Really, boats would have to sail up hill?

being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.

WTF ? ? ? ?


One

I thought flat earthers claim they understand the RE?

Equipotential: a Property of the Surface of Water


The surface of the sea is a level surface.

By the way.  The surveying definition of level surface. 

Level Surface : A Curved surface that at every point is perpendicular to the local plumb line. The plumb linemeans the direction in which the gravity acts. Level Surfaces are approximately spheroidal in the shape. The common example of a level surface is a body of the still water.


https://surveyingwithsamo.wordpress.com/

Sea level is Equipotential as it curves around the globe, and doesn’t require a boat to sail up or down hill.  It just sails on a level surface in the context of surveying, requiring no changes in the terms of gravity in potential energy vs kinetic energy. 

Two

When I point out that when a car goes up hill it needs to burn more gas / increases RPM’s / gears down to expend more energy to fight gravity (increase PE in terms of gravity), I get told something along these lines.

Because it doesn't matter.

You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.

That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.

But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.

If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.

From the thread..
Modern cars absolutely confirm gravity
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91142.30

So?  Why would a flat earther bring up a boat would have to “sail up hill” which is invoking gravity in ignorance by flat earthers.  When the quiet clearly posted “But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.”

Flat earth is stupid.

With stupid arguments built on misunderstanding the heliocentric model, or just right out lying about the heliocentric model. 

I guess flat earthers can’t handle they contradict themselves? 

Flat earthers can't handle the simple fact that down is towards the center of the round earth.  I have no idea why that should be so hard to understand.

Jesus Christ, your cognitive dissonance is so far up your ass that your own picture has checked as correct water doming up, which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water. Instead, you take a look at that picture and are like, "How can Bulma say that? I just don't see it!"

Really? Should I spell it out for you? Okay.



How is your brain so fucked up that you think it would be the lowest potential for water to mound up rather than laying flat? Even if you could somehow assert the spherical shape of Earth were real, you have literal mound of water that runs upward, and you are convinced that this requires less energy than simply lying flat. According to your own picture, according to your own theory of gravity, water lays flat as a matter of falling to center.  It is not pushed up in the air.  Even worse, the larger the body of water, the higher the arch would have to be to render a sphere.

What is wrong with your brain?!?



I've put up with alot of your stuff over the years, but when you literally look at a picture of a banana and say that it's an apple, it's time to slap some sense into you, because you are hardcore under a delusion.

Jesus Christ, your cognitive dissonance is so far up your ass that your own picture has checked as correct water doming up, which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water. Instead, you take a look at that picture and are like, "How can Bulma say that? I just don't see it!"

I repeat my question.  How can you not understand that the concept of down on a round earth points towards the center of the earth?  Seriously, what is so incredulous about that?  RE says that the core of the earth is very dense, so less dense objects should naturally fall towards the center, don't you think?

What is wrong with your brain?!?

That's what I keep wondering about FE'ers.

which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water.

No.  A boat at sea stays at sea level with the definition of level surface which is “ A Curved surface that at every point is perpendicular to the local plumb line. The plumb linemeans the direction in which the gravity acts. Level Surfaces are approximately spheroidal in the shape. The common example of a level surface is a body of the still water.”

Bulma if you think “ But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.”  Then why would going “help hill in a boat” be a problem?  So, Bulma?  You now believe in gravity.  That force a car fights when going from a level surface going up a steep hill where the car has to exert more force by burning more fuel with RPMs increasing and fuel mileage going down to maintain the same speed while going up hill.  A simple car going up hill demonstrates gravity is a downward force.  The force that keeps you from pushing a car up hill by your own strength.

water lays flat as a matter of falling to center.

But water in the ocean isn’t really “flat”, is it.  Between high tides and low tides.  Tides coming in and tides going out.  With tidal bores with enough force to make rivers run backwards.

This is you.

being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.

Why would it present a problem Bulma if you don’t think there is no gravity?  Don’t get angry at me because you subconsciously have to invoke gravity. And FE fails to predict reality.  Where Bulma, you contradict yourself.

Because it doesn't matter.

You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.

That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.

But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.

If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.

Which is it Bulma?  There is a downward force called gravity that prevents a sailboat from sailing up hill?  Or there is no gravity and so there shouldn’t be a problem with a sailboat sailing up hill in your delusion? 

Jesus Christ,

That you have to ignore the measurable dip of the horizon proven by your own picture.



If there is no measurable dip of the horizon from the surface of Lake Michigan curving with the earth?  From New Buffalo line of sight distance over the water about 40 miles.  Why are only the tops of the tallest buildings visible.  Where shorter buildings and structures like the Chicago sea wall are not visible.  Why are the trees along the Chicago shoreline not visible? 

I repeat my question.  How can you not understand that the concept of down on a round earth points towards the center of the earth?  Seriously, what is so incredulous about that?  RE says that the core of the earth is very dense, so less dense objects should naturally fall towards the center, don't you think?

More cognitive dissonance. Let's look at the picture again. This time I'll draw arrows toward the center of the Earth created by your imaginary gravity. Maybe this will help you figure it out.



All of the water goes toward the center of the Earth, right? So all the water should fall down.

But the water in the center of the lake pushes away from Earth's center in the second frame, against gravity and against the center. Now, you could claim that there's the equivalent of a suspension bridge with water pushing horizontally together, but looking at the water, there is actually no proof of this. You can pour water into a bathtub and nothing like this happens (when water rises, as in a canal lock being closed, it rises because water is being trapped so it can't flow out, so a bathtub would be the ideal place to check whether water mounds... and it doesn't).
Instead, what we get is optical illusions. I went to Lake Occochobee (spelling?) in Florida, and I could not see the other side of the lake. This is not due to a mound, the lake is simply to big to see from one end to another.

Quit lying to yourself, and see some damned reason! This even fails under your own theory.

More cognitive dissonance.

Me.  You can’t come to terms with the dip of the horizon is a real and measurable thing.  Especially when it’s proven from a picture you provided.

That you have to ignore the measurable dip of the horizon proven by your own picture.



If there is no measurable dip of the horizon from the surface of Lake Michigan curving with the earth?  From New Buffalo line of sight distance over the water about 40 miles.  Why are only the tops of the tallest buildings visible.  Where shorter buildings and structures like the Chicago sea wall are not visible.  Why are the trees along the Chicago shoreline not visible.

Where you have to ignore that water really isn’t level in the sea between high tide, low tide, tides coming in, tides going out, tidal bores with the power to make rivers run backwards.  Where you can’t explain these tide phenomena without contradicting yourself Bulma. 

I went to Lake Occochobee (spelling?) in Florida, and I could not see the other side of the lake.

This is what your buddy AI comes up with for the widest point



Bulma, it wouldn’t be the first time you blatantly lied. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 08, 2025, 08:59:51 PM

I went to Lake Occochobee (spelling?) in Florida, and I could not see the other side of the lake.

This is what your buddy AI comes up with for the widest point



Bulma, it wouldn’t be the first time you blatantly lied.

Yes? And?

Can you see the other side of that lake in that picture?

I couldn't in real life. I was facing north from the south end. There are no major cities on the other side, no high mountains either. Chicago is a major city with tall buildings. You can expect that to be seen across a bay, and depending of atmospheric conditions, it might appear anything from faintly in the distance to incredibly clearly.



You cannot even see the other side of Okeechobee from aerial view. It's incredibly flat, so vanishing point means the land on the other side pretty much disappears. On the south side, there are dikes, but visibility is really that awful.


I'm telling you my own experience, and you called me a liar. Maybe you could apologize?

Can you see the other side of that lake in that picture?

No.  Because of the dip of the horizon from earths curvature.

Again..

That you have to ignore the measurable dip of the horizon proven by your own picture.



If there is no measurable dip of the horizon from the surface of Lake Michigan curving with the earth?  From New Buffalo line of sight distance over the water about 40 miles.  Why are only the tops of the tallest buildings visible.  Where shorter buildings and structures like the Chicago sea wall are not visible.  Why are the trees along the Chicago shoreline not visible.

Where you have to ignore that water really isn’t level in the sea between high tide, low tide, tides coming in, tides going out, tidal bores with the power to make rivers run backwards.  Where you can’t explain these tide phenomena without contradicting yourself Bulma.

No.  Because of the dip of the horizon from earths curvature.

No. Because short objects vanish into the horizon as part of vanishing point perspective.

On the opposite side of Okeechobee, everything is at or near sea level. Water blends into more water.
On the opposite side of the other is Chicago where buildings reach up as high as 1450 ft or so.

"Do you understand that buildings don't look this way?"

So your rationale is that because mist obscures parts of buildings, they don't exist and this picture is not real?

You accuse me of lying when I tell my actual experiences, while you lie up and down.

Obviously, there are buildings on the other side of that lake. And you go out of your way to find pictures that you say are fake or are just bad pictures.


Michigan City, IN


St Joseph, MI

Here's the thing. Fata Morgana (the phenomenon of upside down buildings and other weird shit) is not the same thing as saying something is fake. The atmosphere is acting like a trick mirror. As I've told you. The science types explain it this way.

In short, it is a mirage. It is actually pretty complex stuff. Differences in the heat and humidity lead to layers of air with different density. As light passes through different densities of air it refracts, so the air acts like a giant lens. Depending on the way air is layered it can distort or invert the image.

They go on to say that it cannot possibly be seen from Michigan (even though it is a line of sight) because there is too much curvature. Even though in fact this picture just looks short rather than distorted.

Let me explain why Fata Morgana is pretty good proof that we are not in fact looking at curvature.

Suppose you have a trick mirror, and a flashlight. And you're out at night, so you can't tell what you're seeing is a mirror.  You see weird shapes from the light bouncing off the mirror. Now, let's put you on a hill shining that same flashlight. The light won't directly hit, because you are aiming off center. Similarly, in a sphere, earth and sky would curve around a corner, and this nice mirror effect would simply not work. What you'd have instead was light from the bottom of the mirror, or a nice effect at ground level, similar to hitting a mirror from above on a hill. But this is not what we see. We see straight on the horizon. 


Whether or not it is a mirage (I think it's legit), light isn't affected by your notions of gravity. Despite people telling in the physics stack exchange, "Light is clearly affected by gravity, just think about a black hole," only to waffle back and say, "but light supposedly has no mass and gravity only affects objects with mass." The point being black holes are theoretical, light has no mass, and it wouldn't go under your curvature hill in order to hit a cloud bank, then bounce back up and round a corner again, all so you can see Chicago as if through a telescopic lens. Whether it's right side up or not, makes absolutely no difference. It is a direct line of sight to Chicago, so depending on clouds and time of day, you can see this view better or worse. Basically, AI art before it was cool, courtesy of the natural world. And none of it could work on a round Earth because light would need to do a series of fairly implausible things all coincidentally, some of which are contradiction.

If you didn't want want them to sail up hill you shouldn't have made it round in your new world order.

No. Because short objects vanish into the horizon as part of vanishing point perspective.

That is wrong and a lie.

A ball rolling down a hall is perspective.



Where the ball never reaches “vanishing” point that is infinitely far away, where you can bring the ball back into view with zooming on it goes beyond resolution.




Where the ball never gets blocked by the floor of the hall.

Your picture




Where the bottoms of the taller buildings, the shorter structures, tress, sea wall is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.


And the setting sun..



Where if you zoom on it..



Still blocked from view

Where the sun isn’t shrinking in apparent size like a ball rolling down the hall where there is no “perspective and vanishing point” to invoke in this context. 

Where the floor doesn’t block the ball from view. 

The sun and the buildings in you picture are physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.  Zooming in doesn’t “uncompress” what is hidden because it is physically blocked.

Similar to the ball being physically blocked from view..






Yes Bulma, the dip of the horizon is real and measurable.  Where it ties into the curvature physically blocking objects from view bottom up.  To base any school of thought on anything else is to base that on a lie. 

If you didn't want want them to sail up hill you shouldn't have made it round in your new world order.

Then you don’t understand the heliocentric model.  And if you think a sail boat can’t sail up then you most invoke gravity. 

No. Because short objects vanish into the horizon as part of vanishing point perspective.

Funny.  These structures as single units get physically blocked from view bottom up with distance. 

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

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.

I guess too many facts for flat earthers…

Go figure

Quote

I repeat my question.  How can you not understand that the concept of down on a round earth points towards the center of the earth?  Seriously, what is so incredulous about that?  RE says that the core of the earth is very dense, so less dense objects should naturally fall towards the center, don't you think?

More cognitive dissonance. Let's look at the picture again. This time I'll draw arrows toward the center of the Earth created by your imaginary gravity. Maybe this will help you figure it out.

Sorry, but only one of those arrows is pointing towards the center of the earth.   The others are pointing off center.  Since when is drawing a line from the circumference of a circle to its center such a difficult task?

Yeah I figured you'd say that, markjo.

But it's not so. Solids can be shaped in a sphere (as in a boulder)



Let's contrast the water to the rock though. The water lies flat, the rock is allowed to form a perfect sphere.

So, if we further elaborate on our picture, you can maybe draw arrows toward the center with land, as you manage with a mountain appearing in all sorts of shapes.


Water on the other hand is not able to be mounded or shaped short of freezing it. Which is to say, solids are able to be compacted together to make buildings, pillars, statues and all other things that are not flat. But liquids tend not to do this. So even if you think that it "should point arrows to the center, the fact of the matter is, its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity, and this will continue regardless of where the center supposedly is. Because of this behavior, we know the actual shape of land must be closer to this:


On such land, you can build a bridge across the aforementioned lake. Or sail across it.
On the other hand, it is difficult or impossible to build a proper bridge on curved ground. Tension forces the structure apart with even an adjustment of only 8 inches for a mile-long bridge. And the more length that a bridge has, the more you would deal with this curvature creating tension.

Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get past the peak and the current will be like a water slide.
There indeed are rivers that flow downhill. These are called rapids, and it is difficult to for instance turn the boat against them and try to paddle against the rapids. In fact, you are likely to flood your boat should you try. Which brings us to our point. On any level river, contrary to your delusion, based primarily on the way what you see seems to curve (which is quite different from an actual curve, as I would say to a Catholic telling me that bread and wine actually become the body and blood rather than being symbols) on any lake or river than does not have rapids, you can turn the boat around and paddle or motor or whatever in the other direction. It's perfectly flat, and if you learned to actually understand things, you wouldn't be fooled by silly ideas.

He puts his shipment away then heads out in the opposite direction. This is possible on a flat ocean. In a spherical ocean, we should see him visibly struggling in one direction. As Pitch Meeting says, "It's barely an inconvenience."

Yeah I figured you'd say that, markjo.



Water on the other hand is not able to be mounded or shaped short of freezing it.

You mean by ignoring tides?  And you completely butchering the round earth model to create a false argument.

Where the force of gravity is simply witnesses by driving a car up a steep hill trying to maintain a constant speed.  Again.  If I’m driving 55 mph on level surface onto a steep hill, the car has to produce more force to keep the same speed.  This is seen through one or a combo of  burning more fuel, RPMs going up, Mike mileage dropping, the car gearing down. 

Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill.

Why?

Your own post states otherwise.

Because it doesn't matter.

You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.

That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.

But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.

If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.

You're confusing driving up a hill with a car or something (dredging up old posts like a petty ex-gf, are we?) with slowly rowing up a hill while rapids are pushing in the other direction. Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill (possibly because it doesn't exist), while the current of water pushing against you kinda does.

Get in that row boat! I don't expect you back in this forum until you have made a full round trip up and then back down that mountain. No excuses!

Yeah I figured you'd say that, markjo.

And I figured that you still wouldn't get it.

But it's not so. Solids can be shaped in a sphere (as in a boulder

Unless that boulder is made of neutron star material, down is towards the center of the earth, not the center of the boulder.

Let's contrast the water to the rock though. The water lies flat, the rock is allowed to form a perfect sphere.

Since it's not a valid comparison, let's not and say we didn't bother.

But liquids tend not to do this. So even if you think that it "should point arrows to the center, the fact of the matter is, its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity, and this will continue regardless of where the center supposedly is.

The only center that gravity is concerned with is the center of mass.  In this case, that center of mass is the center of mass of the earth.  Unless you can isolate your boulder from the gravitational field of the earth, your example is nonsense.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 09, 2025, 12:01:23 PM

Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill.

Why?

Your own post states otherwise.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 25, 2022, 06:57:54 PM

Because it doesn't matter.

You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.

That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.

But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.

If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.

The mistake you are making, Data, is assuming a flat earfer like Bulma, can think in 3d like normal people like you and I can. These are people who live in a 2d world like Flat Stanley.

You can't just show Bulma a 2d drawing and expect shim to understand a 3d concept. Look at how confused you have made him. He doesn't know if he's Arthur or Martha.

If you seriously want to break the fourth wall with him, I'm sure you own a globe earth model? Start using that with arrows.

The mistake you are making, Data, is assuming a flat earfer like Bulma, can think in 3d like normal people like you and I can. These are people who live in a 2d world like Flat Stanley.

Are you kidding?  Bulma can't even draw more than one arrow to the center of a 2d circle.

You're confusing driving up a hill with a car or something (dredging up old posts like a petty ex-gf, are we?) with slowly rowing up a hill while rapids are pushing in the other direction. Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill

Yeah.  It does.  Going up hill to maintain the same speed compared to a level surface.  The car has to burn more fuel and the engine RPMs increase. This is reflected in gas mileage going way down.  If you don’t understand reality, you’re just stupid. 

Where you anre ignoring water in the oceans do surge to highs and lows I fluenced by tides. 

How does FE make you blind to simple truths? 

the fact of the matter is, its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity,

Then why are the bottoms of these buildings in your photo physical blocked from view.  With short structures, trees, and the sea wall completely physically blocked from view?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 09, 2025, 03:42:42 PM

The mistake you are making, Data, is assuming a flat earfer like Bulma, can think in 3d like normal people like you and I can. These are people who live in a 2d world like Flat Stanley.

Are you kidding?  Bulma can't even draw more than one arrow to the center of a 2d circle.

That's exactly what I mean. A two year old child with a thick crayon could draw more technical drawings than bulma.

All flat earthers share a common quirk. They all say they understand the heliocentric model of earth with how gravity works, then, just like bulma, say something which illustrates they dont understand the heliocentric model at all.

It's really quite astonishing. This is what happens when someone watches too many flat screens, from television, to cell phone screens, to computer monitors, and in the case of bulma - his wall mirror where he checks his make-up. Flat, flat, flat.

Too brainwashed to realise his eyeballs which he views the world through - are globes.

Jesus Christ, your cognitive dissonance is so far up your ass that your own picture has checked as correct water doming up, which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water. Instead, you take a look at that picture and are like, "How can Bulma say that? I just don't see it!"

You mean you hate reality, outright reject it; and continually insert your own delusional BS of a magical universal down into models describing reality where such BS has no place?

Do you understand what "up" means on the RE model?
Because you keep acting like you have no idea.

And what makes it even more pathetic is how you then don't apply the same level of stupid to your FE fantasy.

You are happy with 2 locations on a circle being the same distance from the north pole and thus travel between them just being east or west, without thinking you need to go north or south between them.
This demonstrates that you understand this concept, you just refuse to apply it when it shows you are wrong.

Going from A to B in that curve is not going uphill, it is going level.

You should also really stop using discord for your useless images.
As it has disappeared you have spelled out nothing.

How is your brain so fucked up that you think it would be the lowest potential for water to mound up rather than laying flat?

Yes.
Ignoring gravity, water will attempt to minimise its surface area.
So that would make it try to go into a sphere.

But again, you fail to understand the difference between flat and level.
You fail to understand the difference between level and uphill.

You are basically saying "How is your brain so fucked up that you don't just mindlessly accept this baseless FE garbage".

Why should water be flat?
Do you have any justification at all?
NO!
Just magic down.

Meanwhile, the RE model does have an explanation. An explanation which has been shown to work countless times.

According to your own picture, according to your own theory of gravity, water lays flat as a matter of falling to center.

Do you understand what you just said?
Because you literally just contradicted yourself.

If they are trying to fall to the centre, that means it is getting as close to the centre as possible.
This means if the surface is such that part is further away from the centre than another, it will move to get closer, even if it needs to fall a bit sideways.
That means in this simple hypothetical, the surface will adopt a shape that is an equal distance from the centre.

And what will that be for a surface in 3D space around a centre? A sphere.

So no, according to gravity, water will adopt a roughly spherical surface as a matter of falling to the centre.


So what is wrong with your brain?

it's time to slap some sense into you, because you are hardcore under a delusion.

So time to slap some sense into you?

More cognitive dissonance. Let's look at the picture again.

There is no picture.
But given your text, you have clearly done it wrong.

so a bathtub would be the ideal place to check whether water mounds

No. It is a horrible place to try.

This again demonstrates a complete lack of understanding or wilful misrepresentation on your part.

If you tried thinking for once in your life you would understand that means you are looking at a tiny portion of a massive curve.
The drop due to this curve can be approximated as d^2/2R.
Assuming your bathtub is 2 m long, then going from the centre to an edge (to measure the height of that mound) is 1 m, and that drop is a mere 78 nm.
You are not going to see that.

Instead, you need a much greater distance.

Where you can then look at objects across a large body of water and see that the bottom of the object is hidden by the water, even though both it and you are above the water.
The simplest and most straightforward explanation of that is the fact that Earth is round.

This is not due to a mound, the lake is simply to big to see from one end to another.

What magic is stopping you?
We have plenty of examples showing it isn't simply too small.
And you keep appealing to magic distance limits but can't justify it.

Quit lying to yourself, and see some damned reason!

Follow your own advice.

So your rationale is that because mist obscures parts of buildings, they don't exist and this picture is not real?

No, the rationale is that a scaled down view of a closer view of the building shows the bottom should be below the horizon.
This shows water is blocking the view.

while you lie up and down.

Nope, that is still you.

Let me explain why Fata Morgana is pretty good proof that we are not in fact looking at curvature.

You mean let you spout more pathetic lies which fail to address the topic at hand?
None of what you have provided in any way show any problem with the RE.

But it's not so. Solids can be shaped in a sphere (as in a boulder)

Now treat that like Earth.
Draw some lines to the centre of that.
Then show how that should make water flat.

its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity

No, it isn't.
As has already been explained.

So you start with baseless BS to reach BS conclusions.

On the other hand, it is difficult or impossible to build a proper bridge on curved ground.

You have asserted this BS before, but can't justify it at all.

On any level river, contrary to your delusion, ... you can turn the boat around and paddle or motor or whatever in the other direction. It's perfectly flat, and if you learned to actually understand things, you wouldn't be fooled by silly ideas.

Says the one continually appealing to their own delusions as if they are fact and refusing to understand.

Back in reality, it is LEVEL not flat. Following the curve of Earth.

Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.
You are doing the very thing called out in the OP.

Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill

And more delusional BS.
It makes quite a big difference.
It is much easier to go downhill than uphill.