It's a simple question. Where is the 3752 sq inches of curve in NYC?
Preventing you from seeing one side from the other.
How is it rather than our cities ripping themselves apart
Why would they be ripping themselves apart?
You just baselessly assert they should, with no justification at all.
Curvature doesn't mean they should magically rip apart.
You just assert a pile of absolute garbage to pretend there is a problem.
The Palace of Parliament in Bucharest
Has a large section which is roughly 760 ft long (not including the extra crap).
That is 0.14 miles.
That means from the middle to the edge is roughly 0.07 miles. That gives a drop from the middle to the edge due to curvature of 0.039 inches.
i.e. basically nothing.
i.e. going to be entirely insignificant when you recognise that concrete has a coefficient of thermal expansion of roughly 1e-5 /K;
So at 760 ft long, which is 9120 inches, an increase in temperature of 1 degree celsius would result in an expansion of 0.09 inches. That is several times larger.
But that was just 1 degree.
The temperature there fluctuates from an average of -4 to an average of 29. That is a change of 33 degrees.
That would correspond to a change in size of roughly 3 inches.
So the building, in order to withstand the temperature variations needs to be able to withstand a change in size of 3 inches.
Yet you are claiming a drop of 0.039 inches will cause it to fall apart.
Again, this is clearly pure garbage.
If such a tiny amount would cause buildings to collapse the fluctuations due to temperature would destroy them, so no building would still be standing.
And for added fun, guess what? The building is sinking.
3,930,000 sq feet (that's 744 sq miles, which makes no sense until you remember that's 790 ft length x 890 ft width).
No, even if you recognise that, it still makes no sense.
You have yet again demonstrated a complete lack of basic arithmetic skills.
790 ft by 890 ft is 703 100 square feet.
So no, your numbers make no sense at all.
What you are appealing to is the total floor area, which includes multiple floors.
Even if it was 3.93 million square feet, that would NOT be 744 square miles.
Instead, 3.93 million feet (a LINEAR measurement, not an area) is 744 miles.
3.93 million feet is only 0.14 square miles.
Again, we can easily see your numbers are pure BS.
In order to get 1 square mile, you need at least one measurement over 5280 ft.
And if one is smaller the other needs to be larger.
Your width and length are both less than 1 mile.
So basic common sense (which you clearly lack) shows it MUST be less than 1 square mile.
Yet you happily proclaim to be smarter than people.
These places were built on flat and level ground.
No, they weren't.
Especially as that is a contradiction in terms.
It is flat or level, not both.
Surveyors made certain it's flat.
Did they make certain it was flat, or level?
How did they do this?
Had the been actual curvature, far more than a simple dig would be needed.
Why?
They would have had to cut into the ground, and the area around the cities or big buildings would look noticeably at odds with them.
Why?
Yet again, you spout delusional BS with no justification at all.
But this isn't even true of natural areas.
That's right. These natural areas are rarely flat or level.
Instead, there is all sorts of terrain variation. Far more than the tiny amount from curvature you are appealing to.
Yet they are fine. Further demonstrating you are spouting dishonest BS to pretend there is a problem.
Largest forest in Europe (550 miles)
Is it 550 miles wide, or 550 square miles?
I don't see a massive hill of curvature, do you?
You are showing a picture of a tiny portion of it.
But I don't see from one side to the other.
What's blocking the view?
The trees stand upright.
Just like you would expect on a round Earth.
But the mere fact that we can build cities that last means that something about curvature theory is very wrong.
No, it doesn't.
As you are yet to show how it would be a problem.
Instead you just appeal to a bunch of dishonest BS to pretend it would be, because you can't show an actual problem.