For something most people can do on a commercial passenger jet when at altitude, not cleared to fly upside down, not cleared to do a barrel roll, and usually takes turns at a rate at or less than 360 degrees in two minutes. Where the presenter in all honest produced a quick go /no go test for the dip of the horizon.
Do you understand the difference between bank angle and rate of turn?
JackBlack, this is the most over complicated ignorant argument of a hill you choose to die on.
Again, YOU were the one that so boldly proclaimed that he water not sloshing around means it is accurate.
That is not the case at all.
If you wanted, you could have just accepted that and said it is just an example, but this is the hill you appear to have chosen to die on.
Use a theodolite app like the same site also provides.
You mean one based upon an accelerometer which suffers the same issues, as well as calibration issues?
Or instrumentation from a heads up display?
Even less useful, especially for your claim, unless you can fully demonstrate that the heads up display actually shows the position of level to match a hypothetical level horizon regardless of where you look at it from, instead of just mostly arbitrarily projecting a hud onto a piece of glass, it is entirely useless as just that image.
But it does have the advantage of using the instruments which use gyroscopes instead of a bottle of water.
One obvious problem with the image is the angle of the horizon.
At that altitude, the horizon, ignoring refraction, should be at roughly -3.8 degrees, but in the image (and the video) it appears below that.
But it is even more pointless for your idea because most people wont be able to get into the cockpit.
What percent errors for each case above compared to your prized fixed position test for dip of the horizon below. And what is easier for most people to use?
Error isn't really the issue. The issue is uncertainty.
If you are standing on a mountain, unless there is a land slide, you can be fairly confident you don't have acceleration throwing you off, especially if you believe Earth is flat and stationary.
You don't need the setup with the tubes, that was just to make it more visually appealing. You can still just use a water bottle.
JackBlack, you pick the most ignorant things to get pissy about.
You are the one getting pissy here.
I objected to your claim that the water not sloshing about means it must be accurate.
That is not the case.
Instead of accepting that, you appear to be doing whatever you can to avoid it.
Most people have the common sense to use this simple go test for the dip of the horizon at altitude while flying a steady course on a commercial jet not rated to do barrel rolls.
Most people have the common sense to know Earth is round and not care about this at all.
How many people have you seen try this on a plane? I don't know of any.
In a coordinated turn, that remains at the bottom, just like water would.
If that was true and constant a bottle or tank of liquid, if pilots could bank on it 🤣” why do some acrobatic planes have to have special fuel systems that feed off the top or bottom…
Because with acrobatics, they typically aren't just doing coordinated turns.
For example, some times they will fly upside down.
And yet…
And yet...
The video shows you are wrong.
Deal with it.
Or continue being pissy about ignorant things and pick this as your hill to die on.