ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:37:23 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 02:23:00 AM

The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.

Wrong.

The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L. 

If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L. 

This is just the way things are.  Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.

Sorry.

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:37:23 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 02:23:00 AM

The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.

Wrong.

The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L. 

If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L. 

This is just the way things are.  Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.

Sorry.

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.

Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌

Gravity is the most studied subject in history of physics.  There is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed published data. 

Your inability to understand that hot air will rise regardless of what causes objects to fall changes none of peer reviewed data.  AAMOF, the very fact that hot air rises is not evidence for or against gravity and not evidence for or against universal acceleration.

Mike

Twisting is wasting your own time.

Is twisting your new replacement word for lying?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 04:11:26 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:37:23 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 02:23:00 AM

The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.

Wrong.

The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L. 

If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L. 

This is just the way things are.  Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.

Sorry.

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.

You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 12:56:15 AM

Twisting is wasting your own time.

Is twisting your new replacement word for lying?

It depends on how you want to look at it.

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:37:23 AM

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.

You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

You of course are entitled to that opinion.  I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone than you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!).  So it doesnt really matter.  I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine.  No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination. 

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.

Water pressure?  Tell me more!!!  Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now?  Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 04:11:26 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:37:23 AM

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.

You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

You of course are entitled to that opinion.  I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone that you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!).  So it doesnt really matter.  I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine.  No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 07:23:35 AM

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.

Water pressure?  Tell me more!!!  Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now?  Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?

Come back when you can actually type normally.

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 08:13:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 04:11:26 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:37:23 AM

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.

You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

You of course are entitled to that opinion.  I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone that you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!).  So it doesnt really matter.  I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine.  No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 07:23:35 AM

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.

Water pressure?  Tell me more!!!  Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now?  Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?

Come back when you can actually type normally.

Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me.  No need for any excuses. 

Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!

Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me.  No need for any excuses. 

Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!

No problem. Just sit back and read on and come in when you feel you can actually type something worthwhile.

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 09:22:48 AM

Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me.  No need for any excuses. 

Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!

No problem. Just sit back and read on and come in when you feel you can actually type something worthwhile.

Lol.  We are on a backwater, outdated messaging board bickering over lines, triangles, and magic pixie dust. 

Nothing here is really that worthwhile.  Don't delude yourself on the importance of this discussion. 

You didn't answer the shipping question.

Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.

Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.

You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

You sure do love projecting your own inadequacies don't you?

Pretty much everyone can realise (at least if they bother thinking about it) that all your claims about your magical air are pure nonsense with no connection to reality at all.
You just refuse to see it because you don't want to, because you hate the globe so much you will do whatever you can to dismiss it and things associated with it.


For example, any sane person can see that in reality, 2 objects of the same size (e.g. 2 balls with diameter of 20 cm), will resist changes in motion by different amounts, i.e. it will require a different force to accelerate them. They can see that the denser (i.e. more massive) object resists more.
This shows them that it is not merely the result of air pressure like you claim.
If it was, then the 2 balls should resist the same amount. The only thing that would change that is if there is any air inside the object, which you claim the lower density object has. But that simply means the lighter object is displacing more air and should resist more, not less.

And we know this last part in 2 ways, one is that it is simply nonsense to think that less air (eventually resulting in no air) would produce more resistance. The other is that by using a larger object, which displaces more air, we get more resistance, so if displacing less air caused more resistance you would have a massive contradiction.

Meanwhile, the simple idea of inertia actually makes sense and matches what is observed.
Attempting to accelerate any mass will result it in resisting, simply because of its mass.
If you were to take 2 such objects and join them together, the mass would increase and so would the amount of resistance, with them being proportional to each other, exactly as observed.

And even worse applies for your nonsensical attempt at replacing gravity, where you can't even explain what causes a pressure gradient in the atmosphere to exist in the first place, nor why this pressure gradient typically applies a force in the wrong direction, nor how this force is magically applied to each bit of mass to establish a pressure gradient, rather than simply being applied at the top and crushing everything.

The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.

Said the scientist who never played stink finger.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 04:11:26 AM

You didn't answer the shipping question.

Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.

Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.

No they do not.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 01:09:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 04:11:26 AM

You didn't answer the shipping question.

Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.

Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.

No they do not.

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

And again, you ignore the bigger issue, the fact that the resistance to a change in motion is not dependent upon the amount of air displaced on moving.

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:40:57 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 01:23:54 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:40:57 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?

Let me make this clear.

First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.

But let's not side step this.

Tell me what would happen if both bottles were in a huge tank or deep sea and they were both dragged down.
Explain what happens and we'll go from there.

Sceptimatic: 

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 04:33:12 AM

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

You're 100% wrong

Also Sceptimatic: 

Quote from: Stash on February 05, 2021, 01:46:19 AM

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?

the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical.

 

Sceptimatic: 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 07:23:35 AM

Quote from: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 04:33:12 AM

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

You're 100% wrong

Also Sceptimatic: 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 02:09:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 05, 2021, 01:46:19 AM

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?

the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical.

 

Maybe pay attention to depths and what I'm saying. It might help you understand.

Quote from: Stash on February 05, 2021, 01:46:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 01:23:54 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:40:57 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?

Let me make this clear.

First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.

But let's not side step this.

Tell me what would happen if both bottles were in a huge tank or deep sea and they were both dragged down.
Explain what happens and we'll go from there.

So the volume is the same, measured as such. Submerged in a tank on my kitchen counter the measured displacement wouldn't show little discrepancy, it would show no discrepancy. The measured volume would be the same. We got that cleared up.

Yes, I know what you're getting at, submerge them deep and the higher depth pressure will crush the weak empty plastic bottle over the one that's filled with stuff, thereby compressing it and perhaps making it of smaller volume. But that's really neither here no there. We're talking about just on the surface of earth with normal pressure. And if I took the steel cubes, one solid, one not, and submerged them deep in the ocean, it would take a ton of pressure to crush the hollow one and a mega ton of pressure to crush the solid one. Probably what submarine engineers/designers calculate the shit out of to make sure their vessels don't get crushed at depth. There's a mountain of data out there on how that stuff works.

The point is, on earth, the displacement is the same in the coke bottle experiment and therefore the volume is the same having nothing to do with density/porosity. Same as if I submerged the steel cubes in the container on my kitchen counter they would measurably displace the same amount, thereby measured as the same volume.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:40:57 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

It is a fact, because just below the surface of the water the change in pressure is insignificant, and would not impact the size of the cube by any measurable amount, and would effect both cubes.

Stop trying to completely change the situation so one of the cubes is crushed. It just shows how pathetic and indefensible your position is.

The simple fact is unless you actually crush the hollow cube, the displacement of water by the 2 cubes would be practically identical and would come down to manufacturing tolerances. It cannot explain the variation in the mass of the cubes nor in their resistance to changes motion.

Again, for the actual key part of the topic you continually run from, if you were to accelerate these objects and have them move through the air they would displace the same amount of air external to the cube.
The only difference in displacement of air is the air inside the hollow cube, which means the lower density and thus lighter object displaces more air when you move it. That means according to your nonsense it should resist changes in motion MORE, not less. But in reality, we observe the exact opposite.

Yet again, your nonsense is wrong.

Yes, I know what you're getting at, submerge them deep and the higher depth pressure will crush the weak empty plastic bottle over the one that's filled with stuff, thereby compressing it and perhaps making it of smaller volume. But that's really neither here no there.

It is massively important.
It not only shows atmospheric pressure is the reason it also shows there's no extra force that we are told is supposed gravity.

We're talking about just on the surface of earth with normal pressure.

Yep and you need to take that in mind when you talk about solid and hollow and submerging using force to displace. Force other than just atmospheric with objects with more volume having to have extra applied pressure to displace that water.
Think on it.

And if I took the steel cubes, one solid, one not, and submerged them deep in the ocean, it would take a ton of pressure to crush the hollow one and a mega ton of pressure to crush the solid one.

Yep, it's all about the pressures applied.

Probably what submarine engineers/designers calculate the shit out of to make sure their vessels don't get crushed at depth. There's a mountain of data out there on how that stuff works.

Of course but they do not use gravity as any calculation. They simply use atmospheric and water pressures against the shell of the sub.

No. The displacement is only similar if you apply extra pressure to the empty coke bottle, otherwise the coke bottle in itself does not displace much water.

Quote from: Stash

Same as if I submerged the steel cubes in the container on my kitchen counter they would measurably displace the same amount, thereby measured as the same volume.

Only if they sink to the bottom where there is a foundation which stops the hollow one from being massively crushed and therefore, like I said, the displacement appears to be the same but will, even in this case, be minutely different, yet likely undetectable in that shallow tank.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 01:23:54 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:40:57 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

It is a fact, because just below the surface of the water the change in pressure is insignificant, and would not impact the size of the cube by any measurable amount, and would effect both cubes.

Stop trying to completely change the situation so one of the cubes is crushed. It just shows how pathetic and indefensible your position is.

The simple fact is unless you actually crush the hollow cube, the displacement of water by the 2 cubes would be practically identical and would come down to manufacturing tolerances. It cannot explain the variation in the mass of the cubes nor in their resistance to changes motion.

Again, for the actual key part of the topic you continually run from, if you were to accelerate these objects and have them move through the air they would displace the same amount of air external to the cube.
The only difference in displacement of air is the air inside the hollow cube, which means the lower density and thus lighter object displaces more air when you move it. That means according to your nonsense it should resist changes in motion MORE, not less. But in reality, we observe the exact opposite.

Yet again, your nonsense is wrong.

Come back when you're less angry.

It is massively important.

No, it isn't.
It is you trying to deflect from the issue at hand to pretend to have a point and pretend to be correct.

It is clear that at atmospheric pressure the displace the same volume.
That means when you move them, they will displace the same amount of air around them.
This means the hollow object will displace more air as it displaces the air outside and inside and thus should have a much greater resistance.
This directly contradicts observed reality and shows your garbage to be wrong.

This is what you continually refuse to address.

Of course but they do not use gravity as any calculation.

Yes, they do.
They use the density of water along with gravity to determine the pressure at any depth. Atmospheric pressure does not factor into it, because it cannot explain things like pressure gradients in water.

will, even in this case, be minutely different, yet likely undetectable in that shallow tank.

Which means it cannot explain the difference in resistance to changes in motion, and thus your nonsense is garbage which does not explain reality.

Come back when you're less angry.

How about you leave and come back when you can defend your garbage and answer simple questions rather than continually avoid them and insult and dismiss people.

Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.

Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? 

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?

Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.

You continually twist what I say and you also don't grasp what I'm saying. You think you do but you don't. That is clear in your answers.
Shape up and stop the anger.

Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? 

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?

How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2021, 10:55:08 PM

Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? 

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?

How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?

You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve.  Start with the basics, work your way up from there.

You can only lead a horse to water after all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 03:01:56 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2021, 10:55:08 PM

Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? 

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?

How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?

You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve.  Start with the basics, work your way up from there.

You can only lead a horse to water after all.

I don't need to. I simply need to know what a straight sight is or a straight line or a level sight or a level line.
I have no need to play with equations until there's a need to play with equations.
This is not one of them from my point of view.