What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

You're right, you don't know what it takes to be an engineer.

I however do. I've had engineer friends and relations and know what real engineers look like.

And how to spot the fakes.

Not all flat Earthers ignore gravity. But sure, go ahead and tell me my business. Tell me what people can and cannot believe.

By the way you do not need to add gravity into architecture. It practically never comes up unless you are knowingingly building something wrong (creating stress when there are ways to limit it). 



A schematic of a bridge. Notice the G is not for gravity.

A bridge builder designs for load, not gravity. Ditto for an engineer for a building or a machine (such as elevators). They are not designing for imaginary forces. They are designing for real world loads, both the load of the bridge/building/elevator and the "live load" of anything incidental to enter the system. It is never necessary to believe in gravity, it is however important to adjust for real weights.

No, it isn't mass, it is weight.
Mass has no directionally, weight does.

If there was no force (i.e. gravity) trying to pull the mass down, the bridge wouldn't need to support anything.

Why do you think it is constant?
You keep repeating this delusional BS, when it has been refuted multiple times.

g varies around Earth and with altitude.
It is not constant, it is just approximately 9.8 m/s^2.
For most calculations, you can use 9.8 m/s^2.
But if you need them to be very precise, you need a more accurate value, and can't just use that "constant", as that constant is an approximation.

Actual forces (like gravity and electromagnetism) have a constant of proportionality, describing the relationship between the force and what the force is based on.

But this matches gravity, where for example the gravity of Earth is strongest when closest to Earth and gets weaker as you go further away from Earth.

You mean like how gravity applies a much larger force to a more massive object than it does to a lighter object?

Which provides no reason for them to move in any particular direction.
They are heavy because there is a force trying to move them towards Earth.
If you wish to keep in the air (without them being in orbit), you need to apply a force to keep them there to resist the force of gravity.

You cannot claim some object is in air, unless you PUT IT INTO AIR FIRST OF ALL!

After it is put upward into air

You're sure it is NOT a constant

it is actually stated here, and other documents, as measuring at this exact rate

Right, so they're posting an actual rate, of a made up magical force, even though it might not be accurate at all, but they still post as if it WERE an actual measurement? Is that what you're telling me here?

You keep on claiming that it gets 'weaker' with more distance, but it's always the very SAME rate of fall in air

When we are ON the surface, and fall down, it is no different than when we fall from 10000 feet above the Earth

They would NOT state this figure as being the 'rate of gravity', or 'rate of acceleration', or so forth, if it was a VARIABLE rate, no matter how SMALL it varies, no matter WHERE it varies! And they would also GIVE us that different rate, or rates, too!

And how would you PROVE that your made up 'force', applies more force to heavier objects, in air, than to lighter ones in air?

And you attribute a heavier object having the exact same rate of fall in air, and same MAXIMUM rate of speed, as any LIGHTER object in air

But if it was due to your magical force, a heavier object would not fall at the same rate

But in fact, your 'force' seems to be the very OPPOSITE of actual forces, in every way possible.

Not just because it has no proof of even EXISTING at all

You couldn't make up a WORSE 'force'

Why would they ever BE in air, to begin with?

It's very easy to understand that, right?

The OP inquires as to better bridge building using FET. There is a bridge in the USA named the Lake Pontchartrain causeway long enough to employ the wisdom of FET in the design of the bridge.

I have crossed the bridge many times and the length is such that you can not see land when you are at the half-way point across it making people most uncomfortable when crossing.

It is a good example showing where engineering and FET come together to illuminate essential input of FET into planning of infrastructure expansion.

Quote from: gotham on January 28, 2023, 01:46:57 PM

The OP inquires as to better bridge building using FET. There is a bridge in the USA named the Lake Pontchartrain causeway long enough to employ the wisdom of FET in the design of the bridge.

I have crossed the bridge many times and the length is such that you can not see land when you are at the half-way point across it making people most uncomfortable when crossing.

It is a good example showing where engineering and FET come together to illuminate essential input of FET into planning of infrastructure expansion.

What about it shows where engineering and FET come together? I'm not quite getting that from what you wrote. Actually, almost the opposite considering you can't see land at the halfway point. Which to me, implies the earth is dipping down. Did I miss something?

Quote from: Stash on January 28, 2023, 02:10:27 PM

Quote from: gotham on January 28, 2023, 01:46:57 PM

The OP inquires as to better bridge building using FET. There is a bridge in the USA named the Lake Pontchartrain causeway long enough to employ the wisdom of FET in the design of the bridge.

I have crossed the bridge many times and the length is such that you can not see land when you are at the half-way point across it making people most uncomfortable when crossing.

It is a good example showing where engineering and FET come together to illuminate essential input of FET into planning of infrastructure expansion.

What about it shows where engineering and FET come together? I'm not quite getting that from what you wrote. Actually, almost the opposite considering you can't see land at the halfway point. Which to me, implies the earth is dipping down. Did I miss something?

The bridge is long enough that, if the Earth had curvature, it would have to be incorporated into the design. As is turns out the supports are flat to follow the dimension of a Disc, if you get my drift correctly.

The bridge is long enough that, if the Earth had curvature, it would have to be incorporated into the design. As is turns out the supports are flat to follow the dimension of a Disc, if you get my drift correctly.

Quote from: gotham on January 28, 2023, 02:54:36 PM

The bridge is long enough that, if the Earth had curvature, it would have to be incorporated into the design. As is turns out the supports are flat to follow the dimension of a Disc, if you get my drift correctly.

Based upon what?

A simple method of ensuring the supports are upright, and the deck level, would result in a bridge that followed the curve of Earth.
There is no reason to think they would need to specifically account for the curvature in the design.

The causeway would have to exist on a flat Earth considering the design of the supports, in particular. As it is, they are and they do which is how design engineers would respond.

The OP inquires as to better bridge building using FET. There is a bridge in the USA named the Lake Pontchartrain causeway long enough to employ the wisdom of FET in the design of the bridge.

I have crossed the bridge many times and the length is such that you can not see land when you are at the half-way point across it making people most uncomfortable when crossing.

It is a good example showing where engineering and FET come together to illuminate essential input of FET into planning of infrastructure expansion.

If the Earth is round, some of the largest human-made structures would have to take the Earth's curvature into account during design and construction. For smaller structures like individual buildings this wouldn't matter but for things such as very long bridges it would become an issue.

In fact it is an issue and it does happen. A well-known example is the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge in New York. With a central span of 1,298 m (4,260 ft), it was the longest suspension bridge in the world when it was built in 1964. Its two suspension towers are 211 m (693 ft) tall and 1,298 m (4,260 ft) apart. Although each tower is vertical and perpendicular to the water, they are 41.28 mm (1 5⁄8 in) farther apart at the top than the bottom. This is due to the Earth's curvature.

Quote from: ecco on January 29, 2023, 10:00:14 AM

If the Earth is round, some of the largest human-made structures would have to take the Earth's curvature into account during design and construction. For smaller structures like individual buildings this wouldn't matter but for things such as very long bridges it would become an issue.

In fact it is an issue and it does happen. A well-known example is the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge in New York. With a central span of 1,298 m (4,260 ft), it was the longest suspension bridge in the world when it was built in 1964. Its two suspension towers are 211 m (693 ft) tall and 1,298 m (4,260 ft) apart. Although each tower is vertical and perpendicular to the water, they are 41.28 mm (1 5⁄8 in) farther apart at the top than the bottom. This is due to the Earth's curvature.

I am yet to find any reliable source that actually supports this. Instead it is just asserted with no supporting evidence.
The towers would likely move much more than that from the wind and thermal expansion/contraction.

The two 693-foot towers weigh 27,000 tons and they are joined together by three million rivets and one million bolts. To consider the curvature of the earth, the tops of the towers had to be one and five-eighths inches farther apart than their bases, according to the MTA.

https://www.riverdalepress.com/stories/engineer-still-marvels-at-bridges-creation,55787

But the Metropolitan Transportation Authority could be lying?

I thought at one time I found an interview with Othmar H. Ammann, but it seems to be behind a pay wall now.

I know some of the problems with debating the WTC controlled demolition/thermite crap is the legitimate research that pointed to gravity/fire related failures and collapse is in engineering journals that require an expensive subscription.  Or actually taking the time to personally go to a college or university library that carry such subscriptions. So the truth movement just acted like such research didn’t exist, or just right out lied. 

  I am guessing the same argument and cited sources for the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge. It’s probably in an engineering journal that requires an expensive subscription. In the ease of the internet, the real research still requires paying to see. Or just relying on what filters down by reporting.

The problem is that so often it will be misquoted or incorrectly portrayed,

But more problematic is how much the bridge must be designed to move.

Same old argument.  Do you have any proof to the contrary.  Or just your speculation?

Same for the bridge.  The bridge would have been dimensioned, surveyed, and constructed as close as possible to the ideal.  Why would anything less have been done, and do you have proof it wasn’t designed and built to the ideal?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 30, 2023, 03:21:17 AM

Same old argument.  Do you have any proof to the contrary.  Or just your speculation?

Some old deflection.

Again, do you have any actual proof that it needed to be designed with the curvature of Earth in mind, rather than it just being a calculation which was then misquoted as being a design requirement?

And a bunch of second hand claims about it is not proof.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 30, 2023, 03:21:17 AM

Same for the bridge.  The bridge would have been dimensioned, surveyed, and constructed as close as possible to the ideal.  Why would anything less have been done, and do you have proof it wasn’t designed and built to the ideal?

For the same reason the vast majority of structures don't account for the curve.
If it needs to be surveyed and constructed as close as possible to the ideal, why wouldn't a 1 m span account for the curvature?

I wouldn't put it past him to calculate for earth curve given the VN bridge was to be the longest suspension span in the world at the time.

I’ll put it this way.  One usually builds tall vertical structures to be inline as much as possible with gravity.   One doesn’t usually build so the top of towers are forced to lean in or out to get an x distance at the top from each other.

If it really DID exist, it would EASILY be proven to exist, more than any other force we ALREADY know, and have PROVEN, and tested, as being actual forces.

RESISTANCE
origin
VARIABLE
CONSISTENT

We've always proven actual forces, confirmed them as real forces, tested them, to prove they are real forces, on and on, leaving no doubt, no questions, as being real forces.

After they said Earth is a ball, speeding around randomly, or not randomly, it depends on what fits the argument, or situation, at the time.

That's the way 'gravity' is used, over and over again.

If it really DID exist, it would EASILY be proven to exist, more than any other force we ALREADY know, and have PROVEN, and tested, as being actual forces.

We've always proven actual forces, confirmed them as real forces, tested them, to prove they are real forces, on and on, leaving no doubt, no questions, as being real forces.

Among the biggest problems for 'gravity', the complete lack of any sort of RESISTANCE, which is the most important, most identifiable, and provable features of all actual forces.

Another feature of all actual forces, is that they have actual sources of origin, and are strongest when near their sources, weaker with more distance away from them.

Which is another feature of all actual forces - they are VARIABLE in strength, which is a MEASURABLE difference in their strength.

They are always CONSISTENT in how they work, how they act, how they behave, in all situations, and never conflict, or make up any excuses. None needed, for our actual forces.

And why do you always say we 'fall' from air, while claiming things are 'pulled down' from air, by this made up magical 'force'. You say we fall from air, you agree it's a fall, or don't call it that, call it what you BELIEVE it is, a 'pulling down'!

You're just being a hypocrite, obviously.

Repeat the above experiment using a feather.  The resistance is caused by the molecules of air.

Yep!  Just the same way 1+1=2 is used, over and over again.

Quote from: ecco on February 11, 2023, 08:44:05 AM

You are supposedly a proponent of trying things for yourself.  Here is a simple experiment.

Take off your shoes.
Hold a 16-pound bowling bowl waist-high over your toes.
Let go of the bowling ball.

Try the bowling ball experiment once again.  Make precise notes of the time between letting go of the ball and it hitting your toes.  Have a radar gun available so you can record the speed just as it hits your toes.
Have a fellow flat-earther go to a balcony on the 6th floor of a building.  Have him drop the ball and precisely time the drop.  Record the radar gun's speed reading.

Compare the results to those predicted by the hundreds-year-old theory of gravity. 

Quote from: ecco on February 11, 2023, 08:44:05 AM

Repeat the above experiment using a feather.  The resistance is caused by the molecules of air.

This may be too costly for you, but you surely can get a group of flat-earthers to help.  Build an 80-foot-tall cylinder.  Remove all the air.  Do the experiments again.  You will be shocked to see the bowling ball and the feather drop at the same rate.  This will prove the air was the cause of the resistance you say does not exist.

Quote from: ecco on February 11, 2023, 08:44:05 AM

Gravity is variable in strength.  It is less on the moon than on earth.  Oh, sorry.  I forgot you don't believe anything ever got to your moon. 

Quote from: ecco on February 11, 2023, 08:44:05 AM

Thousands of years ago, Mankind, ignorant of science, believed the earth to be flat and the sky to be UP, and the valleys and the ground to be DOWN.  When they dropped big rocks on their toes, they referred to the rocks as FALLING.  In the same way, they said the sun was RISING and SETTING.  Even you know the sun doesn't RISE or SET, but I'll bet you still use that terminology.

No, they DID know that the Sun didn't physically RISE UP at all. They already knew the Earth's surface was flat, and that objects in the distance on and above the Earth's extremely MASSIVE flat surface, would appear when close enough to see from any point on the surface, while they also had travelled to points on Earth far away, and knew the Sun's position above Earth, is in cycles, in a circular pattern.

Anyone who followed the Sun's movement for over 3 miles, when it 'vanished' past the horizon, or saw from higher than the surface, would see that the Sun does not SINK DOWN or SET, nor that it RISES UPWARD from within the Earth's surface.

The terms sunrise and sunset were meant as visual descriptions, what it APPEARS like, when seen from any point on Earth. They were very aware that the Sun wasn't PHYSICALLY rising up from the ground, or behind the horizon, unless you want to claim they never travelled over 3 miles away on Earth, ever, to see that the Sun didn't rise or set?

Nice try, anyway, but it doesn't compare with the term fall, which describes anything above the Earth's surface which goes downward to it, or a lower position than it was earlier.

They knew what a fall was, and meant, and is a real action or movement.

Nobody thought the Sun was actually RISING UP from below the Earth, they used it as a VISUAL description of appearing to RISE and SET over the horizon. That's why they didn't call it's apparent lowering and rising while in our view, sunrises and sunsets. They obviously saw that the Sun always appears to be rising and lowering, but they knew it was NOT actually rising or lowering down. If they DID think it was really rising and lowering down, they'd have said a sunrise is when the Sun comes up, and keeps rising up to the middle of the sky, and then starts to go downward, and 'sets', the rest of the way!


Unlike the term 'fall', which describes an actual motion of objects, and anything else, which moves downward, from somewhere higher up, as a FALL.

Nothing is wrong or incorrect in using the terms sunset and sunrise, because they are visual descriptions of the Sun, which pops up into view from behind the horizon, until in full view, above the horizon, same as a sunset in the opposite does.

What would YOU suggest is a better term or description of them? When they are not even real, physical things, there IS no accurate term for them, only a visual description of them, as they APPEAR to be.

A fall describes a real motion, which is specifically a downward motion, of something above the surface, going downward to the surface. Any surface below it, not only the surface of Earth.

The term 'fall', is a specific motion, which is in a downward direction, of anything above the Earth's air, whether it is on the surface, or above it, or on a surface above the Earth's surface, going down to another surface, which is also above Earth's surface, or down within Earth's surface, lower than the entire surface of Earth.

All of them are a downward motion from above the air, to a surface below.

But to you, things do NOT fall downward, you believe they are all 'pulled down' to Earth's surface, by a magical, made up force, but if you really believed what you SAY is true, then why don't you say things are 'pulled down' by a force from below, or call it a 'pull', as it would be the correct term or description of what you believe it is? Why do all of you call it a FALL, if it's not what you believe it is, and why do you call it what I believe it is, instead?

Those of you who say 'gravity' exists, and that it is within all objects, but Earth has much more of it than anything else, except things which are larger, like the Sun, among others, which have more 'gravity' than Earth does.

To believe all this is true, yet to never even call it by the proper, correct term, isn't very convincing that all of you really DO believe it is true, when you don't call it what you SAY it is, more so, when you call it what I DO say it is, which is a fall.

A pull or pulling down from below, is obviously NOT a fall, it is entirely different from a fall, except that both are acts of downward motion of objects in air, above the surface of Earth, that is.

To claim that everything that exists, has 'gravity' within it, demands extraordinary, thorough evidence for it. As being an extraordinary, overwhelming claim, which is far beyond any other claims ever made, which ALSO have required proof, and valid evidence of them, which must be provided, to be considered true, and called a fact.

While YOU can't even use the proper TERM for your claim, nor have a shred of proof for it, nor have any features that all ACTUAL forces have, with billions of objects on Earth, you CLAIM have 'gravity', only prove 'gravity' doesn't exist, at all, in fact.

At least you should use the proper TERM for it, and stop using MY term for it, which I DO believe is true. 

To claim that everything that exists, has 'gravity' within it, demands extraordinary, thorough evidence for it. As being an extraordinary, overwhelming claim, which is far beyond any other claims ever made, which ALSO have required proof, and valid evidence of them, which must be provided, to be considered true, and called a fact.