Plumb lines will not work on your global Earth, nor will horizontally level lines.

It's easily provable on land or water or even ice.

You mean it is easily assertable with absolutely no evidence or proof at all.

Without appealing to reality which you claim is a flat Earth, can you prove it? Clearly explaining how it wouldn't work?

Because it is quite easy to show logically that it would.

For a perfect spherical Earth, gravity (I know you have an irrational hatred of this, but it is part of the RE model, you can't just ignore it to pretend nothing can work on a RE, but if you like, as repeatedly explained, we can use your BS air instead) causes objects to fall towards the centre of Earth.

This means that plumb lines will intersect the centre of Earth. So there is plumb working perfectly fine.

Then, if you actually understood what level meant, you would also realise it makes perfect sense and works perfectly fine on Earth.

A level surface is one in which the energy doesn't not change over the surface.

Water adopts a level surface, because if it had a non-level surface, water is able to flow along the surface from a high point, falling down to a low point to lower its energy.

But with a level surface, it cannot do that, no matter where it moves on the surface, it has the same energy. It has no where to fall.

And in general, level is perpendicular to plumb.

This means level lines on the RE will be a circle.

This is exactly what I have shown in my diagram. Plumb lines that intersect the centre, and a level line which is perpendicular to those plumb lines.

So can you actually explain why plumb and level should magically cease to work just because Earth is round, rather than it merely not being what you want.

A simple laser level will show up any discrepancy, immediately, over a short distance.

You mean over such short distances that you are completely incapable of detecting the insignificant drop.

That just proves you have no honesty as you don't bother considering the errors/uncertainty of your observations.

If you want to be able to prove no curvature you need to first establish that you can measure the curvature you are trying to, rather than just saying you don't detect any and thus it can't be there.

An 8 inch drop over 1 mile. A 2 inch drop over 1/4 of a mile or 1 inch drop of 1/8th of a mile...or to be a bit more clear..... 660 feet.

Or let's go down to a quarter of an inch drop and 165 feet from point to point.

Try again.

The simple formula to measure drop is d^2/(2R).

Or as commonly expressed by FEers, 8 inches per mile squared.

The important part is that if you halve the distance you cut the drop down by 1/4.

This means over 1/4 of a mile, you cut the drop down to a 16th of what it initially was, not 1/4.

This means you go from an 8 inch drop for the 1 mile down to a 1/2 inch drop for 1/4 of a mile.

If you drop it down to 1/8th of a mile you are down to a 1/8 inch drop.

Going all the way to 165 feet, or 1/32 of a mile, you end up with a drop of 1/128 inches. That is roughly 0.2 mm.

In order to get 1/4 of an inch drop you need the distance to be roughly 1/6 miles.

This is why people tell to learn the model that you hate so much so when you try to make claims regarding it they aren't trivial to show are wrong.

But the really ridiculous part is you already accepted that it is 8 inches per mile squared. But now that you want to exaggerate the drop over a short distance you instead pretend it is 8 inches per mile. So this isn't a case of you not knowing any better, this is yet another example of your intentional misrepresentation of the globe to pretend there is a problem where none exists.

Anyone ever measured it to that?

What you should really be asking is if anyone has ever measured the drop over a long distance accurately enough to be able to measure the curvature or absence of it.

And yes, the makers of LIGO had to account for curvature, and that is effectively the same.

Likewise, surveyors using theodolites routinely measure the drop by measuring its angle.

So yes, IT HAS BEEN MEASURED.

You not liking that fact, and not being able to measure the near 0 curvature in your bath tube or sink has no bearing on that fact.

If you were to set up two 50 feet high poles and took a measurement by adding a foot height marker all the way up those poles, you would expect to see a change in length of each raised foot of height from post to post.

Assuming you could measure that change, assuming your tools were accurate enough to measure the small difference over a long distance.

Sooo, regardless of whether you want to play the game of level being towards the centre of your Earth, you can clearly see how, in that scenario you put out, the lines (for you) converge all the way to your centre and obviously by that argument they must diverge with every foot of height as they reach into the sky.

Bearing this in mind, you have to accept a tilt over distance and the bigger distance the bigger the tilted angle of a point to point meeting of the lines like I showed you in my diagram.

No, I don't.

That is because you are pretending the poles are tilted relative to plumb. THEY ARE NOT!

The point is they are plumb, and the fact that plumb lines are not level is what causes them to tilt.

If you wanted to be honest you would accept what is shown in my diagram, with the towers aligned with a plumb line which intersects Earth.

Any 2 towers you pick will be tilted AWAY from each other, with the distance between the tops greater than that between the bases.

And the further apart the 2 towers are, the greater that "tilt"

Again, this tilt is purely due to plumb lines not being parallel.

You do not get them tilted towards each other, like your nonsense pretends.

So no, your diagram remains refuted garbage.

Basically you have a major problem on your globe, of seeing objects in the distance.

That is your claim, which you need to substantiate. You are yet to even attempt that. The closest you have come is by pretending we don't have a FOV.

see much more of it if you are elevated yourself because you are looking through less dense atmosphere.

The difference in density of the atmosphere is insignificant.

And that doesn't address why we don't see it on a globe.