FLAT GLOBE

burgundia wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:This is the 'best' of the videos. But all these videos are still terrible from my point of view. They are over long, over repetitive and i have to pay for bandwidth for information that could be summarised in half a page of writing. So no more videos for me, its a waste of life.

Seashore wrote:

Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .

From page 45:

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature!



One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the January, 1896 “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In leveling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”

Seashore wrote:

I looked for an email address for Eric Dubay so I could ask him where he found the reference.  I don't see one for him.  Apparently you have to have a Google account to ask him on his website.  I disconnected mine and don't want one so I guess that won't work.

Seashore wrote:

Another problem with that video was that Mark Knight kept talking over Eric Dubay, which was very irritating for me.

mudra wrote:For those who love to read like you Vidya the following is a 1895 edition of WM Carpenter's book : One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe.

The following Extract was taken from the “ Birmingham Weekly Mercury ” of February I5th, 1890, and must have been first published very soon after the experiment on the Bedford Canal, when that Professor fraudulently appropriated the sum of £1,000, on the grossly false plea that he had proved a curvature on six miles of the surface-water of that Canal.

“ An Engineer of Thirty Years Standing” writes to a magazine in 1874 quoting the following sentences as the result of his experience in the construction of railways, more especially :—“ I am thoroughly acquainted both with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are incapable of any practical illustration. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as true levels or flats. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined, and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to ‘ eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance,’ could not be worked by any engine that was ever yet constructed. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be positively stated that all the platforms are on the same relative level. The distance between the eastern and western coasts of England may be set down as three hundred miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed, as represented, the central stations say at Rugby or Warwick, ought to be close upon three miles higher than a cord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case, there is not a driver or stoker within the kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. As long as they know the pretended curve to be mere theory, they do not trouble themselves about what may be stated in the tables of the geographers. But we can only laugh at those of your readers and others who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical surfaces. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough; vertical ones would be a thousand times worse, and, with our rolling stock constructed as at present, physically impossible. There are several other reasons why such locomotion on iron rails would be as impracticable as carrying the trains through the air.”—SURVEYOR.

Vidya Moksha wrote:join his forum? http://ifers.boards.net/

Vidya Moksha wrote:Hes also active in fu$kbook

Seashore wrote:
One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the January, 1896 “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In leveling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”
.

Vidya Moksha wrote:how does flat level water sit on a round globe?

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:how does flat level water sit on a round globe?

Would you take that as evidence of a flat earth?

Jenetta wrote:Regarding the Earth spin

If the earth turns with such a high speed how come we don't become dizzy ?



Love from me
mudra


Gravity?  The closer you are to the focal point the less you will feel the speed of something much larger than yourself.  Whether I'm right or not I haven't got a clue...go on intuition.

____________________________________________
As it is below; so it is above

Published on May 28, 2014

Description...I HAVE FULL PERMISSION FROM THE MAKER OF THIS VID TO POST THIS IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY......The earth is not rotating spinning,Not My Vid,All Credit To Rory Cooper..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxaqqzjRu0

http://www.waykiwayki.com/2014/11/earth-hoax-part-1-of-2-dont-spin-out.html

Seashore wrote:Mark Knight has posted this video on his website.

If this blog has raised some questions, or seems too simplistic, for a deeper more complex walkthrough, look here, and also witness the attempts at debunk in the comments sections.
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt2/

http://www.waykiwayki.com/2014/11/earth-hoax-part-1-of-2-dont-spin-out.html

Heliocentric theory:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). . . . The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . .

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

Seashore wrote:The following sounds contradictory to me:

Heliocentric theory:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). . . . The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . .

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

To me, anti-clockwise would be East to West, not West to East.  So it seems first it says the Earth spins East to West, but then it says West to East.  

Vidya Moksha wrote:

Seashore wrote:The following sounds contradictory to me:

Heliocentric theory:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). . . . The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . .

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

To me, anti-clockwise would be East to West, not West to East.  So it seems first it says the Earth spins East to West, but then it says West to East.  

sun rise is in the east, so looking from the equator the spin is west to east... now move up to the north pole and that becomes an anti clockwise spin as seen from there.

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:

Seashore wrote:The following sounds contradictory to me:

Heliocentric theory:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). . . . The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . .

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

To me, anti-clockwise would be East to West, not West to East.  So it seems first it says the Earth spins East to West, but then it says West to East.  

sun rise is in the east, so looking from the equator the spin is west to east... now move up to the north pole and that becomes an anti clockwise spin as seen from there.

I'm not clear on what you're saying.  At the north pole looking down, it's spinning anti-clockwise - but is that west to east?  If it is, the article contradicts itself, doesn't it?

Vidya Moksha wrote:the article doesnt contradict itself..imagine the sun is stationary. the earth must rotate from the west to the east, this spin would produce a sun rise in the east. If the earth spins from west to east, then when viewed from the north pole (looking from above the pole straight down onto the pole) the spin would appear anti clockwise.

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole) [I say that's East to West] . . . . the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . . [which is it? East to West or West to East?]

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:the article doesnt contradict itself..imagine the sun is stationary. the earth must rotate from the west to the east, this spin would produce a sun rise in the east. If the earth spins from west to east, then when viewed from the north pole (looking from above the pole straight down onto the pole) the spin would appear anti clockwise.

The contradiction I see has nothing to do with the sun - only two statements about the spin of the earth as seen from the north pole:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole) [I say that's East to West] . . . . the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . . [which is it? East to West or West to East?]

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

Vidya Moksha wrote:Go find a tennis ball and a marker pen and play with them :)

Vidya Moksha wrote:anti clockwise is west to east spin...

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth’s and water’s non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the floodtides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

“The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance. The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature, as the Chinese believe the Earth to be a Stationary Plane. I may also add that no allowance was made for it in the North Sea Canal, or in the Manchester Ship Canal, both recently constructed, thus clearly proving that there is no globularity in Earth or Sea, so that the world cannot possibly be a Planet.”-David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (134)

Seashore wrote:The following sounds contradictory to me:

Heliocentric theory:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). . . . The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . .

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

To me, anti-clockwise would be East to West, not West to East.  So it seems first it says the Earth spins East to West, but then it says West to East.  

mudra wrote:

Seashore wrote:The following sounds contradictory to me:

Heliocentric theory:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). . . . The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . .

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

To me, anti-clockwise would be East to West, not West to East.  So it seems first it says the Earth spins East to West, but then it says West to East.  

What is said ...
What is meant :

In the Heliocentric theory  the sun appears to travel from East to West but this is because it is  the Earth that moves around the Sun in a clockwise manner ( West to East ) while spinning at the same time in a anti-clockwise one ( East  to West ).

Love from me
mudra