96 replies to this topic

[Coffey]

Chrlzs, on 12 February 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

{crickets chirp...}


Hey, where'd Coffey go?

Funny, s/he seems to posting merrily on other threads.. Wonder why s/he doesn't like this one any more?

Anyway, if s/he doesn't choose to further engage, I might go back and see what was the last evidence s/he posted, and then I'll work though that...

Troling much?

I have nothign further to discuss, I disagree with you and don't want to waste time discussing soemhting which I have said my opinion on furhter if you don't accept my opinion and prefer to beleive your own.

It doesn't mean you have "won".

If you look at it that way then clearly, you are fighting your own little battle.

I'm not stupid I know we use the whole flat thing when building a house, that doens't prove flat eath theory or that it is used. We build houses flat for structural preaosns and becuas eit's pleasing ont he eye, not because we beelive the area it is built on is flat. In fact we make the area we build on flat to accomadate the house, the same with other structures. So that does not prove we use flat earth theory for small scale things. at all. So seeing as thta doesn't prove my point wrong I am now leaving this thread as beating a dead horse is boring and I'd rather discuss more important issues. It's ncie to know you like following me aorund the forum though. Always tell you are doign soemthing right when you have a stalker.

Edited by Coffey, 12 February 2013 - 02:42 PM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Coffey, on 12 February 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I'm not stupid I know we use the whole flat thing when building a house, that doens't prove flat eath theory or that it is used.

You seem to be saying here that you know that the flat earth theory is used but that doesn't prove that it is used.

[Coffey]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 12 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

You seem to be saying here that you know that the flat earth theory is used but that doesn't prove that it is used.

No I said when building  ahouse you make it flat. That has nothing to dow ith flat Earth theory.

You make a house flat, by digging into the ground (EARTH) and building a flat foundation, so the house is flat for prosthetic reasons and for balancing objects int he house. If you proceed to emasure a row of houses they will not be the same level.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Coffey, on 12 February 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

No I said when building  ahouse you make it flat. That has nothing to dow ith flat Earth theory.

You don't understand the argument, otherwise you would realise that you are contradicting yourself and defeating your own case. It has EVERYTHING to do with the point that Chrlz is making.

Coffey, on 12 February 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

You make a house flat, by digging into the ground (EARTH) and building a flat foundation, so the house is flat for prosthetic reasons and for balancing objects int he house. If you proceed to emasure a row of houses they will not be the same level.

This is where you are wrong (well this is one of the many places where you are wrong, but I'll stick with this one for now).

The point is that you are making a flat foundation for a flat based house on a planet which is curved. Hence, for objects as small as a house you do not need to take the curvature of the Earth into account. As you can, quite happily, assume the Earth is flat for constructing a house then on this scale the building work does not need to take into account that the Earth is spherical. On this scale the construction is exactly the same as if the Earth was flat. It, therefore, logically, follows that on this scale the construction is entirely consistent with a flat Earth theory. Not only is the construction consistent with the flat Earth theory but you the spherical Earth theory is totally ignored. Hence for the purposes of house construction you are, effectively, building a house in accordance with the flat Earth theory and NOT in accordance with the spherical Earth theory.

Which is EXACTLY the point Chrlz was making.

[Coffey]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 12 February 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

You don't understand the argument, otherwise you would realise that you are contradicting yourself and defeating your own case. It has EVERYTHING to do with the point that Chrlz is making.


This is where you are wrong (well this is one of the many places where you are wrong, but I'll stick with this one for now).

The point is that you are making a flat foundation for a flat based house on a planet which is curved. Hence, for objects as small as a house you do not need to take the curvature of the Earth into account. As you can, quite happily, assume the Earth is flat for constructing a house then on this scale the building work does not need to take into account that the Earth is spherical. On this scale the construction is exactly the same as if the Earth was flat. It, therefore, logically, follows that on this scale the construction is entirely consistent with a flat Earth theory. Not only is the construction consistent with the flat Earth theory but you the spherical Earth theory is totally ignored. Hence for the purposes of house construction you are, effectively, building a house in accordance with the flat Earth theory and NOT in accordance with the spherical Earth theory.

Which is EXACTLY the point Chrlz was making.

Wrong.... If the ground was perfectly flat, you would not need to construct a flat foundation... OR measure using instruments to find out if it is perfectly flat. You would merely measure angles and length/height only, which you do not. By building at a 90 degree angle going by what youa re saying would be enough to determine it is flat. Which is incorrect.

[skyeagle409]

Verazzano Narrows Bridge - New York

The towers soared 650 feet above the water, while the double-deck roadway was suspended 226 feet high.  The main span stretched 4260 feet between towers.   These distances are so high and far apart that in designing the bridge it was necessary to take into account the curvature of the earth.

[Chrlzs]

Coffey, on 12 February 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Troling {sic} much?

Ironyng much?

Quote

I have nothign further to discuss

Yes, you adequately showed that with what you posted after this one..

So it's just as well you have nothign {sic} further.  It's a real surprise that you would make ignorant claims and then refuse to back *anything* up.  



Oh no, wait, you stayed and posted some more.  How ... quaint.