What about ships on the ocean?

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

Probably because the earth has a rough bumpy surface too.

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

Don't you read my posts?

A theodolite is an instrument you can use to measure all that Earth curvature that you say cannot be measured.

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

To show the horizon.
Notice how rather than even attempt to engage with what it shows, you just make excuses to dismiss it.

Just how do you think it will differ with a beach ball?
Those bumps would be like hills on Earth, or waves on an ocean.

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.

Yet how many times have yo appealed to that same pathetic BS to pretend Earth is flat?

Yet we do measure for level flight in planes, don’t we?

And you have admitted that can't measure for any curve that is there, i.e. it can't tell the shape.

What are we measuring here?

Air pressure, and if that is increasing or decreasing.
If it is remaining constant, then it is level, regardless of the shape of earth.
They aren't measuring to some magical reference plane like you want to pretend.

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.

And it has been, countless times.
By using the angle of elevation to various points on the surface, and how that varies with distance.
The simplest measurement to make is the angle of dip to the horizon.

But a simple observation you can make without actually needing to measure anything, is watching a ship go over the horizon, or looking at a tall building with the bottom hidden by Earth.

We can see how the angle initially increases towards the horizon, until it then stops increasing and instead goes down, to place the bottom of the object at an angle below the horizon so Earth blocks the view.

A flat surface would never do that.

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.

And you can, you just choose not to.

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.

As explained to you repeatedly, the distance at which the curve becomes significant and must be accounted for varies depending upon what you are doing.
For example, if you are laying a road by following the surface, or building a canal, by ensuring it remains level using instruments like a spirit level or even a laser level with its short distances, or flying in a plane trying to maintain altitude again by following the surface, then there is no distance at which it becomes significant.
That is because you are just following the surface (or the hypothetical surface ignoring topography).

Just like if you are making that large tank, you don't need materials especially made for it.
Just like if I want to put some tape around the equator of a ball, I don't need to buy special tape made for that particular size ball. I just buy regular tape and use it on the ball just like I would use it on a flat surface.
Because the curvature (i.e. 1/r) is too small.

But if you were building that tank with a surrounding bracket out of large square cross sectional tubes, then the curvature likely would be significant because the radius of curvature would require yielding the material to have it follow the curve.
But if instead, you just use a bunch of such sections with rough cut ends held together poorly, with poor alignment, then it might not matter and it would depend on that alignment.

But for other things, where having a straight line is important, like LIGO, then even a relatively small distance can be important, so even a few km will require corrections for the curvature.

That is why there is no stated distance. Because the distance at which it becomes important will vary depending on the specifics of the task.

If it’s significant at a longer distance, they’d have to know its rate of curvature over all distances

And they do, or at least can work it out. As shown to you repeatedly.

Now stop repeating the same pathetic BS and explain what magic is hiding the bottom of the ships.

For example, if you are laying a road by following the surface, or building a canal, by ensuring it remains level using instruments like a spirit level or even a laser level with its short distances,

Because the surface is entirely flat and level and horizontal, that’s what we measure it as, and if any area they survey is NOT entirely flat, it is considered an aberration of the surface.

And a curve on the surface of any size at all, is also an aberration on the surface. Curves are not flat, so they’re an aberration of the flat surface.

We’re now building massive projects, hundreds of km high and area on the surface. The surface cannot have the smallest curve as an aberration of the flat surface used for such structures.

It would certainly be considered a significant curve in this case, but did they ever account for any curvature in the project? I’m sure they know better than that, they know there’s no curvature TO account for in their projects.

But it sure makes a ship vanish from sight when it curves right down like it were on a roller coaster ride! All of a sudden, out of nowhere, just beyond an entirely flat surface, the great unseen phantom curve appears on the surface, while still unseen by all, and ships dive down over it instantly, never to be seen again!

A great story, but it’s complete fiction. But it’s a very humorous story!

or flying in a plane trying to maintain altitude again by following the surface, then there is no distance at which it becomes significant.

Planes don’t follow or measure the surface in flights, they couldn’t if they even wanted to.

And curvature would certainly be a huge problem in flights. It’s absurd to claim they don’t need to account for it, they just automatically adjust the plane for curvature without even knowing they did! Or a made up force made our instruments measure level to be over the Earths curved surface at the same altitude, while curving around the curved surface without ever measuring for a curved flight path in a constant descent they never have to do! It just all happens somehow and that’s good enough for me!

Any descent in air at any altitude at any rate of descent over any distance of a descent, is MEASURED AS A EFFIN DESCENT, you moron.

It matters not what the Earths surface is shaped like, the descent in air has nothing to do with the Earths surface or your idiotic joke of a force in a ball Earth apple core.

A plane would HAVE TO fly in a constant descent over a constantly descending downward surface below it. Both paths must match up, so both would be curved, both the surface and the plane.

There is no way you can get around that fact. No way a plane is in a constant descent while not measuring its descent, but instead measuring in level flight! Your story is toast, time to admit it, you’ll be more crushed later on if you don’t get a reality check. A fable is going to hit you right between the eyes some day, and you won’t like how it feels at all. No need for that, simply accept they lied by seeing the truth in front of you. You’ll see it sooner or later, on Earth or after you pass from Earth. Up to you when to accept it, but sooner is better I’m sure of that.

Level is horizontal to the vertical or perpendicular of horizontal or level. Each are at 90 degrees to one another.

The entire plane is level and horizontal and the entire plane is perpendicular to vertical -meaning straight down or up at 90 degrees to the plane going along in a horizontal level path over a flat and level surface below it.

They can’t fake the facts or real measurements, they let you make up stupid excuses for them, while they sit back and laugh at your stupidity, but they really do appreciate helping them like that, I’m sure. Too bad they never reward your blind loyalty with money or anything. They keep it all for themselves. They don’t appreciate you THAT much

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.

Ok.  What kind of instruments.

Like using a tower as a ruler to measure how much dip of the horizon there is.  It only has to have precision to within 20 +/- feet.  That should be good.  Off a whole floor of the building.

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

Oh look.  A tower on a plane where the plane and tower don’t keep rising.  Can measure the dip of the horizon with the precision of one or two floors of the tower acting like a giant ruler in graduations of stories which is a measuring instrument.  Where with distance the curvature of the earth blocks more and more of the tower from view with increasing distance. 


 

Because the surface is entirely flat

No, regardless of what the surface is.
Continually asserting your pathetic crap wont help you deal with what is being said.

We’re now building massive projects, hundreds of km high and area on the surface.

Seriously?
You are now so desperate that you are claiming we are building projects going into space?

The surface cannot have the smallest curve as an aberration of the flat surface used for such structures.

Prove it.

It would certainly be considered a significant curve in this case

Prove it.

I’m sure they know better than that

They know better than YOU.
They account for it when it is needed.

But it sure makes a ship vanish from sight when it curves right down like it were on a roller coaster ride! All of a sudden, out of nowhere, just beyond an entirely flat surface, the great unseen phantom curve appears on the surface, while still unseen by all, and ships dive down over it instantly, never to be seen again!

You sure love asserting this crap.
Not out of nowhere. Exactly where it is expected to based upon a round Earth.
Not like a roller coaster, instead like it is following the same gradual curve.
Not beyond an entirely flat surface, but along a surface clearly curved (as shown by the horizon) which you can't show as flat at all.
The very clearly seen curve, in the form of the horizon.
Again, just how else are you expecting to see it?

Again, the simple and clear difference between a round surface and a flat surface:
Flat surface - No horizon.
Round surface - Horizon.

Planes don’t follow or measure the surface in flights, they couldn’t if they even wanted to.

Notice how you pick a pathetic semantic point rather than dealing with the actual issue.

Again, they do not fly via dead reckoning, so they don't need to think about and plan for the surface.
They just need to maintain altitude.

And curvature would certainly be a huge problem in flights.

Again, stop just asserting BS. PROVE IT!

It’s absurd to claim they don’t need to account for it

No, it is quite reasonable and sane.
And it has been explained repeatedly with you just playing dumb again and again.

How they need to account for it? By making sure they aren't flying off into space.
What would happen if they didn't and instead magically followed a straight line? Well then their altitude would increase, and they would notice this increase in altitude and descend to maintain level. They would also trim the craft to prevent it gaining altitude.
And in this process without thinking about it or planning for it or calculating it, they have adjusted for the curve.

If you want to say it is absurd you need far more than your pathetic assertions.

Any descent

We aren't talking about a descent you lying POS.
This has been explained to you so many times it isn't funny.
Stop just repeating the same pathetic lies.
It just shows everyone that you are subhuman scum that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.
That you are willing to repeatedly lie to everyone, just your pathetic, delusional BS is true and reality is wrong.

We are talking about level flight.

There is no way you can get around that fact.

Given it is just your absolutely pathetic lie, which you need to continually repeat because you are too much of an imbecile to think of anything else and too much of a lying POS to admit you are wrong, it doesn't need to be gotten around.

A plane following the curvature of Earth is flying level, not in a descent, and not in an equally unjustifiable ascent.
You have had that explained to you repeatedly, and you have fled like the lying, cowardly, subhuman POS you are repeatedly.

And look at how you have demonstrated that yet again, by bringing up the same refuted BS in a thread where it doesn't belong at all, all to avoid explain what magic is hiding the bottom of the object.

Level is horizontal to the vertical

i.e. perpendicular to down, not aligned with a magic reference line.

The entire plane is level and horizontal

Again, you assert pure BS with no justification.

They can’t fake the facts or real measurements

Which is why you just keep asserting pure BS rather than appealing to facts or real measurements.


Again, Why can't we see the bottom?
Can you answer it?

Again, they do not fly via dead reckoning, so they don't need to think about and plan for the surface.
They just need to maintain altitude.

By flying level in air, right?  They don’t measure the surface, and fly horizontal above Earth, by measuring it as horizontal or level.  That’s why they stay at the same altitude above the surface they don’t measure.

Next we can go over how to tie your shoelaces

By flying level in air, right?

Yes, LEVEL! not flat.
Again, they don't use dead reckoning. They use measurements of their altitude.
Just like you could follow any surface by measuring yoru distance from it, regardless of the shape of the surface without having to carefully calculate and compensate specifically for the shape of the surface.

Now again, care to stop repeating the same refuted crap and instead tell us what is blocking the view to the bottom of the boats?

Quote

Again, they do not fly via dead reckoning, so they don't need to think about and plan for the surface.
They just need to maintain altitude.

By flying level in air, right?  They don’t measure the surface, and fly horizontal above Earth, by measuring it as horizontal or level.  That’s why they stay at the same altitude above the surface they don’t measure.

Next we can go over how to tie your shoelaces

Changing the subject again Turbs..

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.

Ok.  What kind of instruments.

Like using a tower as a ruler to measure how much dip of the horizon there is.  It only has to have precision to within 20 +/- feet.  That should be good.  Off a whole floor of the building.

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

Oh look.  A tower on a plane where the plane and tower don’t keep rising.  Can measure the dip of the horizon with the precision of one or two floors of the tower acting like a giant ruler in graduations of stories which is a measuring instrument.  Where with distance the curvature of the earth blocks more and more of the tower from view with increasing distance. 

Level is horizontal to the vertical or perpendicular of horizontal or level. Each are at 90 degrees to one another.

The entire plane is level and horizontal and the entire plane is perpendicular to vertical -meaning straight down or up at 90 degrees to the plane going along in a horizontal level path over a flat and level surface below it.

They can’t fake the facts or real measurements, they let you make up stupid excuses for them, while they sit back and laugh at your stupidity, but they really do appreciate helping them like that, I’m sure. Too bad they never reward your blind loyalty with money or anything. They keep it all for themselves. They don’t appreciate you THAT much

What the fuck is wrong with you?? Did your parents repeatedly drop you on your head at birth??

A theodolite is the instrument you can use to prove the sea out to the sea horizon is not perfectly flat and is instead curved with the sea horizon line lower than eye level perspective horizon.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 15, 2025, 10:33:15 PM

By flying level in air, right?

Yes, LEVEL! not flat.
Again, they don't use dead reckoning. They use measurements of their altitude.
Just like you could follow any surface by measuring yoru distance from it, regardless of the shape of the surface without having to carefully calculate and compensate specifically for the shape of the surface.

Now again, care to stop repeating the same refuted crap and instead tell us what is blocking the view to the bottom of the boats?

Level can only ever BE flat and horizontal. Not a curve. They are never flat or horizontal or level.

Curved lines are never parallel, never straight, never horizontal, never level.

Trying over and over to say curves are level is ridiculous. If that were true, you could say anything at all is level, squiggles are level, slopes up and down are level, and anything else is level too! Except for flat and straight and horizontal lines and surfaces of course, they’re NEVER level!!

What a joke you are!

Level can only ever BE flat and horizontal. Not a curve. They are never flat or horizontal or level.

Level can mean a lot of different things depending on context.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/level

Curved lines are never parallel...

Have you ever heard of concentric circles?

Trying over and over to say curves are level is ridiculous.

Again, it depends on the context.

Yes, I’m very aware of concentric circles, matching circles of one inner or outer circle with bigger or smaller matching circles.

Circles having the same distance from other circles, equidistant from other circles.

That’s why we call such circles as being concentric circles.

They aren’t parallel or level curves, straight lines are only called parallel or level lines.

Again, level is a path or distance between two points across each of two separate points.

A curve is also a path between two separate points across both points, between two points, as a path or length or distance.

The path over two separate points is what determines their shape, determines if it’s a curve or a straight path, because they’re not the same thing or same shape or same path.

Two matching up lines of equal distance could be two matching up curved lines or squiggly lines, but they are never parallel lines, only two straight lines of equal distance apart from one another are parallel lines. No others are parallel lines, they are matching lines, or concentric circular lines, but not parallel lines at all.

These people who are trying to twist the meanings of level and parallel into meaning a curve is sort of level to other curves, doesn’t understand what level means, or is a bs artist, most likely.

Level means straight and horizontal and flat lines or surfaces over a distance between two or more separate points, in one path over the two separate points.

That’s the same for a curve or any other line or shape, they are a path over a distance of two or more separate points, linked together as one line or shape.

Trying this bs spin about how level can mean level to a curved line or curved surface with another curved line or curved path that matches up to the first curve is just a fool.

There’s no contexts or ways to consider what level means, or use level to a curve, they mean very different things, they are opposites, in every way possible.

They are both a path over a distance of two separate points.

Level means straight and horizontal and flat lines

Then why is the dip of the horizon hiding the bottom of this tower from view where the tower supposedly sitting on the horizon should rise with the horizon?

Quote

Again, they do not fly via dead reckoning, so they don't need to think about and plan for the surface.
They just need to maintain altitude.

By flying level in air, right?  They don’t measure the surface, and fly horizontal above Earth, by measuring it as horizontal or level.  That’s why they stay at the same altitude above the surface they don’t measure.

Next we can go over how to tie your shoelaces

Changing the subject again Turbs..

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.

Ok.  What kind of instruments.

Like using a tower as a ruler to measure how much dip of the horizon there is.  It only has to have precision to within 20 +/- feet.  That should be good.  Off a whole floor of the building.

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

Oh look.  A tower on a plane where the plane and tower don’t keep rising.  Can measure the dip of the horizon with the precision of one or two floors of the tower acting like a giant ruler in graduations of stories which is a measuring instrument.  Where with distance the curvature of the earth blocks more and more of the tower from view with increasing distance. 

Level can only ever BE flat

Repeating the same pathetic lie again and again will not help you.
It will not change reality.
It will not magically turn level into flat.

Curved lines can be level.

And this just further shows how utterly pathetic your argument is.
Instead of arguing about the actual motion of planes, where your BS has been refuted countless times, you instead appeal to pathetic semantic BS.

Again, level is a path or distance between two points across each of two separate points.

No, level is perpendicular to down.
The other idea is an equipotential.

i.e. the entire level surface, has a potential at some level.

determines if it’s a curve or a straight path

And notice how you didn't say level there?

These people who are trying to twist the meanings

That would be you.
Desperately appealing to whatever pathetic BS you can to pretend level must be flat, so you can pretend Earth is flat, as if lying about the definition of a word will magically make Earth flat.
It doesn't, is just makes you look pathetic.

But none of that helps with the simple observations of ships on the ocean.

There is a trivial question you cannot answer:
WHAT MAGIC IS HIDING THE BOTTOM?

Perspective causes the bottom part of distant objects to not be seen from afar.

You cannot pick out something as being real and pick others as illusions of perspective to fit your argument, it’s not your choice or decision to pick out what fits and ignore what doesn’t fit with your story.

You’re still calling that a ‘dip’ which is bs. It’s a lesser rise of the surface, not a dip, which is a downward slope, stop the bs lies about a dip, stop lying about it.

Perspective causes the bottom part of distant objects to not be seen from afar.

Notice how you just assert pathetic crap, with no explanation at all.

You cannot pick out something as being real and pick others as illusions of perspective to fit your argument

Good thing I'm not.

YOU are the one pretend it is magical illusions. Not me.

I'm sticking to the real physical angle.
Again, for your delusional fantasy, it is a=atan(h0/d).
For reality it is a~=atan(h0/d+d/2r)

It is the same real physical angle going up and down.

You’re still calling that a ‘dip’ which is bs.

No, it is reality.
Because it is BELOW.
It is a downwards slope from the eye (or imaging device) to the point in question.
That IS a dip.

In order for it to not be a dip, it would need to magically be above.

Your inability to separate this dip as an angle which can be measured, from a physical dip in Earth, is YOUR PROBLEM!
Maybe if you didn't have have such a deep seeded hatred of reality you wouldn't have this problem?

So stop the BS, stop the lies.
Actually try explaining what magic hides the bottom.

No, level is a path over a distance between two separate points, from one point to another point.

Level is not one single point, in the middle of an instrument measuring for level, it is a path over the instrument from two ends or points of the instrument.

Level is perpendicular to down or vertical over its length, its entire distance from two separate points, and everywhere along those points is perpendicular to vertical or straight down or straight up from level.

Level is a horizontal path over a span or length or distance, of all points over its length or span.

How can one point be anything at all? How can one point be level or a curve? It’s idiotic to say such a thing as that.

Which one point is level, which one point is a curve and not level? Any idea how that works out? Get a clue for once

If it was a downward slope, we’d not see the horizon at the highest point of the surface, but we do see it.

A downward slope would be the highest point and a lower horizon we’d not even see at all, it’d be dipping lower by that point. Does it dip and then rise up again at the horizon?

Amazing to see, I’m sure.

You make things up and change your story all the time. What now? A downward dip or a half dip and a half rise?

If it was a downward slope, we’d not see the horizon at the highest point of the surface, but we do see it.

Like how the tower is increasingly blocked from view with distance because the earth is spherical.

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

Where using the tower as a ruler, the dip of the horizon can be measured.  Where the horizon doesn’t keep rising, and so should the tower base of the earth was flat. 

No, level is

Again, lying about level isn't going to save you here.
It isn't going to magically make the bottom of objects disappear.

If it was a downward slope, we’d not see the horizon at the highest point of the surface, but we do see it.

Again, you lying about the angle of dip is not going to save you here.
It isn't going to magically make the bottom of objects disappear.

You make things up and change your story all the time.

Nope, that would be you.
I have remained consistent, with you unable to show a single inconsistency; while you and other FEers keep changing things all the time as you get refuted.

Again:
WHAT MAGIC IS HIDING THE BOTTOM?

Can you answer that?

Yes, I’m very aware of concentric circles, matching circles of one inner or outer circle with bigger or smaller matching circles.

Circles having the same distance from other circles, equidistant from other circles.

That's pretty much the definition of "parallel, isn't it?

They aren’t parallel or level curves, straight lines are only called parallel or level lines.

Are the lines painted on a road surface parallel when the road is straight, but not parallel when going around a curve?

Again, level is a path or distance between two points across each of two separate points.

Again, level can have lots of different definitions depending on the context.  In the context of a round earth, level means a curve or surface where every point along that curve or surface is equidistant from the center of the earth.  I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your definition, but that doesn't make it wrong.

There’s no contexts or ways to consider what level means, or use level to a curve, they mean very different things, they are opposites, in every way possible.

Of course there are any number of different contexts where level can be used.  Is the floor level?  Are those two shelves at the same level?  What is your comprehension level?  What level did you park on at the garage?  Are you on the level?

Level is a path or span of distance, a curve is a path or span over a distance, they are NOT one point over an unknown shape.

To make a curve, you need two points separated by a distance. Same as a straight or level
surface or line does. They are not one point to anything else. A single point can be anything at all, you need another point separated from the first point to have a curve or straights line.

Put a level on a curved surface. The surface curves down from the middle of the level.  To measure for level, only one point in its middle can read it as level, the rest does not. It does not know the surface from a point in the middle of it, you have to balance it in the middle like a see saw, with only one point in the middle used.

The rest of the instrument is in air, not measuring anything at all

Level

Has nothing to do with what is hiding the bottom of the ships.
Your pathetic lies about level will not magically make this question disappear.

Again:
WHAT MAGIC IS HIDING THE BOTTOM?

Can you answer that?

Only the bottom of ships? Why doesn’t your curve make the rest of the ship vanish then?

A curve makes the bottom
of a ship vanish, then stops curving away suddenly. Or an idiot says there’s a curve vanishing the bottom of a ship and hopes nobody sees the rest isn’t vanishing away


Who would that be?

Only the bottom of ships? Why doesn’t your curve make the rest of the ship vanish then?

It does, with greater distance.
Only an idiot or a lying POS would ask such a stupid question, when they have already been provided the answer.

Now again, for that intermediate distance, where the object is clearly resolvable but the bottom is missing:
WHAT MAGIC IS HIDING THE BOTTOM?

Can you answer, or just deflect with pathetic BS.

Right, but only at the very bottom it cannot be seen at all, so what if the bottom was curving down and below our view? It would continue to curve downward and more of the ship from that point wouldn’t be seen soon after the bottom curved down.  But only the bottom isn’t seen after that point, which means it is not due to curving downward on the surface. It has to curve more and more downward, not stop curving and become a flat surface where the rest of the ship is still seen further out.

You just pick out the part you want if it fits your curve claim, and ignore the parts that don’t fit your curve story.

A pick what fits your story and throw away the rest of it that doesn’t fit your story, what a joke you are

No, when two lines of equal distance from one another are straight lines, they are parallel lines. When they go from straight lines into curved lines, they are equidistant lines but not parallel lines.

Curved lines are not parallel lines. They have to be straight lines to be parallel lines.

If you can claim that buoyancy doesn't need gravity to work, then I can claim that concentric circles are parallel.  Thing is, I'm closer to right than you.