Stanley, your explanation does not address the engineer's concern.  Read again, below.

Actually it does.

If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord 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.

The first sentence is true. A chord (line) drawn between two points on a circle will be inside the circle.

However, the second sentence does not follow.

The force of gravity increases with decreasing distance  from the center of gravity. Gravity is lower at higher altitudes and higher at lower altitudes.

But every point on a circle is the same distance from the center of the circle. If the earth were exactly a sphere, then every point on earth would be the same distance from the center of the earth and experience the same magnitude of gravity though the direction would be toward the center of the earth.

Thus the engineer's concern is mistaken. All points at the same distance from the center of the earth are at the same gravitational "level". There is no grade up or down.

However, if you did have a straight line tunnel (a chord) running between two distant cities, points in that tunnel would be closer to the center. Travelling that tunnel would involve a grade down to the midpoint, and then a grade up, as far as gravity is concerned.

Actually it does.

The first sentence is true. A chord (line) drawn between two points on a circle will be inside the circle.

However, the second sentence does not follow.

The force of gravity increases with decreasing distance  from the center of gravity. Gravity is lower at higher altitudes and higher at lower altitudes.

But every point on a circle is the same distance from the center of the circle. If the earth were exactly a sphere, then every point on earth would be the same distance from the center of the earth and experience the same magnitude of gravity though the direction would be toward the center of the earth.

Thus the engineer's concern is mistaken. All points at the same distance from the center of the earth are at the same gravitational "level". There is no grade up or down.

However, if you did have a straight line tunnel (a chord) running between two distant cities, points in that tunnel would be closer to the center. Travelling that tunnel would involve a grade down to the midpoint, and then a grade up, as far as gravity is concerned.

Gravitational level? Do you guys just make this stuff up? This premise is an insult to rational thinking because a train travelling for extended distances (on the actual level) would, given a ball earth, be "grade down" in the middle as the track cuts through the ball and therefore, the train would not operate without extreme input of power going one way, but also it would need to brake half to compensate going the other.  This problem would only not apply, if the train is going perfectly around the exact "gravitational level" at all times.  Since gravity has never been, nor can it be, measured, there's absolutely no way to build a track that is "gravitationally level" through various terrains. In the real world, the way we actually experience it, after the train gets going on a level track, it takes minimal energy to keep it going over the track and force is only needed to get the train started or stopped.    

You can precisely calculate and measure this force that attracts every mass to every other mass in the universe.

Except that nobody's ever measured any force of gravity between two non-planetary objects.  It was invented precisely to back the heliocentric theory.  What we experience here on earth is most likey due to the fact that the earth is negatively charged and/or the pressure of ether (which is what Tesla held).

Your statements don't make sense. The track is not flat, it follow the curvature of the ball. The train thusly also follows the curvature. And yes, if it were in a zero-gravity environment, with no atmospheric pressure, you probably wouldn't need any energy keeping the train in motion. But here on Earth, there's friction due to the downwards force (gravity), air resistance and all the moving parts that consume energy, so to keep the train in motion you need energy.

Gravity can't be measured? What do you mean? You can precisely calculate and measure this force that attracts every mass to every other mass in the universe.

Train track is flat according to ball earthers, yet they also think it bends to follow the curvature of the earth somehow.  Either it's level or it bends, ball earthers want it both ways. They can't have it both ways. My explanation is exactly as I meant it to be and if read as it is stated, without prejudice, makes perfect sense as an answer to someone.  Atmospheric pressure has no bearing here.  We're talking about level and curve which ball earth people somehow equalize.  If a train track is truly level, as in straight and flat and without bend, it cannot extend for hundreds of miles on a ball without exceeding the "gravitational level" pretense, nor would said track stay on the ground but wind up miles above ground because the track is straight but earth is curved.  But that never happens because earth is not curved. I said it every way possible before, this is just another way of stating facts.  Gravity cannot be measured, even according to authorities.  They have theories according to "planetary" objects, but even then, it isn't consistent because certain bodies defy "gravity" and there's no explanation for why.  In other words, "gravity" is a seriously flawed theory.  I'm not saying things don't fall at a certain rate, they do.  But that is totally different than the said gravity that attracts celestial objects together.  Even then, with all the lies coming out of the scientific community, we really don't know how that works, or if it even exists.   

Isn't is another unproven fallacy that gravity comes from the center of the earth?  Round earth depends on this foundation.

I always was told the spin provided "gravity", so who knows with these ridiculous scientists always spouting contradictory things and floating them as fact.  The whole Rona, mask and jab debacle is clear evidence this kind of bait and switch nonsense is practically a given.  

(which is what Tesla held).

There is a well-known paper of Tesla about the moon, who always shows the same face to earth.

How does that fact work on your fantasy flat earth with the semispherical dome? What's the trajectory of the moon on your fantasy flat earth, and how does it correspond to observation?

You're a flat brain fool, Ladislaus, who doesn't know what he's talking about! Wake up!

.
You have this backwards. The globe model has been accepted as a simple fact by the entire weight of western civilization for 2500 years.
.

Not, it hasn't.  Eratosthenes original finds were not widely accepted, and it's been a disputed question, with varying opinions, until about the Renaissance.

Nobody knows.

   


But you know that the earth is flat. 

And after Walter van der Kamp you dishonestly (or ignorantly and foolishly?) misuse Nicola Tesla as a witness for your flat heap of dung.

It's not a spherical rock as scientists claim.

Which ones? Nicola Tesla? Walter van der Kamp?