9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review 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 ”"
This is a historical opinion, not a proof.
Really? An engineer speaking in 1893 is the best testimony that is to be had supporting a Flat Earth? It says something about the lack of credibility of this claim that not one engineer educated in the last 100 years can be found to agree. In contrast, every single surveying textbook in existence teaches that the earth’s curvature must be taken into account when dealing with large distances.
ftp://ww4.dnr.wa.gov/eng/StateLandSurvey/BLMdocs/2009ManualOfSurveyingInstructions2009ElectronicUnofficialAndSubjectToChnageOrCorrection060414.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying
Also note that it would have been possible for an engineer as ignorant of the curvature of the earth, as Winckler’s quote shows him to be, to perform his job competently by unquestioningly using measurements provided by surveyors who do take it into account.
Lastly I would point out that since there is no record of publication called the Earth Review, the publication being referred to was probably the “Earth Not a Globe Review” founded by Lady Elizabeth Blount a follower of Samuel Rowbothom from whom Eric Dubay gets so many of his quotes.
Why would Eric Dubay misrepresent the name of the publication? Obviously with the intent of deceiving his readers into imagining that the quotes are from a respected scientific publication.
< Prev 1-10 Next >
This is a historical opinion, not a proof.
Really? An engineer speaking in 1893 is the best testimony that is to be had supporting a Flat Earth? It says something about the lack of credibility of this claim that not one engineer educated in the last 100 years can be found to agree. In contrast, every single surveying textbook in existence teaches that the earth’s curvature must be taken into account when dealing with large distances.
ftp://ww4.dnr.wa.gov/eng/StateLandSurvey/BLMdocs/2009ManualOfSurveyingInstructions2009ElectronicUnofficialAndSubjectToChnageOrCorrection060414.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying
Also note that it would have been possible for an engineer as ignorant of the curvature of the earth, as Winckler’s quote shows him to be, to perform his job competently by unquestioningly using measurements provided by surveyors who do take it into account.
Lastly I would point out that since there is no record of publication called the Earth Review, the publication being referred to was probably the “Earth Not a Globe Review” founded by Lady Elizabeth Blount a follower of Samuel Rowbothom from whom Eric Dubay gets so many of his quotes.
Why would Eric Dubay misrepresent the name of the publication? Obviously with the intent of deceiving his readers into imagining that the quotes are from a respected scientific publication.
< Prev 1-10 Next >
Comments
Post a Comment