Why do airplanes have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground?

Flying in any direction but level is measured by their instruments at all times, when it occurs, and is corrected for, adjusted for, afterwards, to return to level flight again.

i.e. if they weren't level, they would have something show up on their instrument and correct for it.
They don't even need to know what caused it.

How would you even IDENTIFY or MEASURE for any sort of ‘curve’ that is so ‘slight’ over such a small distance, that will repeat over and over countless times during a flight of thousands of miles long?

That is the question FOR YOU!
YOU claim they magically need to account for this and correct for it.
So just what are they meant to be doing?

yet it would HAVE to be measured in planes

WHY?
Stop just asserting the same delusional BS and explain exactly how they would need to account for it, given they are already accounting for countless other things to keep the plane level.

Level means flat, straight and horizontal in direction, nothing of a curve at all.

No, it doesn't. Repeating the same lie wont help.
Level flight for a plane means remaining at the same altitude.

Level means flat, straight and horizontal in direction, nothing of a curve at all.

The definition of level surface in surveying.

LEVEL SURFACE is a curved surface which has every point perpendicular to the direction of gravity.

Planes fly a level surface as defined by surveying when they stay at specific altitude.

If it takes more power to gain altitude, and an air plane is trimmed to fly at a certain altitude and doesn’t change power setting to create more lift.  Why would it not stay at that altitude other than winds, turbulence, changes in air density from temperature? 


Anyway.

This Massive Pool in Bethesda Is Just For Model Ships


https://architectofthecapital.org/posts/2016/10/17/david-taylor-model-basin?format=amp

In fact, to eliminate the effect of gravity on the motion of the towing carriage, the tracks are not straight in the usual sense, but follow the curvature of the earth.”

Cool Facilities - The David Taylor Model Basin

https://www.navalgazing.net/David-Taylor-Model-Basin

All of the basins are fitted for photographic studies as well as towing force measurements, and were specially leveled to within .005″, following the curvature of the Earth.

In other words, things defined as level surface.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 08:30:16 PM

Flying in any direction but level is measured by their instruments at all times, when it occurs, and is corrected for, adjusted for, afterwards, to return to level flight again.

i.e. if they weren't level, they would have something show up on their instrument and correct for it.
They don't even need to know what caused it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 08:30:16 PM

How would you even IDENTIFY or MEASURE for any sort of ‘curve’ that is so ‘slight’ over such a small distance, that will repeat over and over countless times during a flight of thousands of miles long?

That is the question FOR YOU!
YOU claim they magically need to account for this and correct for it.
So just what are they meant to be doing?

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 08:30:16 PM

yet it would HAVE to be measured in planes

WHY?
Stop just asserting the same delusional BS and explain exactly how they would need to account for it, given they are already accounting for countless other things to keep the plane level.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 08:30:16 PM

Level means flat, straight and horizontal in direction, nothing of a curve at all.

No, it doesn't. Repeating the same lie wont help.
Level flight for a plane means remaining at the same altitude.

While flying flat and horizontal at the same altitude, but they leave that rather important part out, for some odd reason.


If a plane covers over 1/16 of an inch of your made up ‘curvature’, how could we possibly measure for it? We don’t of course. So then you claim we simply ‘adjust’ for it during all our flights, like everything else is adjusted for.

Here’s the problem for that claim- 

A plane flying 500 mph from LA to NYC covers over 2400 miles of Earths surface in about 35-40 hours, let’s say.

It takes off from LAX at 127 ft altitude above sea level and lands at JFK at 13 feet altitude.

This plane would cover about 50 miles of surface in 7-8 minutes, and it measures level flight by TWO or more instruments, which they also don’t mention.

The VSI measures for ascent and descent within air, while the altimeter matches it in altitude readings. If the plane starts to ascend, the VSI measures it in feet per minute, while the altimeter measures it as a higher altitude.

The plane cannot measure for a 1/16th inch curvature moment by moment, even if it DID exist.  If the Earth WAS a ball, we’d need to measure a 1/16th descent on all flights, which is not done of course.

The plane would be 50 feet higher altitude within only 7-8 minutes of flight, and the altimeter would measure it as 50 feet higher.

And that’s when planes would HAVE to adjust for it, and continually do so, or else fly in a constant descent throughout their flights.

Planes do not magically go into a descent over a made up ball Earth.

Your made up force doesn’t beam phantom ‘waves’ from the ‘core’ of a ball Earth up to 60000 feet, making instruments measure level as  1:16 of an inch over a plane in flight.


This crap is piled to the ceiling, and it’s time to bury it for good

While flying flat and horizontal at the same altitude, but they leave that rather important part out, for some odd reason.

You mean level?
They are in level flight. Not flat flight.

If a plane covers over 1/16 of an inch of your made up ‘curvature’, how could we possibly measure for it? We don’t of course. So then you claim we simply ‘adjust’ for it during all our flights, like everything else is adjusted for.

No, the very real curvature you continually reject without any rational justification (instead appealing to dishonest BS where you are so desperate you contradict yourself).
But the pilots do not need to know what they are adjusting for.
It doesn't matter if it is for a few people moving around in the plane, or if they are flying through a thermal, or the curvature of Earth.

Here’s the problem for that claim-
The plane cannot measure for a 1/16th inch curvature moment by moment, even if it DID exist.

So the problem for the claim is that they can't measure it?
Just why would that be a problem?

If the Earth WAS a ball, we’d need to measure a 1/16th descent on all flights, which is not done of course.

And back to the same delusional BS, just the wrong way around.

Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.

So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.

That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.

The plane would be 50 feet higher altitude within only 7-8 minutes of flight, and the altimeter would measure it as 50 feet higher.

And more contradictory delusional BS.

So you are claiming they would be higher, even though they would be measuring a descent?

This crap is piled to the ceiling, and it’s time to bury it for good

Then stop repeating the same crap. Bury it and move on.

Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.

So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.

That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.


So you are claiming they would be higher, even though they would be measuring a descent?

No you’re confusing two separate points I made

It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent

At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute

It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent

If flight surfaces and power settings are trimmed to fly at a certain altitude. And it takes increased power to gain altitude.  Why would it take a measurable descent while fighting thermals, down drafts, up drafts, changes in air density due to changes in temperature. 

Quote from: JackBlack on October 22, 2023, 01:14:14 AM

Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.

So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.

That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.

No you’re confusing two separate points I made
It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent

The above shows that is pure BS.
If that was true, then flying from point A to point B and back would require a constant descent making them end up lower.

That makes no sense at all.

Maintaining the same altitude above a spherical surface requires maintaining the same altitude.
That means no ascending or descending.

At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute

No, that is absolute BS I have shown to be faulty above.

There is no "top" to a sphere.
What you are trying to is claim that you start at the top, and descend to move along it. But as you yourself have said, you are always at the top.
That means if you move 1 m, the point you previously were is no longer the "top".
Instead, it is "below" the top.

You can equally argue that it needs to descend or ascend. Both are based upon trying to view the problem from 1 particular reference frame, the difference being if you consider the start or the end as that reference frame.
And both are wrong.
It is only a descent or ascent from that original reference frame.
But that is NOT what the plane measures.
You are trying to measure relative to a straight line which doesn't exist and which no instrument measures relative to.
That would require the RE to be flat.
So your argument for a RE requires Earth to be flat, which makes no sense at all.

Why should you need to descend?
Can you try explaining it honestly, and logically? And in a manner that doesn't produce a contradiction?

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 22, 2023, 02:08:27 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 22, 2023, 01:14:14 AM

Once more, the plane starts at A, it then flies along to B, before turning around and flying back.
According to your dishonest, delusional BS, it needs to be descending on both journeys, meaning when it gets back to A, even though it is at the same altitude, it needs to be lower.
This is quite clearly BS.
Even if you want to claim Earth is not a ball, your argument would still need to be able to work for a hypothetical, and it doesn't.
It reaches a contradiction which makes no sense at all.

So quite clearly, planes DO NOT need to measure that descent on all flights.

That is because IT IS NOT A DESCENT!
A plane maintaining the same altitude on a RE would not measure a descent at all.

No you’re confusing two separate points I made
It is physically impossible to fly at the same altitude over a sphere WITHOUT a constant descent

The above shows that is pure BS.
If that was true, then flying from point A to point B and back would require a constant descent making them end up lower.

That makes no sense at all.

Maintaining the same altitude above a spherical surface requires maintaining the same altitude.
That means no ascending or descending.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 22, 2023, 01:11:14 AM

At any point you are above or on a sphere is it’s top point and you must always descend to remain above it at the same distance or height above it. That is an absolute fact you cannot dispute

No, that is absolute BS I have shown to be faulty above.

There is no "top" to a sphere.
What you are trying to is claim that you start at the top, and descend to move along it. But as you yourself have said, you are always at the top.
That means if you move 1 m, the point you previously were is no longer the "top".
Instead, it is "below" the top.

You can equally argue that it needs to descend or ascend. Both are based upon trying to view the problem from 1 particular reference frame, the difference being if you consider the start or the end as that reference frame.
And both are wrong.
It is only a descent or ascent from that original reference frame.
But that is NOT what the plane measures.
You are trying to measure relative to a straight line which doesn't exist and which no instrument measures relative to.
That would require the RE to be flat.
So your argument for a RE requires Earth to be flat, which makes no sense at all.

Why should you need to descend?
Can you try explaining it honestly, and logically? And in a manner that doesn't produce a contradiction?

To maintain the same altitude flying over a sphere must be in a constant descent.

Look at a basketball or baseball, etc.

Take a small object and hold it slightly above the ball

Move the object around the ball at the same distance above it the whole time

You have to move the object downward all the time to keep it above the ball at the same distance throughout

Because the object always IS on the top of the ball below, it must always be moved downward to follow the surface of that ball, right?

Being constantly on top of a ball means you must constantly move downward over a ball, there’s no conflict in that fact.

A level, horizontal path is always flown by planes. They fly over a flat, level and horizontal surface of the Earth, though it has mountains and such features over it, which are above sea level or 0 altitude, of course.

To maintain the same altitude flying over a sphere must be in a constant descent.

Stop just asserting the same dishonest delusional BS.
Maintaining the same altitude while flying over a sphere means you are maintaining the same altitude so you are not descending.
If you were descending you would NOT be flying at a constant altitude.

Look at a basketball or baseball, etc.
Take a small object and hold it slightly above the ball
Move the object around the ball at the same distance above it the whole time
You have to move the object downward all the time to keep it above the ball at the same distance throughout

Wrong again.
If I hold the ball still, start with the plane on top, and then move it around, the objects circles the ball, maintaining the same altitude relative to the ball.
Relative to me, it is going down and up.
That down or up motion is NOT relative to the ball, it is relative to me.
And importantly, it goes down and up.

Because the object always IS on the top of the ball below, it must always be moved downward to follow the surface of that ball, right?

No.
If you are moving it down it can no longer be on top.

Again, the same dishonest BS works the other way, as the object always is on the top, that means it must have gone up to get there.
Again, this means you can equally make the argument that it needs to ascend or descend.
The 2 are logically equivalent.
The problem for you is that that results in a contradiction.
It cannot be both. Yet both are equally valid.
That means it can't be either.

Your claim is pure BS.

If you hold the plane still and instead rotate the ball, we see the plane isn't going down at all.
And that is basically what you need to do if you want to try your argument honestly.
In fact, you can move both.
Start with the plane at the top, if you want to keep the plane at the top, then as the plane moves you need to rotate Earth, to keep the plane at the top.
As you do this, there is no downwards or upwards motion of the plane.

If you instead move the plane down, then it is no longer at the top.

A level, horizontal path is always flown by planes.

Ignoring just how much that does't match reality at all, that in no way demonstrates that Earth is flat.

You’ve got it wrong

If you held the plane above a rotating ball, it is curving instead of the plane curving over the ball, which is the same thing but opposite of what happens in the real world.

Look at a ball and put a little pin above it. You must move the pin downward in a curve to stay the same distance above it.

A sphere always curves downward, from any point you’re at on it or above it.  To move over a ball, to stay at the same distance above that curved surface, means YOU must curve downward to follow the curved surface below you.

To move back again is still downward, not upward. There IS no upward movements over a ball, it is always downward, in all directions you move to.

While you’re always on top of a ball, moving over it, you’re moving downward the whole time.  It is indeed a constant descent, to follow the descending surface of the ball below you. 

Have you flown, turbonium2? I mean taken the controls, not as a passenger. Have you receiv3d any flight training or instruction, including ground school?

My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway

Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances

My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway

Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances

Because you’re fucking loony.

Now.

Planes fly a level surface as defined by surveying when they stay at specific altitude.

If it takes more power to gain altitude, and an air plane is trimmed to fly at a certain altitude and doesn’t change power setting to create more lift.  Why would it not stay at that altitude other than winds, turbulence, changes in air density from temperature? 


You understand the internationally and professional acceptance of level surface for surveying, along with its use in construction, kills your delusion.

You’ve got it wrong

No, you did.
I explained why your BS works equally well to claim it must ascend or descend.
That means it doesn't work at all.

If you held the plane above a rotating ball, it is curving instead of the plane curving over the ball, which is the same thing but opposite of what happens in the real world.

How else do you plan on having it above?

Look at a ball and put a little pin above it. You must move the pin downward in a curve to stay the same distance above it.

Your just repeating the same BS.
If I move it around the ball, I move it all around, going both up and down relative to me.
Relative to the ball, it is NOT going down.
Relative to where the pin/plane/whatever finished, it was going up.
Relative to where it started, it was going down.
Relative to it where it is all the time, it is not going up nor down.

To move over a ball, to stay at the same distance above that curved surface, means YOU must curve downward to follow the curved surface below you.

i.e. you need to follow a curved path.
That is NOT a descent.
And it is incredibly dishonest to falsely claim it is.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.

Probably because you are doing as you are now; entirely ignoring what people say and just repeating the same refuted BS.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

Should be easy to link to those threads.  If you’re making claims about turbonium that posted on the site Above Top Secret, then you just right out lying. 

My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway

Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances

Qualified pilots have told you the earth is flat otherwise they’d have crashed? Are these commercial pilots? If so then I need to know who they fly for so as to not buy tickets from their employer.

Perhaps you should take some ground school and flight instruction before making quite incorrect claims about how aircraft fly?

Weight (ie the effect of gravity) acts on an aircraft in flight at 90degrees to the level, ie straight down. It doesn’t act towards a point on the ground that the aircraft flies past, thereby necessitating a pitch/trim down action by the pilot.

My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway

Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances

Those pilots didn't return to finish debating you because they could see it is an utter waste of time. They were corroborating the globe Earth mother fucking truth, which you want to be a lie.

Turbonium, if you want to see the definition of indoctrinated, make a list of all the flat earth videos you've watched, all the flat earth related books you've read, and count how many pro flat earth related posts you've made on this site over the years, and then take a good hard look in the mirror.

You've re-wired your own brain to accept the grand daddy of all fucking stupid conspiracy theories. Flat Earth.

You can only blame yourself. Your subconscious mind feeds on whatever you give it, and look at the shit you've fed it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 12:07:04 AM

My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway

Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances

Because you’re fucking loony.

Now.

Planes fly a level surface as defined by surveying when they stay at specific altitude.

If it takes more power to gain altitude, and an air plane is trimmed to fly at a certain altitude and doesn’t change power setting to create more lift.  Why would it not stay at that altitude other than winds, turbulence, changes in air density from temperature? 


You understand the internationally and professional acceptance of level surface for surveying, along with its use in construction, kills your delusion.

I’ve seen others who blow their stack about something I’ve said which rings true to them, yet fire off their internal conflict outward at me for saying it!

I’m certainly not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but I’ve always found the subject fascinating, had 98% grade for Psych 101, but didn’t continue for a degree or masters in the field for several reasons, but we all make choices we regret or wish didn’t have to happen.

The one, perhaps most important thing that I know, from years and years of personal experience, which couldn’t be known, or experienced by any professional of the field, nor could I or anyone else in their position.

That is all I’ll say about the topic, but I had to make it clear to you, and everyone else, to respect others, just because they disagree with what you believe or accept as true, just as I don’t agree with you, or many others on this and other issues, but do not hate or get angry or hurl out personal attacks, as you’ve done here.

As for those who are professional surveyors, who work every day with Earths surface, because - if you don’t really know at all, being it is never mentioned at all, for one reason, which I’ll explain.

Do you know the main purpose, the main reason we survey the Earths surface?

Surveying over Earths surface, anywhere on Earths surface, no matter HOW LARGE the area is, which they claim is only a ‘smaller’ area, all of which are real projects, of course.

Surveying of Earths surface would not even EXIST as it does today, if the entire surface of Earth was perfectly flat and level over it.

Why?

Because those who are surveying Earths surface, are looking and measuring for its FLATNESS and being level over those areas, which is what all surveyors want, and if it is NOT perfectly flat and level over those areas, being every bump or dip or curve or slant of a surface over Earth, makes it NOT flat and level

I’m very aware that if our surveyors believed Earths surface was actually curved, and it was curved at a measured rate over any distance over the surface..,.

It would most certainly be accounted for, measured over the entire area of projects, if it DID curve over the surface. 

They measure the surface for how flat and level and horizontal it is, not ‘curvature’ of the surface!!

They measure for imperfections that are MUCH LESS than this supposed rate of ‘curvature’, so they obviously WOULD measure for it, if it really existed at all!

Why don’t you tell me exactly how they measure for curvature? They don’t, they know it doesn’t exist

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 27, 2023, 10:48:55 PM

You’ve got it wrong

No, you did.
I explained why your BS works equally well to claim it must ascend or descend.
That means it doesn't work at all.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 27, 2023, 10:48:55 PM

If you held the plane above a rotating ball, it is curving instead of the plane curving over the ball, which is the same thing but opposite of what happens in the real world.

How else do you plan on having it above?

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 27, 2023, 10:48:55 PM

Look at a ball and put a little pin above it. You must move the pin downward in a curve to stay the same distance above it.

Your just repeating the same BS.
If I move it around the ball, I move it all around, going both up and down relative to me.
Relative to the ball, it is NOT going down.
Relative to where the pin/plane/whatever finished, it was going up.
Relative to where it started, it was going down.
Relative to it where it is all the time, it is not going up nor down.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 27, 2023, 10:48:55 PM

To move over a ball, to stay at the same distance above that curved surface, means YOU must curve downward to follow the curved surface below you.

i.e. you need to follow a curved path.
That is NOT a descent.
And it is incredibly dishonest to falsely claim it is.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 12:07:04 AM

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return.

Probably because you are doing as you are now; entirely ignoring what people say and just repeating the same refuted BS.

To move over a ball, from one point above it, at the same distance, must follow along over the surface of the ball, and you are always going downward, as you are always on the top of the ball.

When you first fly over the ball, you follow the surface, which is down from your position all the time.

The surface that you’ve already flown over downward, has no opposite, or upward direction, for you, always on the top of it, always moving downward following over it.

Unlike a slope, which goes upward, and downward in the opposite direction

Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.

They measure for level flight over and over along the flight, in consecutive sections over the length of the plane, which measures for it during the entire flight.


It could not even measure for such a small curve, if it even DID exist at all. Not with these instruments, anyway

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

You can’t link to these threads because it’s a lie.

Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.

With what instrument? And the earth is spherical.

Again. If a plane is trimmed with power settings set for a given altitude, why would in not fly at a given altitude?  While fighting winds and turbulence.  Paralleling a level surface by definition is “ It means the any point on level line is equidistance from the center of earth.”
https://theconstructor.org/surveying/terms-in-leveling-uses/20077/?amp=1

To move over a ball, from one point above it, at the same distance, must follow along over the surface of the ball, and you are always going downward, as you are always on the top of the ball.

When you first fly over the ball, you follow the surface, which is down from your position all the time.

The surface that you’ve already flown over downward, has no opposite, or upward direction, for you, always on the top of it, always moving downward following over it.

Unlike a slope, which goes upward, and downward in the opposite direction

Stop just repeating the same refuted delusional BS and start paying attention to what I have said.
Once more, if you go down the ball you are no longer at the top.
The only way to remain at the top is that as you move along you need to rotate the ball, or recognise that up and down is measured relative to the ball, not an outside observer.

What you are doing is saying you start at the top, and then go down.
But it would be just as honest to say you end at the top, and had to go up to get there.
Both are equally dishonest.

If we want to follow your dishonest BS, that means that the surface you have flown over to reach the top had you going UP! not down, UP!
Because you would have to go UP to reach the top.

At any point in time, you are in your own local "top", the path ahead and behind both curve to follow Earth. But that doesn't mean you had to go up to get to where you are, or that you have to go down to move forwards.
Instead, you continue to fly level, not going up nor down.

Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.

Repeating this lie isn't going to help you.
They measure air pressure, as they fly over a round Earth.

It could not even measure for such a small curve, if it even DID exist at all. Not with these instruments, anyway

That's right, so the claim that planes prove Earth is flat is pure BS.
They fly to maintain their altitude, which would already account for the curve of Earth, without any additional corrections required.

I’ve seen others who blow their stack about something I’ve said which rings true to them, yet fire off their internal conflict outward at me for saying it!

And you have seen others who recognise you are just spouting the same repetitive, refuted BS, and don't care about the truth at all; so they stop responding. That doesn't mean they think Earth is flat.

That is all I’ll say about the topic, but I had to make it clear to you, and everyone else, to respect others, just because they disagree with what you believe or accept as true, just as I don’t agree with you, or many others on this and other issues, but do not hate or get angry or hurl out personal attacks

Then start showing respect.
Actually read and respond to what people say rather than just repeating the same refuted BS.

Do you know the main purpose, the main reason we survey the Earths surface?

There are a variety of reasons.
But it is to either measure or establish the bounds of something.

Surveying of Earths surface would not even EXIST as it does today, if the entire surface of Earth was perfectly flat and level over it.

Yes it would. Because people like dividing land up.
e.g. one use of surveying is determining property lines.
Even if Earth's surface was a perfect sphere or a perfect flat plane, people would still want that.

Because those who are surveying Earths surface, are looking and measuring for its FLATNESS

No, they aren't.

It would most certainly be accounted for, measured over the entire area of projects, if it DID curve over the surface.

Only if it was actually significant. Such as when making maps.
A lot of the time they are just looking for horizontal lines and don't care about the topography at all.

No, you don’t get it…

Level or sloped upward or downward or curved, are referring to a path over a distance.  One point above Earth isn’t a path, nor a straight line, nor level, nor a curve. There is no reference to a single point.

A single point isn’t a path, without another point to refer to. Lines or arcs have two points at each end, making it a path. 

How could planes measure a point in air over and over again in a flight? It curves or is flat or slopes up or down from one point!!

No, you don’t get it…

Yes, I do.
You cannot show a fault, so you need to resort to blatantly lying while ignoring the refutation of your lie.

Again, your lie that planes need to go down is based upon clinging to a specific reference frame. That of cartesian coordinates aligned to the start of their journey, where after they travel they go down relative to those coordinates; assuming they go for less than half way around Earth. If they go beyond that they start going back up.
But you can equally pick the coordinates of their destination, where they would have to go up to reach it.

You can equally argue that it has to go up or down, because both arguments are pure BS.

No, you don’t get it…

Level or sloped upward or downward or curved, are referring to a path over a distance.  One point above Earth isn’t a path, nor a straight line, nor level, nor a curve. There is no reference to a single point.

A single point isn’t a path, without another point to refer to. Lines or arcs have two points at each end, making it a path. 

How could planes measure a point in air over and over again in a flight? It curves or is flat or slopes up or down from one point!!

It’s been explained over and over.

You made this claim.

Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.

What instrument by name are you referring to.

Or your just using a blatant false argument. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 29, 2023, 09:52:22 PM

No, you don’t get it…

Level or sloped upward or downward or curved, are referring to a path over a distance.  One point above Earth isn’t a path, nor a straight line, nor level, nor a curve. There is no reference to a single point.

A single point isn’t a path, without another point to refer to. Lines or arcs have two points at each end, making it a path. 

How could planes measure a point in air over and over again in a flight? It curves or is flat or slopes up or down from one point!!

It’s been explained over and over.

You made this claim.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 11:41:39 PM

Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.

What instrument by name are you referring to.

Or your just using a blatant false argument.

Try to research the topics before posting on them

The VSI measures for ascent and descent, and is one of the most important instruments on planes.  But they don’t like to mention that, for some strange reason!! 😂

The VSI measures for ascent and descent, and is one of the most important instruments on planes.  But they don’t like to mention that, for some strange reason!! 😂

And how does it do that?
Do you know?
Or do you think it is just pure magic?

The most common form of a VSI is effectively an altimeter with a reference altitude set at the altitude the plane was not too long ago.
As such, it measures changes in elevation that the altimeter would read. So it will not magically detect curvature.

What is down?  Turbo, what do you think up and down are on a sphere?.
How does a plane ascend and descend over a sphere? Aka going down is descending, correct?
What is altitude on a sphere?

Define those things correctly, then read what you keep saying about constantly descending.

I think he doesn't really understand what a frame of reference is Jack.  Your explanation is confusing him.

Try to research the topics before posting on them

The VSI measures for ascent and descent, and is one of the most important instruments on planes.  But they don’t like to mention that, for some strange reason!! 😂

Your quote

Planes measure for level, horizontal flight, over the flat surface of Earth.

How does a plane measure the actual surface of the earth?

What happens as an airplane travels over the upward slope of a mountain?  Does it need to compensate some instrument.  Or on the downward slope of a mountain range?  Does the vertical speed indicator give any indication of approaching a mountain range with the ground increasingly “growing higher”, traveling over increasingly higher and higher mountains.  Then after passing over the highest part of the range, does the vertical speed indicator show the ground is “dropping away” from the aircraft.

Again.  How can an airplane measure “flat ground” and what changes and how is it compensated for if an airplane travels over ground that isn’t flat such as a mountain range? 


Are you posting an airplane can’t fly a level flight over uneven ground like a mountain range if the altitude of the airplane is great enough to clear the tallest peaks.