My impossible challenge for FE'ers

If you DO understand what I said, then you're being dishonest, in twisting what I said, into something else.

You sure do love projection don't you?

I said this:

It measures the direction of down, with level being perpendicular to it.
It is measuring the direction of an equipotential surface.

It has nothing to do with being straight.

And then you came back with this BS:

You're claiming it is measuring for Earth's curvature, over a 6 inch distance?

If that isn't being dishonest, trying to twist what I said into something entirely different, I don't know what is.

No one even came close to claiming it is measuring Earth's curvature over 6 inches.
Yet because you can't refute what was actually said, or back up your infantile claims, you come up with that garbage.

I'm asking you to prove there is 'curvature of Earth', over a 6 inch distance

No, that would be pure stupidity.
It is just another pathetic, dishonest demand from you.

How about this, you prove that there isn't curvature over a 6 inch distance?
Prove that Earth is perfectly flat and level.

Do you even know what curvature to expect?

If there IS 'curvature', you must show actual, verifiable, repeatable MEASUREMENTS of it.

And we have, repeatedly.
You just ignore it.
The angle of dip to the horizon is the simplest.
Plenty of people measure it all the time.
If you aren't willing to trust them, why should us repeating those experiments and providing the results be any different?
You will just reject it as well.

So if you want proof, go get it yourself.
Go and get an accurate theodolite, go to a mountain, and measure the angle of dip to the horizon, and how this varies with altitude.

Your 'giant excuse bin' is almost empty, it's time for a refill!

Please don't refill it.
All the BS you throw in there doesn't help your case at all.
Especially stop with the same old BS of "there are no measurements".
That excuse just doesn't work on anyone with a brain.

If there IS 'curvature', you must show actual, verifiable, repeatable MEASUREMENTS of it.

Here you go:

It measures the direction of down, with level being perpendicular to it.
It is measuring the direction of an equipotential surface.

It has nothing to do with being straight.

No, level has nothing to do with being curved

Using a level, measuring for level, with ANY instrument, will measure it as a flat, straight across line, path, or surface, no matter how small, how large, whether on land, on water, or within air, they all measure level as a flat, straight across line, path, or surface.

When you claim that all our instruments which measure for level, are not measuring for a flat, straight across line, path, or surface, it's simply your absurd attempt to support your ball Earth fairy tale story.

Nothing that exists on Earth, has an 'equipotential', nor does Earth itself.

What the term 'equipotential' means, is when an electrical charge at one point, radiates outward, to expand into a sphere of equally charged points, or lines.

It applies to electrical force, which is an ACTUAL force, that is measured, and proven to exist.

Trying to hijack actual measurements of an actual force, which is electrical force, shows once again, you have nothing to support your made up, magical force.

When all objects on Earth, no matter how large it is, proves that gravity does not exist anywhere at all, that no objects attract to other objects, unless by magnetic force, which DOES exist, and proven to exist, and is measured as any ACTUAL force is, like when they MEASURE equipotential charges of electrical force, you still live in denial, which only hurts you, as it is something you know is not true, but cannot accept that it is true, for whatever reason(s).

Quote from: JJA on May 14, 2022, 05:34:19 AM

So you really think all measurements of the Earths curve can only be done by people with a 12 inch ruler?   

No, that's something you came up with yourself.

If you cannot understand what I said, that's one thing.

If you DO understand what I said, then you're being dishonest, in twisting what I said, into something else.

Read what I said once more...

So how would you ever measure for a curve, using a level 6 inches long? How would you know what it is really measuring is a tiny fraction of a 'curve', instead of a FLAT surface?

You're claiming it is measuring for Earth's curvature, over a 6 inch distance?

I'm asking you to prove there is 'curvature of Earth', over a 6 inch distance, with a small level. I'm asking you HOW it can measure for 'curvature', over a 6 inch distance.

If there IS 'curvature', you must show actual, verifiable, repeatable MEASUREMENTS of it.

Whether using a 6 inch level, or a 300 foot level, or any other instrument, you have NEVER measured for your 'curvature', you just keep saying, instruments measure 'level to Earth's curvature'!

And they measure the speed of flying pink elephants over Detroit at midnight, too! It is entirely worthless, and useless, to say something is 'measured', and never provide evidence for it!

This is entirely absurd, and it's getting worse all the time.

Your 'giant excuse bin' is almost empty, it's time for a refill!

You say I misread what you said, and then go on to say exactly the same thing, again.  Brilliant.

Several people have provided you with many measurements and evidence of the Earths curvature, from the LIGO to simply taking a picture from space. The Eratosthenes method. Large miles long bridges that take the curve into account.

Yet you keep coming back to demanding we measure it with a 6 inch ruler.

You best check your excuse bin, it's entirely filled with "I don't understand anything therefore it's worthless!"

If you want to keep trying to measure the shape of the Earth with a 6 inch ruler, you go ahead. Don't expect anyone else to agree to your weird demands. We have radar, and rockets, and math that works.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 14, 2022, 09:36:07 PM

It measures the direction of down, with level being perpendicular to it.
It is measuring the direction of an equipotential surface.
It has nothing to do with being straight.

No, level has nothing to do with being curved

And nothing to do with being straight.
Instead it is to do with being perpendicular to down.
Or having some value remain constant.

Repeating the same BS wont help you.

You appear to have now entirely fled from planes and are focusing on levels instead.

Using a level, measuring for level, with ANY instrument, will measure

perpendicular to the direction of down.
It doesn't measure flat.

Nothing that exists on Earth, has an 'equipotential', nor does Earth itself.

Water adopts an equipotential surface. That is something on Earth.

What the term 'equipotential' means, is when an electrical charge

Equipotential means it has the same potential energy. This is often used for electrical potential but extends to other forms of potential energy as well, including gravitational potential energy.

It applies to electrical force, which is an ACTUAL force, that is measured, and proven to exist.

Like gravity, which is measured and proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.
You not liking that fact wont change it.
But that is for the other thread. No need to drag your complete inability to show a single fault with gravity or provide a viable alternative into here.

And I notice you yet again deflected.
You claimed it is flat, prove that it isn't following Earth's curvature.

And nothing to do with being straight.
Instead it is to do with being perpendicular to down.

What is 'down' supposed to mean? Straight down, perpendicular to the flat surface of Earth, right?

Have you ever measured a pole, while building a fence? You dig a hole, and put the pole in it, and before you fix it in place, you must first make sure the pole is perfectly vertical, not at an angle, right?

And you MEASURE for vertical with a LEVEL, right? Not to measure for level and flat across, but for measuring STRAIGHT UP, which is perpendicular to the Earth, because Earth is flat, and perpendicular to it, is straight up.

There are NO curves to measure anywhere, only straight lines, flat surfaces, and they are perfectly SQUARED lines, vertical poles and horizontal, level planks across them. No 'curves', anywhere at all, only level and flat, and straight up, which is at an exact right angle, all square.

Get over it, there's no point in arguing about non-existent 'curves', they are all in your mind, they aren't real.

What is 'down' supposed to mean?

Most people would understand what down means.
In the case of levels, it is the direction which lowers their potential energy if they were to go that direction.
For the most part, that is down towards the centre of Earth.

Straight down, perpendicular to the flat surface of Earth, right?

Wrong.
Earth's surface isn't flat.

Have you ever measured a pole, while building a fence? You dig a hole, and put the pole in it, and before you fix it in place, you must first make sure the pole is perfectly vertical, not at an angle, right?

No, not perfectly, as that would be impossible.
But for the most part you do try to make sure the force of gravity is acting directly along the axis of the pole rather than trying to apply a torque to it as well.

Notice how that has nothing to do with the shape of Earth?
Regardless of if Earth is flat or curved, you measure the direction of down. You even admitted it:

Not to measure for level and flat across

So great job shooting yourself in the foot.

There are NO curves to measure anywhere

Not with a level, but with other tools.
You not liking that doesn't magically change it.
Repeating the same ignorant nonsense and ignoring the explanations wont magically make you correct.
It just makes you wilfully ignorant.

perfectly

Do you understand what that word means?
Because if you did, you would know you are spouting pure BS.
Nothing in this world is perfect.
All have some tolerance.
That tollerance typically means you cannot tell the difference between Earth being flat or curved.
Like I said before, if you had a structure which is 400 m wide, the change in angle between the walls would be a mere 0.0036 degrees.
That is beyond the scope of most levels, and you can't directly measure that angle. Instead you need to have a reference, and then construct a line parallel to it, which will introduce their own tolerances, and then measure.

level planks across them.

You mean level planks which bow more than the curvature of Earth (and in the wrong opposite direction assuming they are supported at their ends)?

Get over it, there's no point in arguing about non-existent 'curves', they are all in your mind, they aren't real.

Good thing we are arguing about real curves, instead of your fantasy of flatness.
You are literally living in a fantasy where everything is magically done perfectly, with no need for tolerances or anything practical like that.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 14, 2022, 02:36:36 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 14, 2022, 01:50:31 AM

No, they don't.
According to https://www.topconlaser.com.au/accuracy_laser_levels
the accuracy of a laser level is 1.5 mm at 30 m.
The drop due to curvature over 30 m is 0.07 mm.

If you extend that out to 400 m, the maximum range of the laser, that error grows to 20 mm, while the curvature only grows to 12.6 mm.

The change in angle would only be 0.0036 degrees.

The laser level is not accurate enough to measure the curvature.

Unlike all OTHER instruments which DO measure your 'curvature', somehow?

So laser levels, which are used in surgical procedures because of their accuracy, cannot measure your ball Earth's curve at all? You better tell all our surgeons to stop using laser instruments at ONCE!

Do you know that they are calibrated before they're used? Calibration of instruments is for accuracy, and range of error, or tolerance.

And don't make up this BS about their accuracy BEING 1.5 mm over 30 m distance, they must be WITHIN 1.5 mm accurate, not BEING at 1.5 mm, don't lie, it won't work, so stop the BS.

Earth at the round earth diameter of 12,700km
How many sides would a 30m/side polygon do you think would be possible?



https://images.app.goo.gl/fyCHX3dvX4DZqrjW7




Oh why i use dia?
Circumference makes more sense

40,000km / 0.03km = 1,333,333sides.

Ok so whats angle between polygon of N = 1,333,333?

360/1,333,333= really small number.
Lets see any walmart protractor have that accuracy

Did this get addresssd?

Get over it, there's no point in arguing about non-existent 'curves', they are all in your mind, they aren't real.

You're right, there's no point in arguing it when a renowned FEr provided such neat and tidy evidence of a curved earth:

I'm curious.  Besides saying "interesting", did the guy who did the "17 feet" video ever change his mind as to the shape of the Earth?  Anyone know his name?  I do have to give him a lot of  credit for setting up a fair clear experiment, with predictions for what the results would prove. 

I'm curious.  Besides saying "interesting", did the guy who did the "17 feet" video ever change his mind as to the shape of the Earth?  Anyone know his name?  I do have to give him a lot of  credit for setting up a fair clear experiment, with predictions for what the results would prove.

No, he did not change his mind. His name is Jeran. He's one of the more prominent YouTube FEr's. He is a part of the Globebusters channel as well as his own, Jeranism.

Here's the other half of the Globebusters team inadvertently showing evidence for a rotating earth:

Here's the other half of the Globebusters team inadvertently showing evidence for a rotating earth:

People like these really make me question my views on these youtube FEers.
Surely they have to know Earth is round and they are just conning people. They couldn't really be delusional enough to think they are correct.
But then they go and do stuff like this and I just think "WTF?"
What were you expecting?

Quote from: Stash on May 15, 2022, 03:46:49 PM

Here's the other half of the Globebusters team inadvertently showing evidence for a rotating earth:

People like these really make me question my views on these youtube FEers.
Surely they have to know Earth is round and they are just conning people. They couldn't really be delusional enough to think they are correct.
But then they go and do stuff like this and I just think "WTF?"
What were you expecting?

I know. I think it's all for he clicks/monetization and being paid to go to events and such, publicity.

I mean just skip to 1:45 here:



Knodel doesn't know he's mic'ed up and after the gyro debacle he says, what he thinks is in private:

"In the conference in Raleigh we want to have proved there's no curvature and if we can do that it's game over but the rotation is not looking good at this point.
We don't want to blow this you know right and they've got twenty thousand dollars and his freaking gyro better yeah if we if we dumped what we found right now we would be, it'd be bad. It would be bad so what I just told you is confidential."

Charlatans.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on April 23, 2022, 06:23:50 AM

What is curved?

That's the problem, you can't define 'curved'.

Not straight.
That was defined by objecting to their claim that the horizon is straight.

Also can't define straight.   

Nothing is either. 



Imagine a 2D existence.  There is no thickness.   
There is left and right. Nothing else. 

The concept of up and down is meaningless. 
It just can't exist in 2D. 

Now here we are.  How many D's are there?   
Last I heard there were 11.

So, define straight and curve without your bias . . .   

Now here we are.  How many D's are there?   
Last I heard there were 11.

Only according to superstring theory which is unproveable, so we are stuck with the 4 we know and love.

Quote from: Stash on May 15, 2022, 03:46:49 PM

Here's the other half of the Globebusters team inadvertently showing evidence for a rotating earth:

People like these really make me question my views on these youtube FEers.
Surely they have to know Earth is round and they are just conning people. They couldn't really be delusional enough to think they are correct.
But then they go and do stuff like this and I just think "WTF?"
What were you expecting?

They are trying to be the smartest people in the room by producing arguments they think cannot be proven wrong. They are only kidding themselves.

That tollerance typically means you cannot tell the difference between Earth being flat or curved.
Like I said before, if you had a structure which is 400 m wide, the change in angle between the walls would be a mere 0.0036 degrees.
That is beyond the scope of most levels, and you can't directly measure that angle. Instead you need to have a reference, and then construct a line parallel to it, which will introduce their own tolerances, and then measure.

You've just admitted your 'curvature' cannot even be measured, so you have no argument at all, just worthless claims.

Levels ALWAYS measure for flat, straight across lines, paths and surfaces, there IS no 'curves' at all to be measured, they don't exist.

Your argument is based on a non-existent ball Earth fairy tale, with non-existent magical forces,  nothing more.

If a 757 flies for 6 hours at level flight, it measures level over, or less than, the plane's length, which is about 160 feet. It measures level repeatedly, over that 6 hour period, and flies about 528 mph throughout that time. 528 x 6 = 3168 miles flown by the plane over that time.

Using 8 inches per mile 'curvature', the plane would fly over 3168 x 8 = 25344 inches, or 2112 feet of 'curvature'.

If 'curvature' DID exist, planes would HAVE to adjust for it on flights. But they never do.

A 2112 foot drop doesn't exist, that's why nobody needs to account for it on flights, even if they COULD account for it, that is.

Planes measure for level flight with the VSI, for example. The VSI measures air pressure around the plane, and when equal pressure is measured, that is indicated as level flight, on the VSI, in 0 feet per minute. If in an ascent, or descent, no matter HOW slight it is, the VSI measures it in X feet per minute ascent/descent. The altimeter also indicates a change in altitude, higher or lower, at the same time.

To measure for 'curvature', a constant DESCENT would be required throughout the flight, to account for the 'curvature' of Earth below it.

So at 8 inches per mile of 'curvature', a 757 flying at 528 mph covers 8.8 miles per minute, and 70.4 inches of 'curvature', is 5.866 feet per minute.

Which means, if 'curvature' existed, planes would have to measure about 5.866 fpm DESCENT, over the entire flight, in order to match up with the Earth's 'curvature'!

Of course, that's why your side made up a magical non-existent 'force', in the first place!

All our instruments measure for level, which is ACTUALLY level, a flat, straight across line, path, or surface.

If 'curvature' DID exist, planes would HAVE to adjust for it on flights. But they never do.

Uh, why are you so sure they don't?  You haven't given any evidence why you think this isn't the case.

Have you bothered to do the math here?  I guess not.  Let me help.

The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference.  A plane flying around the would would have to adjust their pitch 360 degrees to fly all the way around it.

At 500 mph, a plane has to adjust it's pitch by 500/25000*360 = 7.2 degrees an hour.

That is 0.12 degrees a minute.  0.002 degrees a second.

That is so small that it's impossible to notice while inside. Do you have any IDEA how subtle 0.002 degrees a second is?  It's drowned out by air turbulence and the fact that even modern aircraft controls don't fly perfectly straight, planes are always adjusting and will handle that tiny adjustment automatically.  Running up and down the length of the airplane is going to make it tilt more than that.

This is why this tired old argument is so terrible. Flat Earthers just have no sense of scale, which is why they are so incredulous about practically everything about the modern world.

To measure for 'curvature', a constant DESCENT would be required throughout the flight, to account for the 'curvature' of Earth below it.

No, that's what LEVEL means.  Planes don't have to descend because they keep the same distance from the ground during level flight.  How hard is basic geometry? Have you tried to draw any of this?  It might help.

You've just admitted your 'curvature' cannot even be measured, so you have no argument at all, just worthless claims.

No, I didn't.
Try reading what I actually said and respond honestly.
Over such a small scale, the curvature is insignificant. You will not be able to measure it, and that means you cannot tell if Earth is flat or curved over such a tiny measurement.
And no honest person would even attempt to measure a tiny area of Earth and declare Earth to be flat or round based on that observation due to both the complete inability to determine which one it is, and the much more significant variation in surface topography.

Over much larger scales, the curvature becomes significant and can easily be measured, but not directly as setup a long straight edge and measure, instead it is measuring things like the angle of dip to the horizon, or carefully surveying a large area and mapping it allowing the surface to curve to make the measurements actually line up.

Levels ALWAYS measure for flat, straight across lines

Repeating the same ignorant nonsense again and again wont magically make it true.
Levels measure for level.
They do this by determining which way is down.
Level is then perpendicular to this direction.
They are not measuring flat, they are not measuring straight.
They are measuring DOWN!
Understand yet?

Perhaps the simplest is to get a few levels and place them in a few different locations with a few different heights.
Just what magical straight line do you think they are measuring?
The simple answer is none because there would be no line going through them.
Instead they are measuring the direction of down.

The closest you get to measuring straight is a laser level, and even they do not have enough accuracy to measure the curvature over a small distance.

If a 757 flies for 6 hours at level flight

It will follow the curvature of Earth by maintaining level flight.
Level flight means it will not increase nor decrease in altitude. Instead its altitude will remain constant.

Using 8 inches per mile 'curvature', the plane would fly over 3168 x 8 = 25344 inches, or 2112 feet of 'curvature'.

And this just shows more ignorance or wilful dishonesty.
It isn't flying "over" any curvature. It is flying level, slowly curving as it does so.
A more honest way to represent the curve is that if it flies at 1000 km/hr, that equates to 9 degrees per hour, 0.15 degrees per minute.
As a comparison, the hour hand on a clock rotates at roughly 30 degrees per hour.

You are trying to find a rotation much less than the hour hand on a clock.

And with all the adjustments that need to continually be made to maintain level flight due to people moving around in the aircraft and fuel being burnt, that tiny adjustment due to the curvature of Earth will be nothing.

If 'curvature' DID exist, planes would HAVE to adjust for it on flights. But they never do.

The only way they have to adjust for curvature is in navigation, they don't need to fly over any huge peak like you want to pretend.

If you want to claim that they do need to adjust for curvature, clearly explain just what adjustment you think they would need to make.
If you can't, you are just repeating baseless nonsense.

Planes measure for level flight with the VSI, for example. The VSI measures air pressure around the plane, and when equal pressure is measured, that is indicated as level flight, on the VSI, in 0 feet per minute.

Which means when following the curvature of Earth they will be flying level, with a VSI of 0.
Do you understand that? Following the curvature of Earth means they are neither ascending nor descending. Instead they are remaining level, at the same altitude.

To measure for 'curvature', a constant DESCENT would be required throughout the flight

No, it wouldn't, as above.
To see just how stupid your claim is, consider a plane going back the other way (from B to A). That is exactly the same situation and should likewise need to descend.
According to your delusional nonsense and a tiny bit of rational thought, that means that the air must be lower at B, so the plane going from A to B records a descent. But for the plane going from B to A to record a descent, that means the pressure needs to be lower at A.
So that means the pressure at A must be lower than the pressure at B which must be lower than the pressure at A, meaning the pressure at A needs to be lower than the pressure at A.
This is an impossibility and demonstrates your complete lack of understanding (or your dishonest presentation) of the RE model.

In the actual RE model, which works so well to describe reality (unlike the FE fantasy), has the air pressure the same at A and B, ignoring minor variations due to weather.
What this means is the plane flies level from A to B, and from B to A. There is no descent nor ascent required (other than take-off and landing).

Of course, that's why your side made up a magical non-existent 'force', in the first place!

Do you mean the force that meets all your requirements for being a real force, which you don't like because it shows your delusional nonsense is wrong, so you need to repeatedly lie about it and pretend it is magic, unlike your pure magic of things just magically falling down for no reason at all?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 14, 2022, 04:58:05 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 14, 2022, 02:36:36 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 14, 2022, 01:50:31 AM

No, they don't.
According to https://www.topconlaser.com.au/accuracy_laser_levels
the accuracy of a laser level is 1.5 mm at 30 m.
The drop due to curvature over 30 m is 0.07 mm.

If you extend that out to 400 m, the maximum range of the laser, that error grows to 20 mm, while the curvature only grows to 12.6 mm.

The change in angle would only be 0.0036 degrees.

The laser level is not accurate enough to measure the curvature.

Unlike all OTHER instruments which DO measure your 'curvature', somehow?

So laser levels, which are used in surgical procedures because of their accuracy, cannot measure your ball Earth's curve at all? You better tell all our surgeons to stop using laser instruments at ONCE!

Do you know that they are calibrated before they're used? Calibration of instruments is for accuracy, and range of error, or tolerance.

And don't make up this BS about their accuracy BEING 1.5 mm over 30 m distance, they must be WITHIN 1.5 mm accurate, not BEING at 1.5 mm, don't lie, it won't work, so stop the BS.

Earth at the round earth diameter of 12,700km
How many sides would a 30m/side polygon do you think would be possible?



https://images.app.goo.gl/fyCHX3dvX4DZqrjW7




Oh why i use dia?
Circumference makes more sense

40,000km / 0.03km = 1,333,333sides.

Ok so whats angle between polygon of N = 1,333,333?

360/1,333,333= really small number.
Lets see any walmart protractor have that accuracy

Did this get addresssd?

So i see a comment ref an airplane thats 160m long flying at some assumed 10,000m.
Lets say we still working with the 40,000km (40,000,000m) cirucmference.
Thats a 250,000piece polygon.
What angle is that per segment?

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 20, 2022, 04:05:03 PM

If 'curvature' DID exist, planes would HAVE to adjust for it on flights. But they never do.

Uh, why are you so sure they don't?  You haven't given any evidence why you think this isn't the case.

Have you bothered to do the math here?  I guess not.  Let me help.

The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference.  A plane flying around the would would have to adjust their pitch 360 degrees to fly all the way around it.

At 500 mph, a plane has to adjust it's pitch by 500/25000*360 = 7.2 degrees an hour.

That is 0.12 degrees a minute.  0.002 degrees a second.

That is so small that it's impossible to notice while inside. Do you have any IDEA how subtle 0.002 degrees a second is?  It's drowned out by air turbulence and the fact that even modern aircraft controls don't fly perfectly straight, planes are always adjusting and will handle that tiny adjustment automatically.  Running up and down the length of the airplane is going to make it tilt more than that.

This is why this tired old argument is so terrible. Flat Earthers just have no sense of scale, which is why they are so incredulous about practically everything about the modern world.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 20, 2022, 04:05:03 PM

To measure for 'curvature', a constant DESCENT would be required throughout the flight, to account for the 'curvature' of Earth below it.

No, that's what LEVEL means.  Planes don't have to descend because they keep the same distance from the ground during level flight.  How hard is basic geometry? Have you tried to draw any of this?  It might help.

Level means flat, and straight across, nothing about 'curves', or 'curving', which is the very OPPOSITE of being level, flat, and straight across!

Spheres are always CURVED surfaces, they are NEVER level, flat, and straight across, only less or more curved than other spheres are, but ALL are curved surfaces, NEVER flat, or level, or straight across!

If you think a sphere can appear without any 'curves', if it is large enough, think again!

Look at any horizon, 3 miles across, or 200 miles across, or longer - they are ALWAYS flat, and straight across the Earth!

If Earth was a sphere, it cannot have ANY flat, straight horizons on it. All would be 'curving' horizons, if it was actually a 'ball Earth'.

What you don't realize, is that EVERY horizon on a ball Earth, would appear curved, no matter how SLIGHT a curve it may be, or it cannot POSSIBLY be a ball-shaped Earth.

In a 3 mile wide horizon, it would 'curve' by about 24 inches across, with 12 inches lower on each side of it, a 12 inch RISE in the middle of it, which you claim is 'too small to see or measure', but that claim is complete BS.

We can, and do, measure slopes over that same distance, and longer, which slope LESS than 12 inches up or down, with precise instruments, used by surveyors every day!

Surveyors actually ASSUME surfaces are flat, beforehand. They never assume it is CURVED, which would mean it is NOT curved, or they would ASSUME it was always curved, instead of flat, as they ACTUALLY do, all the time!

If they believed the Earth's surface was curved, MEASURED as a curve of 8 inches per mile, wouldn't they actually ASSUME it was 'curved', too? Sure they would, it'd make sense to assume that it's curved, if it really WAS 'curved'!

There's no possible reason to assume something is not true, while KNOWING it is NOT true, and knowing what IS true, to make up something FALSE instead! Nobody would do that, it's stupid, and completely foolish....

In reality, in the real world, in real surveying, for real projects, on Earth, which ARE really done, and always HAVE been done before, and today, surveyors know the Earth's surface is flat, that's why they ASSUME it is flat, because it IS flat, or nobody would ASSUME it is, because it would be completely stupid, worthless, and foolish.

As the experts in Earth's surface, and MEASURING the Earth's surface, they assume it is FLAT, and if you think they would assume that, if it was NOT flat, but that it was CURVED, you must believe they're all stupid, and have no idea what they're talking about!

But of course, when they assume it is flat, because they know it is, and operate on that basis, for their projects, and those projects work from that assumption, afterwards, those people who are lying about Earth being a ball, have to make up excuses for assuming it is flat, for a ball Earth cannot be flat, so assuming it is flat, crushes the ball Earth lie.

So they made up an excuse, that claims when surveyors always assume the surface is FLAT, they are really NOT saying that it IS flat, of course! When they assume it is flat, it's only for SMALLER areas they survey, and not the LARGER areas on Earth, which nobody surveys for actual projects on Earth, which are BUILT on Earth!

They claim to assume it is flat, means it doesn't MATTER at all, so assuming it is flat, has no relevance to small areas, so it's okay to assume it's flat, for no actual reason at all!

I'm supposed to believe that when they assume it is flat, they know it is NOT flat at all, but it's not relevant to assume it's curved, for small areas, so that's why it's assumed to be flat, instead of curved!

If 'curvature' is 'irrelevant', to measure over smaller areas, they'd assume it WAS a curved surface, but not relevant to measure for it, on smaller surfaces, which would make sense, if they thought it was curved, and Earth was a ball. 

Whether or not small areas are relevant to measure as a curved surface, or not, doesn't explain why they'd assume it was FLAT, because it's EXTREMELY relevant to assume that, and your attempt to shrug it off as not relevant doesn't wash at all.

They never, ever assume things that aren't true, aren't accepted as true, aren't believed to be true, aren't considered true, or at least, taken to be true, regarded as true, practiced as true, in work, and so forth....

Smaller areas, come on, that's a joke!

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 15, 2022, 05:32:53 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 14, 2022, 04:58:05 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 14, 2022, 02:36:36 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 14, 2022, 01:50:31 AM

No, they don't.
According to https://www.topconlaser.com.au/accuracy_laser_levels
the accuracy of a laser level is 1.5 mm at 30 m.
The drop due to curvature over 30 m is 0.07 mm.

If you extend that out to 400 m, the maximum range of the laser, that error grows to 20 mm, while the curvature only grows to 12.6 mm.

The change in angle would only be 0.0036 degrees.

The laser level is not accurate enough to measure the curvature.

Unlike all OTHER instruments which DO measure your 'curvature', somehow?

So laser levels, which are used in surgical procedures because of their accuracy, cannot measure your ball Earth's curve at all? You better tell all our surgeons to stop using laser instruments at ONCE!

Do you know that they are calibrated before they're used? Calibration of instruments is for accuracy, and range of error, or tolerance.

And don't make up this BS about their accuracy BEING 1.5 mm over 30 m distance, they must be WITHIN 1.5 mm accurate, not BEING at 1.5 mm, don't lie, it won't work, so stop the BS.

Earth at the round earth diameter of 12,700km
How many sides would a 30m/side polygon do you think would be possible?



https://images.app.goo.gl/fyCHX3dvX4DZqrjW7




Oh why i use dia?
Circumference makes more sense

40,000km / 0.03km = 1,333,333sides.

Ok so whats angle between polygon of N = 1,333,333?

360/1,333,333= really small number.
Lets see any walmart protractor have that accuracy

Did this get addresssd?

So i see a comment ref an airplane thats 160m long flying at some assumed 10,000m.
Lets say we still working with the 40,000km (40,000,000m) cirucmference.
Thats a 250,000piece polygon.
What angle is that per segment?

Whats the angle per segment?

Turbonium, you can have a flat and level surface over a sphere.

You also have a flat horizontal horizon whilst standing on a very large sphere, or if you bring your eye in close to a large sphere and look straight ahead. The horizon ahead on the sphere will be flat and horizontal. The horizon only starts to curve when you're viewpoint has moved far enough away from the sphere. Just as it is here on Earth.

You are correct that in the tiny arenas surveyors work, on this planet, working off the assumption the Earth they are dealing with is flat, is perfectly fine. The curvature over a small area is negligible.

However if those same surveyors are working on a very long tunnel which must meet in the middle, it is imperative those surveyors factor in Earth's curvature, otherwise they won't meet together perfectly. The same with very long bridges.

Earth curvature also means the uprights at the ends of very long bridges are slightly further apart from one another at the top than at ground level. Surveyors and bridge builders need to factor the difference in. 

So after repeatedly having your ass handed to you over the plane you now run away yet again to topics already covered. How dishonest of you.
Are you even going to admit that planes wouldn't need to descend to remain level above a curved Earth, which means maintaining the same altitude?

Level means flat

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same pathetic lie, it wont make it true.

You already described what level means for a plane, and that is sticking to the same air pressure.
That is not straight, that is not flat.

Spheres are always CURVED surfaces, they are NEVER level

They can most certainly be level.

Look at any horizon

Clear evidence of the curvature, as the horizon wouldn't exist for a FE.
A circle (not straight line), centred on a point below you, with a distance depending on your altitude.
Just what you would expect for a RE, and nothing like what you would expect for a FE.

they are ALWAYS flat, and straight across the Earth!

They are never straight.
We have been over this.
Again, repeating the same lie wont help you.
The horizon curves, it is a circle.

that EVERY horizon on a ball Earth, would appear curved

And it does, appearing to curve to complete a circle around you.
So just what is the problem.

In a 3 mile wide horizon, it would 'curve' by about 24 inches across, with 12 inches lower on each side of it, a 12 inch RISE in the middle of it, which you claim is 'too small to see or measure', but that claim is complete BS.

And where are you getting these numbers from?
The horizon would be at the same angle of dip all around.
If you are trying to calculate the curvature of Earth from 8 inches per mile squared, that would be a great circle, which is obstructed by the horizon.

We can, and do, measure slopes over that same distance, and longer, which slope LESS than 12 inches up or down, with precise instruments, used by surveyors every day!

And those same surveyors can and do measure the curvature of Earth.
They measure things like the angle of dip to the horizon.
They know Earth is curved.

You can spout as much delusional BS you want about them, but it will remain as your delusional BS.

If 'curvature' is 'irrelevant', to measure over smaller areas, they'd assume it WAS a curved surface

You sure do love showing your ignorance.
The math for a flat surface is quite simple. It is significantly harder for a round surface.
So if you are just dealing with a small area, where the curvature has no effect, it is easier to treat it as flat and know that the curvature wont cause a problem.

The real killer is if they knew it was flat, they wouldn't need to assume it was flat.
In reality, they can assume a small area is flat to simply the math even though they know it isn't.

They never, ever assume things that aren't true, aren't accepted as true, aren't believed to be true, aren't considered true, or at least, taken to be true, regarded as true, practiced as true

Do you understand what the word "assume" means?

Turbonium, you can have a flat and level surface over a sphere.

You also have a flat horizontal horizon whilst standing on a very large sphere, or if you bring your eye in close to a large sphere and look straight ahead. The horizon ahead on the sphere will be flat and horizontal. The horizon only starts to curve when you're viewpoint has moved far enough away from the sphere. Just as it is here on Earth.

You are correct that in the tiny arenas surveyors work, on this planet, working off the assumption the Earth they are dealing with is flat, is perfectly fine. The curvature over a small area is negligible.

However if those same surveyors are working on a very long tunnel which must meet in the middle, it is imperative those surveyors factor in Earth's curvature, otherwise they won't meet together perfectly. The same with very long bridges.

Earth curvature also means the uprights at the ends of very long bridges are slightly further apart from one another at the top than at ground level. Surveyors and bridge builders need to factor the difference in.

They have NEVER accounted for, measured for, designed in any drawings for, and never once given any RATE for 'curvature', within any of their documents, or papers, even once, nor do those who claim they did, mention any rate used by them, or cite sources for it, either.

That's what makes this funny, they claim it accounted for 'curvature', without any rate, or what they did to account for it, specifically, based on documents, or anything at all of proof...

What is the rate of 'curvature' they used, in their 'accounting' for it?

You have no clue, or if they even DID mention any rate, or account for any 'curvature' at all, do you?

You don't know anything is true, or if it is complete BS, nor does anyone else know it, nor do I know it.

But I don't pretend it is a proven fact, or something, because it is NOT.

You act like it is, while you have no CLUE about it.


Get serious.

The horizon curves, it is a circle.

And it does, appearing to curve to complete a circle around you.
So just what is the problem.


The math for a flat surface is quite simple. It is significantly harder for a round surface.
So if you are just dealing with a small area, where the curvature has no effect, it is easier to treat it as flat and know that the curvature wont cause a problem.

The real killer is if they knew it was flat, they wouldn't need to assume it was flat.
In reality, they can assume a small area is flat to simply the math even though they know it isn't.

What are they assuming the surface is flat, if it's not thought to be flat, at all?

There is supposedly an actual RATE for your 'curvature', is there not? You never mention it, or anyone else does, so does it have a rate?

What is important about having an actual RATE for 'curvature', is very obvious to see.

A rate allows for actual measurements of 'curvature', in the real world, but there's nothing to be measured of it, and that's the main problem here.

Levels measure for flat, straight surfaces, and so forth, which prove Earth's surface IS flat.

Curves can ALSO be measured, and have been measured, but for one, specific curve, supposedly over the Earth's entire surface. It is quite strange, that we can measure all OTHER curves, on Earth, but that one! 

We never measure curves with levels, they measure for FLAT, straight across surfaces, paths, and lines.

How are curves measured on Earth, if not with levels? It is much, much more difficult to measure curved surfaces, than it is to measure for flat surfaces, with levels.

Curved surfaces have a 'radius', since curves will vary, being some are more sharply curved than others are, for example.

Supposedly Earth has a rate of 'curvature', which is 8 inches per mile, each mile squared afterwards, as a ball, or sphere, will curve MORE and MORE by more distance along it, from one point outward on it.

This is one of the main failures for your a ball Earth. It should curve more and more with greater distance away, yet it does not, whatsoever.

Buildings seen from over 50 miles away would NEVER be seen, if there was 'curvature' of Earth.

That alone proves 'curvature' doesn't exist, which means Earth is NOT a ball, either.

You don't have any sort of excuse for that, there isn't one, you just point to the bottoms of these buildings, as not being seen because of 'curvature', that they'd be seen if Earth was flat. That's simply not why the bottoms can't be seen, this is due to perspective and vanishing point over a long distance. Same as why parallel lines or objects appear to be CONVERGING in the distance, is due to perspective and vanishing point. You ignore THAT illusion, though, it doesn't help your ball Earth story. You also ignore the illusion of a rising horizon in the distance, too. It doesn't help your story either. You also ignore the fact horizons are all flat, and straight across Earth, that's no good for your story at all!

No, you ignore all these illusions we see, and point to objects not seen BEYOND the flat, straight horizon, as your 'curvature' suddenly showing up! All the OTHER illusions are ignored, only the ONE illusion matters to you, and it is NOT an illusion, either! The horizon isn't rising, but has a 'curve' on it, and it's a 'real curve', too!

They have NEVER accounted for, measured for, designed in any drawings for, and never once given any RATE for 'curvature', within any of their documents, or papers, even once, nor do those who claim they did, mention any rate used by them, or cite sources for it, either.

Wilful rejection of reality wont help your case.

That's what makes this sad. All you can do is just outright reject reality and reject anything which doesn't match your delusional fantasy to pretend you are correct.
You are arguing from a position of absence of evidence by just rejecting any evidence that shows you are wrong.

LIGO was constructed, taking the curvature of Earth into account. They needed to do this or the lasers wouldn't align.

What is the rate of 'curvature' they used, in their 'accounting' for it?

Most likely something along the lines of 0.000157 / km

nor do I know it.
But I don't pretend it is a proven fact

This entire time you have been pretending your delusional fantasy is fact.
You have been repeatedly asserting pure nonsense, with no evidence at all, acting like you know everything.
Yet now you come and admit that you don't know?

What are they assuming the surface is flat, if it's not thought to be flat, at all?

Do you mean why? If so, that was addressed above.
The math for a curved surface is more complex than for a flat surface, and over a small area the difference is insignificant.
The tolerance of the parts used to build structures over a small area would far outweigh the effects of curvature.

You never mention it

You sure do love rejecting reality don't you?
What did I say in this post:

The curvature is ~0.157 per m.

It sure seems like I do mention it.
But I do now notice that had a typo.
That should have been 0.157 per Mm.

Levels measure for

DOWN.
Repeating the same BS wont change that.
Levels measure the direction of down.
They do not magically measure any magical straight line. They have no capability to do so.
As such, they don't prove Earth is flat at all.

Curves can ALSO be measured, and have been measured, but for one, specific curve, supposedly over the Earth's entire surface. It is quite strange, that we can measure all OTHER curves, on Earth, but that one!

The curvature of Earth has been measured, repeatedly.
You not liking that fact will not change it.

We never measure curves with levels

Likewise, we never measure flats with levels.
Instead we measure directionality with levels.

This is one of the main failures for your a ball Earth. It should curve more and more with greater distance away

Not by any significant amount.
Do you understand what curving is?
A circle has a constant rate of curvature.
That means it curves the same all the way along.
Something that curves more and more would be a spiral.

So no, that is just another failure of yours.

Buildings seen from over 50 miles away would NEVER be seen, if there was 'curvature' of Earth.

You have spouted that BS before, and had it refuted before.
That entirely depends on the height of the building and the height of the observer.

The amount hidden (ignoring refraction), and using the parabolic approximation is given by (d - sqrt(2Rh))^2/(2R).
That means if you are high enough, or the building is tall enough, you can see it.
I had even previously given you an example:

For a distance of 80 km, the drop would be ~502 m.
If you were viewing it from an elevation of 100 m, with standard refraction, the horizon would be roughly 39 km away and the amount hidden would be roughly 116 m.

That alone is enough to show your blatant dishonesty and how far removed from reality your position is.
You make broad sweeping statements which are trivial to show are false.

What is a massive failure of the FE, and which proves Earth isn't flat, is the fact that over these long distances the bottoms of the buildings are obscured and it appears the buildings have sunk into Earth.
So that alone proves you are completely wrong.

this is due to perspective and vanishing point over a long distance. Same as why parallel lines or objects appear to be CONVERGING in the distance

The vanishing point is infinitely far away and makes parallel lines appear to converge to a point.
It doesn't magically make the bottoms of buildings sink below the horizon.
If Earth was flat, then the further away the building was, the higher it should appear. So unless you have a mountain in the way, there is nothing to obstruct the view.
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just not accepting your blatant lies about it.

And in fact, you were the one ignoring this effect of perspective, when you dishonestly claimed that there should be no horizon and the ground shouldn't appear to rise on a RE.
But perspective still works in reality (on a round Earth).
As has been explained repeatedly, on a RE, initially perspective wins, and the ground appears to rise as it gets further away. But eventually, curvature wins and the ground appears to sink. This is what creates the horizon, where the more distant ground would need to appear lower than the closer ground.
This is what causes distant buildings to appear to have sunk into Earth.

The horizon isn't the point where Earth starts curving, it is the point where curvature starts beating perspective.

On a FE, the ground should never stop appearing to rise. It should continue to rise forever, with the bottom of the building always appearing higher than the nearer ground meaning you should see it clearly above the near ground.
That also means no horizon.

All of this has already been explained to you, but you ignore it and spout pure BS instead, all to try and prop up your fantasy.

You also ignore the fact horizons are all flat, and straight

That isn't a fact, it is your blatant you keep on repeating because you can't accept reality.
If the horizon was straight you would not be able to follow it around in a circle as you turn around on the spot.
And circles are flat. The horizon is a flat circle cantered below you.
The curve you want to see is a great circle of Earth which is obstructed by the horizon.

They have NEVER accounted for, measured for, designed in any drawings for, and never once given any RATE for 'curvature', within any of their documents, or papers, even once, nor do those who claim they did, mention any rate used by them, or cite sources for it, either.

Who's "they"? There are plenty of they's:



From USGS:

Local Coordinate System - Earth Curvature


LIGO:
Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are so long that the curvature of the Earth is a measurable 1 meter (vertical) over the 4 km length of each arm. The most precise concrete pouring and leveling imaginable was required to counteract this curvature and ensure that LIGO’s vacuum chambers were truly "flat" and level. Without this work, LIGO's lasers would hit the end of each arm 1 m above the mirrors it is supposed to bounce off of!

Look it up.

Quote from: JJA on May 20, 2022, 04:35:19 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 20, 2022, 04:05:03 PM

If 'curvature' DID exist, planes would HAVE to adjust for it on flights. But they never do.

Uh, why are you so sure they don't?  You haven't given any evidence why you think this isn't the case.

Have you bothered to do the math here?  I guess not.  Let me help.

The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference.  A plane flying around the would would have to adjust their pitch 360 degrees to fly all the way around it.

At 500 mph, a plane has to adjust it's pitch by 500/25000*360 = 7.2 degrees an hour.

That is 0.12 degrees a minute.  0.002 degrees a second.

That is so small that it's impossible to notice while inside. Do you have any IDEA how subtle 0.002 degrees a second is?  It's drowned out by air turbulence and the fact that even modern aircraft controls don't fly perfectly straight, planes are always adjusting and will handle that tiny adjustment automatically.  Running up and down the length of the airplane is going to make it tilt more than that.

This is why this tired old argument is so terrible. Flat Earthers just have no sense of scale, which is why they are so incredulous about practically everything about the modern world.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 20, 2022, 04:05:03 PM

To measure for 'curvature', a constant DESCENT would be required throughout the flight, to account for the 'curvature' of Earth below it.

No, that's what LEVEL means.  Planes don't have to descend because they keep the same distance from the ground during level flight.  How hard is basic geometry? Have you tried to draw any of this?  It might help.

Level means flat, and straight across, nothing about 'curves', or 'curving', which is the very OPPOSITE of being level, flat, and straight across!

Spheres are always CURVED surfaces, they are NEVER level, flat, and straight across, only less or more curved than other spheres are, but ALL are curved surfaces, NEVER flat, or level, or straight across!

I see you entirely ignored my comments on planes flight and have swerved into another random rant. 

Is your ENTIRE argument about the earth being flat based on your inability to understand the definitions of level? 

LEVEL
adjective
1. having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps.
2. at the same height as someone or something else.

You are fixated on the first definition while seemingly incapable of understanding there is a second, and THAT applies to objects like a round planet.

Your ENTIRE reply is based on you not understanding this. I

If you think a sphere can appear without any 'curves', if it is large enough, think again!

Again, you are demonstrating an inability to understand scale, and are just incredulous you can't measure the curve of the Earth with a 6 inch ruler.

Same with the idea of planes flying around the world and slowly tilting to follow the curve.  All of your problems stem from your inability to grasp scale, which is just bizarre. Thank god you're not an engineer designing things people's lives depend on.

What you don't realize, is that EVERY horizon on a ball Earth, would appear curved, no matter how SLIGHT a curve it may be, or it cannot POSSIBLY be a ball-shaped Earth.

How many times do we have to have THIS argument? Spheres are not some magical construct that can't be explored, it's BASIC GEOMETRY and if your mind can't imagine what standing on a vast sphere would look like, that's your problem.

You are arguing that math and geometry are wrong, which is utterly insane.  But it always comes back to these delusions, doesn't it. The names change, the bad arguments stay the same.

And the denials of reality remain the same, claiming things NEVER happen just because you say so, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Get some new arguments, or get an argument at all.

Hey turbo

Why wont you respond?