What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

No, they DID know that the Sun didn't physically RISE UP at all. They already knew the Earth's surface was flat,

In the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of the Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference.

...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!

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.

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.

The anti-force, made up, for another lie, of a ball Earth, flying through endless space, which is another lie to support the ball Earth lie.

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.

And the LAST thing they'd be, is a CONSTANT rate of some sort, since they are always VARIABLE, by nature.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

You believe it just disappears because it goes far away.  If that were the case, it would appear to shrink in size.  It doesn't.  The measured size of the sun (or the moon) is the same at sunrise, noon, and sunset.  This is impossible in your scenario.

Why WOULD the Sun's apparent size from our position, on Earth, be the same, or SEEM to be the same, is a very easy to understand

The horizons seen on Earth, are only some 3 miles away, that's what I was referring to earlier, so now you know.

If you look at videos of the Sun, from the same position, at sunrise, when moving nearby, above the camera, in a continuous shot, taken over hours, what you'll see, is that the Sun DOES look larger, when it comes closer, above you, and smaller, as it moves away from you, in the distance.

Have you ever watched home channel shows, where they show the Sun coming up into view, going overhead? I've seen many of them, in various programs.

But look for yourself, it's the truth. Not that they show anything like that, since it kills their lie.

You say it's the same size, but when it's obviously smaller in the distance, you say it's due to glare?

So look at the Sun itself, shown in some clips, and it DOES look smaller in the distance, and looks ever larger as it gets nearer. It's blatantly obvious.

So look at the Sun itself, shown in some clips, and it DOES look smaller in the distance, and looks ever larger as it gets nearer. It's blatantly obvious.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 24, 2022, 01:59:09 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 24, 2022, 06:18:07 AM

Whereas nobody can build a bridge by crunching math together (you have some nice numbers but no bridge), anyone can build a build a bridge by simply dispersing weight correctly, and building according to drafted model.

Yes, any moron can build a bridge based upon an already drafted model, a model which has calculations behind it.
And yes, it needs you to support the weight, i.e. the downwards force due to gravity.

When did this turn into "How to build a bridge: Flat Earth edition" ?

No, the mass of objects put up into air is what we need to support. No magical made up 'pulling down force' exists at all.

Why do you think it is a CONSTANT? No actual forces have any CONSTANTS to them. Actual forces have a source of origin, where it is strongest, and they weaken with more distance FROM their sources, in all cases. They have a distinct length where they start to weaken, and it constantly is weakening, with more distance from their sources, until it is gone completely.

Actual forces also act differently ON each object, not the exact same way. A magnet pulls in a small nail to it,  but cannot pull in a heavy steel plate. A wind will blow around sand, but not a camel on the sand. Only your made up force can do such magical things, but none of our ACTUAL forces can, for it is purely nonsense, and not based on reality.

Engineers use the TERM 'gravity', it doesn't change the facts, and reality.

Objects in air, or put up into air, on posts, in the ground, have mass, and density, which is GREATER than that of air. That's why they're heavy, and fall without supporting them in air, by something in the ground.

Nothing within air, is 'pulled down to Earth's surface', by a magical, made up force.

We don't feel anything 'pull us down' from below, when we're in air. When we dangle a foot off a rooftop, INTO air, we don't feel our leg being 'pulled down' at all, either.

Winds will push us, and we feel this as an actual force, acting on us. When we dangle a leg off a roof, when it's windy, our leg will be pushed by the wind, and we feel it as a force, acting on our leg. But the wind doesn't push the REST of us, or not as much as our LEG is pushed, at least.

Your force is made up nonsense, and shows no features of ACTUAL forces, why WOULD it? Making up things that don't exist, are bound to fail miserably. 'Gravity' is a perfect example of it.

You believe it just disappears because it goes far away.  If that were the case, it would appear to shrink in size.  It doesn't.  The measured size of the sun (or the moon) is the same at sunrise, noon, and sunset.  This is impossible in your scenario.

Why WOULD the Sun's apparent size from our position, on Earth, be the same, or SEEM to be the same, is a very easy to understand, it is due to it's enormous SIZE, compared to planes, or anything else above us, except for the MOON, of course, which is the same size as the Sun is, they are both very, very large objects, only second to Earth in size, which is MUCH larger than the Sun and moon are, though they are still much larger than any object on Earth, like planes, which are tiny specks compared to the Sun or moon, which are ALSO tiny specks compared to the Earth, in size and scale.

The horizons seen on Earth, are only some 3 miles away, that's what I was referring to earlier, so now you know.

If you look at videos of the Sun, from the same position, at sunrise, when moving nearby, above the camera, in a continuous shot, taken over hours, what you'll see, is that the Sun DOES look larger, when it comes closer, above you, and smaller, as it moves away from you, in the distance.
It's easy to prove, just look at the Sun as it comes up, into view, beyond the horizon, or from a distance out, and how small it is, and looks larger and larger when it gets nearer.

Have you ever watched home channel shows, where they show the Sun coming up into view, going overhead? I've seen many of them, in various programs. I'm sure you've seen them too, but didn't click in, what you saw, was the Sun looking larger, as it nears you, or the camera, at least! 

You will only notice the difference in size, when it is a single, continuous shot, over time, which I've said are commonly seen in home channel programs, for example. Otherwise, it's not apparent or noticeable, or at least, not nearly as MUCH different in size, anyway.

But look for yourself, it's the truth. Not that they show anything like that, since it kills their lie.

How would flat earth make better bridges, more efficient aircraft, better navigation systems, and targeting systems with better tactical advantages?
 

The B-2 bomber functions exclusively on flat earth engineering principles.

The formula I have posted was obtained by Hermann Weyl. It proves

But they do.

Your incursions in philosophical matters have not turned out in your favor so far. Negation of reality is a sure sign of either of your being a paid shill, or that you need to regain your sanity.

It proves the existence of electrogravity: you apply the necessary voltage to the positive pole of a capacitor and it will levitate in midair (if you apply the voltage to the negative pole, its weight will increase). This alone shows what an ineffectual contributor to this forum you are. Seven years of your life and it all comes down to this: a simple formula pulverizes everything you believe in.

See, you have become a most obedient and faithful flat earth believer.

As for the B-2 bomber, feel free to satisfy your lack of information on the subject:

https://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2cbcfa7c2e0dcf5704ad84ee6ad2a861-c

 anyone can build a build a bridge by simply dispersing weight correctly, and building according to drafted model.

 Gravity does not force it down.

I was thinking about a thread “what inventions could flat earth make better”

Thought I just bump this thread. 

Surveyors know Earths surface is flat, know there’s no curvature on Earths surface.

US road grid corrections because of the Earth’s curvature

Have you ever wondered why, when you’re driving along on a straight road in the Western US, there’s a weird curve or short zigzag turn thrown into the mix? Grids have been used to lay out American roads and houses since before there was a United States. One of the most prominent uses of the grid was in the Western US: the so-called Jefferson Grid.

The Land Ordinance of 1785, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, extended government authority over the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes regions. As a response to what he believed to be a confusing survey system already in use, Jefferson suggested a new grid system based on the rectangle. The grid divided land into plots one mile square, each consisting of 640 acres. The grid also placed a visible design upon a relatively untouched landscape.

As most people know, the Earth is roughly spherical. When you try to cover the surface of a sphere with squares, they are not going to line up perfectly. That means, every so often, sections of the grid shift away from each other. Gerco de Ruijter’s short film, Grid Corrections, shows dozens of examples of places where this shift occurs and the corrections employed to correct them.

By superimposing a rectangular grid on the earth surface, a grid built from exact square miles, the spherical deviations have to be fixed. After all, the grid has only two dimensions. The north-south boundaries in the grid are on the lines of longitude, which converge to the north. The roads that follow these boundaries must dogleg every twenty-four miles to counter the diminishing distances.

https://kottke.org/18/01/us-road-grid-corrections-because-of-the-earths-curvature

Why all world maps are wrong

Surveyors know Earths surface is flat, know there’s no curvature on Earths surface.

Assuming the surface is flat because it’s ‘easier to measure it as flat’ is complete bs.

If it was curved, no matter how slight a curve it would be, it must be accounted and measured for by surveyors.

a curved surface would need to be accounted for in building them.

If Earths surface was curved, planes would have to fly in curved paths, to match the curved surface of Earth below them.

Or take a small level and follow the ball from above with it.

Planes could not ever fly level in air above a curved surface which is not flat or level or horizontal at all

Surveyors know Earths surface is flat, know there’s no curvature on Earths surface.