You love to say "pure BS." I wonder what you'd find not to be pure BS?
Honest portrayals of things.
You should try it some time.
Hear the book of Jeremiah.
No thanks. You can keep your fictional stories to yourself.
You are objectively spouting lies all over the place.
You have theses pointed out, yet you keep on making them.
This is not a case of you saying the truth and other people calling you a liar.
This is case of you repeatedly lying and people calling you a liar because of it.
I'm using that responsibility to tell you that you're heading straight into slavery.
You mean you are ignoring that responsibility to pretend you having accountability and responsibility would be slavery.
I'm repeating them because you seem to have trouble understanding.
You are confusing understanding with accepting your delusional BS.
All the time. Until a jumbo jet weighing hundreds of tons is able fly thousands of feet in the air.
By providing a force.
It can only fly because of its engines providing thrust to have airflow over the wings to provide lift.
This is gravity NOT being convenient, yet is still there acting.
Because of gravity the plane needs to burn fuel and have giant wings to stay in the air.
If we could just switch it off when it was inconvenient then a plane would have tiny wings just to control its direction and would be able to throttle down the engines to virtually nothing during cruise.
So yes, ALL THE TIME, including when a Jumbo Jet is burning loads of fuel to generate lift to fight it to stay in the air.
Gravity is supposed to be a constant.
No, it isn't.
That is just another strawman FEers use.
The acceleration (or alternatively the strength of the gravitational field) can be approximated as a single value all over Earth, but that is an approximation.
In reality, it varies with location.
But more importantly, that is only g that is approximated, not the force.
The force is proportional to mass.
Quit lying.
I'm not lying.
I'm pointing out that even while it is curved all the time, that the amount of curvature can be so insignificant that you are unable to detect it.
Conversely, you are lying.
You can see about 3 miles (4828 meters) on a flat space. Nanometers is conveniently small enough that a 1:1 would result in 4828 nm which converts to 0.000004828 meters.
How about you try reality, where at least for small distances it can be approximated as h=d^2/(2R)?
Notice how it is proportional to the square of the distance, not linear? So it isn't 1:1. Also I said bulge not drop.
And I said it was on the order of nm, not 1 nm.
Ignoring the last point, that means you should actually take that 1 nm, and multiply it by (4828*2)^2 = 93,238,336 nm or 0.09 m.
So with Earth having a radius of roughly 6371000 m, over a 0.5 m distance (to get the bulge from the centre to the edge), you get roughly 20 nm.
For 5 km, from you to the horizon, it would be 1.96 m.
At 100 km away it would be 785 m.
But the question is how are you expecting to see this?
What it should appear as is objects disappearing from the bottom up as they go over this bulge.
And guess what? We see that.
When we look at distant objects, with both us and the object above water, we see water blocking the view. i.e. we see the bulge.
Your wilful rejection of it doesn't change that.
Alternatively, you need to set up a system to measure it, where you set up a straight line of sight from 2 points separated by 10 km for the 5 km distance, at equal elevation (e.g. 10 m above sea level) and then measure what altitude above sea level this line is at 5 km (the midpoint, where the bulge is).
When something is so conveniently small that it cannot be detected with the eye, what is the difference from that and not existing?
The effects it has.
You not being able to see it with your eye in your sink doesn't mean it wont have any affect on Earth.
It is what causes things like time zones, and why different locations on Earth have the sun at a different position in the sky.
It is what causes (at least one factor) limitations on distance of wireless transmissions and observations.
Yes, it can, Jack Black.
And that is why you resort to insults, while I explain why you are wrong.
I've been on religious forums and seen the same tactic. "You have no evidence."
Where you promote your religion with no evidence?
If you think that is evidence of a god, then your god is evidence of UBERGOD, and UBERGOD makes your god unneeded.
Your god solves nothing, and just pushes all those problems back.
But this isn't about your religion.
Where is your evidence of a flat Earth? No where.
You need to resort to all sorts of nonsense to try to explain basic things like why the sun sets.
No, you don't. You see a simple vanishing point.
No, we don't.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away.
If it was simply vanishing point, then the sun and these other objects would simply shrink to a point and fade away. They would never appear to sink below the horizon.
Yet that is exactly what we observe. Objects appearing to sink into the horizon while still clearly resolvable.
This shows it is NOT simply vanishing point/perspective.
So no, I don't delude myself into thinking it is a curve. I understand a curve is the only way to explain it.
And thanks for once again showing your blatant dishonesty by looking at the meniscus in the context of anatomy rather than the contest of a liquid.
There something wrong with your eyes? I can measure a line straight across the horizon above. And here.
By just arbitrarily drawing a line that doesn't even exist.
In the image above of water, the horizon actually curves upwards towards the edge, likely due to lens distortion.
You also make no attempt to even verify if you should be able to see the curve from that view.
Remember, the horizon is the same angle of dip all around.
Depending on the camera lens, this will appear as a straight line in the image, and you can do the same with a small ball or a hula hoop.
you tell me that this line straight across is a "curve" because you don't understand perspective.
No, I understand perspective, which is why I recognise it doesn't do what FEers claim.
I also understand that the horizon must be a curve, as you can follow it all around you.
You can't do that with a straight line.
That is why I can call you a liar, when you repeatedly lie about it.