Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Legit question wrote:

More for you Globalists to chew on. Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature. That's a fact.

Actually, surveying does account for the curvature of the earth, but that drop of 0.0001 ft per ft is rarely significant compared to other sources of error. Or that's what we who are part of the globalist conspiracy tell the idiots out there. We just hope that those brilliant enough to see through our conspiracy don't expose our deception.

Legit question wrote:

The Suez Canal is 100 miles long without any locks. The water is an uninterrupted continuation between the Med and the Red Sea. The Dayan line and water's surface run in perfect parallel to each other. No curvature of earth taken into account.

The Suez Canal follows the curvature of the Earth. It's considered 'flat' from a geographic and architectural point of view because the sea level differences at each end of the canal are essentially insignificant.

Wrong. If the earth is globe, 100 miles represents 6,666 ft elevation change from one end to the other by using the equation earlier in this thread.

Try again.

Verrazno Narrows bridge. Bridges are one type of engineering structure that takes the curvature of the earth into account due do differences in lengths between the upper and lower parts of the structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge

Tunnels also have to take curvature into consideration. As an example, making a very large collider tunnel/CERN:

http://www.tunneltalk.com/CERN-10Dec2014-Future-Circular-Collider-preliminary-alignment-studies.php

Duh Earf wrote:

Go up in a really tall building and you can see the curvature of the earth. But I've enjoyed this thread very much.

When they say flat they don't mean perfectly so. The Earth is more like a Pringle.

Legit question wrote:

elevation change

I know you're just trolling, but this part is key to your flawed logic.

Positive Contribution wrote:

[quote]Bad Wigins wrote:

If the World is flat than why haven't we found the end of it yet?

Also how come a flight from New York to Sydney goes westward but a flight from London goes eastward?

Again:

The world is a flat circle, not a sphere.

The end in all directions is the circumference we call Antarctica.

Westward is clockwise. Eastward is counter clockwise.

What we call latitude lines, or parallels, are concentric circles.

New York to Sydney doesn't really go westward or stay on a clockwise circle, it cuts across latitude lines.

And London to Sydney takes a different path because it's a different angle.

But the map shows how you can get to Sydney going different and seemingly opposite directions by tracking the right latitude line.

rectangle world on a turtle wrote:

Allen Paulson wrote:

Except of course if you want to do a 'round the world plane race. Almost as dumb as an ultramarathon but you gotta do what you gotta do.

You do know that you can go around a rectangle or any other shape, right? An around the world race simply refers to going to different big cities, making turns and returning to the start. Like in around the world in 80 days when they start and end up in England, they don't go around an imaginary line on a hypothetical spherical planet.

Sure but then the edges that you go around would need to be really abrupt. Show me that edge. It will unlikely be a really tall wave in the Ocean.

Legit question wrote:

In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

My balls are bigger on the bottom.

Legit question wrote:

not so much wrote:

Maybe because they are not lying flat on the ocean with their eyes at sea level. Why can you see farther when you are higher up? Why does anything ever disappear over the horizon?

This is hilarious.

Lol, Lame. Is that the best you can do?

The eyes give us the illusion of ships disappearing over the curve. Great. Go to the beach and do it. Wait for a cruise ship or barge to disappear to your eyes. Then, go get a high-powered set of binoculars and TA DA! POOF! There it is again, looking just as it did before. Keep watching until you see it again appear to disappear. Then, assuming it's a nice clear day, go get a powerful telescope and check it again. TA DA! POOF! There it is again.

This is not possible if the earth is curved.

Can you see Japan from California?

Legit question wrote:

Wrong. If the earth is globe, 100 miles represents 6,666 ft elevation change from one end to the other by using the equation earlier in this thread.

Try again.

Actually 100 miles represents 66.7 ft drop from a straight line by the equation earlier in the thread, but elevation is relative to a curved earth. Both round earthers and flat earthers say it's flat.

Legit question wrote:

Water doesn't curve.

Look at those flat raindrops!

I'm an engineer and I can tell you that the VERRAZANO Narrows bridge (Not sure if the Verrazno bridge is something different...) has towers that are further apart at their peaks than their bases due to either a miscalculation (The difference between a perfect 90-degree angle to the ground vs. a 89.999 degree angle). OR, the bridge was designed with the THOUGHT that they need to correct for the curvature of the Earth.

I could design a car with 16 wheels to account for better traction on the road, but that doesn't make it necessary. Just like constructing slanty towers to account for a curved earth doesn't make it necessary, you're just adjusting for something for the sake of doing it.

Legit question wrote:

More for you Globalists to chew on. Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature. That's a fact.

You've never seen a curved bridge?

bridge over troubled water wrote:

Legit question wrote:

More for you Globalists to chew on. Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature. That's a fact.

You've never seen a curved bridge?

That's for structural integrity, not to follow some sort of made-up marble theory, fool. Did you happen to pay attention in 7th grade geometry?

This guy is killing you people. Do any of you have a sensible retort?

The problem seems to be that people seem to think a spherical Earth is as perfect as a Beach ball.

The concept of flat ground, basins, craters and sharp peaks seems lost on them.

Ship captains when navigating great distance at sea never factor in the supposed curvature of the earth into their calculations. Both plane sailing and great circle sailing use plane trigonometry, not spherical. All mathematical

calculations are on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.

Legit question wrote:If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies.