Help me, am I crazy?

[studiot]

Would that angle be measured as the discrepancy from plumb at the theodolite?

 

Was this theory first physically observed on the earth or mathematically?

 

The theory was developed alongside the practical discipline of surveying as the need arose over a period of several centuries to the mid 1800s.

But none of the theory of spherical excess has anything to do with the the plumb of the theodolite.

The angle examples I gave are purely due to the difference between a plane surface and the (assumed) spherical surface of the Earth.

 

I don't know what you mean by the discrepancy from plumb, there are several causes, all well known, defined and accounted for.

 

In order of precedence (influence) they are

 

From the 18th century until well into the 20th century surveying instruments were set up (levelled or plumbed) using a weighted plumb bob and suspension line.

 

Everest's equipment was of this type and the bob suffered gravitational attraction towards the mass of the Himalayas as well as down towards the centre of the Earth.

The rotation of the Earth causes an additional (eastwards in the Northern hemisphere) deflection from true vertical.

 

The Coriolis force causes an addition precession of the axis changing direction around the circumference of a circle as can be seen in the Chicago, Lisbon and Philadephia Foucault pendulums.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqpV1236_Q0

 

You should watch the first and last minute of this video.

 

Modern equipment does not suffer from these issues because they employ an optical plummet.

 

If it were not for the rotation of the Earth, a pendulum would hang down straight and still and always swing to and fro in the same plane, away from the Himalays.

 

All this assumes that the Earth is a perfect sphere.

Another 'discrepancy' of the plumb arises because Earth's shape is not perfect.

This would arise whether the Earth was rotating or not.

 

Here is a question for you to ponder.

 

New York is on the 74th meridian of longitude.

An ICBM rocket, travelling at 3600 mph, is launched from the North pole along the 74 meridian towards New York., a distance of 3360 miles.

What part of NY will the missile destroy?

Edited January 5, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

Also, the Earth would not have a magnetic field if it weren't rotating.And there would not be the regular change in magnetic inclination if it were not spherical.

 

As with every area of science, it is the accumulation of evidence that convinces us that reality is the way it is. So, there are those who wish that time and space didn't curve, that quantum effects were not weird, and that the Earth was not rotating.

 

Those people might be able to argue away individual bits of evidence in different ingenious ways, but you can't find another model that consistently explains ALL the evidence.

[Confusi]

I see a nice curved horizon, just like from every other high-altitude plane (when it is actually at its maximum altitude).

? If you look at the video at 8.57, there has been a straight line superimposed along the flat horizon, I wouldn't like to guess how long that horizon is, but it is certainly flat!

If the earth was spherical (or anything like spherical), you would planely see the curvature at this altitude, in fact, it would be obvious from a much lower altitude. Notice how the horizon stays level with the line of sight? On a sphere, the horizon would quickly fall away on all sides and you would have to physically look down to see it.

I can't understand what you mean here Strange, are you deliberately not seeing this?

 

Also, the Earth would not have a magnetic field if it weren't rotating.And there would not be the regular change in magnetic inclination if it were not spherical.

 

I am listening to my desktop speaker (John Lennon, before you ask (second time he showed up in this thread already! )) that is not rotating!

 

As with every area of science, it is the accumulation of evidence that convinces us that reality is the way it is. So, there are those who wish that time and space didn't curve, that quantum effects were not weird, and that the Earth was not rotating.

 

Those people might be able to argue away individual bits of evidence in different ingenious ways, but you can't find another model that consistently explains ALL the evidence.

IF what we are seeing here is a straight horizon, (and there are many videos showing a straight and level horizon at 30+miles elevation), it proves that there is something wrong with the "facts" of the matter as we know them!

 

It is hard to accept that what you have been told since you was a child is wrong, I didn't believe it myself and I totally concede that some of Eric Dubay's " proofs" are totally incorrect and unfounded at best, BS at worst, but there is insurmountable evidence that there is something wrong, somewhere, somehow!

 

I have learned a lot from this discussion, and whether you believe it or not, I do respect that some of you are trained and experienced scientists and have worked in the varied disciplines and, as I have said time and again, I don't wish to p**s anyone off but I think it's time you stop jumping to the conclusion that I am an idiot, just trying to upset the apple cart, and start looking at ( or at least accepting)the evidence against as well as for.

 

I spend as much time trying to disprove my theories as I do trying to prove them, I am still sitting on the fence but I doubt I will ever find the truth and be 100% sure, there is simply too much evidence contrary to a spherical earth!

 

(And don't think I have forgotten the question about how I can see Bardsey 30 odd miles away )

Edited January 5, 2016 by Confusi

[Phi for All]

OK, we've strayed into a confirmation bias minefield.

 

It's pretty typical when someone becomes convinced of something irrationally, they won't respond to rational explanations. It's a well-observed fact that often the more technically accurate the mainstream explanation is, the more confirmation bias suggests it's all a conspiracy, and the person believes even more strongly in the irrational explanation.

[StringJunky]

What would the International Space Station residents see 'orbiting' a flat Earth?

[Confusi]

(I may regret bringing this up!)

After 9/11, there were many conspiracy theoriesabout what actually went down that day. Jet fuel, pancake collapse, zero point energy, Israeli secret agents, nuclear weapons, directed frequency etc ad nauseum

 

(@ Phi for all, got your last post as I was typing, this is the point of this post!)

 

I couldn't make sense of it, there were too many opinions, most of them with some plausible answers, but, somehow, the official narrative didn't seem to pan out as well as a lot of the "conspiracy theories"

 

There are thousands of well educated architects, engineers and scientists who say it is impossible that shock waves, burning jet fuel and box cutters could bring the towers down, it has never happened before in any fire or collision or even a controlled demolition!

 

I thought long and hard and came up with a slightly different angle! Someone explain how WTC7 collapsed, and I will believe everything they say about the whole saga. A newscaster actually said, live on air "we have just heard that they are going to pull WTC7, it was not struck by a plane, but the vibrations running through the ground have caused so much structural damage that the building is unsafe".... Seriously!, how much BS is that!?

 

Here is the example I touched on earlier, if ONE thing is wrong, totally, irreconcilably wrong, then something is dreadfully amiss and needs investigation, we need "another model that consistently explains ALL the evidence.", but there isn't one!

[studiot]

I'm sorry but I have answered all your questions politely and respectfully, as required by the rules of this forum.

 

It is time you answered a few of mine.

 

Note "I don't know enough to answer that" is a perfectly acceptable answer in Science.

[Phi for All]

(I may regret bringing this up!)

 

OMG, conspiracy theories. You have GOT to be kidding.

 

I'm calling it. Time of death (for your reasoning skills) is 08:16 pm UTC. Sorry for your loss.

[MigL]

Presenting ( and using ) incomplete evidence is no way to win an argument Confusi.

 

That video you posted ( and drew wrong conclusions from ) shows an early model X-15 research plane, built by the former North American Aviation,; a ROCKET plane ( not jet ) designed to fly at hypersonic speeds for research into re-entry and aerodynamic heating.

This 'plane' had extremely short, stubby and thick wings ( early version of lifting body concepts ), and had no chance of taking off on its own power. It had to be carried aloft under the wing of a B-52, and 'dropped' before igniting the rocket. This usually happened at fairly low altitude ( less than 30000 ft ) as a B-52's service ceiling is limited to about 36000 ft anyway.

It would then climb, on rocket power, to a couple of hundred thousand ft, where its fuel would be spent, and it would begin a guided re-entry. Later models flown by NASA had two jettisonable fuel tanks for increased flight time.

 

Unfortunately in the late 50s there were no head-up-displays to project information on the windscreen, so unless that view of the horizon includes a view of the instrument cluster, we have no idea at what altitude it is being filmed.

To simply ASSUME that it is being filmed at max attainable altitude ( about 300000 ft ), instead of where it spends most of its time, either climbing under power, or descending in free fall/glide, as you do with your "Look at that flat horizon" comments is flat wrong ( see what I did there ? ).

[Confusi]

I'm sorry but I have answered all your questions politely and respectfully, as required by the rules of this forum.

 

It is time you answered a few of mine.

 

Note "I don't know enough to answer that" is a perfectly acceptable answer in Science.

Studiot, you have answered (some of) my questions poltiltely, respectfully and interestingly and I'm grateful you took the time to respond to someone who would be regarded as a fool by others.

 

You haven't actually asked me any questions (that I thought you wanted an answer to)

 

You explained about a level line curving, and this made pefect sense, and that pipelines were laid irrespective of curvature because of flexibility.

You also mentioned refraction and geodesic surveying, both of which I looked into and now understand in a vague/layman fashion.

 

Refraction I was going to look at more closely, but to be honest, I'm not sure how to work with the figures I have, perhaps you would be so kind;

 

Bardsey should be below the horizon by 680 feet, refraction (as I have read it from limited sources) can account for a twelth of the height difference (56.6 feet?) but this still doesn't help!

 

You pointed out the difference between a flat and spinning earth, stating as evidence observation of the planets (from Greek, meaning wanderers), but this didn't quite work for me.

 

We know that the stars are in exactly the same constellations and patterns today that they were in when the Sumerians first began cataloging, drawing and describing. If we were not only spinning, but moving at mega speeds through the cosmos, with everything moving away from us with expansion, surely, there would have been a noticeable difference by now!? (slightly different subject so left it out back then)

 

I have taken on board what you and others hav said, and agree there are proofs of a spherical, rotating earth, and by the same token, if one thing is wrong, then the whole theory is wrong, two wrong theories will not satisfy this enquring mind!

 

You have surely given me a lot of food for thought, I only hope I have done the same for you.

 

Apart for a few less welcoming remarks, I have actually felt welcome here, you at least didn't boot me!

 

@Phi

I don't really think that was fair, I showed my reasoning, I didn't plump for any conspiracy theory and the official story is as much conspiracy theory as any other.

 

as you do with your "Look at that flat horizon" comments is flat wrong ( see what I did there ? ).

 

I should have said, that emphasis was not mine, nor was the video, I just found it whilst eating lunch.

 

A valid point, @Migl, the altitude cannot be determined, but the curvature would be visible and noticeable at much lower altitudes anyway, and it was certainly "very high" judging by the clouds anyway.

 

If you search for Felix Baumgartner's space jump video, you can see a flat horizon from inside the gondala, but as he steps out, the curvature becomes visible, but this is only the effect of a wide angle go pro lense, as can be confirmed when he tips upside down and the curvature appears in the opposite direction.

 

I could start posting high altitude videos here all day but it would be better if each of you searched yourselves.

 

I have to say, I'm not trying to get anyone to believe me I just want to point out that maybe everything is not as cut and dried as we may have been told. A lot of "proof" of ball earth is untestable to the common man, you must take someones word for it! (enter the Santa Clause effect)

[swansont]

(I may regret bringing this up!)

After 9/11, there were many conspiracy theoriesabout what actually went down that day. Jet fuel, pancake collapse, zero point energy, Israeli secret agents, nuclear weapons, directed frequency etc ad nauseum

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Regret this you may. Going violently off-topic in general is a signal that the original discussion is done, and going all the way to 9/11 and the towers conspiracy leaves no doubt that this should be closed. This is a science site, not a conspiracy site, and the illuminati like it that way.