Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DataOverFlow2022

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 139
1

Yes, you.
Still acting like a FEer, fleeing

How am I feeling?

Again. 

The picture in dispute where your butchering context and basic common sense.




https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water


Care to use the examples below to show how much error you can prove in the picture above.



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip




https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument




https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon


Yet you been asked to prove actual “error” for one picture and to what degree against three control pictures.  Something more tangible than your word salad.  And you’re still using word salad?

I am tired of the stupid people that want to bicker or just right out lie instead of debate.  Or when asked to prove “error” and to what degree, the only relies is just more bitching.

Shrugs. 


2
Look.  This one even comes with a 2 year warranty!  What you got to lose Flat Earthers?



What flat earth map comes with a warranty? 

😂😂😂😂😂😂

3
Still no working flat earth explanation why a simple dial star atlas is accurate for the southern hemisphere?  Other than the earth is in fact spherical?


4

Again, the statement in dispute,

Me?  Yet you been asked to prove actual “error” for one picture and to what degree against three control pictures.  Something more tangible than your word salad.  And you’re still using word salad? 


😁


5

Again, the context you wish to ignore:


Again..

The picture in dispute where your butchering context and basic common sense.


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water


Care to use the examples below to show how much error you can prove in the picture above.   Of corse not JackBlack.  Your just as bad as flat earthers..

😂😂😂😂😂😂



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip




https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument




https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon

6

keep on winnig!


Provided an easy why for a “win” …


The full context of my post…


This is simply an extreme example to show your claim is wrong.
It demonstrates that water being calm doesn't mean the plane is in level flight and the water is actually showing level.




What did I claim for the context of this picture.


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water



“Also. The water bottle and water shows “level”.  So if it’s not sloshing around, the water level is accurate.”

The passenger jet isn’t flying upside down.

Any evidence the passenger jet is in a barrel roll or turn.

Again..

The picture in dispute where your butchering context and basic common sense.




https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water


You?  Any evidence it isn't?

Care to use the examples below to show how much error you can prove in the picture above.



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip




https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument




https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon


7

that's a bad attempt to a strawman and a flase equivalency in one.





Sorry.  Everything I dealt with in life is not only knowing how to measure but when to measure.


Steam plant / making steam.  It’s understood in steady state the mass of water entering the system must equal the mass leaving the boiler.  The goes ins must equal the goes outs.   If you only did a snapshot of the system whiling feeding up the water level for a blow down, you can get the false impression if your stupid the system is consuming mass.  There is more mass of water being feed in than mass leaving for that instance. 


Again.  Most people that are honest understand the context of the water bottle.  Something to do at altitude with the passenger jet lined out, not in a turn. Where most passenger jets are not rated for a barrel roll.

It’s actual petty simple.

  JackBlack has taken it out of context and over complicated the context of the picture and provided an example with a manuever hardly anyone flying commercial will encounter where most passenger jets are not rated for a barrel roll, where a pilot initiated barrel is illegal.

Where “barrel rolls” are not even the mark of a “good pilot”….

Are you a good driver because you drive 100 mph in a school zone? 





8
Doing barrel rolls isn’t a mark of a “Good pilot.”

Good pilots operate within laws, regulations, the limits and ratings of their aircraft, and land themselves, crews, passengers, and aircraft safely and not damaged. 

9
it most definitely is not equal to earthquakes.
that's a bad attempt to a strawman and a flase equivalency in one.



you have a listening problem.
again
it was understood the intent of your point.


you're a crazy person if every critique makes you this rattled.


What? Rattled in that I had a mechanic friend that struggled with losing his pilot friend and an aircraft he worked on because the pilot decided to fly upside down in an aircraft not rated to fly upside down resulting in a fatal crash.  And the tragedy and the scrutiny it brought their community.  Hell yes.

In the context of the provided photo.  Where it’s illegal to do a pilot initiated barrel roll for most commercial passenger jets where the rate of turn is limited to usually 360 degrees every 2 minutes where most people understand to do the exercise with the aircraft at altitude on course and not in a turn.

I’m not the one “listening”. 


If you believe the photo is something else than the context provided, then prove how much it is off with the other examples provided.


10

Any evidence the passenger jet is in a barrel roll or turn.
Any evidence it isn't?


The full context of my post…


This is simply an extreme example to show your claim is wrong.
It demonstrates that water being calm doesn't mean the plane is in level flight and the water is actually showing level.




What did I claim for the context of this picture.


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water



“Also. The water bottle and water shows “level”.  So if it’s not sloshing around, the water level is accurate.”

The passenger jet isn’t flying upside down.

Any evidence the passenger jet is in a barrel roll or turn.

Again..

The picture in dispute where your butchering context and basic common sense.




https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water


You?  Any evidence it isn't?

Care to use the examples below to show how much error you can prove in the picture above.



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip




https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument




https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon




11

As I explained before, a good pilot


A good pilot knows not to break the law and reframes from doing barrel rolls in aircraft not rated for such a maneuver which is a majority of civilian aircraft where passenger jets usually limit their turns to a rate of 360 degrees every 2 minutes.


12


As a reminder, this is the key part of this argument:


Yes we understood your point dta

However you dont undedstand youre argument wasnt quite solid as you think it as exained with g force and banked turns

Sigh.


Again.  Context of this picture.



https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water

Shows no sign of occurring during a “g turn” on a commercial passenger jet at altitude where most people have the common sense to do this while the jet is flying lined out like most people understand the difference between sea level vs storm surge. 

Care to use the examples below to show how much error you can prove in the picture above. The argument is equated to you shouldn’t use a spirit level because earthquakes. 


https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip




https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument

Now.  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? 



https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon


😂😂😂😂😂


You can use common sense and understand it’s a simple go no go test for dip of the horizon, and not do it during a “g turn” in a passenger jet which occurs how often when most turns are limited to 360 degrees every two minute. 





13
Shrugs…

Quote

It’s Possible to Roll This Airplane

https://www.flyingmag.com/safety-accident-investigations-its-possible-roll-airplane/

Almost any airplane can be rolled, but few can be rolled legally. Normal and utility category airplanes are not permitted to exceed a bank angle of 60 degrees. Only acrobatic category airplanes may be rolled, and then only when the occupants are equipped with parachutes.



14




Most people understand the context of the below picture.



https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water

While flying on a commercial passenger jet.

I asked you a question,  what commercial passenger is rated for a barrel roll. 

For your video.  Why was the question asked to the pilot if the aircraft could be rolled?  Why do you thank that was an import question? 

Are most commercial passenger jets rated to barrel roll?  Other than a mechanical failure, or an emergency, when were you on a commercial passenger jet flight that barrel rolled?

Again.  Most people have the common sense to do the exercise when the jet is lined out at attitude.  Like most people understand the difference between sea level vs storm surge. 

If you want JackBlack, keep arguing with yourself.  You really do look stupid in this case. And pathetic.


Again. 

There’s the right way.  The wrong way.  And the cult of Jack. 

15

Do you understand the difference between bank angle and rate of turn?




Which has nothing to do with this argument.

Like most people understand not to use a spirit level to level a picture during an earthquake.  Like most people understand sea level vs storm surge.


Again.  For the context of this picture.


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water

Where commercial passenger jets are not rated to fly upside down, not rated for barrel rolls, and most people have the common sense and have the understanding a high g turn would throw the results.  But how many times do commercial passer jets do high g turns?  Where you can do this little water bottle exercise at altitude flying straight.

I asked you to compare the error from doing the above exercise at steady state vs other results?

Did you do that?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip


Or instrumentation from a heads up display?

https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument

Now.  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? 



https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon


😂😂😂😂😂



16
Hmm..


It is a ball in a tube showing what way water would act is down.
If the turn is coordinated, that remains down relative to the plane, not Earth.

And yet…

“When the plane is right side up, this hose, or flop tube, 'flops' to the bottom of the tank because of the weight and draws fuel from the bottom of the tank. When the plane is rolled to inverted, the weight causes to hose to flop to the top of the tank (which is really the bottom now) and draw fuel from there.”
https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question252.htm

Seems pilots in acrobatic planes count on the fuel being down relative to earth, not fuel remaining at the “bottom” of a tank with a fixed suction off the “bottom” of the tank? Vs a weighted hose that can chase fuel as the fuel chases down relative to earth. 

17

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…


Quote
According to Randy, there are two techniques:

"The first is the flop tube design used in my airplane, a Pitts S-1T. The fuel tank is located in the fuselage in front of the pilot's knees, and inside of the tank is a flexible hose with a weight attached to the free end. When the plane is right side up, this hose, or flop tube, 'flops' to the bottom of the tank because of the weight and draws fuel from the bottom of the tank. When the plane is rolled to inverted, the weight causes to hose to flop to the top of the tank (which is really the bottom now) and draw fuel from there. This is really a cool design because it uses only one tank, and you have access to all the fuel in the tank whether you are right side up or inverted. This design is used on all the high-performance aerobatic airplanes with which I am familiar -- these planes all have a fuel tank in the fuselage.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question252.htm



18

It is either ignorant or dishonest to appeal to the water not sloshing around to say it must be accurate.



Because for this example…


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water


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. 

Again.

What is the “error” of the above compared to the below?


https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument

Looks fucking good enough for most people flying on a commercial jetliner. 

19
Nope there isn’t unless you can prove otherwise.  It’s a given you would take such a picture when the jet is levered out not in a transient.  Anything else would be dishonest.
That is assuming you realise.
Was the individual in question the pilot?
If not, you need to use visual observations to try to determine if it is in level flight.

But again, this is objecting to your comment that if the water isn't sloshing around it must be accurate.
That simply isn't true.

If you want to appeal to honesty, then there is no need to comment on the water not sloshing around.

It is either ignorant or dishonest to appeal to the water not sloshing around to say it must be accurate.

your being nitpicky over a simple means a common person can see their is a dip to the horizon
No, I'm objecting to the claim that the water not sloshing around means it is accurate.

The picture was a quick means of showing how a person can use a water bottle at altitude on a passenger jet can see there is a dip of the horizon.  Perry simple concept with no intent of complete accuracy.
Which just then raises the question of what level of accuracy, and is it enough to tell if the dip is there?
But for this thread, it appears the picture was provided to show there is a dip angle.

And is going to have an extreme slow rate of turn for any normal turn.
The bank angle is far more important than the rate of turn.
And that bank angle can be 20 degrees.

Compare that to the dip angle to the horizon, given by acos(r/(r+h)).
At an altitude of 10 km, the angle of dip is only ~ 3 degrees.

Ok?
Which is a specialised narrow curved tube which is different than using a water bottle as a go / no go test for the dip of the horizon once a passenger jet is lined out at altitude.
It is a ball in a tube showing what way water would act is down.
If the turn is coordinated, that remains down relative to the plane, not Earth.

Quote
A turn-and-bank indicator tells the pilot the attitude of the plane...
Try a reference which can actually describe it properly, rather than pretending gravity is the only force acting; and that understands the various instruments.
The attitude of the plane is given by the attitude indicator, also known as the artificial horizon.
The position of the ball is based upon the various forces acting on it. If the plane is turning, i.e. accelerating, that will also move the ball.

In a coordinated turn, that remains at the bottom, just like water would.



With your rant having nothing to do with the context of this picture..


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water


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.


JackBlack, this is the most over complicated ignorant argument of a hill you choose to die on. 

If you don’t like the bottle of water.  Don’t use the bottle of water.  Use a theodolite app like the same site also provides.


https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip


Or instrumentation from a heads up display?

https://flatearth.ws/flight-instrument

Now.  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? 



https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon


JackBlack, you pick the most ignorant things to get pissy about.   You must be a hoot at parties.  Hey, go ask jack about using a water bottle on a commercial passenger jet to prove dip of the horizon.  Get the guy really going.  Then also provide pictures using a heads up display instrumentation, and a theodolite smart phone app showing dip off the horizon.  Then show him fixed position water bottles showing dip of the horizon.  Then ask him to show the percentage of error from all examples. 

😂😂😂😂😂








20


That part at the bottom is literally a ball in a tube.



Ok?

Quote
A turn-and-bank indicator tells the pilot the attitude of the plane in the sky relative to the ground. This bank indicator uses a ball and curved glass tube to show rotation about the vertical axis. Gravity holds the ball to the lowest part of the tube, which moves from side to side as the airplane banks. The turn indicator uses a gyroscope to show rotation about the longitudinal axis. It has a pointer that indicates in degrees per unit of time the rate at which the craft is turning.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/indicator-turn-and-bank-11/nasm_A19780408000#:~:text=A%20turn%2Dand%2Dbank%20indicator,side%20as%20the%20airplane%20banks.



Which has what to do with using a half empty water bottle as a go / no go test for the dip of the horizon in the picture below


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water

21
What did I claim for the context of this picture.
“Also. The water bottle and water shows “level”.  So if it’s not sloshing around, the water level is accurate.”
Which as demonstrated is not substantiated.
The water not sloshing around does not mean the water level is accurate.

Any evidence the passenger jet is in a barrel roll or turn.
Any evidence it isn't?

Nope there isn’t unless you can prove otherwise.  It’s a given you would take such a picture when the jet is levered out not in a transient.  Anything else would be dishonest.

For this picture..


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water

Any evidence the individual was trying to create a fraud.

The picture was a quick means of showing how a person can use a water bottle at altitude on a passenger jet can see there is a dip of the horizon.  Perry simple concept with no intent of complete accuracy.

If you think the provided picture is erroneous, what you think I the marge of error is.


JackBlack, your being nitpicky over a simple means a common person can see their is a dip to the horizon where there intent of a simple go / no go test of there being a dip of the horizon.  From and aircraft that inst going to barrel roll during normal flight.  And is going to have an extreme slow rate of turn for any normal turn. 

Quote
A standard rate turn is defined as a 3° per second turn, which completes a 360° turn in 2 minutes. This is known as a 2-minute turn, or rate one (180°/min). Fast airplanes, or aircraft on certain precision approaches, use a half standard rate ('rate half' in some countries), but the definition of standard rate does not change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_rate_turn



That part at the bottom is literally a ball in a tube.




Ok?


Which is a specialised narrow curved tube which is different than using a water bottle as a go / no go test for the dip of the horizon once a passenger jet is lined out at altitude.



22

This is simply an extreme example to show your claim is wrong.
It demonstrates that water being calm doesn't mean the plane is in level flight and the water is actually showing level.




What did I claim for the context of this picture.


https://flatearth.ws/bottled-water



“Also. The water bottle and water shows “level”.  So if it’s not sloshing around, the water level is accurate.”

The passenger jet isn’t flying upside down.

Any evidence the passenger jet is in a barrel roll or turn. 



23

As someone else has already pointed out, attempting to try to measure "level" wrt the earth is not easy on an airplane, because it will be impacted by inertial effects.  So, better to do this on a high mountain.

Also. The water bottle and water shows “level”.  So if it’s not sloshing around, the water level is accurate.
As I explained before, a good pilot coordinates turns and other manouvers so the apparent direction of down is towards the floor of the plane, regardless of the orientation of the plane.

Here is a great example:


Did the water level in that glass remain accurate during that roll?


How many passenger jets are cleared to do barrel rolls?

Quote
Can large commercial planes fly upside down?

Large commercial planes, such as passenger airliners, are not designed to fly upside down, and attempting to do so would be extremely dangerous and potentially catastrophic. The aerodynamic design of commercial planes, including their wing shape and configuration, is optimized for efficient level flight and safe operation within the typical flight envelope.

Commercial airplanes are designed to generate lift efficiently when flying right side up, and their wings are not symmetrical like those of aerobatic aircraft or fighter jets. Therefore, if a large commercial plane were to attempt an inverted flight, it would experience a significant loss of lift, resulting in a rapid descent and potential loss of control.

Moreover, the systems and structures of commercial airplanes are not designed to withstand the aerodynamic forces experienced during inverted flight. Attempting to fly a large commercial plane upside down would place tremendous stress on the airframe, potentially leading to structural failure.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/can-planes-fly-upside-down/amp


Then you have to have the correct fuel system.


Quote
According to Randy, there are two techniques:

"The first is the flop tube design used in my airplane, a Pitts S-1T. The fuel tank is located in the fuselage in front of the pilot's knees, and inside of the tank is a flexible hose with a weight attached to the free end. When the plane is right side up, this hose, or flop tube, 'flops' to the bottom of the tank because of the weight and draws fuel from the bottom of the tank. When the plane is rolled to inverted, the weight causes to hose to flop to the top of the tank (which is really the bottom now) and draw fuel from there. This is really a cool design because it uses only one tank, and you have access to all the fuel in the tank whether you are right side up or inverted. This design is used on all the high-performance aerobatic airplanes with which I am familiar -- these planes all have a fuel tank in the fuselage.

"The second solution to the problem is the header tank. This is used in airplanes such as the Super Decathlon, a high-wing monoplane. In this type of plane the main fuel tanks are located in the wings, which are higher than the engine. In upright flight, the fuel has a gravity head to the suction of the engine-driven fuel pump (in planes like the Cessna 150, which does not have an inverted fuel system, you don't need a fuel pump -- the fuel is gravity-fed to the carb). For inverted flight, there is a small header tank near the pilot's feet. The header tank is connected to the main tanks in the wings; during upright flight, fuel from the wing tanks flows by gravity into the header tank until it is full. The header tank is connected to the suction side of the fuel pump -- when the plane is rolled inverted, the header tank is above the engine, and the fuel gravity flows from the header tank to the fuel pump. There is a check valve in the line connecting the main tank to the header tank; this prevents fuel from the header tank from draining back into the main tank when the plane is inverted. In the Decathlon, the header tank holds enough fuel for about two minutes of inverted flight.


"My plane and all of the more modern aerobatic planes I have seen are fuel injected. However, some of the older Pitts I have seen have a pressure carb, and it works in inverted flight. "


https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question252.htm


Time to Call the FAA! Its not okay Aerobatics in a Piper Cherokee - TakingOff Ep 133



24

And you think that proves anything.

Yeah.  It does

Also the celestial South Pole and while a dial atlas of the southern constellations is accurate.

And also the sun…

Quote
Debunking flat Earth using only a stick.





Can you actually address the issues of a sun circling above a flat earth.

This is back to the sun on a flat earth would have to visibly turn in the sky to complete its circuit.  This would result in the shadow of a stick circling about the stick.

 Because the spherical earth rotates about its axis and orbits the sun,

The shadow for the stick in France near equinox was almost a straight line.  With a sun that goes straight from east to west with no visible turn as required for a circular orbit.

The sun doesn’t visibly turn in its course because the sun doesn’t circle the earth.

Explains why the sun doesn’t change  apparent size.

Explains why the sun becomes physically blocked from view where a telescope that can bring stars to faint to be seen with the naked eye into view can’t bring the sun back into view after the sun sets.

Game over for FE

25
Flat Earth General / Re: How can you dismiss all the space footage?
« on: April 27, 2024, 07:46:47 AM »


I don't use acceleration. I use velocity.


Then how do you measure that rate at which velocity changes?




  Why is buoyancy


Which requires a pressure gradient that goes away in simulating near zero gravity by placing objects in free fall.

Quote
Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'



What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?





 It's far more observable, birds don't defy buoyancy,


Birds generate lift greater than the downward force of their bodyweight due to gravity.

Again.  Why can I roll a car in natural all day long on a level floor but can’t push it up hill.  Same mechanical advantage from the wheels, so what force keeps me from pushing it up hill. 



26

As someone else has already pointed out, attempting to try to measure "level" wrt the earth is not easy on an airplane, because it will be impacted by inertial effects.  So, better to do this on a high mountain.


Turb’s already asserted jet fly “level”…





Planes measure for level within air, by measuring the air pressure around the plane, as I've told you over and over again already. You know that, so cut the BS, it's a waste of everyone's time, especially MINE!

Which makes no sense.  I'd love to find the source of this info.  More importantly, I'd love to know how they measure the air pressure so precisely. 

So, is Turb saying the level view from the airplane proves the curvature of the earth???

It varies.  The individual ignoring it takes increasing power and control surfaces to gain altitude thinks jets should fly into outer space.  Or ignoring jets can fly a steady altitude with a slight pitch up, and land with the nose up, thinks jets would have to continually fly nose down because of curvature. 

Note.  To be more specific.  Turbs thinks since a jet doesn’t fly off into space flying “level”, or they don’t fly nose down.  The earth isn’t spherical. 

27

As someone else has already pointed out, attempting to try to measure "level" wrt the earth is not easy on an airplane, because it will be impacted by inertial effects.  So, better to do this on a high mountain.

Also. The water bottle and water shows “level”.  So if it’s not sloshing around, the water level is accurate. 

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity, just understood it existed
« on: April 27, 2024, 03:18:27 AM »
Again, how do they test laser levels for accuracy over distances?



You..


Except for laser levels, of course, not used on planes, to measure for level flight in air.

How could we even MEASURE for a ball Earth's surface, being curved all over the surface below a plane in air? Make up a magical force that doesn't even EXIST, and make up whatever you want it to do, like changing what instruments read as level, as flat and horizontal, no problem at all, right?

The ball Earth lie, is purely made up nonsense.

29

As someone else has already pointed out, attempting to try to measure "level" wrt the earth is not easy on an airplane, because it will be impacted by inertial effects.  So, better to do this on a high mountain.


Turb’s already asserted jet fly “level”…





Planes measure for level within air, by measuring the air pressure around the plane, as I've told you over and over again already. You know that, so cut the BS, it's a waste of everyone's time, especially MINE!

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity, just understood it existed
« on: April 27, 2024, 02:52:17 AM »
Again, how do they test laser levels for accuracy over distances?





You…


Anyway, how do we know that level can NOT mean 'level to Earth's curvature'? Because we have another instrument, which measures level, and is called a LASER LEVEL. They do not use Earth's surface, or it's atmosphere, to measure for level. They use lights, which are concentrated to a small point, and cast that light outward, over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all.

ANY curved surface, no matter how slight a curve it has, can be measured, same as a FLAT surface can be measured, or any OTHER surface can be measured.

Your excuse that Earth's 'curve' is too 'slight' to measure, is complete BS. We can measure a curve of microns, on surfaces, with our instruments of today. So we can certainly measure a curve of 8 inches over one mile distance, with our instruments, too.

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!



So.  The laser experiment demonstrates a curved earth and you got pissy.

You literally went from “over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all” to “test laser levels for accuracy over distances?”

Fucking hypocrite.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 139