 inches).



This report provides the design criteria the rails were constructed to, the installation tolerances of the rails, the equipment used for measurement with their tolerances, measurement methods and procedures, sources of error and error mitigation, and the measurement results.

https://ia800408.us.archive.org/0/items/railstraightness8634estl/railstraightness8634estl.pdf

They're not talking about any 'curvature' of Earth's surface here.

Sure they are, you're just inept. Page 13 of the same document:

This document actually proves there IS NO 'curvature', like when surveyors 'assume' all surfaces are flat, after saying there IS 'curvature', but it's NOT SIGNIFICANT TO MEASURE FOR IN OUR PROJECTS.

The only difference here, is that they DO say it is 'significant', but they actually do NOT account for it.

When they mention it being "computed at each position" and added to the MEASURED error, it means they do NOT actually 'account' for it, during their project.

If there really WERE 'curvature', they couldn't measure it in segments, each time, because it would curve more and more over the ENTIRE distance, NOT remain the same, in 100 foot sections, of .003 inch per section, along the whole length of it.

That's why you won't find any tables, listing each and every 100 foot section, over and over again, with .003 inch of 'curvature error' for each one. They don't say the first 100 feet section of 'curvature', is added to the second 100 feet section, because it wouldn't work that way.

The point is, they do NOT 'account for curvature', they say it is a '.003 inch error', added onto their OTHER errors, which are ALSO not accounted for in actual practice. They are called 'allowable tolerances', which means it works without any need to make physical adjustments for it. When they say it is 'significant', but consider it an allowable error, we know it is NOT significant. If it WAS significant, they WOULD have to physically adjust their rails, which WOULD make it 'significant'. It's not the case, though that's what they want US to believe.

Use your brain, and find out it's just to support the ball Earth fairy tale, same as always.

If you don't understand my point yet, let me know, I'd be happy to explain it in more detail.
 

This document actually proves there IS NO 'curvature', like when surveyors 'assume' all surfaces are flat, after saying there IS 'curvature', but it's NOT SIGNIFICANT TO MEASURE FOR IN OUR PROJECTS.

The only difference here, is that they DO say it is 'significant', but they actually do NOT account for it.

When they mention it being "computed at each position" and added to the MEASURED error, it means they do NOT actually 'account' for it, during their project.

If there really WERE 'curvature', they couldn't measure it in segments, each time, because it would curve more and more over the ENTIRE distance, NOT remain the same, in 100 foot sections, of .003 inch per section, along the whole length of it.

That's why you won't find any tables, listing each and every 100 foot section, over and over again, with .003 inch of 'curvature error' for each one. They don't say the first 100 feet section of 'curvature', is added to the second 100 feet section, because it wouldn't work that way.

The point is, they do NOT 'account for curvature', they say it is a '.003 inch error', added onto their OTHER errors, which are ALSO not accounted for in actual practice. They are called 'allowable tolerances', which means it works without any need to make physical adjustments for it. When they say it is 'significant', but consider it an allowable error, we know it is NOT significant. If it WAS significant, they WOULD have to physically adjust their rails, which WOULD make it 'significant'. It's not the case, though that's what they want US to believe.

Use your brain, and find out it's just to support the ball Earth fairy tale, same as always.

If you don't understand my point yet, let me know, I'd be happy to explain it in more detail.
 

So the document specifically talking about curvature and where it is used proves there is no curvature?  Sure. 
The rest of your post is just more stupid lying.  You can't explain in more detail when all you do is lie, and have been proven to be a liar at every turn.  I hope one day you realize that lying so much is actually detrimental.  I want you to be better.  Use your brain and think, stop drinking the conspiracy kool-aid and wake up.  You can stop lying so much if you just try to think for yourself for once.

So the document specifically talking about curvature and where it is used proves there is no curvature?  Sure. 

No, the document barely MENTIONS 'curvature', and they do NOT 'use it' anywhere at all, and THAT is what proves there is no curvature.

If you just hear someone say 'curvature was taken into account', you instantly believe it means they actually adjusted their projects for it, which they never do, never have done, never will do.

Only recently do we see reports that mention 'curvature', not for thousands of years before that. And now, when they DO mention it, they never, ever USE it, or adjust their structures for it, or anything at all.

How could we have possible built all these railroads, bridges, and tunnels, without ever 'accounting for curvature', or ever MENTIONING it in our documents, for thousands of years before now, yet suddenly it's mentioned in them, because they are all propaganda, and put in as a sidenote, and completely ignored in all their REAL projects.

If you don't get this yet, look at ANY of those documents which mention 'curvature' in them, saying it was 'taken into account', or whatever. You'll find out that they NEVER actually use it, adjust a bridge, tunnel or railroad for it, in their actual builds. If they DID, they'd have to  document it, give actual figures, but they never have, and never will.

'Curvature' would make our projects MUCH more complicated than they actually are now, because they base them on a FLAT surface, which it really is, and that's why they work, and have always worked before they started putting in little sidenotes about it, to support the ball Earth lie.

They never HAD to mention 'curvature' until recently, because theor fairy tale story wasn't in danger of being exposed back then. Now, they know it's coming out, as we have solid proof that it's all a lie, and more and more people are finding that out every day now. They're running around like scared chickens, trying to stop the flood before it wipes them out, which it will, one day.

 

This document actually proves there IS NO 'curvature'

You sure do love spouting pure BS.
A document, clearly indicating how they account for curvature in a project, magically proves there is no curvature.

You must have some serious delusions to believe that.

The best you could try to get is that the curvature is so insignificant that they don't need to account for it so it isn't proof one way or the other.
But that would require that you admit that the curvature of Earth is so small that most projects wouldn't need to account for it, which goes against so much of your delusional BS.

If there really WERE 'curvature', they couldn't measure it in segments, each time, because it would curve more and more over the ENTIRE distance, NOT remain the same, in 100 foot sections, of .003 inch per section, along the whole length of it.

And more delusional BS.
The curvature remains roughly constant.
It doesn't magically increase like you want to pretend so often.

What increase is the drop as measured from one point. But that requires you keep measuring from that 1 point.
That in no way prohibits you from measuring it in segments, where each segment would curve the same amount.

And this is fine, because they are looking at deviations from level, not from your fantasy flatness.

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 28, 2022, 04:49:46 AM

So the document specifically talking about curvature and where it is used proves there is no curvature?  Sure. 

No, the document barely MENTIONS 'curvature', and they do NOT 'use it' anywhere at all, and THAT is what proves there is no curvature.

If you just hear someone say 'curvature was taken into account', you instantly believe it means they actually adjusted their projects for it, which they never do, never have done, never will do.

Only recently do we see reports that mention 'curvature', not for thousands of years before that. And now, when they DO mention it, they never, ever USE it, or adjust their structures for it, or anything at all.

How could we have possible built all these railroads, bridges, and tunnels, without ever 'accounting for curvature', or ever MENTIONING it in our documents, for thousands of years before now, yet suddenly it's mentioned in them, because they are all propaganda, and put in as a sidenote, and completely ignored in all their REAL projects.

If you don't get this yet, look at ANY of those documents which mention 'curvature' in them, saying it was 'taken into account', or whatever. You'll find out that they NEVER actually use it, adjust a bridge, tunnel or railroad for it, in their actual builds. If they DID, they'd have to  document it, give actual figures, but they never have, and never will.

'Curvature' would make our projects MUCH more complicated than they actually are now, because they base them on a FLAT surface, which it really is, and that's why they work, and have always worked before they started putting in little sidenotes about it, to support the ball Earth lie.

They never HAD to mention 'curvature' until recently, because theor fairy tale story wasn't in danger of being exposed back then. Now, they know it's coming out, as we have solid proof that it's all a lie, and more and more people are finding that out every day now. They're running around like scared chickens, trying to stop the flood before it wipes them out, which it will, one day.

So you just double down and lie more.  Great, your basically useless then.
Show me your "proof".  I'm sure it's convincing right.  I'm sure it isn't just lies and stupidity.  Go on, show us this "proof", you haven't so far.

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 28, 2022, 04:49:46 AM

So the document specifically talking about curvature and where it is used proves there is no curvature?  Sure. 

No, the document barely MENTIONS 'curvature', and they do NOT 'use it' anywhere at all, and THAT is what proves there is no curvature.

"Barely". Now that's funny.

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?

Now let's see, ummm, you first say the document doesn't talk about earth curve, but fail to actually look at the document, but now it's "barely". You know, maybe if you read up to page 13...And we have this:



Considering your reading challenges, let us parse this out for you.

V.l.
CORRECTION FOR EARTH'S CURVATURE
- That title means there's going to be a little chat about earth's curvature and how they needed to account for it...

All vertical straightness data was corrected for the curvature of the Earth.
- Yes, this little gem of a sentence - Quite clear that they, you know 'corrected' for the curvature of the Earth. You know why it's clear, becaues they wrote: "All vertical straightness data was corrected for the curvature of the Earth." That's why.

As the detector moves away from the laser along an ideal (level) rail surface, the curvature of the rail causes the detector to fall below the nominally horizontal laser line by an amount proportional to the square of the detector position along the rail.
- This refers to 'how' they account for earth's curvature.

This curvature is small but significant, amounting to about 0.003 inches in 100 feet of travel.
- Yes earth's curve is small, but significant for projects such as this.

In order order to measure the vertical rail deviations from the ideal circular arc, the curvature error was computed at each position and added to the measured error.
- And boom! The result. They corrected for curvature as mentioned above.

If you just hear someone say 'curvature was taken into account', you instantly believe it means they actually adjusted their projects for it, which they never do, never have done, never will do.

Apparently, you're wrong yet again. "...which they never do, never have done, never will do.". Let's compare your statement to those that do, have done and most likely do it again, shall we:

Only recently do we see reports that mention 'curvature', not for thousands of years before that. And now, when they DO mention it, they never, ever USE it, or adjust their structures for it, or anything at all.

Wrong again...

How could we have possible built all these railroads, bridges, and tunnels, without ever 'accounting for curvature', or ever MENTIONING it in our documents, for thousands of years before now, yet suddenly it's mentioned in them, because they are all propaganda, and put in as a sidenote, and completely ignored in all their REAL projects.

I don't know what to say about this because it's the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

If you don't get this yet, look at ANY of those documents which mention 'curvature' in them, saying it was 'taken into account', or whatever. You'll find out that they NEVER actually use it, adjust a bridge, tunnel or railroad for it, in their actual builds. If they DID, they'd have to  document it, give actual figures, but they never have, and never will.

This is getting tedious...

'Curvature' would make our projects MUCH more complicated than they actually are now, because they base them on a FLAT surface, which it really is, and that's why they work, and have always worked before they started putting in little sidenotes about it, to support the ball Earth lie.

Ok, I take that back. This is the dumbest thing I've heard since your last dumbest thing. Why would these projects use earth curve correction, or fake it? Just to cause a handful of Flearthers to go into some sort of anaphylactic shock. I hardly think they care what you think about the shape of the earth.