• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Kevj said:
It’s exactly like an orange and cocktail sticks. Only the orange is 0.00000059% the size of the earth’s circumference.
The angular difference of the piers is not perceivable to the human eye as it is minute. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then building a bridge should never require taking any Earth curvature into any equation. It should be natural if that was the case.
 

Nukehasslefan said:
I don't know what he's calculating because I don't know his job. What I do know for myself is he's not taking any globe into account.

Let me explain why.

Imagine building a bridge with two towers and being told the towers are farther apart at the top than the bottom as you would expect with the global storyline.
If that's the case then imagine 10 towers along a bridge.
Now the central two would supposedly be closer to each other at the bottom and farther away at the top. It stands to reason if this was the case then your towers on each side of those would have to follow that pattern but this would be impossible as the central two towers are already leaning the opposite way from centre which means they would be leaning toward the next tower away from centre and yet that tower would have to lean in to compensate or if it followed that same pattern then it would get progressively farther apart at the top from centre tower outwards to the rest. It simply would not work.
Click to expand...
Utter drivel
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I don't know what he's calculating because I don't know his job. What I do know for myself is he's not taking any globe into account.

Let me explain why.

Imagine building a bridge with two towers and being told the towers are farther apart at the top than the bottom as you would expect with the global storyline.
If that's the case then imagine 10 towers along a bridge.
Now the central two would supposedly be closer to each other at the bottom and farther away at the top. It stands to reason if this was the case then your towers on each side of those would have to follow that pattern but this would be impossible as the central two towers are already leaning the opposite way from centre which means they would be leaning toward the next tower away from centre and yet that tower would have to lean in to compensate or if it followed that same pattern then it would get progressively farther apart at the top from centre tower outwards to the rest. It simply would not work.
Click to expand...
To be fair - this would be exactly true on a "flat earth" but on a globe, with every tower being perpendicular to the ground, it is wrong. No towers are "leaning" - each is perpendicular to the ground in its own right - it just so happens that means the bottoms are closer than the tops - try it with the orange and cocktail stick example.

Think your argument proves the earth is round :)
 
Tire said:
To be fair - this would be exactly true on a "flat earth" but on a globe, with every tower being perpendicular to the ground, it is wrong. No towers are "leaning" - each is perpendicular to the ground in its own right - it just so happens that means the bottoms are closer than the tops - try it with the orange and cocktail stick example.

Think your argument proves the earth is round :)
Click to expand...
Which is exactly my point.
Why is curvature taken into account if this is the natural case as we're told?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Which is exactly my point.
Why is curvature taken into account if this is the natural case as we're told?
Click to expand...
Why do you need to know on a multi billion pound project that perpendicular towers are further away at the top than the bottom? "Yo, Bob! Let out a bit more slack on this cable mate - we're a bit short here"
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Because you need to know by how much the distance between the tops differs from the distance at the base.
Click to expand...
That's not what I need to know. What I want to know is why Earth's curvature is taken into account when building a bridge if the build is natural, level, and plumb.
Nothing should be taken into account if this was the case.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
That's not what I need to know. What I want to know is why Earth's curvature is taken into account when building a bridge if the build is natural, level, and plumb.
Nothing should be taken into account if this was the case.
Click to expand...
It is exactly what you need to know!
If your towers are 100mtr apart at ground level and you use that same measurement for your roof, you're fucked
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Because you need to know by how much the distance between the tops differs from the distance at the base.
Click to expand...
No.
I need to know why it's like that in terms of how Earth's curvature is taken into account for this when it should be natural and in no need if what people are arguing about a natural following of Earth's curvature.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
It is exactly what you need to know!
If your towers are 100mtr apart at ground level and you use that same measurement for your roof, you're fucked
Click to expand...
Do they build towers perfectly plumb?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I don't know what he's calculating because I don't know his job. What I do know for myself is he's not taking any globe into account.

Let me explain why.

Imagine building a bridge with two towers and being told the towers are farther apart at the top than the bottom as you would expect with the global storyline.
If that's the case then imagine 10 towers along a bridge.
Now the central two would supposedly be closer to each other at the bottom and farther away at the top. It stands to reason if this was the case then your towers on each side of those would have to follow that pattern but this would be impossible as the central two towers are already leaning the opposite way from centre which means they would be leaning toward the next tower away from centre and yet that tower would have to lean in to compensate or if it followed that same pattern then it would get progressively farther apart at the top from centre tower outwards to the rest. It simply would not work.
Click to expand...

Wow.

Here's an experiment for you, go get an apple and a handful of nails. Stick the nails into the apple in a straight line so that half of each nail sticks out from it, kind of like Pinhead from the Hellraiser series of movies.


Once you've done about six of them, come back and apologise for being thick.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Any idea what engineers are taking into account in terms of how they set up a bridge for the supposed curvature of Earth?
Do they build towers deliberately out of plumb or what?
If not then what exactly are they taking into account?
Click to expand...
Hey, you can easily prove the earth is flat, just go down to the coast with a power set of binoculars and see if you can see the coast of Germany.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
That's not what I need to know. What I want to know is why Earth's curvature is taken into account when building a bridge if the build is natural, level, and plumb.
Nothing should be taken into account if this was the case.
Click to expand...

Jesus wept.
Nukehasslefan said:
Why not France?
Click to expand...

France doesn't exist. It was invented in the late 800's A.D. as a boogeyman story to keep Britons in line.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top