My impossible challenge for FE'ers

Surveying is about accurate measurements of the surface,

And your just going to ignore a cited experiment that proved / measured the earth’s curvature.

Ok.  Anything to keep your delusion alive.   Or keep your trolling going for attention. 

He ignores my repeated question on how circles amd triangles work.

Of course he ll ignore your thing too.

 

 

The laser level is aligned, or squared, precisely, beforehand. It's height above sea level, or 0 feet altitude, is also set.

If you are measuring something's "height above sea level", to an accuracy of less then 1/4 inch, are you counting from the peaks or the troughs?  Are you taking into account barometric pressure to three decimals?  On what are you basing "0 feet altitude"?

And the amount they would need to curve would be hidden in the noise.
They would not be able to tell, not without incredibly precise equipment.

Again, when planes are flying, they maintain their altitude.
The pilot or autopilot will constantly be adjusting the plane to do so.
As they do that, there is no need for them to specifically account for the curvature.

Because there IS no 'curvature' to ever ACCOUNT for!

For example, a 757 flies at about 500 mph (or 850 km/h) cruising speed, which is 8.33 miles per minute.

1 mile of 'curvature' is about 8 inches. So a 757 would fly over 8.33 x 8" 'curvature' per minute, every minute of flight, which is 66.64" of 'curvature' per minute, or 5.55 feet 'curvature' each  minute.

Planes MEASURE level flight, with instruments like the VSI, or Vertical Speed Indicator, linked to  the Altimeter. When a plane ascends from ground, the VSI measures it in FPM, or Feet Per Minute in ascent, while the altimeter measures all of it in feet above ground, where it started from. If the plane was at sea level, for example, the altimeter reads 0 feet altitude. If the plane was 200 feet above sea level, the altimeter reads 200 feet altitude, even if it's still on the ground itself.

When the plane ascends to, say, 35,000 feet within, say, 15 minutes time, the VSI measures the ascent in Feet Per Minute, throughout the ascent to 35,000 feet within a 15 minute period.

Of course, the ascent varies over that period, ascends slower at take off than afterwards, with more speed, with less air resistance when higher up, and is measured throughout, by their instruments.

Any ascent or descent will be measured by the VSI in FPM, which is also measured by the altimeter, in feet above ground, or sea level, which is 0 feet altitude.

You believe planes simply 'adjust' to a 'curvature', no need to even MEASURE for it, or ever ACCOUNT for it! 

No, planes don't HAVE to account for 'curvature', and they don't HAVE to measure for 'curvature', since there ISN'T any 'curvature' TO account for, TO measure for!

The VSI measures ANY ascent or descent within air, by any variance in air pressure, when at LEVEL flight in air. Which really means, in EQUAL, in OPTIMUM air pressure.

There's only ONE way to fly in air, at equal air pressure, or in optimal flight, which is level to the air above Earth, same as level ON the Earth, because Earth is flat, and level, and air flows above the Earth in flat, horizontal paths, which is why level flight, is the optimal path to FLY in air.

If there WAS any actual 'curvature' of the Earth's whole surface, of about 8 inches per one mile distance, and squared per additional mile, it's certainly something we can measure, if it exists. But we cannot measure anything of it, because it does NOT exist.

So if a 757 flew over 'curvature', it would have to fly a CURVED path, it's the only path it COULD fly in, to match the CURVED surface below it. 

That's simple to understand, a plane must fly a curved path, over a curved surface, but a level, flat path, over a level, flat surface. 

To claim planes fly over a curved surface, at altitude, you must fly in curved paths.

And we'd have to measure these curved paths, same as any OTHER path would be measured.

The descent of our 757, at 500 mph, if it WERE a curved surface, would be something like 5-6 feet per minute of a CONSTANT descent, to match up with a curved surface, and it's absurd to claim this happens by itself, in all planes, just because you say so! 


If planes DID fly over a curved surface, in a curved path above it, they'd measure it as a descent, and in several feet per minute, which means, there's no descent, no curved paths flown at all.

When you refuse to accept our measurements, with our instruments, that show, again and again, the Earth is flat, and measures as flat, every way possible TO measure it, without fakery involved, you'll believe it, anyway.

Any argument which hopes to change the very DEFINITION of a word, or term, is doomed to fail. Or already HAS failed.

To measure descent, or ascent, is very important to know, and it's very well known, today.

Nobody has ever said, 'Level doesn't measure level as flat and straight across, but it's used that way, and works perfectly that way, it's really level to the Earth's 'curvature', if it could ever be MEASURED anywhere at all. Just because nobody can prove it exists, by any sort of measurement, doesn't mean it's all just made up crap, or anything!


I'd like you to explain how our VSI measures a descent, or an ascent, in feet per minute, all the time, every time, day after day, doesn't prove it WILL measure ANY descent or ascent, within our flights...   

A 757

great
you are attempting to display some circle geometry aptitude.


let us know the angle between segments of a 300,000 sided polygon.

Because there IS no 'curvature' to ever ACCOUNT for!

Your baseless assertions are worthless.

Planes MEASURE level flight, with instruments like the VSI, or Vertical Speed Indicator, linked to  the Altimeter.

That's right, they measure LEVEL. With the simplest being air pressure.
They don't magically measure any magical reference plane.

Following the curve, and therefore remaining level, will not require ascent or descent.

You believe planes simply 'adjust' to a 'curvature', no need to even MEASURE for it, or ever ACCOUNT for it!

Yes, because any corrections needed to be made to account for the curvature will be lost in the noise of other corrections they need to make, such as accounting for someone walking from the front of the plane to the back. 

The VSI measures ANY ascent or descent

Which means it wont measure remaining level when following the curve.
If they didn't follow the curve, and instead flew in a magically straight line, then they would record themselves raising in altitude, and they would therefore correct for it.

because Earth is flat, and level

Earth is level, not flat. There is a difference.

If there WAS any actual 'curvature' of the Earth's whole surface, of about 8 inches per one mile distance, and squared per additional mile, it's certainly something we can measure, if it exists.

And we can and have. Just not over tiny areas.
You ignoring that wont change it.

That's simple to understand, a plane must fly a curved path, over a curved surface, but a level, flat path, over a level, flat surface.

You mean it would need to fly a level curved path over a level curved surface.

And we'd have to measure these curved paths, same as any OTHER path would be measured.

Stop just asserting the same pathetic baseless BS.

If you want to claim it would be measured, then PROVE IT!
Clearly explain what magical device you are using to measure it, including explaining how it works, and why this should record level flight over a curved surface as curving.

The descent of our 757, at 500 mph, if it WERE a curved surface, would be something like 5-6 feet per minute of a CONSTANT descent, to match up with a curved surface

No, matching a curved surface would be maintaining altitude, not descending.
If they are descending, they are getting closer to sea level.

If planes DID fly over a curved surface, in a curved path above it, they'd measure it as a descent

No, they wouldn't.
Again, if you wish to assert such BS tell us what magical device they are using to measure this descent.
Also tell us why it should be a descent rather than a decreasing rate of climb.

When you refuse to accept our measurements, with our instruments, that show, again and again, the Earth is flat, and measures as flat

What instruments? What measurements?
So far all you have provided are measurements which cannot tell if Earth is flat or curved.

Any argument which hopes to change the very DEFINITION of a word, or term, is doomed to fail. Or already HAS failed.

Which is why your arguments to try and pretend level means descending or level means magically flat are doomed to fail.

I'd like you to explain how our VSI measures

How about you try explaining how it measures, from first principles, clearly explaining the result expected for a flat earth and a round Earth.

I'm pretty sure I already have explained it, but as you were refuted you just fled from the topic, just like you fled from yet another topic after being repeatedly refuted.
It truly is pathetic.
You spout pure BS, have it refuted repeatedly with you completely incapable of defending your BS, only to flee from it, only to bring up the same refuted BS again later.
Do you think it will magically work this time after such a pathetic failure last time?

No, matching a curved surface would be maintaining altitude, not descending.
If they are descending, they are getting closer to sea level.

The plane itself is flying in air, and measures the pressure of air, for level flight though that air.

If the plane is NOT flying level in air, it is either in an ascent, or in a descent, within the air. It does NOT matter what the surface is shaped like, far below the plane. Why would it matter at all?

If a plane flies over a mountain range, or the Grand Canyon, does an ascent or descent not occur, because the surface below it is higher, or lower, than at sea level or whatever? No, of course not. The surface plays NO PART in the plane's movements in air.

What planes measure in air, is it's air flow, it's direction over Earth, at any altitude above it.

Air flows level, in optimum state. This is what planes measure for level flight, the optimal path for flight in air, with the least RESISTANCE from it.

You may wish there was a curved surface, with curved air flow above it, but that's a fairy tale story, not the reality.

Recall that a plane measures for level flight around itself, over and over again, during it's flight.

If 'curvature' existed, or the atmosphere was 'curved' like Earth's 'curved' surface below it, what would be the 'curvature' along a plane, which is 400 feet long? About 0.0025 of an inch, or so? Even if there WERE any 'curvature', planes could never measure such a tiny, insignificant fraction like that! It's ridiculous!

Measuring for level, in air, or on the surface, is flat and straight across. Planes measure for level in small sections, over and over again, during flights. It cannot measure 'curvature' of 0.0025 inch, over and over again, although if there WERE 'curvature' of the surface, we'd have to find a way TO measure for it on all flights, because we certainly cannot measure it over millions of little sections along a flight, that's for sure!

If a plane flies over a mountain range, or the Grand Canyon, does an ascent or descent not occur, because the surface below it is higher, or lower, than at sea level or whatever? No, of course not. The surface plays NO PART in the plane's movements in air.

Wrong again...

TAWS/GPWS
Terrain Avoidance and Warning System (TAWS)

Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS)

Enhanced Ground Proximity WarningSystem (EGPWS)

Definition
A system that provides the flightcrew with sufficient information and alerting to detect a potentially hazardous terrain situation and so the flightcrew may take effective action to prevent a CFIT event.

Source: US FAA

Description
A Terrain Avoidance and Warning System (TAWS) is a safety net that automatically provides a distinctive warning to pilots when the their aeroplane is, based only on the radio altimeter reading and terrain closure rates derived therefrom, in potentially hazardous proximity to terrain.

As well, low and high pressures over mountain tops/ridges as well as in canyons can alter a plane's movement and altitude.

Why not ask a pilot and stop just making things up to fit your flawed belief system. You know not of what you speak.

The plane itself is flying in air, and measures the pressure of air, for level flight though that air.

If the plane is NOT flying level in air, it is either in an ascent, or in a descent, within the air. It does NOT matter what the surface is shaped like, far below the plane. Why would it matter at all?

If you don't want the surface to have any affect, then what gives it its directionality?
How does the plane know if it is flying level vs straight up vs straight down?

What planes measure in air, is it's air flow, it's direction over Earth, at any altitude above it.

Wrong again.
They measure pressure, not flow.

Air flows level, in optimum state.

Which just means you are yet again saying "Earth is flat so Earth is flat."
You aren't trying to demonstrate that Earth is flat, you are just baselessly asserting that it is.

You don't even consider what it would be like for Earth in reality, which isn't flat.

This is what planes measure for level flight, the optimal path for flight in air, with the least RESISTANCE from it.

Wrong again.
If they went higher, there would be less air and thus less resistance.
And if you are in air, then for small changes in elevation, it doesn't matter what direction you are going in, other than going with or against the wind.

but that's a fairy tale story, not the reality.

It being a fairy tale is your baseless claim you are yet to substantiate.

It cannot measure 'curvature' of 0.0025 inch, over and over again

And yet again you have refuted yourself.
You boldly assert they must measure it, but now admit that they can't.

we'd have to find a way TO measure for it on all flights

Why?
Yet again you ignore the fact that the corrections pilots are already making during flights would account for any curvature as well. They don't need to make special corrections for it.

To understand why, consider what happens if they don't make any corrections, and instead fly in a magical straight line, well then they end up apparently pitching up and ascending.
They would correct for this by pitching down to maintain level flight.
So your claim that they need to measure for it is pure BS.

The whole idea that they can't measure it but that they would have to is also pure BS which makes no sense at all.
If they had to be able to measure it, that means there must be significant consequences for if they don't measure it, and that means that something which happen which they would then be able to measure to see it.

Stop just spouting pure BS, start trying to justify your claims.

If the plane is NOT flying level in air, it is either in an ascent, or in a descent, within the air.

Why would it if it’s lift is in equilibrium with gravity.  Why would it change altitude if it doesn’t adjust power and / or flight surfaces.

See you still cannot handle experiments showing the earth is spherical….

The Rainy Lake Experiment

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.

The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.

Only one conclusion remains:

The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Lets say it together

CONCENTRIC CIRCLES

Measuring for level, in air, or on the surface, is flat and straight across. Planes measure for level in small sections, over and over again, during flights. It cannot measure 'curvature' of 0.0025 inch, over and over again, although if there WERE 'curvature' of the surface, we'd have to find a way TO measure for it on all flights, because we certainly cannot measure it over millions of little sections along a flight, that's for sure!

Do you even understand “level flight”? 

As pointed out to you in other sites if your the same Turbo…

A airplane can maintain altitude if nose up, or nose down.  It depends on certain aircraft characteristics…

Pitch Trim Principles

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/pitch-trim-principles/?amp=1

Climb and Cruise Trim

If you reduce power for cruise, you’ll need to trim the elevator up slightly to maintain level flight. The higher you fly, the lower your indicated airspeed will be (although your true airspeed may be higher), so the pitch trim setting in cruise flight will usually be more nose-up at higher altitudes and/or lower engine power. As fuel burns off, the center of gravity may change, requiring you to re-trim the airplane slightly. As you should know, if the airplane is trimmed for an indicated airspeed (IAS) slower than your current IAS, it will tend to nose up. If the airplane is trimmed for an IAS faster than your current IAS, it will tend to nose down.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 29, 2022, 01:16:03 AM

Measuring for level, in air, or on the surface, is flat and straight across. Planes measure for level in small sections, over and over again, during flights. It cannot measure 'curvature' of 0.0025 inch, over and over again, although if there WERE 'curvature' of the surface, we'd have to find a way TO measure for it on all flights, because we certainly cannot measure it over millions of little sections along a flight, that's for sure!

Do you even understand “level flight”? 

As pointed out to you in other sites if your the same Turbo…

A airplane can maintain altitude if nose up, or nose down.  It depends on certain aircraft characteristics…

Quote

Pitch Trim Principles

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/pitch-trim-principles/?amp=1

Climb and Cruise Trim

If you reduce power for cruise, you’ll need to trim the elevator up slightly to maintain level flight. The higher you fly, the lower your indicated airspeed will be (although your true airspeed may be higher), so the pitch trim setting in cruise flight will usually be more nose-up at higher altitudes and/or lower engine power. As fuel burns off, the center of gravity may change, requiring you to re-trim the airplane slightly. As you should know, if the airplane is trimmed for an indicated airspeed (IAS) slower than your current IAS, it will tend to nose up. If the airplane is trimmed for an IAS faster than your current IAS, it will tend to nose down.

So,Turbo..

If there is no force of gravity.  Then why does an airplane have to increase power / throttle up to gain altitude?  And change pitch to compensate for changes is center of gravity? 

If you don't want the surface to have any affect, then what gives it its directionality?
How does the plane know if it is flying level vs straight up vs straight down?

By measuring the air pressure during flight, of course.

Air flows HORIZONTALLY, or STRAIGHT and FLAT paths, above the Earth. There is NO 'curved' air paths above your made up ball Earth. 

Objects that are moving across the surface, or above it, encounter air resistance, right?

The path of least air resistance is flat, straight, horizontal paths. Because the AIR flows in flat, horizontal paths across Earth, moving through air in the same paths of air, offers the least RESISTANCE from air.

We only know that air DOES flow in a horizontal path, it isn't relevant to know how it was 'given' that directionality, because if I say it was given by God, who created all things, there's no way to prove it, same as we cannot prove how life was created, or how Earth and all above it was created, we only know there IS life, there is the Earth, not how or who created it all, and that's the same with your question 'How do planes know up from down, or any direction?' We know that air flows horizontally above Earth, and planes measure level flight by air pressure, which moves horizontally above Earth.

You boldly assert they must measure it, but now admit that they can't.

You've completely mistaken my points, I'll go over it again for you...

I said that if 'curvature' DID exist, they WOULD have to measure for it during flights. But I also noted that they could NOT measure for it with instruments we use today on planes.

Of course, we don't NEED such instruments, because there IS no 'curvature' at all. If there really WAS 'curvature', as you believe, and our instruments, as we know, could not MEASURE for it, over a 2-300 foot distance, then all our planes WOULD be way off course, flying level while the surface curves more and more downward below them. The VSI would still measure it as level flight, but the altimeter, which measures air pressure for altitude, combined with the VSI measuring it as level flight, wouldn't match up. If the plane is ascending, the VSI reads it. If the plane flies level, the VSI reads it as level, which means, it is neither in an ascent, nor in a descent.

Yet again you ignore the fact that the corrections pilots are already making during flights would account for any curvature as well. They don't need to make special corrections for it.

It's blatantly obvious to see, that I'm not the one arguing about 'magic', whenever needed.

There's nothing here to ignore, nothing is 'magic', but nice try!

I've heard, over and over again, your very same excuse, that pilots are 'making all the necessary adjustments during flights', which is true - pilots HAVE to adjust to the various conditions during flights, the problem is, you think nobody will notice how you simply 'plopped 'curvature' into it, and then say it's 'adjusted for during flights'!

That's bad enough, since you've also claimed we CANNOT account for 'curvature', over such a short distance, with our instruments. So how can pilots 'adjust' for it, if they can't even MEASURE for it, in the first place?  Of course, that's the 'MAGIC' part of it!
 

To understand why, consider what happens if they don't make any corrections, and instead fly in a magical straight line, well then they end up apparently pitching up and ascending.
They would correct for this by pitching down to maintain level flight.

Again, the only magical part is when you claim it's 'adjusted/accounted for', because you've hijacked the truth again, which is these adjustments have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY 'CURVATURE'! 

They adjust planes during flights, all the time. The part YOU deliberately leave out, is that these adjustments ALWAYS VARY, ON EACH AND EVERY FLIGHT, because those adjustments are for the specific CONDITIONS during ONE flight, and during EACH and EVERY ONE of our flights, and THAT is what they ADJUST for during a flight!
 

The whole idea that they can't measure it but that they would have to is also pure BS which makes no sense at all.
If they had to be able to measure it, that means there must be significant consequences for if they don't measure it, and that means that something which happen which they would then be able to measure to see it.

Right, because if 'curvature' DID exist, as you believe, we'd all know it, and see it, and flying would be far more complicated, risky, etc.

Level flight would never happen, we'd fly curved paths all the time, or always adjust for 'curvature', which would already be calculated for, programmed into instruments, of every plane, and/or measure the plane's speed and altitude during the flight, and calculate the correct path of flight, throughout the entire flight, to account for the 'curvature' below our planes.

It wouldn't even be considered as 'an adjustment', because it would be a REQUIREMENT in all flights, to account for it.

Do you now understand that we do NOT measure for 0.0025 inch of 'curvature', even if it DID exist, with our instruments on planes? That we don't make any of our 'in flight adjustments' for 'curvature', even if it DID exist, because it couldn't even BE measured by our instruments, in the first place?

You should get it, by now

By measuring the air pressure during flight, of course.

Yeah.   Gives you something you can convert to give you height above the earth.


Has nothing to do with the actual pitch of the aircraft.

You

You've completely mistaken my points,

You look ignorant because you will not address this point.

You

If the plane is NOT flying level in air, it is either in an ascent, or in a descent, within the air.

Why would it if it’s lift is in equilibrium with gravity.  Why would it change altitude if it doesn’t adjust power and / or flight surfaces.


Added after thought..

And again… for you that has been presented in multiple threads over different sites…. Definition of level surface..

https://theconstructor.org/surveying/terms-in-leveling-uses/20077/?amp=1

Level surface is the continuous surface parallel to the mean spheroid of the earth. The line representing the level surface is termed as level line.

The level line makes right angles to the vertical line or plumb line at any point. It means the any point on level line is equidistance from the center of earth. Even though it is a curved surface, it is considered as plane surface for smaller area works.

Anyone can twist a well-understood, proven term, like the term LEVEL, or whatever else they want to, so what?

Level is a measurement, and we've measured for level countless times, countless ways, with countless instruments, within air, on the surface, along waters, over floors, shelves, beams, both horizontally, and vertically TO level.

When we measure for level, it means flat and horizontal, because it is. When we build structures, on land, which might have been bumpy, or slanted, or curved, we make it flat and LEVEL, which means it is flat, straight, and horizontal.

Every time we use a level, or any other instrument that measures for level, it means flat, straight, and horizontal.

Your 'curve' is never there, never measured, never found, does not exist, when we measure for level.

A curved surface doesn't exist, isn't seen, isn't measured anywhere. Trying to change the term LEVEL, proven countless times to be flat, straight, and horizontal, is absolutely ridiculous, a made up thing you need to support your fairy tale of a ball Earth speeding through 'space'.

Again, when a plane flies through air, it measures for level within the air, and if you say it is actually level to Earth's 'curvature', I've already explained that it does NOT, because if there WERE 'curvature', planes couldn't ever MEASURE for it, when they measure for level flight, over a 2-300 foot distance, since it would be about 0.0025 inch of a 'curvature', and then another 0.0025 inch of it, again and again, each time, measuring that same 2-300 feet along the flight.

So if there WERE any 'curvature', planes couldn't ever measure for it, and never HAVE measured it, when flying level, and if you think planes can measure a 0.0025 inch of curve, and adjust for it, you are beyond hope.

Planes prove the Earth IS flat, by measuring for level flight, not a 0.0025 inch 'curve', which is absolute nonsense.

Anyone can twist a well-understood, proven term, like the term LEVEL, or whatever else they want to, so what?

Again… this has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Naval and Marine Performance Testing and Simulation


https://dewesoft.com/case-studies/naval-and-marine-performance-testing-and-simulation

There is one huge towing tank of about 500m, so long that the tank has been built following the Earth curvature - as the water surface would do -

Now.  Stop changing the subject.

You

If the plane is NOT flying level in air, it is either in an ascent, or in a descent, within the air.

Why would it if it’s lift is in equilibrium with gravity.  Why would it change altitude if it doesn’t adjust power and / or flight surfaces.

By measuring the air pressure during flight, of course.
Air flows

Notice the change?
You appeal to air pressure, then jump straight into air flow.

You have admitted it is air pressure, so stop discussing air flow as it wont help you.

Instead focus on air pressure.
Planes measure air pressure to determine their altitude.
This means you need the air pressure to change with altitude. So why does it?
And how would this change look for a RE and a FE?

HORIZONTALLY, or STRAIGHT and FLAT paths, above the Earth.

That is your baseless claim, well based upon nothing more than your baseless claim that Earth is flat.
Again, this is effectively you saying Earth is flat so Earth is flat.

If you want to claim these planes prove a FE, you need to show both what is expected for a RE and what is expected for a FE, and you can't just assert that a FE is expected for both.

There is NO 'curved' air paths above your made up ball Earth.

But there are plenty on the very real round Earth we live on.

Objects that are moving across the surface, or above it, encounter air resistance, right?

Objects moving in any direction in the air encounter air resistance.
This includes objects going up and objects going down.
In includes objects going in straight paths and objects going in curved paths.

The path of least air resistance is flat, straight, horizontal paths.

No it isn't.
There is not magically reduced air resistance when going horizontal.
Just what makes you think that?

We only know that air DOES flow in a horizontal path

We know that air flows in all sorts of directions.
But we certainly don't know that it magically only flows in straight horizontal paths.

that's the same with your question 'How do planes know up from down, or any direction?'

No, it is fundamentally different.
Humans designed planes.
And that means someone would have designed it to know which way is up.
The answer you have already pointed out, partially, and that is air pressure.
To complete that explanation you need to say how air pressure varies, and you need to compare that with both models, not just assert it must work like you imagine a FE to.

You've completely mistaken my points, I'll go over it again for you...

No, I haven't.
The simple fact is that due to how insignificant the curvature is, the planes are not able to measure it. It would be lost in the noise from all the corrections they are making.
That means they will not need to measure it as they would already be accounting for it.
If they actually had to account for it, then it would be significant enough for them to be able to measure it.

Look at your delusional nonsense where you want to report it as a ridiculous vertical speed. If that was the case (which it isn't) they would be able to measure the curvature.

I said that if 'curvature' DID exist, they WOULD have to measure for it during flights. But I also noted that they could NOT measure for it with instruments we use today on planes.

Which is a contradiction. As above. If they had to measure it for flights, that means it must be significant enough and not lost in the noise to cause an issue that would produce a measurable result.

flying level while the surface curves more and more downward below them.

And them following that curve to maintain level flight. So still no difference.
Yet again, you are pretending Earth must be flat, to pretend that the atmosphere should behave in a certain way, to pretend that Earth must be flat.
It is no better than saying "If Earth is flat Earth is flat".

The other massive problem with this line of thinking is that you always appeal to it going down.
Why should it always be going down? Why shouldn't it ever be going up?

In fact, the way you have described it is that the plane should be flying with a constant downwards vertical speed, as if after it drops down the first part, this level flight is no longer magically aligned with your magical plane, and instead follows the curve.
But if that is the case, that means the curved path it is following is level flight and that means the VSI should read it as no ascent or descent.

If you truly believed your nonsense you would instead be claiming that the VSI would depend entirely upon where you were flying on this RE.

The VSI would still measure it as level flight, but the altimeter, which measures air pressure for altitude, combined with the VSI measuring it as level flight, wouldn't match up.

Great job contradicting yourself yet again.
You have already stated that they are linked.
If the VSI is measuring it as level flight, the altimeter needs to read it as the same altitude.
That means they must match up.

It's blatantly obvious to see, that I'm not the one arguing about 'magic', whenever needed.

You most certainly are with your magical measuring devices will magically snap to a magical reference plane to magically record any deviation from curvature, and your magical air which is magically flat even on a RE.

I've heard, over and over again, your very same excuse, that pilots are 'making all the necessary adjustments during flights', which is true - pilots HAVE to adjust to the various conditions during flights, the problem is, you think nobody will notice how you simply 'plopped 'curvature' into it, and then say it's 'adjusted for during flights'!

I am not saying that they are specifically measuring curvature to adjust for it. I am saying all the adjustments that would need to be made for curvature would already be taken care of by the adjustments needed to maintain level flight.
That they don't need to do anything special to account for curvature.
And due to that, your claim that planes magically disprove a round Earth is pure BS.

So how can pilots 'adjust' for it, if they can't even MEASURE for it, in the first place?  Of course, that's the 'MAGIC' part of it!

Did you not bother reading what I said directly after that, you even quoted it. Here it is again:

To understand why, consider what happens if they don't make any corrections, and instead fly in a magical straight line, well then they end up apparently pitching up and ascending.
They would correct for this by pitching down to maintain level flight.

Again, the only magical part is when you claim it's 'adjusted/accounted for', because you've hijacked the truth again, which is these adjustments have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY 'CURVATURE'!

No, that is just your dishonesty showing yet again.
These adjustments are to maintain level flight, and will naturally account for everything that would effect that level flight including the curvature of Earth.
I am not saying these adjustments are specific adjustments made to specifically account for the curvature. That is just your strawman because you can't refute what I have actually said.

Right, because if 'curvature' DID exist, as you believe, we'd all know it, and see it, and flying would be far more complicated, risky, etc.

No, it would be exactly as it happens now, with the curvature which exists in reality which you want to ignore.

Level flight would never happen

Why not?
Again, level is not flat.

always adjust for 'curvature', which would already be calculated for, programmed into instruments

Why?
We have already covered how the curvature would already naturally be accounted for by all the corrections needed to maintain level flight.
You don't need to throw in additional corrections to account for the curve.

If Earth was magically flat, all that would happen is the exact adjustments (which you have already admitted vary on every flight) would be slightly different.

Do you now understand that we do NOT measure for 0.0025 inch of 'curvature', even if it DID exist, with our instruments on planes? That we don't make any of our 'in flight adjustments' for 'curvature', even if it DID exist, because it couldn't even BE measured by our instruments, in the first place?

I understand that there is no need to specifically adjust for the curvature, as any adjustments needed are simply adjustments to maintain a specific altitude of VSI or whatever specific altitude condition the plane is already keeping constant, and as such are already accounted for by such adjustments and are lost in the noise of all the other adjustments being made for this purpose.

Do you understand this yet?

If not, tell us why pilots would suddenly decide that because Earth is curved they would no longer fly level and instead they would continually increase in altitude, until someone tells them to specifically account for the curvature (even though this straight path would require them to do exactly that).

Yet again, you have entirely failed to demonstrate that planes magically prove Earth is flat, just like the last time you brought it up and got repeatedly refuted.
How much longer till you flee this time, and will you admit you were wrong this time, or just jump topic or flee the thread?

Anyone can twist a well-understood, proven term, like the term LEVEL, or whatever else they want to, so what?

Like you trying to twist it to mean magically flat?

When we measure for level, it means flat and horizontal

That entirely depends on what you are measuring and how.
For the most part when you measure level you measure a direction.
e.g. a spirit level will measure the direction perpendicular to down. It is not measuring flat.
For a plane, it is measuring altitude, and level flight is maintaining that altitude. And if they are just using air pressure, that is really indicated altitude, which may not match the real altitude as air pressure can vary.

Your 'curve' is never there, never measured, never found, does not exist, when we measure for level.

Only for tiny things where it is insignificant, or for things like a planes altimeter, which fundamentally cannot measure it.
But it certainly has been measured. You not liking that fact doesn't magically make it fiction.

You are yet to demonstrate a single example where you would be able to measure the curve but can't/don't.
Instead you just provide example after example where you cannot tell the difference.

So if there WERE any 'curvature', planes couldn't ever measure for it

The point that has been explained to you is that planes can't tell the difference. So your claim that they magically measure Earth as flat is pure BS.

You admit planes can't measure the curve because of how insignificant it is, so stop acting like they can magically measure its absence.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2022, 01:35:58 AM

If you don't want the surface to have any affect, then what gives it its directionality?
How does the plane know if it is flying level vs straight up vs straight down?

By measuring the air pressure during flight, of course.

Air flows HORIZONTALLY, or STRAIGHT and FLAT paths, above the Earth. There is NO 'curved' air paths above your made up ball Earth. 

Sure there are. Have you ever seen a jetstream? Curves all over the place. Have you ever heard of aerodynamics? Probably not.

Anyone can twist a well-understood, proven term, like the term LEVEL, or whatever else they want to, so what?

Level is a measurement, and we've measured for level countless times, countless ways, with countless instruments, within air, on the surface, along waters, over floors, shelves, beams, both horizontally, and vertically TO level.

Level in respect to the center of earth, i.e., gravity.

You do realize how atmospheric pressure in the air and water is calculated, right? For all sorts of uses across the globe. You get that, right?

It's P=hρg, where P is the pressure, h is the height of the liquid, ρ is the density of the liquid, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

You realize that 'g' is used by millions everywhere to a great deal of success. If we believed you, the world would come crumbling down. Same for level. You have literally no idea what you're talking about and have gone full-on Dunning-Kruger.

Planes prove the Earth IS flat, by measuring for level flight, not a 0.0025 inch 'curve', which is absolute nonsense.

Airplanes do not have levels installed.  Airplanes have altimeters installed.  Once again - an altimeter displays the approximate height above sea level.  Pilots try to keep the plane flying at an intended altitude by referencing the altimeter from time to time.  The same way a car driver checks the speedometer from time to time.  Autopilot in a plane or cruise control in a car do it far more often and maintain airplane altitude and automobile speed more accurately.  Deviations in altitude less than 300 feet are acceptable.  That's not anywhere close to the 0.0025 inch your argument uses.

If you want to claim these planes prove a FE, you need to show both what is expected for a RE and what is expected for a FE, and you can't just assert that a FE is expected for both.


There is not magically reduced air resistance when going horizontal.
Just what makes you think that?


The simple fact is that due to how insignificant the curvature is, the planes are not able to measure it. It would be lost in the noise from all the corrections they are making.
That means they will not need to measure it as they would already be accounting for it.
If they actually had to account for it, then it would be significant enough for them to be able to measure it.

Look at your delusional nonsense where you want to report it as a ridiculous vertical speed. If that was the case (which it isn't) they would be able to measure the curvature.

Or certainly have to ACCOUNT for it, if they cannot measure it.

'Curvature' doesn't exist, so why would we ever HAVE to account for something which doesn't even exist? If it DID exist, then we WOULD have to account for it on every flight, because it would be very, very different than it really is now.

As I said, planes would HAVE to fly curved paths, in order to follow a curved surface below them, on a ball Earth. And planes would measure this curved path as a DESCENT on their instruments like the VSI. One cannot fly over a curved surface, at the same altitude above the curved surface, unless it constantly is in a descent. That's why you need to make up non-existent magical forces within a non-existent ball Earth, a lie to support other lies, since that's all you CAN do - make up more and more lies, to support the FIRST, MAIN LIE - that Earth is a ball, speeding through endless 'space'!

Level flight is when planes fly level WITH the air, because air flows level over Earth, not in a curve, nor angles, nor any other direction either. That doesn't mean there is NO air resistance when flying level to it, but much LESS resistance than any other direction, because air FLOWS level and horizontal above the Earth's flat, horizontal surface.

That's why planes have horizontal stabilizers on their tails, to maintain a horizontal, level, straight trajectory within air, which flows horizontal above Earth.

Every plane flies level, horizontal paths, above the flat Earth surface, not in any sort of 'curved' path, above your made up 'curvature' of a ball Earth! 

There's no 'curvature stabilizers' on planes, to follow above any 'curves' along a ball Earth surface! Nor is there a made up magical fantasy 'force' making all our instruments measure your 'curvature', to help out your made up ball Earth, it's all nonsense, to support other nonsense, and on, and on, ad nauseum!

How could we possibly fly over a curved surface, without a curved flight path? That's absurd, and completely impossible. To fly above a sphere, at the same, or nearly the same, altitude, one must fly along the SAME path, to match with it.

Even a child knows that to draw a line around a circle, on paper, they must draw ANOTHER circle, which is bigger than the other circle, to match with it, as a CURVING line, or path, right?

Simple as can be, so don't play idiot here, it won't help your argument.

Planes MUST fly in CURVED PATHS, if above a 'curved Earth', right?

Nobody here thinks planes don't fly curved paths, above a curved Earth surface, it'd be stupid, to think that, yes? 

How can anyone fly over a curved surface, at the same altitude above it, unless in a CURVED PATH? It's impossible, obviously.

You know planes cannot fly over a ball Earth, a curving surface, without curved flight paths, right? 

The problem is, you don't like to mention it, at all. Because a curved flight path, above a curved surface, cannot be explained by your side. 

Flying in an arc, or a slant up or down, or horizontally, or vertically, are paths of flight, in air, nothing to do with the surface below them. Their maneuvers in air, have nothing to do with what the SURFACE is, at all.


When a plane is in a descent, within air, if above a mountain range, or above the Grand Canyon, or above the ocean, which are 3 completely DIFFERENT surfaces, at different elevations, or 'altitudes' along the Earth's surface, it doesn't matter to what the planes are doing in air, it's completely irrelevant to it.


Curved paths would all be MEASURED as a curve, but is NOT measured at all, which proves that no curve even exists, to begin with.

You're trying to ignore the fact, that if it WAS 'curved', it would be MEASURED, by the VSI, for example, which would measure a 'curved path' of a plane, like a 757 at cruising speed, flying a steady, constant rate of descent, perhaps about 4-5 feet per minute, during most of it's flight.

Planes cannot, do not, are not, capable of flying above a curved surface, to match a curved surface 2000 miles long, at the same altitude above it, without a curved flight path being flown, or measured as a descent, only if it is NOT in a descent, or curved path.

If you only had a magical force, that could make planes fly in curves, without us ever knowing or seeing or measuring any sort of curved path at all.........hmmm.....

Nice try, anyway.

'Curvature' doesn't exist, so why would we ever HAVE to account for something which doesn't even exist? If it DID exist, then we WOULD have to account for it on every flight, because it would be very, very different than it really is now.

You've already been shown over and over again that people account for curvature when needed/specified. Your only argument is that they shouldn't. But they do.

So your argument is that they are wrong and shouldn't do so because you are right. You versus millions of professionals that do things on the daily you think they shouldn't. That being the case, tell all those engineers, designers, pilots, surveyors, cartographers, etc., that they are doing something they shouldn't.

i'm not sure why you're here when you should be putting forth your correction efforts toward the world at large and all of the industries/projects where folks calculate for earth curvature. Go and explain to them why they are doing it wrong. And then see what's what. 

Or certainly have to ACCOUNT for it, if they cannot measure it.

Stop repeating the same nonsensical BS.

Again, they do not need to do anything special at all to account for the curvature in the sense of dipping the plane down, as they will already be making corrections to maintain level flight.

And planes would measure this curved path as a DESCENT on their instruments like the VSI.

Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
You have already admitted that the VSI uses air pressure.
And for a RE, the air pressure does not magically adhere to a magical reference plane.

The fact you claim it will always measure a descent, instead of just measuring various rates of descent or ascent shows that you know you are spouting pure BS.
If you really wanted to pretend that air will magically align itself so regions of constant pressure will be in perfect planes then you would claim that a flight going over the north pole would be level showing no ascent or descent, a flight along the equator going east-west would likewise also show no ascent or descent, while a flight going due north at the equator would show it going straight up, and going south at the equator would be straight down.

Likewise, it is trivial to show your claims that it must measure a descent as nonsensical. Consider a plane that has flown for one minute. You can start considering at the point it started that minute at, and consider that it has "dropped" due to the curvature by some amount and falsely claim that this must be measured as a descent.
But you can just as dishonestly instead measure from the reference of where it ended that minute, and calculate the "drop" it has risen up from, and falsely claim that this must be measured as an ascent.
Neither is more justified than the other.
Both are pure BS.

But you recognise that would be delusional BS, nothing like what the RE model suggests. You know that for a RE model, level is following the curvature of Earth.
But that means a plane flying along a level path will follow the curve without any ascent or descent.

Again, if you wish to claim such pure BS, then clearly explain by what magic this magical VSI works, and how on a RE, you would expect to get this descent.

If you can't do that, then all your claims are no more than pathetic lies.

That doesn't mean there is NO air resistance when flying level to it, but much LESS resistance than any other direction

Again, PURE BS!
You get the same resistance regardless of what direction you are moving through the air. What matters is the relative velocity.

That's why planes have horizontal stabilizers on their tails

No, it isn't.
The reason they have it is to be able to control their pitch.

How could we possibly fly over a curved surface, without a curved flight path?

They don't. Why would they?
They fly over a curved surface, using a level, curved flight path, maintaining the same altitude above sea level, meaning they are flying level, neither ascending nor descending.

Simple as can be, so don't play idiot here

You are the one playing idiot here, spouting all sorts of delusional BS.

The problem is, you don't like to mention it, at all. Because a curved flight path, above a curved surface, cannot be explained by your side.

Just what part don't you think is explained?
Because you are yet to demonstrate any problem with it.

Curved paths would all be MEASURED as a curve

You have already admitted they wouldn't be. So stop spouting the same delusional BS.
Again, if you want to claim it can be measured, clearly explain how starting from first principles.

You're trying to ignore the fact, that if it WAS 'curved', it would be MEASURED, by the VSI

No, we are continually exposing your lie and correcting you by pointing out the fact that flying a level curved path around a round Earth would not be measured by the VSI.
You are yet to explain just what magic would allow the VSI to measure it.

Nice try, anyway.

No, your try was pathetic, just like last time, and the time before that, and the time before that.
If anything, it is just getting more and more pathetic as you repeat the same refuted BS time and time again, with no justification at all, and not even attempting to address the faults that have already been exposed in your BS.

So if you want to actually try, explain how the VSI works, by explaining what it is ACTUALLY MEASURING (not what it is reporting), and thus what it would be measuring on a RE and why. Stop just repeating the same BS that it should magically measure a descent.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 30, 2022, 02:59:25 AM

Anyone can twist a well-understood, proven term, like the term LEVEL, or whatever else they want to, so what?

Level is a measurement, and we've measured for level countless times, countless ways, with countless instruments, within air, on the surface, along waters, over floors, shelves, beams, both horizontally, and vertically TO level.

Level in respect to the center of earth, i.e., gravity.

You do realize how atmospheric pressure in the air and water is calculated, right? For all sorts of uses across the globe. You get that, right?

It's P=hρg, where P is the pressure, h is the height of the liquid, ρ is the density of the liquid, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

You realize that 'g' is used by millions everywhere to a great deal of success. If we believed you, the world would come crumbling down. Same for level. You have literally no idea what you're talking about and have gone full-on Dunning-Kruger.

Gravity is simply a made up, non-existent, idea. The idea of making up a 'force', which will solve all the ball Earth lie problems, which isn't even REAL.

The ball Earth side had never mentioned anything about 'gravity' making instruments measure level, as NOT level at all, but somehow, mean level to the Earth's curved surface, which has 'curved' air above it, too! 

Why would 'gravity' know if Earth's surface was curved, or flat, or anything about it?

And you never mentioned 'gravity' being in the 'exact center' of a ball Earth, before now. Why not? You've changed your story about 'gravity' now, to fit with your latest excuse.  What's next? It'll be a good one, I can't wait to hear it!


You claim a made up, magical force, which exists in all things, all objects, and holds down all things, all oceans, to the Earth, because it has more 'gravity' than all things it holds down to it, except cannot hold down birds or insects, somehow, and doesn't pull down the moon to the surface, either, just holds it at a distance away from it, for some reason.

And 'gravity', while holding the moon in place, 250,000 miles away from Earth, has no effect on astronauts above Earth, much closer to it than the moon is, but holds the moon in place.


Anything is possible with a made up, non-existent 'force', it does whatever you want it to, except for all the conflicts that arise from constantly using it all the time.


The only thing that matters here, as always, is the evidence, what proof there is, for your claim, that level means level with the Earth's 'curvature', and with the AIR'S 'curvature' above the Earth, too!

This would first have to assume that a made up, non-existent 'force', would be located at the exact 'center point' within a ball Earth, and would also radiate 'waves of gravity' outward from it, passing through it all, to the surface, and above the surface, into the entire atmosphere above Earth, too!

So assuming all that is true, we can move ahead...it assumes more than most THEORIES do, but who cares about that, anyhow!

The main problem with your claim, is that there is NO measurement of any 'curvature', with ANY instrument.

And level, is always measured as straight, flat, and horizontal. No curve at all, a curve simply doesn't exist anywhere.

When a plane is within the air, it measures air pressure to fly level within it.

The surface below a plane, isn't relevant, isn't measured, in any way. Nor should it matter, anyway. Planes are in air, measuring air for level flight. A descent of any type, is measured as a descent in air.

To match 'curvature', planes would be in a CONSTANT descent, and would be MEASURED as a descent, perhaps at a rate of 4-5 feet per minute throughout the flight. 

A 4-5 fpm descent is NEVER done, yet would HAVE to be done, if Earth DID have any 'curvature'. It is that simple. 

Gravity is simply a made up, non-existent, idea.

Then why does a hanging spring scale work in accordance with Hooke’s law and the three laws of motion.

Why can’t I trick things to fall up with no external forces.  Line dropping a rock in a cave.

What causes high tides, low tides, and tidal bores.

Why does an airplane have to generate lift to overcome gravity to gain altitude.

Why is it harder to hold out a 15 pound sledgehammer at arms length than a 3 pound sledgehammer hammer.

Why can I balance a 15 pound sledgehammer on my head and suffer no injuries.  But if the same sledgehammer is drop on my head from 30 feet above me, it will crack my skull open. 

All demonstrable proofs of gravity. 

Gravity is simply a made up, non-existent, idea.

You not liking it doesn't mean it isn't real. You not liking it does not refute the mountains of evidence supporting it.

Yet again, you have been refuted and you now flee from the topic.

You want to claim a plane should measure the curve, either explain how, in detail, or admit that yet again you have been spouting pure BS and it is not a problem for the RE.

The ball Earth side had never mentioned anything about 'gravity' making instruments measure level

Pure BS.
I have repeatedly told you that instruments that measure level are typically measuring the direction of down, which as you know, is a result of gravity.
The point is that a level surface is an equipotential surface, a surface on which an object doesn't get lower/lose energy by moving along.

Why would 'gravity' know if Earth's surface was curved, or flat, or anything about it?

Gravity causes Earth's surface to be curved.

And you never mentioned 'gravity' being in the 'exact center' of a ball Earth, before now.

It isn't the exact centre.
It is more complicated due to Earth not being perfectly homogenous, and due to Earth spinning, but as a simple approximation, the centre is good enough.

What is important, is that means the air pressure will decrease as you move away from Earth, meaning a plane flying level using air pressure will follow the curve.

You claim a made up, magical force

No, we claim the existence of a force which is observed on a daily basis, with mountains of evidence supporting it and which you cannot refute at all or show any problems with.

Your pathetic misrepresentations of it will not change that fact.

holds down all things, all oceans, to the Earth

No, that is your strawman.
Gravity is a force that acts to accelerates objects towards Earth.
In the absence of significant speed or another force, this will result in the object falling to Earth and remaining on the surface.
But in the presence of another force, such as the buoyant force or lift from wings, then it can be overcome and allow objects to go up.
And in the presence of significant horizontal speed, this acceleration results in an orbit, as it does for the moon and astronauts in space.

except for all the conflicts

What conflicts? You are yet to demonstrate one.

The only thing that matters here, as always, is the evidence

That's right. The evidence is what is most important.
You have no evidence at all for your delusional claims, while the RE is backed up by mountains of evidence.

The main problem with your claim, is that there is NO measurement of any 'curvature', with ANY instrument.

Prove it.
You say what matters is evidence, yet here you are once more spouting pure delusional BS with no proof or evidence or justification at all.
It is your pathetic fantasy that you so desperately cling to, to pretend the RE is wrong.

To match 'curvature', planes would be in a CONSTANT descent, and would be MEASURED as a descent

You have had that blatant lie of yours exposed as pure BS repeatedly.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
All you do each time you do so is show how dishonest you are willing to be to try to prop your delusional garbage; how little you care for the truth.

Again, the simplest way to see that that is pure BS is to recognise that it makes and equal amount of sense to claim it should be measured as an ascent or a descent.
There is no justification for why it should be one over the other. And that is because both ideas are BS. Instead, it should measure as level flight, as it does.

Again, if you want to claim that it should be measured as a descent, and have anyone take you seriously, and to be doing so honestly, then clearly explain why it should, starting from first principles, and without pretending Earth is flat (so you can't your delusional magically flat air from your FE BS to pretend that is how it would work on a RE).

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 05, 2022, 02:33:54 AM

Gravity is simply a made up, non-existent, idea.

Then why does a hanging spring scale work in accordance with Hooke’s law and the three laws of motion.

Why can’t I trick things to fall up with no external forces.  Line dropping a rock in a cave.

What causes high tides, low tides, and tidal bores.

Why does an airplane have to generate lift to overcome gravity to gain altitude.

Why is it harder to hold out a 15 pound sledgehammer at arms length than a 3 pound sledgehammer hammer.

Why can I balance a 15 pound sledgehammer on my head and suffer no injuries.  But if the same sledgehammer is drop on my head from 30 feet above me, it will crack my skull open. 

All demonstrable proofs of gravity.

No, it is proof objects have mass, and more force when up in air, dropping down through air, which has little mass at all.

No force exists within Earth, 'pulling things down' to the surface, or 'holding them down' to the surface. Objects have mass and density, which is why they are all on the ground. If there WERE such a force, it would hold down ALL things, INCLUDING all birds and insects. But they fly freely ABOVE the surface, because no force exists to hold them down to the surface.

We must use energy to jump from the surface, because we have more mass and density than a bird, and no means to lift into air. Except in planes, that is.

If we attach a fine thread to a bird, it cannot fly up into air. 'Gravity' is useless, and so weak, compared to that fine thread, which holds the bird down. A thread can't hold down oceans, but 'gravity' can, supposedly?

The thread is consistent with the object's strength, to hold a bird, but not a plane, which makes sense. The plane has more power, mass and density than a bird does, so the thread only can hold down the bird, not a plane.

A crane attached to a planes wing, CAN hold it down, which again makes sense. A crane has the strength needed to hold a plane down, not a thread.

If 'gravity' DID exist, it would act like any actual force does - act consistently, and offer resistance against opposing forces, of any kind. And it would weaken with more distance from it's source, which would be the Earth itself, not the same strength at all distances from it.

Objects fall through air at the SAME RATE, at ALL altitudes above Earth, which also proves no force exists at all within Earth. If there WERE, it would 'pull down' objects faster, when closer to the source, which is Earth.

No actual force acts like this, it's absurd to believe such a thing as 'gravity' exists, the magical force with equal strength at all distances from its source!! Get serious!

No, it is proof objects have mass

No, mass resists changes in motion. Mass alone does not cause motion. Mass alone does not make an object accelerate in any particular direction.

So no, it is not proof objects have mass.
It is a simple experiment to demonstrate gravity.

Objects have mass and density, which is why they are all on the ground.

Again, mass and density provides no directionality for an object to fall.

If there WERE such a force, it would hold down ALL things, INCLUDING all birds and insects.

Stop asserting the pathetic refuted BS again and again.
There is no reason for such a force to be pure magic and magically hold everything down regardless of what other forces are acting.

We must use energy to jump from the surface

Just like birds and insects and planes and rockets and so on; all because of gravity.

A thread can't hold down oceans

You are trying to water up with a thread?

The plane has more power, mass and density than a bird does

And that greater mass means a greater force due to gravity.

If 'gravity' DID exist, it would act like any actual force does

And it does. With you entirely incapable of providing a single example of where it doesn't.

Objects fall through air at the SAME RATE, at ALL altitudes above Earth

Again, for someone who claims to value evidence, you sure do love spouting pure garbage with no justification at all.
The rate of acceleration due to gravity varies across Earth, not just with altitude, but also with latitude and other factors.
If you want to claim that it is magically constant to pretend it isn't a real force then prove it.
If you can't, then stop with the pathetic BS.