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

  • 390 Replies
  • 113401 Views
?

Themightykabool

  • 13121
  • +58/-81
We always depict, draw, and model things far away, to show depth seen in reality, with two straight rising or converging lines with one line on each side.

These .

You cannot account for your rate of curvature jumping up to a 60 foot curve over 3 miles, it doesn’t work with your ball Earth dimensions and circumference. It would be a very small Earth if you did.




Very
Far
Away


Like you say

So if one was to be on the surface of a cicrle

Say 2m high on a corcle 6,370,000m radius

What is the tangential triangle for the 2m obsrrver to see the "horizon"?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2024, 03:29:22 PM by Themightykabool »

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
While your real horizon curves downward atop an illusionary higher surface
No, where in reality, the real horizon is formed from basic geometry, as the point where a line from your eye to the surface is tangent to the surface.

Not your blatant lie where it is a magical illusion instead of basic geometry.

Surfaces don’t ‘win’ over an illusion
There is no illusion involved here.
It is basic geometry.

For a flat surface:
a=atan(h/d)

For a round surface (as an approximation)
a=atan(h/d+d/2r)

It is basic geometry dictating it all.

You think you can pick out horizons as real
I can accept horizons are real, as that is what all the evidence shows.
You need to repeatedly lie and try to hide behind claims of an illusion, because you know your delusional BS is fundamentally incompatible with reality, because you cannot explain what magic is blocking the view.

If you saw the same surface a fraction above the ground, your ‘real’ horizon would be closer to you.
The horizon is observed to vary with altitude.
The higher you are, the further it is and the lower it appears.
Just like you would expect from basic geometry and a round Earth; and nothing like you would expect from a flat surface.

If there was a curve behingmd then, we’d see them from a perpendicular view in the middle of a horizon.
Repeating the same lie just shows your dishonesty.
If you want that perpendicular view to show that, you need to be very far away. And when you are, that curve is obvious.
When you are close, that curve you are trying to see is hidden by the horizon.

No invisible curves exist.
Just the real ones, like those which cause the horizon.
You can't make them not exist by repeatedly lying to everyone.


And notice how you continue to flee from your claim that it magically looks flat?
And still refuse to explain what is magically blocking the view.

*

Smoke Machine

  • 3975
  • +19/-20
While your real horizon curves downward atop an illusionary higher surface, where no curve would be atop that illusionary higher surface, that’s your version of it?

Surfaces don’t ‘win’ over an illusion, it is the illusion that ‘wins’ over the surfaces. And the illusions decide when they end on surfaces, not the surface.

You think you can pick out horizons as real, when there is nothing of the surface which is the height of a horizon anywhere. Because horizons are also illusions, like the rising surface is up to them. If you saw the same surface a fraction above the ground, your ‘real’ horizon would be closer to you. They don’t exist, they are illusions, they can move out or in anywhere you see them from.  Illusions will do that, because they aren’t real.  They don’t have invisible curves hiding behind them either. If there was a curve behingmd then, we’d see them from a perpendicular view in the middle of a horizon.  No invisible curves exist. You can’t make them exist by saying they do, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.

Best of luck to you and your flat earth brigade. I've been reminded recently of my own mortality and to value the time I have been given in life and to use it wisely. I have to admit that my time on this site with arguments that go around in circles and go nowhere, posts that are blatantly ignored, is not a good use of my time.

I hope you wake up to yourself one day soon to the realisation flat earth belief is a fools errand, before you have no more time in your life left.

You now have one less flat earth denier to argue with.
For the overall shape of Earth to be flat, requires billions of people and billions of pieces of information about Earth to be wrong. Do the maths.

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Inquisitor
  • 7411
  • +58/-120
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?

Bye Smokey  :(
Life is meaningless and everything dies.

Every man makes a god of his own desire

?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured, by a bunch of lousy excuses.

You make up a magical force making our instruments measure for curvature on the surface, why would it choose the surface among everywhere else it goes out from the core of ball Earth, through miles of Earth inside of it, out to miles of air above Earth, out to thousands of miles of ‘space’ to the moon, but make the outer surface of Earth, measure its curvature as level for all our instruments?

Actual forces don’t change measurements of instruments to something else!

Level is always measured as flat and straight across, the very opposite of any curves.

Level cannot have any curving at all, curves and levels are exactly opposites.

Leveling a surface or material is to make it flat and straight across everywhere on it.

Measuring for a curve on surfaces or material is done very differently than measuring for a flat and level surface or material is done.

Measuring for a curved surface or curved material requires measuring for its radius of curvature over the whole surface or material. To find if all of it curves the same way, same radius of curvature. 

There cannot be anything level or flat on a curved surface.

We don’t measure curved surfaces or material with levels. Instruments that measure for level don’t and cannot measure for a curve, nor possible to measure for curves.

Your curved surface may be a very slight curve, but still is a curve, nothing is flat or level on it.

Every curve is measurable as a curve, nothing small or slight in curving is not measurable as a curve, by instruments we have today.

?

Themightykabool

  • 13121
  • +58/-81

Bye Smokey  :(



He ll be back
He always comes back


Someone should check the frequdncy of his quits.

?

Themightykabool

  • 13121
  • +58/-81
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured, by a bunch of lousy excuses.

You make up a magical force making our instruments measure for curvature on the surface, why would it choose the surface among everywhere else it goes out from the core of ball Earth, through miles of Earth inside of it, out to miles of air above Earth, out to thousands of miles of ‘space’ to the moon, but make the outer surface of Earth, measure its curvature as level for all our instruments?

Actual forces don’t change measurements of instruments to something else!

Level is always measured as flat and straight across, the very opposite of any curves.

Level cannot have any curving at all, curves and levels are exactly opposites.

Leveling a surface or material is to make it flat and straight across everywhere on it.

Measuring for a curve on surfaces or material is done very differently than measuring for a flat and level surface or material is done.

Measuring for a curved surface or curved material requires measuring for its radius of curvature over the whole surface or material. To find if all of it curves the same way, same radius of curvature. 

There cannot be anything level or flat on a curved surface.

We don’t measure curved surfaces or material with levels. Instruments that measure for level don’t and cannot measure for a curve, nor possible to measure for curves.

Your curved surface may be a very slight curve, but still is a curve, nothing is flat or level on it.

Every curve is measurable as a curve, nothing small or slight in curving is not measurable as a curve, by instruments we have today.



Nice rant

Whats would the angle be between segments of a 300,000sided polygon?

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured
Good thing it is there, is seen and is measured.

Unlike your flat fantasy, which is not there, is not seen and is not measured.

Again, if the surface there is no horizon except the very edge.
The horizon is that curvature being seen.

You cannot magically make a flat surface magically form a horizon, no matter how much you lie.

You make up a magical force making our instruments measure for curvature on the surface
No, that is just your strawman.
Our instruments (the ones you are appealing to) measure the direction of down. They aren't measuring for any surface.
Altimeters measure air pressure.

Level is always measured as flat and straight across, the very opposite of any curves.
Level is always perpendicular to down.
For a RE, that means it curves.
You not liking that doesn't change that fact.

Leveling a surface or material is to make it
an equipotential surface so water wouldn't flow in any particular direction.
For a small enough surface, the difference between flat and following the curvature of Earth is insignificant.
For a large enough surface, it is significant.

Measuring for a flat surface is done very differently to measuring for a level surface.
Unless you mean level to some reference, in which case they can be done the same.
See how you can measure a surface is level in a lathe, using the same instruments as for a flat surface in a mill.

Every curve is measurable as a curve, nothing small or slight in curving is not measurable as a curve, by instruments we have today.
And the RE is measurable as a curve.
Just not over a small enough distance.
Any small enough portion of a large enough curve is practically indistinguishable from flat.

Again, what instruments do you have that can measure nm over a m?

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 8424
  • +49/-96
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured, by a bunch of lousy excuses.


Actually, it is measured by the dip of the horizon.


?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30
A lesser curved surface or a more indistinguishable of a curve, is still a curve, and measurable as a curve.

Your curve of about 8 inches over one mile of surface, is not measurable, you believe, over smaller distances?

That we are measuring for a curve of less than a few mm, with our precise instruments of today, would measure for curvature of Earth, if it existed to BE measured for!


?

Themightykabool

  • 13121
  • +58/-81
Cool


What precision would you need to be able to measure the ever so slight curve of a 300,000sided polygon?


?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30
A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.

We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat. It appears to be rising, yet is all flat, too.

No curves anywhere at all are seen.

How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface? 

Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.

They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances, and their range of maximum error is in a few mm, so they must be able to measure for true level at those distances from the instruments to know how accurate they are to those distances.

How do they measure for a target of such distances away from the lasers, and know it’s perfectly level over those distances?

Lasers emit a straight fine light, so when they are measuring for level, they use a straight beam of fine sharp light.

They don’t have any curves, to measure for level. No made up force involved here, either.

?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30
How can they measure a target over a distance as being true level, without knowing it IS true?

?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30
How can they measure a target over a distance as being true level, without knowing it IS true level?

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
A lesser curved surface or a more indistinguishable of a curve, is still a curve, and measurable as a curve.
So the curve of Earth is a curve?

Your curve of about 8 inches over one mile of surface, is not measurable, you believe, over smaller distances?
This is simple geometry.
Again, the drop can be approximated as d^2/2R. Noting that for Earth, R is 6371 km, or 6371000m.
So consider a 1 m span. From the centre to the edge it is 0.5 m.
So plugging that in above you get 1.96e-8 m, which is 20 nm.


i.e. if you want to detect this curve over a distance of 1 m, you need to be able to measure accurately to 20 nm.

That we are measuring for a curve of less than a few mm
WHERE?
Over what distance?

with our precise instruments of today, would measure for curvature of Earth
When it is important, we do.
When it is insignificant, we don't.

A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.
We have been over this countless times.
The key distinction here is KEEP rising.
A flat surface will KEEP rising, FOREVER!
A curved surface will not. A curved surface eventually reaches a point where perspective wins and you get a horizon.

Again, the RE matches reality, your delusional BS does not.

We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat.
You mean you are desperate for it to be flat, so you continually assert this.
Just how do we see it as flat?

Again, the dead giveaway is the horizon.

No curves anywhere at all are seen.
Except things like the horizon you keep on ignoring.

How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface?
The simplest method is a water level, based upon water adopting an equipotential surface.
But that is level, not flat.

A more accurate technique if you want to know angles is using a theodolite, which measures an angle of dip to the horizon and can measure the curve of Earth.

They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances
No, they don't, because they follow simple physics.
They measure their angular error, and use that.

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 8424
  • +49/-96

Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.




From this video…


Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.


Quote
Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking

https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/



In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.


The laser at three miles out was about six foot above what should be “level”…..

?

Themightykabool

  • 13121
  • +58/-81
A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.

We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat. It appears to be rising, yet is all flat, too.

No curves anywhere at all are seen.

How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface? 

Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.

They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances, and their range of maximum error is in a few mm, so they must be able to measure for true level at those distances from the instruments to know how accurate they are to those distances.

How do they measure for a target of such distances away from the lasers, and know it’s perfectly level over those distances?

Lasers emit a straight fine light, so when they are measuring for level, they use a straight beam of fine sharp light.

They don’t have any curves, to measure for level. No made up force involved here, either.


You want to use miles?
24,000sides then.
So whats the angle between segments?

Say the number.


?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30

Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.




From this video…


Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.


Quote
Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking

https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/



In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.


The laser at three miles out was about six foot above what should be “level”…..

They first measured the laser from 500 feet away, and hit their target.

But then they moved 3 miles away, when they should have measured it at 1000 feet away or so.

That would be common sense and a proper test, but they don’t want that obviously.

They also never mention how accurate the laser level is over various distances, that’s not relevant at all to this test of measuring for true level and not true level.

They don’t show how they set up the laser to be perfectly level outward from it. If it’s only a small degree off of level, it would be off much more at three miles away. If they’d moved out 750 or 1000 feet and hit the target at the same point, we’d know it is level to that distance. It it hits the target at a higher point there, they could reset the laser slightly downward and repeat those tests, and see if it now hits at the same point at both distances. They don’t know if it’s slightly off true level until they calibrate it at smaller distances first. 

This test is useless, we don’t know the laser accuracy over distances and degree of error over distances. 

Curvature is claimed to about 8” over one mile. Everyone knows that.

But of course they don’t go out 1 mile either, to see if the laser hits the target 8” higher, or 2 miles out and see where the laser hits there.

Any idiot would do that, knowing what the rate of curvature is at one mile and two miles out.


Garbage test.






*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Garbage test.
So when the test shows you are wrong, you dismiss it as garbage.
But when you can try to twist it into pretending it supports you, you cling to it.

Again, how does the FE magically have a horizon?

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 8424
  • +49/-96

They also never mention how accurate the laser level is over various distances,

The it was a laser.  It was the test you wanted.  The boat was “below” level by any stretch of the imagination.


FE killed. 

?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30

They also never mention how accurate the laser level is over various distances,

The it was a laser.  It was the test you wanted.  The boat was “below” level by any stretch of the imagination.


FE killed.

Not with bs tests like this, or any other test either.

What was the lasers accuracy over those distances? Do you know or have no idea? Why didn’t they tell us that, it’s very important to know it’s accuracy when they are using it in their tests?

There is no accuracy test for lasers three miles out, as I know of anyway.  So that’s why they didn’t mention its accuracy for their test, knowing the laser wasn’t going to work accurately over three miles away.

They’re the ones using this laser for their test, I’m sure they knew it would not be tested for such a distance as three miles away.

Unless the lasers accuracy and range of error are known and can work accurately to three miles out, which it wouldn’t be tested for in the first place, or ever work to that distance accurately, their test is complete bs.

Show me I’m wrong about that if you can. Show me its accuracy over three miles away, if you can. If you can’t, you have nothing to talk about here.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Not with bs tests like this, or any other test either.
And why do you claim it is BS? Because it shows you are wrong?
Strange how you are so happy to cling to lasers when you can pretend it shows you are right, but then when it shows you are spouting pure BS you magically change to saying it is a BS test.

I'm sure if the result of this "BS test" supported your delusional fantasy you would happily accept it as rock solid proof.

Here is a better video of the test:


What was the lasers accuracy over those distances?
The accuracy of a laser is based upon beam divergence and alignment.
Are you trying to suggest the beam magically turns to make Earth appear flat?

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 8424
  • +49/-96

Not with bs tests like this,

The only BS is you poo poo the experiment because you didn’t like the outcome. 

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 8424
  • +49/-96
Not with bs tests like this, or any other test either.
And why do you claim it is BS? Because it shows you are wrong?
Strange how you are so happy to cling to lasers when you can pretend it shows you are right, but then when it shows you are spouting pure BS you magically change to saying it is a BS test.

I'm sure if the result of this "BS test" supported your delusional fantasy you would happily accept it as rock solid proof.

Here is a better video of the test:


What was the lasers accuracy over those distances?
The accuracy of a laser is based upon beam divergence and alignment.
Are you trying to suggest the beam magically turns to make Earth appear flat?

Just fyi…. For some of us?




?

Themightykabool

  • 13121
  • +58/-81
A curved surface that is curving downward by 8 inches over a mile, and curving downward by 32 inches over 2 miles, and 72 inches over 3 miles, would not keep rising up more and more over a more and more downward curving surface, and would not be due to perspective.

We can see all of the surface three miles out is all flat. It appears to be rising, yet is all flat, too.

No curves anywhere at all are seen.

How do we measure for level, and its maximum distance over the surface? 

Other than laser levels, which can measure for level over longer distances, but you say they aren’t accurate for longer distances, of course.

They have to measure them for their accuracy over distances, and their range of maximum error is in a few mm, so they must be able to measure for true level at those distances from the instruments to know how accurate they are to those distances.

How do they measure for a target of such distances away from the lasers, and know it’s perfectly level over those distances?

Lasers emit a straight fine light, so when they are measuring for level, they use a straight beam of fine sharp light.

They don’t have any curves, to measure for level. No made up force involved here, either.


You want to use miles?
24,000sides then.
So whats the angle between segments?

Say the number.

?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30
Lasers don’t curve, so what are they used for?

A straight horizon fine beam of light is used to measure level

No curve at all

No made up forces curving it.

No bs ball Earth excuses



?

turbonium2

  • 3781
  • +56/-30
The laser level isn’t accurate to 3 miles away, or is it?

What is the accuracy and error range of this instrument over a 3 mile distance?

Do you know?  Show me a source for it, if so.


?

Themightykabool

  • 13121
  • +58/-81
that's a very good question.

what is the angle created between segments of 24,000segmented pyolgon?


correction, you said 3mi.   so 8,000sided polygon?

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 8424
  • +49/-96
The laser level isn’t accurate to 3 miles away, or is it?

What is the accuracy and error range of this instrument over a 3 mile distance?

Do you know?  Show me a source for it, if so.

What do you mean by accurate, and by what degree.

The boat at three miles out is clearly below the laser by around six foot.

You invoked “lasers” because of something you perceived in them to be accurate. 

But now because someone did the experiment you wanted with a laser and got a result that demonstrates the earth is curved, lasers aren’t accurate?


Anyway, how do we know that level can NOT mean 'level to Earth's curvature'? Because we have another instrument, which measures level, and is called a LASER LEVEL. They do not use Earth's surface, or it's atmosphere, to measure for level. They use lights, which are concentrated to a small point, and cast that light outward, over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all.

ANY curved surface, no matter how slight a curve it has, can be measured, same as a FLAT surface can be measured, or any OTHER surface can be measured.

Your excuse that Earth's 'curve' is too 'slight' to measure, is complete BS. We can measure a curve of microns, on surfaces, with our instruments of today. So we can certainly measure a curve of 8 inches over one mile distance, with our instruments, too.

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!


turbonium2, a laser demonstrated curvature.  Now you’re pissy. 

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Lasers don’t curve
So you admit the experiment shown shows Earth curves?

A straight horizon fine beam of light is used to measure level
Only over a small distance where the curvature is negligible.

No curve at all
Then what causes the horizon?

The laser level isn’t accurate to 3 miles away, or is it?
This is not a laser level.
It is a high powered laser.
Again, are you suggesting the laser magically curves?

Again, laser accuracy comes from beam divergence and alignment.

Now, considering you don't want to accept this laser experiment, care to go back to what you fled from?
What magic causes the horizon in your delusional fantasy?