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

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!!

Mate, the Vertical Speed Indicator on a plane, merely measures the difference in air pressure a few seconds apart while a plane is in the air flying. The atmospheric air pressure change from ground level up, is consistent all over the globe. VSI is just an indicator for the pilot if the plane is ascending, descending, or maintaining level flight. Curvature or flatness of the Earth under a plane is not measured by the Vertical Speed Indicator.

Are you referring to the altimeter? Again, the altimeter informs the pilot of how high a plane is, according to ambient air pressure. Again, because ambient air pressure variation is consistent around the globe. As long as the aircraft is flying at a constant ambient air pressure, it will naturally be maintaining a level flight height above sea level and naturally following the curvature of the Earth itself, underneath. Altitude is measured from the Earth's surface, up, which is curved.

Would you like some diagrams to help you see this?

No I didn’t say the VSI measures the surface of earth below planes. I simply said it measures for level flight by air pressure around the plane as it flies through the air above the flat Earth.

It’s not measuring the flat earth surface by any means

Level flight doesn’t measure for some made up curvature of a ball earth

Laser levels use a straight beam of focused light to measure for level.

Laser light doesn’t curve, it cannot curve, cannot follow curvature of a ball earth.

This confirms that level is straight and horizontal, like other instruments which measure for level are.

So after repeatedly being refuted, and without the integrity to admit you were wrong, you just flee and jump onto new topics?

I take it that means you fully accept that air planes do NOT need to continually descend as they fly at a constant altitude above a round Earth?
You fully accept that you were entirely wrong to repeatedly assert that they do?

If not, defend your BS before moving on.

No I didn’t say the VSI measures the surface of earth below planes. I simply said it measures for level flight by air pressure around the plane as it flies through the air above the flat Earth.

Which is still wrong as Earth isn't flat.

They measure for level flight based upon air pressure, with equal air pressures existing in roughly spherical shells around Earth.

Laser levels use a straight beam of focused light to measure for level.

Laser light doesn’t curve, it cannot curve, cannot follow curvature of a ball earth.

This confirms that level is straight and horizontal, like other instruments which measure for level are.

No, this does NOT confirm that level is straight.
Laser levels are used over small areas where the effects of curvature are insignificant. They have errors which are more significant than the drop due to curvature.
So no, they do NOT confirm that level is straight.

You have had that dishonest BS of yours refuted before.
Laser levels also have nothing to do with planes.

How do they test laser levels for accuracy?

What are these errors of accuracy based upon?

If they test a laser level for accuracy over 2000 feet, having a .005 mm maximum error over that distance, they must gauge it to something that is true level, right?

The accuracy of a laser level is tested with two points, of identical height to one another.

The laser is set up at the first point, at a certain height, and shoots the light across to the second point, at the same height, 2000 feet away.

They test the laser level for how accurate it measures for true level over a distance.

They do not account for any ‘curvature’ at all in their tests for level. If they did, they’d adjust it to whatever curvature would be over that distance, no matter how ‘small’ the curve would be!

And we know they don’t account for curvature because the accuracy error is all around the point of true level, anywhere out from it.  Not down or up from a curved surface.

NASA claims they’ve pointed lasers at the moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away, hit the laser on little reflectors put there by astronauts, and bounced the light back to earth, so they’d have to be very accurate to do that, right?

If we assume they’re not lying, because you wouldn’t ever think they’d lie at all, that means lasers would be extremely accurate, and would easily account for ‘curvature’ in their tests, too!

Not the same instruments of course, but we could use them for measuring your curvature, it’d be no problem at all

Lasers must be very straight light beams to do that, no way they’d curve at all!

They can’t measure for curvature, or very accurate, which one is it?

It’s accurate, of course, but not hitting reflectors on the moon, that’s bs.

But you say it’s true, so it must be very accurate to do that, and would certainly be able to account and measure for curvature in their tests, no doubt.

Our best laser levels measure for level over long distances, in fact.

They would measure for curvature over these distances if it existed at all, but it’s not there to BE measured for!
 

Again, why flee from the previous topic?
Do you know you were spouting pure BS?
Do you know you were wilfully lying to everyone to pretend Earth is flat?
But got refuted too many times so now you need to try to change the topic to a previous one you fled from?

Again, why not be honest for once in your life and admit you were entirely wrong about planes needing to descend to stay level on a round Earth?

How do they test laser levels for accuracy?

We have been over this all before.
They use angles and extrapolate.
The biggest source of error is the laser's ability to self level.

But as also explained before, we do have more accurate tools. Tools like theodolites

They do not account for any ‘curvature’ at all in their tests for level.

Because they test the LEVEL over a short distance as they care about if it is level.

NASA claims they’ve pointed lasers at the moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away, hit the laser on little reflectors put there by astronauts, and bounced the light back to earth, so they’d have to be very accurate to do that, right?

No, they wouldn't.
Just like you don't need to be accurate to shine a light at a far away object and have light bounce back.
The light can spread out, hit the retroreflector and come straight back.

If we assume they’re not lying, because you wouldn’t ever think they’d lie at all, that means lasers would be extremely accurate, and would easily account for ‘curvature’ in their tests, too!

You mean if we assume YOU aren't lying. As yet again, you are inventing pure BS, to pedal a con.

Now again, why would a plane need to constantly descend to maintain level flight?
Why can't it just fly level? Why wouldn't it have to ascend?

How do they test laser levels for accuracy?

What are these errors of accuracy based upon?

If they test a laser level for accuracy over 2000 feet, having a .005 mm maximum error over that distance, they must gauge it to something that is true level, right?

The accuracy of a laser level is tested with two points, of identical height to one another.

The laser is set up at the first point, at a certain height, and shoots the light across to the second point, at the same height, 2000 feet away.

They test the laser level for how accurate it measures for true level over a distance.

They do not account for any ‘curvature’ at all in their tests for level. If they did, they’d adjust it to whatever curvature would be over that distance, no matter how ‘small’ the curve would be!

And we know they don’t account for curvature because the accuracy error is all around the point of true level, anywhere out from it.  Not down or up from a curved surface.

NASA claims they’ve pointed lasers at the moon supposedly 1/4 million miles away, hit the laser on little reflectors put there by astronauts, and bounced the light back to earth, so they’d have to be very accurate to do that, right?

If we assume they’re not lying, because you wouldn’t ever think they’d lie at all, that means lasers would be extremely accurate, and would easily account for ‘curvature’ in their tests, too!

Not the same instruments of course, but we could use them for measuring your curvature, it’d be no problem at all

Lasers must be very straight light beams to do that, no way they’d curve at all!

They can’t measure for curvature, or very accurate, which one is it?

It’s accurate, of course, but not hitting reflectors on the moon, that’s bs.

But you say it’s true, so it must be very accurate to do that, and would certainly be able to account and measure for curvature in their tests, no doubt.

Our best laser levels measure for level over long distances, in fact.

They would measure for curvature over these distances if it existed at all, but it’s not there to BE measured for!

If you are finished talking about airplanes and feel the thread topic has been answered to your satisfaction, then leave this thread, and commence talking about lasers somewhere else. Otherwise, explain how lasers and airplanes and earth curvature are in any way connected.

If you are finished talking about airplanes and feel the thread topic has been answered to your satisfaction, then leave this thread, and commence talking about lasers somewhere else. Otherwise, explain how lasers and airplanes and earth curvature are in any way connected.

Now.  You know how flat earth debate works.  When a FE’r is cornered, they have to derail the thread, change the topic, and throw in NASA lied and your brainwashed because you can prove the earth is spherical with actual evidence and logically debate. 

Dribbleoverflow, I was hoping to catch Turbonium in one of his rare moments of lucidity where it seems the flat earth fog in his brain is about to lift.

As I think I have detailed, Turbonium, planes do not have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground. They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.

If an airplane was flying parallel to the ground, can you imagine the chaos with that plane attempting to fly parallel with a mountain peak underneath it, or a chasm or deep valley? They simply don't.

They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.

It’s been point out to Turbs old dope machine that airplanes can maintain a certain altitude while flying nose up or having an upward pitch. 

An airplane doesn’t have to fly level to stay a certain altitude.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 04, 2023, 08:29:48 AM

They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.

It’s been point out to Turbs old dope machine that airplanes can maintain a certain altitude while flying nose up or having an upward pitch. 

An airplane doesn’t have to fly level to stay a certain altitude.

Resisted the urge to call me smokepolemachine ay dribbler? 

I see your point in respect to the orientation of the plane in flight. A spirit level inside such a plane would not show the plane itself is level in respect to the Earth gravitational field. But maintaining a certain altitude isn't maintaining a height level above sea level? The altimeter would say it is. So would that other flight instrument.

So therefore if the plane is not ascending or descending is the plane not flying level?

So therefore if the plane is not ascending or descending is the plane not flying level?

I guess it comes down to how much lift and angle of attack you need to maintain a certain altitude for a certain air speed.  And what you mean by level.  To what reference point.

So yes. A nose up airplane to create lift physically not parallel to the ground can fly a level flight height by not changing altitude.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MISB_ST_0601.8_-_Platform_Angle_of_Attack.png



So.  Like always.  It’s relative. 

Pitch angle:

The Pitch Angle is the angle between the Longitudinal axe of the Aircraft and the Horizon.

Depending on the lift capability of your Aircraft, you may need to maintain a positive Pitch Angle if you wish to fly in a level flight.

With some type of wings, you will start descending if the nose of the Aircraft is at 0 degrees (over the horizon).


https://pilotclimb.com/flight-path-vector-fpv/

If we used Turbs logic, an airplane needing to “maintain a positive Pitch Angle if you wish to fly in a level flight” (nose up) would fly into outer space? 

Hmm,  yet another flat earth debate which has flat lined........

Hmm,  yet another flat earth debate which has flat lined........

Turbo appears to only have access to the internet on the weekend. Wait till then before calling it.

Ok, we'll continue CPR until Sunday night. 

Ok, we'll continue CPR until Sunday night.

But oh.  There is an inner sanctum they will never allow actual facts and logic into.  The sub-forum “Flat Earth Believers.”  Funny some stopped venturing out of “Flat Earth Believers?” 

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 06, 2023, 08:01:51 PM

Hmm,  yet another flat earth debate which has flat lined........

Turbo appears to only have access to the internet on the weekend. Wait till then before calling it.

I'm not sure, but I think that's when the laid back staff is at the facility and they just let the residents do whatever. 

Dribbleoverflow, I was hoping to catch Turbonium in one of his rare moments of lucidity where it seems the flat earth fog in his brain is about to lift.

As I think I have detailed, Turbonium, planes do not have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground. They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.

If an airplane was flying parallel to the ground, can you imagine the chaos with that plane attempting to fly parallel with a mountain peak underneath it, or a chasm or deep valley? They simply don't.

I’ve never once said planes measure the surface, don’t try bs i didn’t ever say!!

Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth, which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.

Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface, that is true, but the surface itself isn’t measured or involved in finding level with our instruments

Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth

So why do you continually pretend they do?
Levels measure for the direction perpindicular to ground.

which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.

Then why does all the evidence which can distinguish between the 2 show it is curved like a ball, and none show it is flat?

Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface

No, it doesn't.
It matches up to a hypothetical level surface.
All it takes to show that is BS is to look a hill. Or, get a level and put it on a hill.
Measuring for level will NOT match Earth's surface.

Now again, care to admit your claims about aircraft allegedly needing to constantly descend is pure BS, because an equivalent argument can be made that they had to constantly ascend?

If not, care to try to justify that dishonest BS of yours, including by addressing the counter argument?

Say it with me - concentric circles!

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 04, 2023, 08:29:48 AM

Dribbleoverflow, I was hoping to catch Turbonium in one of his rare moments of lucidity where it seems the flat earth fog in his brain is about to lift.

As I think I have detailed, Turbonium, planes do not have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground. They have machinery to tell whether they are flying level or not flying level.

If an airplane was flying parallel to the ground, can you imagine the chaos with that plane attempting to fly parallel with a mountain peak underneath it, or a chasm or deep valley? They simply don't.

I’ve never once said planes measure the surface, don’t try bs i didn’t ever say!!

Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth, which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.

Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface, that is true, but the surface itself isn’t measured or involved in finding level with our instruments

Do you consider it a win for you in these debates if your opponent in sheer frustration, bails out? Is that how you win, by default, when your opponent is so exhausted by your inane replies, they just can't take it anymore?
Going to the dentist and getting a root canal procedure would be less painful.

Do you own a spirit level, or is that well beyond your budget as well?

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 10, 2023, 10:03:09 PM

Levels don’t measure the surface of Earth

So why do you continually pretend they do?
Levels measure for the direction perpindicular to ground.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 10, 2023, 10:03:09 PM

which is flat and level, not curved as a ball.

Then why does all the evidence which can distinguish between the 2 show it is curved like a ball, and none show it is flat?

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 10, 2023, 10:03:09 PM

Measuring for level will match up to the Earths surface

No, it doesn't.
It matches up to a hypothetical level surface.
All it takes to show that is BS is to look a hill. Or, get a level and put it on a hill.
Measuring for level will NOT match Earth's surface.

Now again, care to admit your claims about aircraft allegedly needing to constantly descend is pure BS, because an equivalent argument can be made that they had to constantly ascend?

Planes would have to constantly descend if the earth was a ball. They don’t need to fly in a constant descent because earth is flat, not a ball.

Why would planes ascend to fly over a ball earth? A ball constantly curves downward from any point on or above it.

The first path over a ball is constantly downward, and so is going back in the opposite direction, or any direction at all.

It’s obvious that I meant earths surface was flat in overall terms, mountains are not flat, I shouldn’t have to explain what I meant by being flat to you, so drop the bs about what I said, unless you really think I’m saying mountains are flat, which would make you an idiot, since everyone knows mountains aren’t flat, so it’s obviously not what I was referring to as flat. Sheesh you waste my time with such bs, use your brain once in awhile, it’ll help you avoid such minutiae arguments!!

Okay, so what is perpendicular to the surface?

A straight line, upward, from a single point on the surface, straight up, right?

So what is level to that straight up line from the surface?

Another straight line, 90 degrees to the first line going straight upward, right?

Yes, and that is what levels measure for both lines, one straight up, one straight across it, or perpendicular to it, at 90 degrees, which we call ‘square’ to it.

Squares are also flat, in all directions, all sides of it, which are all perpendicular to  adjacent sides of it.

A line from the surface is a single point, straight up. Being level to that straight up line is a straight line perpendicular to it, 90 degrees to each side of that line, which must be flat and horizontal to it, and that, indeed, IS level.

Planes would have to constantly descend if the earth was a ball.

Again.

Airplanes fly a certain altitude by staying in a pressure band that correlates to a certain altitude.

If an airplane needs to change control surfaces and increase power to the engines to gain altitude.  Or change control surfaces and decrease power to lose altitude.

Why would the airplane need to continuously descent as in change power and control surfaces?  On a spherical earth with equipotential of gravity. 

The definition of level for you again.



https://flatearth.ws/flat-vs-level


https://flatearth.ws/equipotential

So.  It comes down to how big the earth is, how gentle of a slope the earth has because of how big it is, and equipotential of gravity.


And yes.  We can see the earth curves with enough altitude.  It’s called dip of the horizon.


https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method

Game, set, Turbs is just stupid at this point. 

Planes would have to constantly descend if the earth was a ball. They don’t need to fly in a constant descent because earth is flat, not a ball.

I didn't ask you to repeat the same delusional BS.
I asked you to either admit you were spouting delusional BS or to defend it.

Why would planes ascend to fly over a ball earth? A ball constantly curves downward from any point on or above it.

Which means the point behind the plane, which it came from, is "lower", meaning it had to ascend to get there.

i.e. the exact same reasoning you are using, except looking backwards instead of forwards.
To clearly show your argument is BS.

Back in reality, with descent being a decrease in altitude, that cartesian reference system you are appealing to is just dishonest BS.
Planes don't need to descend or ascend for level flight on a RE.

Now again, care to try to defend your dishonest BS?
Including addressing why it should be a descent rather than an ascent, because you are yet to even try.

It’s obvious that I meant earths surface was flat in overall terms

No, it's obvious that you are spouting delusional BS yet again.

Okay, so what is perpendicular to the surface?

That depends on the orientation of the surface.

Why not ask what you really mean? What is perpendicular to a level surface?
And that would be a vertical line, because by definition, level is perpendicular to vertical.

And that applies regardless of if Earth is flat or curved.

A line from the surface is a single point

And that level is for that single point.
If you want a line to truly be level, you need it to be level at each point along the line, not just that one point.

A made up force that’s proven to not exist at all, does not solve all your problems, it doesn’t even exist to begin with!

When we use two different instruments which measure for level, one being a spirit level, the other a laser level, which cannot be excused by your made up force, both levels measure the same for level, and the laser level measures for level with a straight beam of light, proving there is no curve or made up force to excuse everything like magic!

The simple fact that a laser level is a straight beam of light, without any curve at all, proves they made it all up.

A made up force that’s proven to not exist at all, does not solve all your problems, it doesn’t even exist to begin with!

So stop appealing to your magic fantasy and start trying to honestly discuss a very real force which does exist and which has been shown to exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

Or given that gravity wasn't brought up at all, how about you stop with all the dishonest BS, stop with the pathetic deflection and try to defend your delusional BS?

Once more, your BS argument works equally well to claim a plane must descend as it flies over a RE due to the downwards curve in front of it that it must go down; as it does to claim a plane must ascend as it flies over a RE due to the downwards curve behind it that it must have gone up.
This fact shows that the argument is pure BS.

Now care to honestly address it?
Care to try being honest for once in your life?

both levels measure the same for level

Yes, perpendicular to down.
With the laser level's range and accuracy being too limited to be significantly effected by the curvature of Earth.
Meaning yet again you are lying.

And yet again, this thread has nothing to do with your blatant lies about laser levels.

Again, address your dishonest BS that planes magically need to descend to fly level of a round Earth.

Which means the point behind the plane, which it came from, is "lower", meaning it had to ascend to get there.

i.e. the exact same reasoning you are using, except looking backwards instead of forwards.
To clearly show your argument is BS.

Back in reality, with descent being a decrease in altitude, that cartesian reference system you are appealing to is just dishonest BS.
Planes don't need to descend or ascend for level flight on a RE.

Now again, care to try to defend your dishonest BS?
Including addressing why it should be a descent rather than an ascent, because you are yet to even try.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 12, 2023, 12:33:06 AM

It’s obvious that I meant earths surface was flat in overall terms

No, it's obvious that you are spouting delusional BS yet again.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 12, 2023, 12:33:06 AM

Okay, so what is perpendicular to the surface?

That depends on the orientation of the surface.

Why not ask what you really mean? What is perpendicular to a level surface?
And that would be a vertical line, because by definition, level is perpendicular to vertical.

And that applies regardless of if Earth is flat or curved.

No it doesn’t apply to a curved surface, only to a flat surface.

If a straight line upward from  a curved surface is perpendicular to another line, it is perpendicular to the first line at exactly 90 degrees to it, out to each side of it to infinity, as level to it, which is always a straight line extending outward to infinity, while a curved surface will go downward in each direction from the vertical line upward from the surface.

When the second line is at 90 degrees to the first line, on each side of it, the angle does not change with more distance outward on either side of the vertical line.

It remains at 90 degrees across the surface below, but the surface would curve downward, not at 90 degrees across it

When we use two different instruments which measure for level, one being a spirit level, the other a laser level,

Sigh.  Again.  Instruments that measure to relative frame of reference.

You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.


Just like this large tank and using this small straight edge on this level as a frame of reference.



Looks flat with a small frame of reference?

But the tank is clearly curved.






What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?




https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
[/quote]

If a straight line upward from  a curved surface is perpendicular to another line, it is perpendicular to the first line at exactly 90 degrees to it, out to each side of it to infinity, as level to it, which is always a straight line extending outward to infinity, while a curved surface will go downward in each direction from the vertical line upward from the surface.

Blah blah blah..


https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method