What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

There IS no level path over a curved surface or curved lines or to spheres or circles!

That’s like saying a straight and horizontal line or flat and horizontal surface can be measured as curved lines or surfaces!

Use a radius gauge or spherometer on one point in its middle, to the flat surface or on a straight horizontal line. Extend out from that one point straight downward, and 90 degrees across from that downward line, and it measures the surface as flat!!

Your one point in the middle of a level, that’s the biggest joke ever made up, yikes

Again, level and curved are opposites, in every way possible to be opposites.

Level and horizontal are the same thing, a straight and flat line or surface measured as horizontal or level, which refers and measures to and with the flat and horizontal surface of Earth.

There IS no level path over a curved surface or curved lines or to spheres or circles!

Lying wont save you.

If that is too difficult a task for you, then try this:
Consider a person, travelling a path around a hypothetical, perfectly spherical round Earth.
They wish to travel so that path is level.
So they have a simple device to tell them which way is down and what way is perpendicular to that, and can build a magical track which follows their path and later confirm the orientation of that path at any point along it (say 1 cm, to an accuracy of 0.1 degree).
What would this path look like? And would that 1 cm span show as level?

Or if that would still require too much honesty from you, then another option:
Consider a circle around such a hypothetical perfectly round planet, such that the circle is centred on the centre of the planet.
If you were to take that device to measure for horizontal/level, over a 1 cm span of that circle, would it read as level/horizontal?
If not, what would it read as?

Again, level and curved are opposites, in every way possible to be opposites.

No, they aren't.
They are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive.
You can have a level curve, you can have a level non-curve, you can have a non-level curve, and you can have a non-level non curve.

Level and horizontal are the same thing

And neither require it to be straight or flat.
Again, lying wont save you. It just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.

Again, a point or fatter point of a few mm is still one point.

It is not two separate points over a distance, just a larger sized single point.

If you put one point on a curved line or curved surface, any curve which doesn’t form into a ball, doesn’t have a center in its middle, right? No line pointed down to anything at all.

Your one point on a sphere points straight down to its core or its middle point. That is a vertical line, right?

The second line must be horizontal to that vertical line, square to it at 90 degrees, right?

If your first line is vertical, how was it made that way?

You made it a path over a distance between two separate points, from one on the surface to the other one in the middle, right?

What if the vertical line was a few mm long? If it didn’t reach the other point in its middle, you wouldn’t have a vertical line!

How ironic that you make a vertical line as a path over a distance between two points, then try to make a horizontal line with one single point of no distance or path between two points over a distance!

Again, a point or fatter point of a few mm is still one point.
It is not two separate points over a distance, just a larger sized single point.

You truly do come up with such utter BS.

A point, by definition, has no spatial extent.
If you have a span of 1 cm, then that is 2 points, separated by 1 cm.
That is the span you repeatedly tried to demand.
Now answer the question you lying POS.

Consider a person, travelling a path around a hypothetical, perfectly spherical round Earth.
They wish to travel so that path is level.
So they have a simple device to tell them which way is down and what way is perpendicular to that, and can build a magical track which follows their path and later confirm the orientation of that path at any point along it (say 1 cm, to an accuracy of 0.1 degree).
What would this path look like? And would that 1 cm span show as level?

Or if that would still require too much honesty from you, then another option:
Consider a circle around such a hypothetical perfectly round planet, such that the circle is centred on the centre of the planet.
If you were to take that device to measure for horizontal/level, over a 1 cm span of that circle, would it read as level/horizontal?
If not, what would it read as?

If we can accurately measure over 2 mm distance as being level and horizontal, you mean?

It must be measured accurately at such a distance, or is worthless, of course.

But now you’re saying there are two separate points over a distance, small but still a distance between two separate points, as a path!

Now you’re starting to understand it’s a path over two separate points over a distance, just took you awhile to clue into it finally!

And both vertical and horizontal (or level) paths are measured accurately as infinitely vertical and horizontal paths or lines, and we could measure them over any distance as vertical and horizontal paths or lines.

Only one path or line can be vertical and one path is horizontal or level path or line.

We cannot have more than one vertical and one horizontal line, just the same horizontal lines matching the one line.

What you don’t understand is that measuring for level or horizontsl and vertical, is infinitely horizontal and vertical in each of them.

We cannot measure for horizontal to 5 mm distance, but no longer than that is it still measured as horizontal! 

That would never measure as horizontal, it has no end points to it.

There IS no level path over a curved surface or curved lines or to spheres or circles!

No according to your limited definition of level.  However, the aerospace community disagrees with you.

If we can accurately measure over 2 mm distance as being level and horizontal, you mean?

There you go lying yet again.
Who said anything about 2 mm?
I said 1 cm. 2 points separated by a distance of 1 cm.
That is not saying 2 mm.

It must be measured accurately at such a distance, or is worthless, of course.

And to what level of accuracy do you need?

You really are so desperate to avoid answering such a trivial question.
As if you know it will show you to be the lying POS you are.

Only one path or line can be vertical and one path is horizontal or level path or line.

We cannot have more than one vertical and one horizontal line, just the same horizontal lines matching the one line.

More absolutely pathetic BS.
Why can't we?

Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the question you lying POS.

Consider a person, travelling a path around a hypothetical, perfectly spherical round Earth.
They wish to travel so that path is level.
So they have a simple device to tell them which way is down and what way is perpendicular to that, and can build a magical track which follows their path and later confirm the orientation of that path at any point along it (say 1 cm, to an accuracy of 0.1 degree).
What would this path look like? And would that 1 cm span show as level?

Or if that would still require too much honesty from you, then another option:
Consider a circle around such a hypothetical perfectly round planet, such that the circle is centred on the centre of the planet.
If you were to take that device to measure for horizontal/level, over a 1 cm span of that circle, would it read as level/horizontal?
If not, what would it read as?

And just to clarify, I am not telling you to measure the entire line at once, that is basically never done.
Instead, measure each small span on the line.
Each 1 cm long section.
What will that 1 cm long section measure as?
And then repeat it all along the circle. What will each 1 cm long section measure as?
Will they measure as horizontal/level?

Can you answer such a trivial quesiton that shows you to be a lying POS?

Consider a person, travelling a path around a hypothetical, perfectly spherical round Earth.
They wish to travel so that path is level.

They can’t travel over a curved surface in a level path, only close to level at best.

Curved surfaces and curved lines are simply not level, nor can a level be a curved surface or curved line, it works the same both ways, and both are completely, entirely distinct from one another.

You cannot twist a curve as being flat, or twist a flat surface as a curved surface.

It’s now down to word tricks, semi-truths mixed into a pile of pseudo-science which somehow creates an entirely fabricated definition for a long understood and defined term or word, like ‘level’.

And of course, you ball Earth dupes instantly buy it all up, not even having a clue what bs they pulled off.

So we are now arguing about what ‘level’ means, since you believe it means either flat, or means ‘level to a curve’, manipulating the true meaning by adding a modifier ‘curve’ to put ‘level’ into the ever-growing heap of bs, fakery and countless lies which make up the entire grotesque ball Earth fairy tale.

 

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 16, 2025, 05:47:13 AM

If we can accurately measure over 2 mm distance as being level and horizontal, you mean?

There you go lying yet again.
Who said anything about 2 mm?
I said 1 cm. 2 points separated by a distance of 1 cm.
That is not saying 2 mm.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 16, 2025, 05:47:13 AM

It must be measured accurately at such a distance, or is worthless, of course.

And to what level of accuracy do you need?

You really are so desperate to avoid answering such a trivial question.
As if you know it will show you to be the lying POS you are.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 16, 2025, 06:08:24 AM

Only one path or line can be vertical and one path is horizontal or level path or line.

We cannot have more than one vertical and one horizontal line, just the same horizontal lines matching the one line.

More absolutely pathetic BS.
Why can't we?

Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the question you lying POS.

Consider a person, travelling a path around a hypothetical, perfectly spherical round Earth.
They wish to travel so that path is level.
So they have a simple device to tell them which way is down and what way is perpendicular to that, and can build a magical track which follows their path and later confirm the orientation of that path at any point along it (say 1 cm, to an accuracy of 0.1 degree).
What would this path look like? And would that 1 cm span show as level?

Or if that would still require too much honesty from you, then another option:
Consider a circle around such a hypothetical perfectly round planet, such that the circle is centred on the centre of the planet.
If you were to take that device to measure for horizontal/level, over a 1 cm span of that circle, would it read as level/horizontal?
If not, what would it read as?

And just to clarify, I am not telling you to measure the entire line at once, that is basically never done.
Instead, measure each small span on the line.
Each 1 cm long section.
What will that 1 cm long section measure as?
And then repeat it all along the circle. What will each 1 cm long section measure as?
Will they measure as horizontal/level?

Can you answer such a trivial quesiton that shows you to be a lying POS?

Ok, but here is the question, to your argument about measuring and how it’s done or could be done theoretically…

What’s the point in talking about a few mm or microns if you prefer smaller and smaller distances we only can measure through microscopes for their actual ‘length’ or ‘distance’?


Level must be measured accurately, if it is important to be accurately measured as level, measured over any distance that CAN be accurately measured as level, as horizontal, straight and flat, the actual distance it is, doesn’t matter, it only matters that we can accurately measure over that distance for level.

Oh I forgot the question - why would you ever try to measure for level in tiny spans of distance? What would anyone ever do that for?

Someone like you would want to do this, obviously.

Why would you ever do such a ridiculous thing, which nobody would ever do for any valid reason?

Because you have a very obvious reason you’d do it.  You want to get the smallest distance possible for your measuring it as level, that is exactly what you want here, which doesn’t make sense, these smaller distances can be used to measure as level, but the length is also an important factor, longer distances accurately measured for level, are always better, or if the only difference in it.

You can make the tiniest distance and measure it as level, maybe through a microscope and micro instruments that measure for level over .0001 nm distance as level, it never ends.

What do you really want to measure for? For level?

So why would you measure for level, along some surface or along a line or shelf, but over a tiny fraction of their lengths or distances, because you’d have to be a complete moron to use the tiniest distance to measure for level, when there are much longer distances we measure just as accurately or probably more accurately and a larger sample of what you’re measuring for level is much better than tiny spans.


What are you trying to do with all your tiny spans you measure as independent and single measurements for level?

We all know what you’re trying to do, what they are also still trying to do, trying to create a perfect lie, the greatest story. Everything they do, and claim, and show us, must first have a story, which is checked for matching up with the other stories, before anything else. Or maybe all of them match up perfectly by a coincidence


Anyhow, you’re certainly not going to measure for level over the tiniest distance, and cuts off.

A brand new tiny section in then measured for level.

Every one of your tiny spans you measure as level, cannot actually be level, only close to level, and you need a precise instrument to measure tiny spans as not level, so why again would you choose the tiniest distance for you to measure level, is many tiny spans each could measure as level, the smaller distance isn’t accurate over the larger area, and you cannot measure a surface or a line for level, because that is what you claim to be actually MEASURING FOR, right?

You’re clearly NOT measuring for level, over a line or surface, because you know you cannot measure over curved lines or curved surfaces, for level!

You simply cannot measure micro sized spans for level, stop there, and make every other single same measurement for level over and over a curved line or surface, because you’re not measuring the curve, you’re making the same mistaken measurement for level again and again and again, do you even realize how stupid that is, how stupid you’d be to think it measures for level to a curve? Where are you ever measuring for the actual CURVE in this nonsense? You forgot to measure something, hmm…What could it ever BE? 


That’s because your utterly clueless about what I’ve been saying and explaining to you about almost every issue for so long now, you don’t even know what I’m saying at all or have no clue about what I said, so you just say I’m lying about whatever I posted automatically.

Stupid enough to show they just revised the term ‘seeing’, which you claimed back then meant what you wanted it to mean to fit your argument. Thus, you claimed they meant effects of Saturn appearing to be in motion, meant motion was always due to effects, distortion, etc.

And of course, you must top all of your lies about ‘seeing’ or ‘seeing conditions’, with yet one MORE lie- That they all long understood what ‘seeing’ means, within their reports and statements, that they don’t need to say what it means to me or anyone else just because you lied about it’s meaning, lied that it’s well known to mean this and that, lied that they don’t need to explain what it means to others, and you obviously made up that sh);: too, adding your pile of lies into a big stinking pile of crap, start to finish.

I certainly remember your whole story, we debated it for quite awhile, and later on too…

And now they ARE revising the very term we argued about, that you deliberately lied about. 

If you hadn’t brought it up, that they are now revising the term, somehow you thought would support your argument, I wouldn’t know they are now revising the term.  I guess you thought I now must admit the two words or terms are now, not the same thing, they don’t mean the same thing anymore??!!

Again, I certainly agree and accept and understand when they now have revised this term, this word ‘seeing’, for whatever reason or reasons that only recently prompted them to suddenly need this term mean much more than it did, though it didn’t need to be explained what ‘seeing’ was, like ‘viewing’ or ‘observing’ were self-explanatory words, which very rarely need to be explained, and other terms or words need to be explained further…

There’s been so many revisions and additions and actual changing of terms and words and definitions and omissions and all sorts of corruptions and skewing, it’s hard to even keep track anymore, it’s often impossible.
 
 

They can’t travel over a curved surface in a level path, only close to level at best.

That is your baseless claim, one you are yet to substantiate at all.
One you can only pretend to by repeatedly lying to everyone by claiming it means flat.

Which is why I asked you draw a level path.
Because you know any attempt to do so will show you to be lying to everyone.

Also notice that I never said they had to follow the curved surface. I just said they wanted to follow a level path. So if they did, what would it look like?

It’s now down to word tricks, semi-truths mixed into a pile of pseudo-science

No, that is just what you keep trying.
But I keep calling you out on your pathetic BS.

What’s the point in talking about a few mm or microns if you prefer smaller and smaller distances we only can measure through microscopes for their actual ‘length’ or ‘distance’?

Because we are talking about a curve. And a planet where if you move along some distance, the orientation of down changes.
For such a situation, you want the smallest distance possible.

But because this again shows you have been lying to everyone, look at just how much pathetic BS you ranted on about it, asking the same stupid question again and again.

Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the question.

Consider a person, travelling a path around a hypothetical, perfectly spherical round Earth.
They wish to travel so that path is level.
So they have a simple device to tell them which way is down and what way is perpendicular to that, and can build a magical track which follows their path and later confirm the orientation of that path at any point along it (say 1 cm, to an accuracy of 0.1 degree).
What would this path look like? And would that 1 cm span show as level?

Or if that would still require too much honesty from you, then another option:
Consider a circle around such a hypothetical perfectly round planet, such that the circle is centred on the centre of the planet.
If you were to take that device to measure for horizontal/level, over a 1 cm span of that circle, would it read as level/horizontal?
If not, what would it read as?

And just to clarify, I am not telling you to measure the entire line at once, that is basically never done.
Instead, measure each small span on the line.
Each 1 cm long section.
What will that 1 cm long section measure as?
And then repeat it all along the circle. What will each 1 cm long section measure as?
Will they measure as horizontal/level?

Can you answer such a trivial question that shows you to be a lying POS?

It wouldn’t measure for a level path, it would only measure one tiny path of small distance as level, then stop and measure another tiny distance as a separate path as level, to nothing else before or after that one tiny distance.

But in fact, if the instrument used is truly that accurate to measure over such a tiny distance, it would have to measure for what the surface really IS, whether it’s flat and straight or is curved, and not straight, right?

If it cannot measure for a curved surface over that tiny distance, and instead measures it as level and flat and straight, it isn’t measuring it correctly at all!

It’s funny how much you keep thinking a level can measure over a curved surface, just by using very tiny distances on it again and again and again!

But tiny distances measured over a massive curve that is nearly flat or level within a tiny distance, are still not level or flat, they still are curved over that tiny distance!

It doesn’t help your argument if the instrument isn’t accurate enough to measure for the tiny curve over the tiny distance.

If it measures as level then it is not accurate, not measuring for the tiny curve over that tiny distance.

Trying to twist it that way doesn’t work either.

It wouldn’t measure for a level path, it would only measure one tiny path of small distance as level, then stop and measure another tiny distance as a separate path as level

So what you are saying, is that if you took this device along the path, and at any point you stopped and measured the path, you would find the path to be level.

That means it is a level path, and you have been lying to everyone.

And yes, it is over a small region, because level is perpendicular to down. So you can apply that separately over the entire path.

If it cannot measure for a curved surface over that tiny distance, and instead measures it as level and flat

Again, we are dealing with level, not flat.
Stop conflating the 2.

It doesn’t help your argument

The one not helping your argument here is you.

If it was as simple as you claimed, you would just draw what a level path would look like on a sphere.
But you know you can't, because either the path you draw wont be level, or it would be a circle.

We certainly don’t and can’t ever measure for level one time over a hundred or thousand miles distance, though it’d be amazing if we could, but we can’t do it, not yet anyway.

Measuring for level flight is a constant overlapping measurement done by planes.

That’s why they use several different instruments that confirm their main instruments, and one of those instruments is the gyroscope, and others as well.

Flying level is obviously important, and measurements must be accurate and reliable.

The actual distances we use in measuring for level, and how we actually read for level, cannot ever measure for any curvature at all, because it measures over the planes length as it’s distance measured for level, in a constant movement along the whole flight, overlapping measurements over and over all along the way.

Like if you slid along a level over the entire floor in a line in one pass over it, constantly reading it, inch by inch all the way across the floor, but much more accurately with plane instruments of course.

We can’t ever measure for any curvature, let alone one so slight as this curve would have to be.

The slight curve would, must be measured and accounted for, if it existed at all.

Not being measurable would be a big problem, and we’d have to make accurate adjustments for it in all flights.

There’s another problem to fly over a curved surface. Even knowing the rate of curvature isn’t enough.

Flying over a flat surface is good at any speed, it is a constant uniform surface.

But speed is a problem when flying over a curved surface,

The speed matters to the rate of descent flown over a curve.

Adjustments vary on every flight, less or more on each flight, even not any adjustments on some flights, others have many adjustments done on flights.

We don’t adjust for a constant curvature.

We certainly don’t and can’t ever measure for level one time over a hundred or thousand miles distance

The only one pretending you could, is you.
So here you go deflecting yet again.

Such a simple hypothetical, which so clearly shows you are blatantly lying to everyone, so you need to flee from it at all costs.

Measuring for level flight is a constant overlapping measurement done by planes.

Similar to the hypothetical I gave.
One where following that circular path around a round Earth continually indicates they are going level.
Giving you a level path around a round Earth, which is a circle.

We can’t ever measure for any curvature, let alone one so slight as this curve would have to be.

Again, we can and have. The textbooks linked previously in this thread provide one way to do so.

You lying about it wont change it.

Again, you not being able to measure curvature over a short distance, or by using an aeroplane, does not mean it is impossible to measure.
Curvature can be measured, with things like the angle of dip to the horizon, or the angle of dip to a distant point at the same altitude.
It has been done, and you lying about it wont change it.

There’s another problem to fly over a curved surface.

You are yet to demonstrate a single problem. So how could there be another?

Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the question.

Consider a person, travelling a path around a hypothetical, perfectly spherical round Earth.
They wish to travel so that path is level.
So they have a simple device to tell them which way is down and what way is perpendicular to that, and can build a magical track which follows their path and later confirm the orientation of that path at any point along it (say 1 cm, to an accuracy of 0.1 degree).
What would this path look like? And would that 1 cm span show as level?

Or if that would still require too much honesty from you, then another option:
Consider a circle around such a hypothetical perfectly round planet, such that the circle is centred on the centre of the planet.
If you were to take that device to measure for horizontal/level, over a 1 cm span of that circle, would it read as level/horizontal?
If not, what would it read as?

And just to clarify, I am not telling you to measure the entire line at once, that is basically never done.
Instead, measure each small span on the line.
Each 1 cm long section.
What will that 1 cm long section measure as?
And then repeat it all along the circle. What will each 1 cm long section measure as?
Will they measure as horizontal/level?

Can you answer such a trivial question that shows you to be a lying POS?

Trying and trying so hard to make a square peg fit into a circular or round hole, this is exactly what I see you trying every possible way to finally figure out how to do it, except that it is you who is the frustrated child, and all your classmates try to do it as well, and none have yet succeeded in the effort.

You’re trying to claim if a tiny distance measured as level, that would also assume it IS truly level, of course.

Truly level is no curve at all, which is nothing of a curve is there at all.

Level is the same as horizontal, in all ways the very same thing.

Level flight is horizontal flight. Same thing.

They are called straight or flat or linear, but with level or horizontal, it means the same thing, anyway.

If you are accurately measuring over any distance as being truly and entirely level, or accurate enough to measure any slightest curve over that distance, which is what you must know for sure is a curve or not any curve at all..

You have nothing of a curved surface or line, out from that one very accurate measurement, or otherwise it is not an accurate measurement.

Nothing will hatch up your hopelessly failed curve to win something it cannot win at.


Your curve is the square peg and the flat surface is the circular hole, you cannot jam
it in with all your might, all your hopes and dreams to fit it into the round hole!

Trying and trying so hard to make a square peg fit into a circular or round hole

There you go projecting again.
All while being entirely incapable of answering a trivial question.

You’re trying to claim if a tiny distance measured as level, that would also assume it IS truly level, of course.

The point is that this tiny distance is horizontal, that the entire path is horizontal.

Truly level is no curve at all

No, that is just your pathetic lie. A lie refuted by the above which you need to flee from.
Once more, level is periductular to down.
With the direction of down changing on a round Earth, that means level CAN'T be a straight line.

Level is the same as horizontal, in all ways the very same thing.

i.e. perpendicular to down, not straight.
So for a perfectly spherical Earth, that is a circle.

You lying about it wont change it.
If you wish to claim otherwise then stop with all the pathetic BS and draw this horizontal path.

Your curve is the square peg and the flat surface is the circular hole, you cannot jam
it in with all your might, all your hopes and dreams to fit it into the round hole!

No, the FE is your square peg. The circular hole is the reality of a round Earth, which you can't refute at all.

Now again, stop with all the BS, and either explain why the path I provided shouldn't be considered level, or provide the level path for a perfectly spherical planet, or admit you are wrong.

i.e. perpendicular to down, not straight.
So for a perfectly spherical Earth, that is a circle.

No, level is a horizontal PATH over a distance, the entire path is level and the entire path is perpendicular to VERTICAL, not just ‘down’ which means nothing of an actual
path or direction. You just don’t want to call it what it really is - a vertical line downward at 90 degrees square to the horizontal and LEVEL line, and every line over it is a vertical line across and both up and down from the horizontal line at 90 degrees square to it.

Level is not one single point over a distance it measures as level, the whole effin distance it measures is level, and all of it is perpendicular to vertical lines, all across it.


Anyone who thinks it’s one point in the middle of a level needs a straight jacket and the rubber room, so watch out for the guys carrying big butterfly nets, you’re a prime candidate!

No, level is a horizontal PATH over a distance

There you go lying again.
Here are your own words:

Level is the same as horizontal, in all ways the very same thing.

So by your own words, level is horizontal.
A level path would be a horizontal path.

But again, that circle IS a horizontal path.
At any point along it, the direction that the path is going is horizontal.

You want to ignore that, and instead pretend it must be a very long path, so you can lie to everyone to pretend it is straight.

Now again, stop with all the BS, and either explain why the path I provided shouldn't be considered level, or provide the level path for a perfectly spherical planet, or admit you are wrong.

No, a level and horizontal path of flight means it can curve or go straight in a line, while it always flies level and horizontal over the flat surface below it.

We can fly in a circle over a flat surface and remain in level and horizontal flight. But we cannot curve downward or curve down sideways which is not flying level and horizontal

But you can maintain a given flight level (A.K.A., altitude) over a curved surface.

But you can maintain a given flight level (A.K.A., altitude) over a curved surface.

No, it’s impossible to fly level over a non level curved surface.

The surface of a ball Earth would be, must be curved, to fly over a curved path, one must follow the same path above it.

Does a ball have a level flat horizontal surface on it? If it did, it would not be a ball.

Flying level isn’t done because it’s the easiest path to fly, even though it is the easiest path to fly, and that’s  a reason it works so well and easiest to fly above Earth.


You’re all trying and trying to figure out how to be a curve that’s some type of level, but you never can.

Saying a tiny distance over a very slight curve can be measured as level, with many more tiny distances measured as level too!

It doesn’t work at all. Your tiny measurements of a slight curve may measure as level, but that’s because it’s not accurate enough to measure the curve over a tiny distance. It doesn’t measure as level, it’s inaccurately measuring as level.

It's very possible, as tens of thousands of aircraft do so daily.

The combination of the constantly changing forces acting on an aircraft in flight, due to changes in power/thrust from the engines, wind, turbulence, air pressure, lift, weight, drag etc all massively drown out any flight control changes required to maintain level flight around the globe.

Adjustments you mean.

They are different on every flight, some have few adjustments others have more adjustments.

We adjust for them, return to level flight once again. That’s what we adjust for.

I guess you think flights have all sorts of adjustments on every flight that the curve is magically flown as level!!!

There isn’t level flight over a globe, it’s impossible to do that.

A curved path would be flown over a curved surface, period

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2025, 06:29:14 AM

But you can maintain a given flight level (A.K.A., altitude) over a curved surface.

No, it’s impossible to fly level over a non level curved surface.

You are using the word "level" in one context, but I'm using it in a different context.  Words can have different meanings depending on context.  You do know what "context" means, don't you?