What about ships on the ocean?

My first post. When a ship sails toward you the mast is seen first on the horizon, then the rest of it becomes visible down to the water. When a ship sails away the bottom of the ship disappears first over the horizon then the top of the mast disappears last. If the earth is flat, and there is no curvature, why wouldn't you be able to see the entire ship at once from a tiny speck getting larger and larger?

My first post. When a ship sails toward you the mast is seen first on the horizon, then the rest of it becomes visible down to the water. When a ship sails away the bottom of the ship disappears first over the horizon then the top of the mast disappears last. If the earth is flat, and there is no curvature, why wouldn't you be able to see the entire ship at once from a tiny speck getting larger and larger?

Flat-earthers will spout a bunch of BS about the atmosphere being harder to see through lower down, so the top of something is seen farther away.

See my post titled "Molokini," for an example that's much easier to see than a ship on the horizon, since Molokini is so much bigger. If you read this board for a while before posting you'll see that this has been brought up many times. Flat-earthers reject any and all evidence that disproves their claim. And since ALL evidence disproves their claim, they reject the entirety of reality out of hand, preferring instead nonsensical sources instead, such as the Bible.

There’s more than that viewpoint of a ship, that your side always ignores for some odd reason.

The constant crap about this same one viewpoint you use to avoid that there are other viewpoints of them, is not going to work for your argument.

Your side seems to believe there’s only one viewpoint of the surface, which isn’t really rising upward at all but looks like it is, and you bs about it all, ignoring the truth as always.

There’s more than that viewpoint of a ship,

Ok?   But looking to the horizon from the shore or a ship shows the curvature of the earth blocks things from view.

Part three.  Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.

Part four, the classic.  Ships disappearing bottom up.

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote

There’s more than that viewpoint of a ship, that your side always ignores for some odd reason.

No, we don't.
You just want to appeal to a different viewpoint as if it magically makes ships not disappear from the bottom up; while actually having it be a fundamentally different path the ship is taking so you can just lie to everyone.
You can get that perpendicular view, and observe the ship rise from behind the horizon reaching a peak at the horizon, and then sinking back down.

Now stop with your pathetic BS about different viewpoints, and explain why things appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 23, 2025, 11:54:36 PM

There’s more than that viewpoint of a ship, that your side always ignores for some odd reason.

No, we don't.
You just want to appeal to a different viewpoint as if it magically makes ships not disappear from the bottom up; while actually having it be a fundamentally different path the ship is taking so you can just lie to everyone.
You can get that perpendicular view, and observe the ship rise from behind the horizon reaching a peak at the horizon, and then sinking back down.

Now stop with your pathetic BS about different viewpoints, and explain why things appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up.

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance, with the ship on the surface appearing to rise upward on the apparently rising up surface, before the bottom of it cannot be seen anymore.

So now we’re seeing a rising upward surface and a rising up ship on it, both of these things we see, are not real, even if they look real to us, but we already know they aren’t real, they’re illusions.

But then you claim the bottom of the ship isn’t seen anymore because it curves downward on the surface, right?

The ship didn’t really rise upward and the surface didn’t rise up at all either, and the bottom of the ship didn’t really vanish over a curve, it’s still there on the ship, but we cannot see it anymore, it’s also an illusion we see out in the distance.


Your story is a contradiction, because you claim the ships bottom cannot be seen anymore because it’s curved downward, on a rising upward surface, on a rising upward ship on the surface!!!

I suppose your curved surface appears to be rising upward and the ship appears to be rising up, but the bottom of it is curving downward below the surface?

Look at the surface beyond the ship, after you claim the bottom has curved downward out of sight.  The surface further away than the ship”still appears to be rising upward, past your curved surface.

It’s easy to see this isn’t possible at all, right?

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance

No, that is literally the exact opposite.
We see that the bottom of an object below us appears to rise due to the reduced angular size of the distance from us to the ground at that distance.
That can only ever make things appear higher with more distance if they are below us.
It can never magically switch around and make it sink.

More generally, it only makes things smaller.
It doesn't magically make them appear to have sunk into the ocean.

they’re illusions.

No, they aren't.
It is simple geometry.

The ship didn’t really rise upward and the surface didn’t rise up at all either

But the angle of elevation to it did.
That is the real physical thing which is happening.

Your story is a contradiction

No, it isn't.
You just need to repeatedly lie to pretend there is a contradiction.
Again, the angle to the bottom of the ship at sea level for a RE is given by approximately:
a = -atan(h/d+d/2r).

No contradiction there.

because you claim the ships bottom cannot be seen anymore because it’s curved downward, on a rising upward surface

No, on a curving downwards surface, where simple geometry still applies.

Look at the surface beyond the ship

I can't, Earth is blocking the view because of that curve you hate.

But notice you have yet again used your typical tactic.
Because you can't justify it in your delusional fantasy at all; you instead decide to lie about the RE model.

Stop with the pathetic lies about the RE model. Try explaining what magic causes it in your fantasy world.

But the angle of elevation to it did.
That is the real physical thing which is happening.

You mean what it appears like, the viewing angle being upward or elevated to us viewing it higher up, than it actually is, which is NOT physically true at all.

Illusions have angles of elevation but aren’t real or physically true at all.

You can call a surface appearing to rise an angle of elevation or whatever you want, but it is not physical or real at all.

The angle of APPARENT elevation is what you should call it, because that’s what it means, it’s an illusory elevation not a real or physical elevation.

You just need to repeatedly lie to pretend there is a contradiction.
Again, the angle to the bottom of the ship at sea level for a RE is given by approximately:
a = -atan(h/d+d/2r).

No contradiction there.

It’s even more contradictory now.

The bottom of the ship cannot be curved downward out of view, while the rest of the ship appears to still be rising upward.

The surface beyond the ship would curve more and more downward, after the bottom curves away downward.  The curve does not stop or curve lesser with more distance.

When you claim the ships bottom has curved downward out of sight, the rest of the ship would have continued to curve downward, only more than where it curved the bottom downward.

Any idiot can make an equation for something that’s bs, it’s meaningless to the real world we see.

Everything we see which is not real, is due to perspective over distances on a flat surface.

You mean what it appears like

No. I mean the real physical angle from your eye to it.
There is nothing illusory about that.

The angle of APPARENT elevation is what you should call it

No, I will stick to calling it what it is. The angle of elevation, because that is what it is. The real physical angle from your eye to the object.

Again, this actually works to explain what is happening. There is no contradiction.
Your inability to defend your FE fantasy doesn't make it an illusion.

We view illusions that aren’t physically true, our view is an illusion, the angle up we view them is a real physical angle on our head and neck looking upward at the illusions.

That’s why we cannot view the surface only outward, it is an illusory surface of perspective. You want to argue a curve because you can make up a phantom curve nobody can see beyond the horizon. Which can easily be proven as bs by viewing the same line of sight outward to the horizon from a perpendicular viewpoint, and many more viewpoints parallel to that first line of sight, from the same point and beyond the horizon, each point being three miles away from it. Even better, have a ship sail out over that line of sight outward, viewing it all along the path perpendicular to the ships path.

We’ll not see the ship or the surface appear to rise at all, we will see it is entirely flat and horizontal in fact, both before and beyond the horizon.

And your fairy tale is toast with that experiment alone.

We could also film the ship going along the top of a horizon at many points each three miles away from the ship, or film it with one camera on another ship which remains parallel to the ship three miles away. It works either way.

We’d see the ship sailing atop the horizon and will always be flat and horizontal, up to and on and beyond the horizon seen from the first position. No rising up surface seen, only a flat and level surface. No curve beyond that horizon is seen at all, only a flat and level surface throughout.

This bs is easily proven as bs, but people are largely ignorant and don’t care about being lied to about everything! Sad but very true.

We view illusions

No. We view the results of basic geometry.
There is no illusion there, and your desperation to dismiss it as an illusion doesn't help you; it just shows how pathetic your position is.

the angle up we view them is a real physical angle

Yes, not an illusion.
And that angle is just basic geometry, geometry which shows Earth is curved.

You want to argue a curve because you can make up a phantom curve nobody can see beyond the horizon.

No, I argue a curve because it is what all the evidence shows and people like you are yet to provide a viable alternative.

Which can easily be proven as bs by viewing the same line of sight outward to the horizon from a perpendicular viewpoint

Which doesn't work the way you pretend it does.

Even better, have a ship sail out over that line of sight outward, viewing it all along the path perpendicular to the ships path.

And clearly describe what you think you will see if Earth is round from these many viewpoints taking a snapshot.

And your fairy tale is toast with that experiment alone.

You mean your thought experiment, where you just make up the results (i.e. YOUR fairy tale) would refute reality if your fantasy was true.

This bs is easily proven as bs

Yes, your BS is easily proven as BS.

In fact, your BS is so pathetic you need to just keep appealing to the same vague BS without explaining any of it, all while ignoring the refutation of your BS for you to just repeat the same already refuted BS.

but people are largely ignorant and don’t care about being lied to about everything! Sad but very true.

I care, which is why I object to your lies.

No, this would absolutely prove the surface is flat.

It is a complete cross sectional view over the surface and beyond the horizon, same as architects and engineers draw any surface or object in multiple viewpoints of them.

That is the only way to know what they look like, in 2d or 3d views of all sides of them.

Only an idiot would look at only one viewpoint of a surface, which is not even shown as it really is, while completely ignoring that this is not the only viewpoint to determine the surface shape, nor can it ever be used to determine the surface.

We have to map out the surface, view it from all angles, over a distance, but your side doesn’t want to know about that, it destroys your entire fairy tale.

The surface is easily measured for, if it were curved, it would be measured as a curve, seen as a curve over a distance that supposedly makes ships vanish down from all sight in only three miles.

If it curves enough to make ships vanish from sight, then it would certainly be measured and seen as a curve over that three miles.

Your story is a joke, that’s all it ever has been, and it won’t last much longer, it should’ve been dead long ago in fact

No, this would absolutely prove the surface is flat.

No.  It proves curvature of the earth.

This is not a curve or a dip, it is rising up less than before at that point, again due to refraction.

Meaningless world salad to try and ignore things get physical blocked from view bottom up that increases with distance because of earth’s curvature.  Zoom in on the object, and the portion physically blocked from view stays blocked by the earth.

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Where the above shows the amount of curvature known as dip of the horizon can be measured


Where the flashlight right on a flat surface at a relatively great distance exhibits nothing that you claim tubs.  As in almost no hight above the surface with a comparatively great distance.  As in the light and bulb from the flashlight are not blocked at all.


360 steps flash


Why does the flashlight test not exhibit anything you claim Turbs.

No, this would absolutely prove the surface is flat.

Again, stop just asserting crap.
Clearly explain.

Explain exactly what observations are to be made from where, and what the expected results are for a RE vs a FE.

It is a complete cross sectional view over the surface and beyond the horizon

If you want that, you need to go far away, like into space. That is what such an orthogonal view requires.
Where we have photos clearly showing Earth is round.

Only an idiot would look at only one viewpoint of a surface

Only an idiot or a lying POS would look at a surface clearly showing a curve and boldly proclaim it is flat.
Yet here you are doing just that.

while completely ignoring that this is not the only viewpoint to determine the surface shape, nor can it ever be used to determine the surface.

And do you know the real problem with that BS argument of yours?
You would get the same view anywhere on Earth.
So you are saying no view on Earth can be used to determine the surface.

What makes it even more pathetic, is in other threads you are claiming surveyors which use instruments which measure the angle you claim is an illusion, to measure the surface from this view.

We have to map out the surface, view it from all angles, over a distance

And we can and have. But your side needs to dismiss it all as fake, because it clearly shows Earth is round.

The surface is easily measured for, if it were curved, it would be measured as a curve, seen as a curve over a distance that supposedly makes ships vanish down from all sight in only three miles.

And it is, repeatedly.
And again, it is not making ships vanish at 3 miles. From 3 miles they start to vanish, from an observer height of ~6 ft.

If it curves enough to make ships vanish from sight, then it would certainly be measured and seen as a curve over that three miles.

Again, HOW?
Do you know how you see something as curved? THE HORIZON!
The very thing you keep fleeing from.

Your story is a joke, that’s all it ever has been, and it won’t last much longer, it should’ve been dead long ago in fact

There you go projecting again.

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance,

The problem is.  Items on top of that the surface would also appear to rise jackass. Not be physically blocked from view bottom up that measurably increases with distance. 

You think we’d see a curve on the surface over three miles and beyond it?

The surface of Earth is just the same as any other surface, and can be measured for its shape.

When we view the horizon three miles away from several points parallel to it, all three miles away, what do you think you’d see of it?

Or view it moving parallel to it three miles away?

You think you’d see a curve over that horizon?

If it WAS curved over the surface, we’d see a slight curve downward from the mid point of our position. Because it could NOT be flat, nor LOOK flat. A curve must always exist and be seen on a curved surface.

When you look over your floor outward, it appears to be rising upward. How do you know it is NOT rising? You look at the floor across from it, moving parallel to it. You see it does not rise at all, it is entirely flat.

So how is the Earths surface any different from your floor? It’s not, it’s just longer than your floor.

Tell me why this doesn’t prove the shape of a surface. What excuse will you make up for it?

I’ve heard them all, but go ahead. It’ll be a good laugh

You think we’d see a curve on the surface over three miles and beyond it?

Depends on your altitude.
From a low enough view point, we do see it easily to three miles, but not beyond it.
i.e. a horizon forms.
Because that is a curved surface works.

Conversely a flat surface you don't have the horizon and can see beyond those three miles.

If you want to say we should see it some other magical way, then stop beating around the bush and clearly and directly explain just what you are expecting to see.
When doing so, make sure you justify it from the RE model.

The surface of Earth is just the same as any other surface, and can be measured for its shape.

And just like all measurements, there will be some level of unceratinty.
But with accurate enough instruments over a long enough distance it is clear that Earth is round.
Your lies wont change that.

When we view the horizon three miles away from several points parallel to it, all three miles away, what do you think you’d see of it?
Or view it moving parallel to it three miles away?

Pretty much the exact same view we have.
And we would expect this roughly the same view regardless of if Earth was round or flat.

Just what do you think you would see?

If it WAS curved over the surface, we’d see a slight curve downward from the mid point of our position.

No, we wouldn't.
The surface has the same angle of dip in all directions. So no, we do not see a curve downwards.
The only way to see that is if you go high enough above it and look down, so that way a curve towards a point below you, in the same plane as the horizon, appears as a downwards curve from your view.

But for a view close to the surface, you are so close to the centre point of that circle (compared to its size) that you will not see that.

The circle you are trying to see is obstructed by the horizon.

Because it could NOT be flat, nor LOOK flat. A curve must always exist and be seen on a curved surface.

A circle is flat.
And you have been provided with plenty of examples of a small enough region of a large enough curve being indistinguishable from a straight line.

When you look over your floor outward, it appears to be rising upward. How do you know it is NOT rising?

By understanding basic geometry. Something you are trying hard to pretend you have no idea what it is.
One way is to use a theodolite and measure the angle of dip to various points on the surface.
Another simple way (which only checks for level, not flat) is to use a level of some sort.

You look at the floor across from it, moving parallel to it.

No, you don't.
Because that doesn't work at all.
That relies upon you having a reference you can compare it to.
Imagine you are on a ramp, looking at something built on that ramp.
Looking at it, as you move up and down the ramp, it looks the same.
That doesn't mean it is flat.

Otherwise, the best you get is a view is when you are very far away from it, so it is akin to an orthographic projection.
Doing that for Earth and you need to be in space.

But if you are just interested in flat, rather than level, you get as close as possible to the surface and look along it (outwards as you would say). If you can't see the entire surface, it is curved.

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance,

Why wouldn’t an object on the horizon not also rise?


Simplified version of my flashlight and camera with the ruler as the rail they were resting on.



Turbo.  In the context of, “Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance” how can a flat surface ever physically block the light of the flashlight always above the flat surface from reaching the camera above the same flat surface?  FE has no explanation for sunset for a sun that supposedly stays 300 to 5000 miles above the earth. 

You think we’d see a curve on the surface over three miles and beyond it?

The surface of Earth is just the same as any other surface, and can be measured for its shape.

When we view the horizon three miles away from several points parallel to it, all three miles away, what do you think you’d see of it?

Or view it moving parallel to it three miles away?

You think you’d see a curve over that horizon?

If it WAS curved over the surface, we’d see a slight curve downward from the mid point of our position. Because it could NOT be flat, nor LOOK flat. A curve must always exist and be seen on a curved surface.

When you look over your floor outward, it appears to be rising upward. How do you know it is NOT rising? You look at the floor across from it, moving parallel to it. You see it does not rise at all, it is entirely flat.

So how is the Earths surface any different from your floor? It’s not, it’s just longer than your floor.

Tell me why this doesn’t prove the shape of a surface. What excuse will you make up for it?

I’ve heard them all, but go ahead. It’ll be a good laugh

The floor would only appear to rise because you are looking down at it. The floor is not reaching eye level. If you are looking perfectly horizontally in front of you and can see the floor you are standing on rising in front of you, you are seeing that in your peripheral vision.

It's exactly the same when you look at the horizon out to sea. The horizon out to sea looks like it is at your eye level, but it is not. You are actually looking down at it but don't realise it.

Our eyes are very good but this is where they let us down. When you are looking at the horizon out at sea, it is always slightly lower than your eye level, but practically impossible for the unaided eye to discern.

Turbonium, you never purchased a telescope to view Saturn first hand, so I have no doubt, you will never purchase a theodolite to view the horizon out at sea, which will prove to you the physical sea horizon is slightly lower than your eye level horizon as in perspective drawing.

It sux to be a flat earther, but this is the truth.

What makes it even more pathetic, is in other threads you are claiming surveyors which use instruments which measure the angle you claim is an illusion, to measure the surface from this view.

Because they already know the surface is flat, from all viewpoints over it. 

Horizons always form atop of the apparently rising up surface, which is not rising at all of course, it is always the same height, and is entirely flat, in perfect state.

If the surface was curved, it would always curve downward from us, in all directions around us, right?

Which would mean a horizon seen from the ground, which is about three miles away from us, would be the highest horizon we’d ever see on Earth, or above Earth.

Rising up higher and higher above a ball, cannot have a higher horizon at all.

Because going above a ball, higher and higher upward above a ball, curves more and more downward than on the ground, it’s an absolute fact, physically a fact.

No matter how large a ball is, the horizon cannot appear to rise upward higher than on the ground.

The horizon seen from the ground, if it were curved, would be the smallest curve over it, three miles away.

Going up above a ball, we’d see further out on that curved surface, but it would be curving more downward and seen lower than on the ground, the curve is ever greater and greater downward with more distance over it.

The most it can do is remain close to the same height as before, from the ground.

We’d never see a horizon across from us at 30000 feet altitude in a plane.

A ball Earth would be a massive ball, but would curve more and more downward like any ball would do.

Being less curved than other balls are, makes them look flatter than other balls look like, but nothing makes a ball rise up over distance, no horizons rise up on a ball going higher above them.

A ball always curves downward, less or more of a curve, but they all curve downward.

Perspective acts on flat surfaces, and close to flat surfaces over short distances, as a large ball Earth would be.

When you claim that the horizon seen three miles away from the ground, is where it starts curving downward out of our view, the curve beyond that point would be greater and greater downward after three miles out!!

The horizon does curve away downward from us all in every direction, all at once. The 3 mile mark is where that curvature stops us seeing the earth beyond due to its curvature.

A theodolite proves this.

Buy yourself the biggest beach ball you can, and get your eye as close to its surface to mimic what happens when you look around at the earth.

Because they already know the surface is flat, from all viewpoints over it.

Firstly, that still would mean it directly contradicts your claim.
They measure the surface by that outwards you claim can't measure it.

Secondly, no, they don't know the surface is flat.
That is just your pathetic baseless assertion that you need to repeat while ignoring the evidence that shows they know Earth is round.

But even more importantly, they aren't just surveying level surfaces. Your BS would require you to pretend that hills don't exist.

Going up above a ball, we’d see further out on that curved surface, but it would be curving more downward and seen lower than on the ground

And it is.
The angle of dip the horizon depends upon your elevation, and the angle of dip increases as you get higher.
All you are doing there is showing Earth is round.

We’d never see a horizon across from us at 30000 feet altitude in a plane.

And we don't see it directly across from us. Instead it is down a bit.
Your own evidence showed that.

Perspective acts on flat surfaces

No, perspective acts on everything.
Not just magically flat surfaces.

When you claim that the horizon seen three miles away from the ground, is where it starts curving downward out of our view

That is not what I claim at all.
That is just your pathetic strawman to pretend the RE model is wrong.

It curves the entire time.
That 3 archaic unit distance is just the particular distance for a particular elevation that the curve starts blocking the view.
And unlike your BS, this actually explains why objects disappear from the bottom up, appearing to sink.

You have no explanation.

Because they already know the surface is flat, from all viewpoints over it. 

Turbo.  Address and answer what was actually posted.

Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance,

Why wouldn’t an object on the horizon not also rise?


Simplified version of my flashlight and camera with the ruler as the rail they were resting on.



Turbo.  In the context of, “Same reason the surface appears to be rising upward in the distance” how can a flat surface ever physically block the light of the flashlight always above the flat surface from reaching the camera above the same flat surface?  FE has no explanation for sunset for a sun that supposedly stays 300 to 5000 miles above the earth.



Where I posted this.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 08, 2025, 03:15:31 AM

No, this would absolutely prove the surface is flat.

No.  It proves curvature of the earth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2025, 10:58:30 PM

This is not a curve or a dip, it is rising up less than before at that point, again due to refraction.

Meaningless world salad to try and ignore things get physical blocked from view bottom up that increases with distance because of earth’s curvature.  Zoom in on the object, and the portion physically blocked from view stays blocked by the earth.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote

Where the above shows the amount of curvature known as dip of the horizon can be measured


Where the flashlight right on a flat surface at a relatively great distance exhibits nothing that you claim tubs.  As in almost no hight above the surface with a comparatively great distance.  As in the light and bulb from the flashlight are not blocked at all.


360 steps flash


Why does the flashlight test not exhibit anything you claim Turbs.

The tower is on the plane you keep saying rises.  The tower on the plane should also rise with it.  The tower does get smaller with distance.  But that doesn’t explain why with distance more and more of the bottom of the tower is measurable blocked by the dip of the horizon.  Curvature of earth explains why the bottom of the tower is physically and increasingly blocked from view with distance.  And why zooming cannot bring the portion physically blocked from view by earth’s curvature back into view. 

If the surface was curved, it would always curve downward from us, in all directions around us, right?

At what rate for a large sphere.

Turbs.  I think this has been illustrated for you many times.

The below with a camera with a built in zoom lens with a macro lens adapter shows just because you think it looks flat isn’t evidence of it being actually flat.



The same case that has been proven many times in different ways.

Quote

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?

 

A basketball has a rough bumpy surface, why use that ball for their test?

Use a smooth surfaced ball like a beach ball or something. Not a pebbled basketball, nobody is that stupid, but it seems they are!

And you’re right that we cannot measure this curved object as curved with a small level on it, and move it over the surface.

You can’t measure the curved surface with a small level. It doesn’t measure for a curve, as I’ve been telling you all along.

Same as you cannot measure for a ball Earth curve with levels, they can’t measure for a curved surface of Earth.

Yet we do measure for level flight in planes, don’t we? What are we measuring here? Not a curve, obviously. They measure for level flight over a flat and level surface of Earth below the planes. And they land because they measure for a flat surface of Earth, and it works perfectly all the time.

That’s the whole problem you have here.

If there really was a curved surface, it would have to be measured for with instruments, if we even could build such an instrument, that is.

That we always measure for level flight and for a level surface is hardly about any curved surface at all.

If there were a curve on the surface over three miles making ships curve out of sight, we’d certainly be able to measure for a curved surface.

They claim the curve is ignored and insignificant over smaller distances, which they don’t specify the distance is, and when it is past that smaller distance.  There isn’t any distance it’s significant, because the surface doesn’t curve at all.

If it’s significant at a longer distance, they’d have to know its rate of curvature over all distances, in order for it to be significant at a certain distance out on it!

It’s all bs, nothing but bs