7. Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor in the curvature of the Earth

“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.”

Source: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C06092511/presents/TU004_PPT.PDF
An outright lie

Whilst it is true that most engineering projects do not require the curvature of the Earth to be taken into account, surveyors in particular regularly take the curvature of the earth into account, and there are numerous accounts of engineers taking the curvature of the earth into account for large projects such as long bridges.

See the following links for examples:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C06092511/presents/TU004_PPT.PDF
See page 16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano-Narrows_Bridge#statistics
See the statistics section.
https://www.metabunk.org/curvature-and-refraction-in-surveying-and-leveling-through-history-old-books-etc.t8856/
This shows a clipping from an 1853 treatise on surveying clearly referencing the curvature of the Earth.  It contains a link to the archive from which it is taken. 

ftp://ww4.dnr.wa.gov/eng/StateLandSurvey/BLMdocs/2009ManualOfSurveyingInstructions2009ElectronicUnofficialAndSubjectToChnageOrCorrection060414.pdf
This is a link to the “Manual of Surveying instructions 2009” on an official government web site which contains the following excerpt clearly referencing the curvature of the earth.
2-17. …. Thus, the direct survey methods and instruments used produced boundary lines run at a constant bearing and adjusted for curvature as part of running the line. … The distance chained was measured along the same curve, and the resultant measurement is that of the latitudinal arc distance measured at ground elevation between two points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying


The following are web sites frequented by surveyors, civil engineers and students.  Note, none of the surveyors practising in the world have seen fit to take issue with these statements.

https://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html
This is a web site used by civil engineers.
http://www.landsurveyors.com/resources/accuracy-of-land-surveys/

To ensure the accuracy of land surveys, different methods are used depending on the type of survey that is done. For example, land surveys covering huge areas of land will use a method that take into account the curvature of the Earth, which enables the accuracy of the land survey to be even more detailed.

http://landsurveyorsunited.com/video/curvature-and-refraction


< Prev 1-10 Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light...
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse, ...
Read more

If Earth was a sphere the visible stars would be different

Image
The visible stars are a big problem for flat Earthers because what we observe is 100% consistent with a spherical Earth and completely impossible on a flat Earth. Their solution?  Simply to lie about what is observed.  These lies include denials of observations that are impossible on a flat Earth and pretending that observed stars would be impossible on spherical Earth. For the latter, it could be that Dubay simply can't do simple trigonometry but I think that he is once again deliberately lying. The strange thing about this is that everyone is capable of putting these claims to the test simply by looking up at the night sky.  The fact that flat Earth believers refuse to put these "proofs" to the test tells you that they are not really interested in truth, they are only interested in feeling good about their beliefs and will simply unquestioningly accept as fact anything that backs up these beliefs. Ignorance truly is bliss. 99...
Read more