Why do airplanes have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground?

Oh look

A bunch of concentric circles and parallel lines

ALLL LINES THAT ARE LEVEL TO EACH OTHER


https://youtube.com/shorts/y3cp-izMnjk?si=kq_K4vqFdgbNZhe3


https://youtube.com/shorts/23pCpsMPxZM?si=i4FyThvQDBfKhYYK

And again, straight away you flee from the simple argument that is relevant to the topic and clearly demonstrates you are knowingly spouting pure BS.

Again, why should planes magically descend?
Your delusional, dishonest, BS argument works equally to claim they need to descend or that they need to ascenend.
This fact shows your argument is BS.

Why don't you be honest for once in your life and acknowledge that, rather than continually fleeing like you always seem to?

No it doesn’t apply to a curved surface, only to a flat surface.

And another lie.
It applies to any surface.
There is a direction, called down.
Level is perpendicular to this.
This applies at any point.

For a line to be level, it must be level at each point along it.

For a hypothetical FE, that would be a straight line.
For the very real RE, that would be a curve.

But over a short distance, you can't tell the difference.

Now again, stop with the dishonest BS; stop with the pathetic deflection.
Deal with your BS claim that a plane flying over a RE magically needs to descend.
Either admit that claim is pure BS; yet another pathetic lie from you to pretend the RE can't work because you can't come up with a real problem with it; or do the impossible and defend your BS, including clearly addressing why the plane should descend, and not ascend when the argument equally either way.

Oh look

A bunch of concentric circles and parallel lines

ALLL LINES THAT ARE LEVEL TO EACH OTHER


https://youtube.com/shorts/y3cp-izMnjk?si=kq_K4vqFdgbNZhe3


https://youtube.com/shorts/23pCpsMPxZM?si=i4FyThvQDBfKhYYK

No, two curved lines, or two squiggly lines, or any other two lines of some shape, other than straight lines, are equidistant to each other. Only two straight lines can be parallel lines.  Two curved lines have one around the other, in a concentric circle or arc. Two identical squiggly lines aren’t parallel either, they are equidistant lines of the same shape and path.

Only two straight lines equidistant to each other are parallel lines. Or horizontal lines running parallel to each other.

The math people disagree with you

https://mathcurve.com/courbes3d.gb/parallele/parallele.shtml#:~:text=Two%20curves%20are%20said%20to,the%20translation%20of%20one%20another.

They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.

When they have to make a distinction between a known and understood term, like with the term parallel, it is a modification of the term, a variation of the term that needs to be qualified as a variation or alteration of the original term. Parallel itself means two straight lines of equal distance from one another, and that’s how we’ve always meant by it.

If you look back on the term parallel in old dictionaries, books and documents, you’ll see it was always meant as two straight lines or poled at equal distance from one another over a distance.

They just recently tried to change its meaning to support their ball Earth lie. They just add a qualifier to it, or a modification to it, but don’t mention that part to us, it sounds better if we think it’s the same thing!

It’s not. It’s like when they said level means level to Earths ‘curvature’ which are two different things entirely.

Vertical and horizontal lines are straight lines going in two directions 90 degrees from each other.  When we refer to parallel lines that appear to be converging in the distance, they are two straight lines of equal distance apart from each other. 

Circles that go out from each other at the same distance are concentric lines, not parallel lines, no matter if they attach it to the term parallel with a qualifier term to it, they are entirely different terms, and their own understood definitions already.

Such verbal trickery won’t work, it’s garbage.

If curves DID mean parallel, they wouldn’t need to call it an imaginary or theoretical parallel, it would just be called parallel.

They always try such trickery to support their ball Earth lie.

They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.

When they have to make a distinction between a known and understood term, like with the term parallel, it is a modification of the term, a variation of the term that needs to be qualified as a variation or alteration of the original term. Parallel itself means two straight lines of equal distance from one another, and that’s how we’ve always meant by it.

If you look back on the term parallel in old dictionaries, books and documents, you’ll see it was always meant as two straight lines or poled at equal distance from one another over a distance.

They just recently tried to change its meaning to support their ball Earth lie. They just add a qualifier to it, or a modification to it, but don’t mention that part to us, it sounds better if we think it’s the same thing!

It’s not. It’s like when they said level means level to Earths ‘curvature’ which are two different things entirely.

Vertical and horizontal lines are straight lines going in two directions 90 degrees from each other.  When we refer to parallel lines that appear to be converging in the distance, they are two straight lines of equal distance apart from each other. 

Circles that go out from each other at the same distance are concentric lines, not parallel lines, no matter if they attach it to the term parallel with a qualifier term to it, they are entirely different terms, and their own understood definitions already.

Such verbal trickery won’t work, it’s garbage.

If curves DID mean parallel, they wouldn’t need to call it an imaginary or theoretical parallel, it would just be called parallel.

They always try such trickery to support their ball Earth lie.

Hey Turbonium, has anybody ever told you you are sane?

And yet again you take the low hanging fruit, fleeing from your prior BS claims which you know you cannot defend.

Again, why not be honest for once in your life and admit your claim is BS?
If you aren't willing to do that, then justify it.

Again, why should planes magically need to descend to remain level?
Especially when the same BS argument can be used to claim they must ascend?

Only two straight lines can be parallel lines.

Depends on the definition of parallel you are using and what geometry you are using.

They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.

Where?
I see it described like this:

The curves (G1) and (G2) are parallel if we can determine current points

I even did a simple search for the word imaginary, and it wasn't found on that page at all.

Parallel itself means two straight lines of equal distance from one another, and that’s how we’ve always meant by it.

If you look back on the term parallel in old dictionaries, books and documents, you’ll see it was always meant as two straight lines or poled at equal distance from one another over a distance.

No, parallel means equidistant. What you are thinking of are straight parallel lines.

It’s not. It’s like when they said level means level to Earths ‘curvature’ which are two different things entirely.

Yet another strawman from you.
Level means perpendicular to down.
Even you have almost said that.

Vertical and horizontal lines are straight lines going in two directions 90 degrees from each other.  When we refer to parallel lines that appear to be converging in the distance, they are two straight lines of equal distance apart from each other.

You mean 2 straight, parallel lines.
But no, we refer to any parallel lines.
That is because as it gets further away, the angular size of the distance between them shrinks.
It doesn't matter if they are straight or curving.

If curves DID mean parallel, they wouldn’t need to call it an imaginary or theoretical parallel, it would just be called parallel.

Like they do?

They always try such trickery to support their ball Earth lie.

Says the one blatantly lying to everyone, yet again.
Says the one who is still fleeing from their argument which has been shown to be pure BS.

The one trying to use "trickery" here is you. But really it is just fleeing from you being shown to be wrong, and blatantly lying to everyone.

Whata the angle between a 1m level, bought at a construction store, if the circle were 40,000,000m around?




Where does it say "imaginary"?

parallel lines cannot be curved. The concept of parallel lines is based on Euclidean geometry, which assumes a flat, two-dimensional plane. In this context, parallel lines are defined as a pair of straight lines that are always equidistant from each other and never intersect, regardless of how far they are extended.

Curved lines, on the other hand, deviate from being straight and have changing directions. Curved lines can take various forms, such as arcs, circles, or spirals. These types of curves cannot be considered parallel to each other because they do not meet the criteria of being straight and equidistant.

In Euclidean geometry, the notion of parallelism is strictly tied to straight lines. However, in non-Euclidean geometries or curved spaces, such as the surface of a sphere, the concept of parallel lines can differ. For example, on the surface of a sphere, lines of longitude are parallel to each other but intersect at the poles. This is an example of how the concept of parallelism changes in a non-flat geometry.

In summary, within the context of Euclidean geometry and a flat plane, parallel lines are always straight and cannot be curved. Curved lines deviate from being straight and do not meet the criteria of being equidistant and non-intersecting, which are fundamental characteristics of parallel lines“
https://math.fresherslive.com/what-are-parallel-lines-parallel-lines-equation-741/

"Eucleadean geometry, which, assumes a flat, two dimensional plane".

Note the word, "assumes".

Another light bulb moment for you, ey turdonmibum2?

https://math.fresherslive.com/what-are-parallel-lines-parallel-lines-equation-741/

Congrats, you found a quote for incredibly basic math, which provides incorrect information.

What will you say next, you can't divide 3 by 2, because it isn't an integer multiple?

This doesn't negate your lie. You blatantly lied when you claimed that the source said they were imaginary.

Likewise, it doesn't magically make your BS argument true.

Again, your delusional BS works just as well to say that planes must always ascend as it does to say they must ascend.
Care to address that, or admit your dishonesty?

In other words, to negate the parallel lines claim, you had to entire an entirely different dimension of math.


Coool.

We have always understood that parallel lines are straight lines that remain the same distance apart, and are the same length. One line may extend further out than the other line, and are no longer parallel lines.

The assumption of lines being two or more straight lines at the same distance apart from one another, is in a 2 dimensional form, because it’s a 3 dimensional world, so they assume the lines are 2 d, on a flat surface.

When one circle is inside of a larger circle, which is the same distance around it, those are concentric lines, or circular lines the same distance apart.

A circle has an entirely curved line, and another curve around it, at the same distance apart from it, are different lengths, not the same length which straight lines are when parallel.

When there are two lines of ANY shape, which is the same, and the same distance apart, they are called equidistant or matching lines, not parallel lines.

Two zigzag lines that are the same shape and length at the same distance apart, are not parallel lines, nor are they known or called parallel lines, because only straight lines are parallel, while they are all equidistant lines.

The distinction is why there are two different terms used to describe them.

If all lines of any shape, are the same shape and distance apart, we would’ve called them all equidistant lines of the same shape, no need to describe them as parallel lines, because it would mean the same thing as equidistant lines.

What is the one, most obvious difference between them, is that only two straight lines that are parallel, appear to be converging together in the distance, no other lines, so curved lines or squiggly lines aren’t considered parallel, only equidistant lines.

It doesn’t matter if they want to twist the actual meaning of equidistant, to mean parallel lines can be circles or curved lines, to support the ball Earth fable, curves and circles and zigzag lines aren’t parallel lines, only straight lines are, in daily use of the term, and in their appearing to converge together in the distance.

Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy, which would require them to have true level over a distance, in order to know how accurate the laser level is to measuring for true level over that distance.

Therefore, they must have a target point that is level, so it would either account for any ‘curvature’, as an actual measurement of it, or they ignore it as not existing at all, and measures level over the flat Earth surface

They ignore it, as it doesn’t exist at all. Otherwise they’d mention that curvature is accounted for.

We have always understood that parallel lines are straight lines that remain the same distance apart, and are the same length. One line may extend further out than the other line, and are no longer parallel lines.

You truly are deluded aren't you?

Even those who limit parallel lines to straight parallel lines in Euclidean space; do NOT have them be the same length.

Now again, care to address how you blatantly lied to everyone with this BS of yours?

They are called ‘imaginary’ parallel lines, not parallel lines, if you read your own source here.

Or will you continue to avoid that clear example of how you are happy to lie to everyone to promote your delusional BS?

Likewise, care to get back on topic and try to address the fact that your argument that planes need to descend to remain level on a RE is pure BS; and that is clearly demonstrated by the fact that an equivalent argument can be made to say that they need to ascend, with both equally valid?

Especially given that planes do NOT magically fly parallel to Earth's surface.

When there are two lines of ANY shape, which is the same, and the same distance apart, they are called equidistant or matching lines, not parallel lines.
...
If all lines of any shape, are the same shape and distance apart, we would’ve called them all equidistant lines of the same shape, no need to describe them as parallel lines, because it would mean the same thing as equidistant lines.

And you could say the same for straight lines that remain an equal distance apart.

What is the one, most obvious difference between them, is that only two straight lines that are parallel, appear to be converging together in the distance, no other lines, so curved lines or squiggly lines aren’t considered parallel, only equidistant lines.

You truly are delusional.
ALL lines which remain an equal distance apart, will appear to converge in the distance.
That is because the angular size of that separation reduces with distance.
They do not need to be straight.

to support the ball Earth fable

You mean the RE reality that you hate and need to continually flee from?
With you needing to spout pure BS, have it refuted and flee from the refutation, only to bring up the same refuted BS again later?

Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy

And you had that line of BS of yours refuted.

or they ignore it as not existing at all

Or they ignore it as insignificant, as it is, as repeatedly explained.
You pretending to not have had your delusional BS refuted repeatedly wont magically make your delusional BS true.

Now again, care to stop with the pathetic deflections and admit your delusional BS is pure BS and doesn't show any problem with the RE?
Care to admit that planes do NOT need to descend to remain level on a RE?

If not, stop with the pathetic deflections and justify your delusional BS.

Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy, which would require them to have true level over a distance, in order to know how accurate the laser level is to measuring for true level over that distance.

Therefore, they must have a target point that is level, so it would either account for any ‘curvature’, as an actual measurement of it, or they ignore it as not existing at all, and measures level over the flat Earth surface

They ignore it, as it doesn’t exist at all. Otherwise they’d mention that curvature is accounted for.

Like why surveyors have to account for refraction?  Is that false.  Anyway.

The old Chicago skyline, refraction, and earth’s curvature.

Lake Michigan you post?

Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0

Part one. First refraction. 

Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage.  The new well known example is Chicago.

Quote

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline.  Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.

Quote

The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen.  Seen as in the visible length of buildings. 

Quote

On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.”  says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved.    And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for. 

If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?

We have always understood that parallel lines are straight lines that remain the same distance apart, and are the same length. One line may extend further out than the other line, and are no longer parallel lines.

The assumption of lines being two or more straight lines at the same distance apart from one another, is in a 2 dimensional form, because it’s a 3 dimensional world, so they assume the lines are 2 d, on a flat surface.

When one circle is inside of a larger circle, which is the same distance around it, those are concentric lines, or circular lines the same distance apart.

A circle has an entirely curved line, and another curve around it, at the same distance apart from it, are different lengths, not the same length which straight lines are when parallel.

When there are two lines of ANY shape, which is the same, and the same distance apart, they are called equidistant or matching lines, not parallel lines.

Two zigzag lines that are the same shape and length at the same distance apart, are not parallel lines, nor are they known or called parallel lines, because only straight lines are parallel, while they are all equidistant lines.

The distinction is why there are two different terms used to describe them.

If all lines of any shape, are the same shape and distance apart, we would’ve called them all equidistant lines of the same shape, no need to describe them as parallel lines, because it would mean the same thing as equidistant lines.

What is the one, most obvious difference between them, is that only two straight lines that are parallel, appear to be converging together in the distance, no other lines, so curved lines or squiggly lines aren’t considered parallel, only equidistant lines.

It doesn’t matter if they want to twist the actual meaning of equidistant, to mean parallel lines can be circles or curved lines, to support the ball Earth fable, curves and circles and zigzag lines aren’t parallel lines, only straight lines are, in daily use of the term, and in their appearing to converge together in the distance.

Incorrect
Parrallel means they never intersect.
Having same length is nonsense because by definition the theordtical lines are required to be extended to infinity.
I guess infinity = infinity if you want to play games...

But


You couldnt shownus "imaginary".
Lets see if you can show us "of equal length"




par·al·lel
/ˈperəˌlel/
adjective
(of lines, planes, surfaces, or objects) side by side and having the same distance continuously between them.
"parallel lines never meet"

Awhile ago, I mentioned that they test laser levels for accuracy, which would require them to have true level over a distance, in order to know how accurate the laser level is to measuring for true level over that distance.

Therefore, they must have a target point that is level, so it would either account for any ‘curvature’, as an actual measurement of it, or they ignore it as not existing at all, and measures level over the flat Earth surface

They ignore it, as it doesn’t exist at all. Otherwise they’d mention that curvature is accounted for.

Trubalonium2, I see you have suffered a little setback.

Say after me, "They ignore it as it is insignificant."

You need to define what distance they are measuring over, little fella. Over a distance of 50 metres, insignificant. Over a distance of 5 kilometres, Earth curvature will be accounted for. But don't worry your little head, especially over a body of water, laser light like all light, can bend in air containing lots of water particles.

Look at you! Look how far you've come! You only said "flat earth" once in that last reply! We'll bend it out of you!

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 12, 2023, 05:52:51 AM

Oh look

A bunch of concentric circles and parallel lines

ALLL LINES THAT ARE LEVEL TO EACH OTHER


https://youtube.com/shorts/y3cp-izMnjk?si=kq_K4vqFdgbNZhe3


https://youtube.com/shorts/23pCpsMPxZM?si=i4FyThvQDBfKhYYK

No, two curved lines, or two squiggly lines, or any other two lines of some shape, other than straight lines, are equidistant to each other. Only two straight lines can be parallel lines.  Two curved lines have one around the other, in a concentric circle or arc. Two identical squiggly lines aren’t parallel either, they are equidistant lines of the same shape and path.

Only two straight lines equidistant to each other are parallel lines. Or horizontal lines running parallel to each other.

In geometry, lines are considered parallel if they maintain a constant distance between each other at all points. This definition can be extended to curves, including concentric curves. For two curves to be considered parallel, you can use the concept of the normal vector at each point on the curves. The normal vector at a given point on a curve is a vector that is perpendicular to the tangent vector at that point. If two curves are parallel, the normal vectors at corresponding points on the curves should be the same.

Look at two curves defined by functions y₁=f₁(x) and y₂=f₂(x). The curves are parallel if, for each corresponding point (x,y₁) on the first curve and (x,y₂) on the second curve, the normal vectors N₁​ and N₂​ are parallel. This can be expressed as:

N₁∥N₂

The normal vector at a point (x,y) on a curve y=f(x) is given by the vector N=<−f′(x),1>

So, the condition for two curves to be parallel at a given point is:

<−f₁′(x),1>∥<−f₂′(x),1>

or f₁′​(x)=f₂′​(x)

This ensures that the slopes (or derivatives) of the two curves are equal at corresponding points, and thus, the curves are parallel.

That said, you are basically defining parallel here to make the argument valid, meaning its circular logic - though I suppose in a way all math is and more than that, there's no real reason to prefer one definition over another other than if its useful to do so for some application or not.

How come turbo refuses to answer what the angle between 3ft homedepot levels would be if you made a cirvle out of them with using 40,000,000 of them?





Heyhey
How "level" do you think this guys saw blade is?
Is it curved?


https://youtube.com/shorts/M6M2ZB8xJxs?si=Y8t8BFPX8edkBtaB

How come turbo refuses to answer what the angle between 3ft homedepot levels would be if you made a cirvle out of them with using 40,000,000 of them?





Heyhey
How "level" do you think this guys saw blade is?
Is it curved?


https://youtube.com/shorts/M6M2ZB8xJxs?si=Y8t8BFPX8edkBtaB

You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.
The saw blade is always curved.
No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.

teh saw blade is curved in one plane, the spinning plane.

but it's obviously flat in the perpendicular to that it is flat and straight as noted by the initial cuts that are long
wow
look how it sits on the flat table top.


only one person playing word games here... guess who!





https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoLD594o0FTxOdISA0gEUICG9l8XEXEwzJ5w&usqp=CAU

You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.

They are not made precisely enough for that gap to be significant at all.
You would end up with gaps regardless of if Earth was flat or round.

The saw blade is always curved.

Yet if you view a small enough section of a large enough round object, you can't tell it is round.

No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.

The one wanting to twist here is YOU. Just like you do so often.

If you weren't trying to twist, you would answer the question.
But you know that answering the question demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.

And look at how you twist the saw blade, a blade which is much smaller than 5 ft, being used to make a 5 ft table.

So the one appealing to trickery here is you.
Just like so many FEers appeal to vision trickery by appealing to a tiny portion of Earth where the curvature is not easily noticeable to pretend that Earth is flat.

Here is a simple example of such trickery deployed by FEers:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/54mnzptocr
Look, both lines look straight, so that must mean that they are straight.
However, if you take a look at the bigger picture, we see the FEer has dishonestly taken a portion of the red curve where the curvature is not noticeable:


So don't come here complaining about visual trickery when that is exactly what your side does to dishonestly pretend Earth is flat.

it may be lost of sceppy

i think it important when you take a snip and include the grid scale.

on the zoomed in, it looks to be bolded grid lines are 0.74120-0.74118-0.74116-0.74114-0.74112-0.74110

and the zoomed out, is obviously for the bolded grid lines 1.0-0.5-0.0
and regular the grid lines 1.00000-0.90000-0.80000-0.70000-...   


so in comparable scale we're zoomed in at 10,000x magnification.

teh saw blade is curved in one plane, the spinning plane.

but it's obviously flat in the perpendicular to that it is flat and straight as noted by the initial cuts that are long
wow
look how it sits on the flat table top.


only one person playing word games here... guess who!





https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoLD594o0FTxOdISA0gEUICG9l8XEXEwzJ5w&usqp=CAU

You're just confirming what I've just been saying about perception and trickery.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2023, 08:09:58 AM

You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.

They are not made precisely enough for that gap to be significant at all.
You would end up with gaps regardless of if Earth was flat or round.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2023, 08:09:58 AM

The saw blade is always curved.

Yet if you view a small enough section of a large enough round object, you can't tell it is round.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2023, 08:09:58 AM

No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.

The one wanting to twist here is YOU. Just like you do so often.

If you weren't trying to twist, you would answer the question.
But you know that answering the question demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.

And look at how you twist the saw blade, a blade which is much smaller than 5 ft, being used to make a 5 ft table.

So the one appealing to trickery here is you.
Just like so many FEers appeal to vision trickery by appealing to a tiny portion of Earth where the curvature is not easily noticeable to pretend that Earth is flat.

Here is a simple example of such trickery deployed by FEers:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/54mnzptocr
Look, both lines look straight, so that must mean that they are straight.
However, if you take a look at the bigger picture, we see the FEer has dishonestly taken a portion of the red curve where the curvature is not noticeable:


So don't come here complaining about visual trickery when that is exactly what your side does to dishonestly pretend Earth is flat.

As I said to Kabool. You are doing the same. You're just confirming the perception and the trickery from your side, not mine.

You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.

mmmmmmm geometry says no



https://cdn1.byjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/types-of-polygons1.png

https://cdn1.byjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/types-of-polygons1.png

Quote from: JackBlack on November 22, 2023, 01:07:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2023, 08:09:58 AM

You couldn't make a circle out of the levels unless you offer up a gap end to end with each.

They are not made precisely enough for that gap to be significant at all.
You would end up with gaps regardless of if Earth was flat or round.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2023, 08:09:58 AM

The saw blade is always curved.

Yet if you view a small enough section of a large enough round object, you can't tell it is round.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2023, 08:09:58 AM

No matter which way you want to twist it you will never change any of that from reality but you can change it according to offering perception or basically vision trickery.

The one wanting to twist here is YOU. Just like you do so often.

If you weren't trying to twist, you would answer the question.
But you know that answering the question demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.

And look at how you twist the saw blade, a blade which is much smaller than 5 ft, being used to make a 5 ft table.

So the one appealing to trickery here is you.
Just like so many FEers appeal to vision trickery by appealing to a tiny portion of Earth where the curvature is not easily noticeable to pretend that Earth is flat.

Here is a simple example of such trickery deployed by FEers:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/54mnzptocr
Look, both lines look straight, so that must mean that they are straight.
However, if you take a look at the bigger picture, we see the FEer has dishonestly taken a portion of the red curve where the curvature is not noticeable:


So don't come here complaining about visual trickery when that is exactly what your side does to dishonestly pretend Earth is flat.

As I said to Kabool. You are doing the same. You're just confirming the perception and the trickery from your side, not mine.

You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.

Sceptic, he isn't trying. He IS using a curve and offering it as a straight line perception, just as you see when you look at the horizon out at sea.

It is a drawn graph and it is a proof offering for the globe Earth.  Flat Earth destroyed with two lines.

This is just TOO easy. Tell me I'm wrong, Sceptic.

You're just confirming what I've just been saying about perception and trickery.

And how FEers dishonestly resort to trickery to try to con people into thinking Earth is flat?

As I said to Kabool. You are doing the same. You're just confirming the perception and the trickery from your side, not mine.

You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.

Quite the opposite.
I am demonstrating the dishonest trickery you use.
And you are confirming the general dishonesty of FEers where you now pretty much entirely ignore what is said to just go and claim pure BS.

Again, what the above clearly demonstrated is that if you view a sufficiently small enough section of a large enough curve, you cannot tell it is curved.
Yet that doesn't stop dishonest FEers from using such trickery, taking a tiny portion of Earth and boldly proclaiming the entire Earth must be flat because they can't tell it is curved.

According to dishonest FE trickery, that circle is a straight line, because if you look at a tiny portion you cannot see the curve.

Conversely, REers use actual evidence of curvature, such as how objects are obscured by Earth as they go past the horizon, and mountains of more evidence.
Things FEers cannot explain with a FE.

You're trying to use a curve and offer it as a straight-line perception and pretending that somehow covers what you're trying to portray Earth as which you have absolutely no idea about except to reference drawn graphs as some kind of proof offering.

Shrugs…


Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.



The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.



What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
[/quote]