WOW! Elijah must have had one amazing view when he was caught up in a whirlwind !!
I know I did when I went up in a plane the first time!! Flat as a pancake!!
Teddyhug quote from a previous flat earth movement thread:
So NOW you just "disrespected" your "intelligent leader" claiming he bends water, earth does not have corners, its not His footstool, it has no firmament keeping the water from pouring in, like the time of the flood when the "windows of heaven were opened up" and the things of earth was destroyed!
End quote
Chuck/Khutzpa quote:
@Parehtban
Yawn, still no facts? Look dude, I've done some surveying in my time. Guess what? Surveying large distances HAS to take into consideration of curvature and refraction.
Here is some advice for you: Get off, getting off on your conspiracy web sites and read some unbiased information by people who have no horse in the race.
PLEASE GOOGLE THIS:
"Error and Correction for the Curvature of the Earth, and Refraction (Surveying)" It doesn't matter what articles come up - read them!
End quote
The emblem of the United Nations contains a polar azimuthal equidistant projection. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly.
A retired career surveyor for 32 years on this radio program says the following:
They NEVER referenced any markers on BIG projects. The curve was NEVER taken into account. So from one city to the next you have a whole bunch of suveyors working on different plane models and these models have to link up. So eventually you should see a curve there.
Surveyor quote "I am wondering if you actually took the geodetic markers and placed them , what kind of shape you would end up with ?...Elevation is refereced on the geodetic model and based off a plane...which is only good for that exact location"
What is interesting is these markers are put down by the U.S.Geological Survey who are the creators of the Azimuthal equidistant map which is not a globe map but a plane map!! ...So the >>>>PREMIER MAP MAKERS OF THE WORLD<<<<have a geodetic model there that surveyors don't use!!
"So your telling me that ALL my projects that even though they LOOK straight they are actually crooked? How does that actually work?"
"It's like Al Queda...you can't find them but they are there " (curvature) according to the suveyor textbooks.
So if anything could make the geodetic model more accurate it would be the satellite system. Especially since these two government organizations are linked but here is the kicker..they don't care because no one is using that model!!
To sum it all up: Water always determines the level! LOL
Taking you from an East Coast landmark to a West Coast icon, the Washington, D.C., to San Francisco route cuts through America's heartland with unforgettable stops along the way. At slightly over 2,800 miles, you could break down this 40-hour trip into five eight-hour driving days with four overnight stops. Hmm. wonder how they know this? Surveyors perhaps?
The distance from earth to the sun? GOOGLE THIS CHUCK: 92.96 million miles. Now I don't know about you...but I would hate to be that surveyor! Burnt to a crisp now wouldn't you say? Aren't they saying they want to colonize the moon and also mars? LMBO! We never went to the moon according to NASA'S own mouth! Maybe you should use your own advice there Chuckk: " read some unbiased information by people who have no horse in the race." and perhaps some critical thinking skills would be useful as well.
"We can only fly in earth's orbit." They want to go to the moon next! What a crock of lies.
MAN!...is Google maps lazy. My husband lost an hour out on delivery because the database isn't updated. hmmm...maybe they are busy with the satellite system and GPS to update their model! LOL
The post your previously disagreed on was when I said "perfect sphere", correct? Aren't ping pong balls, and usually beach balls a "perfect sphere?" I mean it would be hard to play ping pong if any part of it was flat in comparison to the rest?
But go on, keep telling me I am wrong about the constant of curvature on perfect spheres. I have no doubt you'll try.
Tothmax, here ya go, some real simple examples without pie, just an orange.
Example #1) I present before an average person a scale model of the great pyramid, a chopstick and an orange. I ask them to point to the one that is shaped like a sphere. They point to the orange. Are they wrong because technically an orange it is not a perfect sphere?
No, they are not wrong, because technically an orange is more sphere shaped relative to a pyramid or chopstick.
Example #2) Take a common 12" ruler. Draw a half circle from zero to 12". This represents one half of the equator of a sphere. The peak of the half circle will be at 6". The curve changes direction or rises relative to the ruler at an average 1:1 ratio, but not every inch traveled from zero to 12" results in a 1:1 ratio. The first and last inch will yield significantly more height relative to the ruler for the distance traveled than the 5 1/2" to 6 1/2 inch which is traveling most parallel to the ruler.
Example #3) Take the same ruler and draw a half circle from 1/16th to 2/16ths of an inch. The peak will be at 3/32nds. The average ratio of the curve is the same as in #2 but this curve effectively yields a knife point, while #2 effectively yields a broad ax blade. Which curve do you want to pick a splinter out with?Everything in the physical dimension is realitive. A child may roll a ball out of clay and call it a sphere, while a mathematician measuring it with laser accuracy would call it a blob. As I said before, depends on what decimal point you want to take it.
Still waiting for your proof. Your examples contained no decimals. I guess I was supposed to do conversions for you?
I think your argument falls flat regardless because we can have perfect spheres by applying both the Plank constant and the Avogadro constant. This means the moles can be organized at the molecular level so the sphere is perfectly balanced.
As far as the rest of your comment, I don't think anybody has stated that oranges are perfect spheres. So again, more nonsense from you that isn't applicable. It also wouldn't apply to aligning antennas, as it's an approximation they are calibrating with based on a constant.
Tothmax, you can copy and paste all you want from Cambridge University and internet sources. You can talk about different methods to calculate curvature. It doesn't change the facts. We live on a imperfect sphere, but the calculations used are for a perfect sphere. I'm talking about reality you are talking about concepts. Even the most perfect sphere made by man is not a perfect sphere if you measure short distances close enough, it still has tiny mountains and valleys. Its perfect sphere status is relative to the decimal points you use! Even if you assume a perfect sphere or average out imperfections, line of sight is STILL going to be DIFFERENT on different size spheres. What don't you understand about this?
Your comment is irrelevant. We know the calculations for a perfect sphere and we know the calculations to determine the curvature of the earth. So saying things aren't 100 perfect spheres is pointless and not even following the topic. As I think I mentioned from the beginning, we don't have a perfect sphere with the earth, and I gave the example of how skewed it can get with things like mountains. One minutes you're arguing against the previous point you tried to argue. It's baffling how you can do this. Like a dog that chases its tail, and can't figure out why it can never catch it, so it stops for a moment, complains about its tail, then goes back to chasing it a few moments later. Chuck in a nutshell.
Go back and look. You're the one who introduced perfect vs imperfect, I just went with it pointing out it is realitive to the decimal points you want to use. Now you say it was me that brought it up?
I finally realize you are just playing games and push past the "perfect sphere" jargon and back to line of sight, pointing out, line of sight changes when the size of a sphere changes Even though curvature in degrees remains constant for a circle or a sphere, the length for those degrees does not remain constant, it is relative to the size of the sphere. Now everything is "irrelevant"?
I said there was a constant and I was explaining a principle to you that details both imperfect and perfect spheres conceptually. I guess maybe that went over your head.
Maybe you should use your own advice there Chuckk: " read some unbiased information by people who have no horse in the race." and perhaps some critical thinking skills would be useful as well. 
