The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

The Misunderstanding Between "The World is Round" and "The World is Flat"

1. The world is round.

The world has a circular nature because it is a space that circulates periodically.

2. The world is flat.

The reality I see around me is definitely not round. Sometimes there are mountains, valleys, and rivers, but it is stretched out flat.

The second viewpoint reflects the practical and sensory world.
The first viewpoint reflects the overall and conceptual world.

Therefore, both viewpoints are correct. However, people often argue because they focus on only one perspective.

But the world is not a round object (like the Earth).

Thus, statements like "there is curvature on the surface," "people on the opposite side are upside down," or "if you go into space, you can see a spherical Earth" are all incorrect.

It means that each of us is the center of the universe.

How?
People are spread out in all three directions.
How could they all possibly be at the centre?

Just like we understand the cycle of time through a round clock

That isn't a cycle of time. That is simply how we count.
3 pm is not the same as 3 am, and 3 pm one day is not the same as 3 pm another day.

But if you start in Sydney, and travel around the world, you get back to the same Sydney as if you had just stayed there.
This is fundamentally different.

So, what does the world look like?
To put it simply, imagine the globe being flattened out.

And then how do you get all the observations that rely upon the globe not being flat, like the position of stars?

When you try to geometrically depict the shape of the world, you fall into a pit of contradictions.

Really? A RE seems to work fine without contradiction.

I have written two books.

So you are just here to try to sell your books?

The world has a circular nature because it is a space that circulates periodically.

Or, because it is round.

The reality I see around me is definitely not round. Sometimes there are mountains, valleys, and rivers, but it is stretched out flat.

No, it isn't stretched out flat.
I find nothing to show it isn't round.

Therefore, both viewpoints are correct.

No, they aren't.
The FE viewpoint is based upon wilfully rejecting reality, and instead just seeing what you want to.

Thus, statements like "there is curvature on the surface," "people on the opposite side are upside down," or "if you go into space, you can see a spherical Earth" are all incorrect.

Then why do measurements show curvature? Why have people been able to go to space and take photos of a clearly roughly spherical Earth?

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 09:56:24 PM

It means that each of us is the center of the universe.

How?
People are spread out in all three directions.
How could they all possibly be at the centre?

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 09:56:24 PM

Just like we understand the cycle of time through a round clock

That isn't a cycle of time. That is simply how we count.
3 pm is not the same as 3 am, and 3 pm one day is not the same as 3 pm another day.

But if you start in Sydney, and travel around the world, you get back to the same Sydney as if you had just stayed there.
This is fundamentally different.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 09:56:24 PM

So, what does the world look like?
To put it simply, imagine the globe being flattened out.

And then how do you get all the observations that rely upon the globe not being flat, like the position of stars?

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 09:56:24 PM

When you try to geometrically depict the shape of the world, you fall into a pit of contradictions.

Really? A RE seems to work fine without contradiction.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 09:56:24 PM

I have written two books.

So you are just here to try to sell your books?

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 10:15:37 PM

The world has a circular nature because it is a space that circulates periodically.

Or, because it is round.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 10:15:37 PM

The reality I see around me is definitely not round. Sometimes there are mountains, valleys, and rivers, but it is stretched out flat.

No, it isn't stretched out flat.
I find nothing to show it isn't round.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 10:15:37 PM

Therefore, both viewpoints are correct.

No, they aren't.
The FE viewpoint is based upon wilfully rejecting reality, and instead just seeing what you want to.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 20, 2025, 10:15:37 PM

Thus, statements like "there is curvature on the surface," "people on the opposite side are upside down," or "if you go into space, you can see a spherical Earth" are all incorrect.

Then why do measurements show curvature? Why have people been able to go to space and take photos of a clearly roughly spherical Earth?

Yesterday's Sydney is not the same as today's Sydney. Only the name is the same. The limitation of visibility is not an indication of the Earth's curvature, but simply a visual phenomenon.

But if you start in Sydney, and travel around the world, you get back to the same Sydney as if you had just stayed there.
This is fundamentally different.

Yesterday's Sydney is not the same as today's Sydney. Only the name is the same. The limitation of visibility is not an indication of the Earth's curvature, but simply a visual phenomenon.
[/quote]
So you ignore the vast majority of what I said, and then strawman a single point.

Notice what I actually said compared to your misreresentation.
The point is that it doesn't matter if you go circle the globe, or stay there. It is the same Sydney.
This did not discuss the time at all.

If you want it more explicit.
Say you are in Sydney, now.
You then go on a 48 hour round the world set of flights, and end up back in Sydney 48 from now.
That is the same Sydney as if you just stayed in Sydney for those 48 hours.


The distant to the horizon most certainly is an indication of the Earth's curvature. As that is what actually explains it.
If you want to assert it is just a magical visual phenomenon, explain it.
A baseless assertion is worthless.

Jack black, could it be you are onboard with Zorbakim drawing a distinction between the world we live in and the Earth? That would be refreshing, but I doubt it!

Time, like a 48hr period, changes places like he said. Weather conditions can drastically change a place in 48 hours.

Additionally, even though none of us feel it, or realise it, the Earth has travelled 3.34 million kilometres in a 48 hour period in it's orbit around the sun.

So, the world we experience, is never ever going to be exactly the same from one day to the next, for these reasons.

Our world is different from the Earth's world, when it comes to perspective.

Jack black, could it be you are onboard with Zorbakim drawing a distinction between the world we live in and the Earth? That would be refreshing, but I doubt it!

Time, like a 48hr period, changes places like he said. Weather conditions can drastically change a place in 48 hours.

Additionally, even though none of us feel it, or realise it, the Earth has travelled 3.34 million kilometres in a 48 hour period in it's orbit around the sun.

So, the world we experience, is never ever going to be exactly the same from one day to the next, for these reasons.

Our world is different from the Earth's world, when it comes to perspective.

Did you read what I said?
Did you read how I clarified?

Once more, I am not saying the Sydney of today is the same as the Sydney 48 hours from now. It will have changed, even if slightly.
What I am saying is going around the world doesn't change it.

To further clarify, if you and data meet up in Sydney, you will be in the same Sydney. If you then stay put while Data goes on a round the world trip and meets you back in Sydney, you will again meet in the same Sydney. Not the same as the one from 48 hours ago, but the same that you are both in then.

Going around the world doesn't take you to a different Sydney.

Visibility matches actual phenomena better in a flat world. Take a good look at this video.

No, it doesn't; and just looking at the thumbnail is enough to realise.
For a flat Earth, there is no obstruction.
The best you get is a resolution limit, which varies depending upon optics. Yet there are countless examples of clearly resolvable objects being hidden by the horizon.
That does not match a FE at all.

Just looking at the start, we see a building with several blocks.
The blocks are clearly resolvable, so there is no way for limited resolution to make them disappear, yet they are clearly below the horizon.
So resolution clearly has nothing to do with it.

The video is nothing more than a blatant lie to con people.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 21, 2025, 11:04:04 PM

Jack black, could it be you are onboard with Zorbakim drawing a distinction between the world we live in and the Earth? That would be refreshing, but I doubt it!

Time, like a 48hr period, changes places like he said. Weather conditions can drastically change a place in 48 hours.

Additionally, even though none of us feel it, or realise it, the Earth has travelled 3.34 million kilometres in a 48 hour period in it's orbit around the sun.

So, the world we experience, is never ever going to be exactly the same from one day to the next, for these reasons.

Our world is different from the Earth's world, when it comes to perspective.

Did you read what I said?
Did you read how I clarified?

Once more, I am not saying the Sydney of today is the same as the Sydney 48 hours from now. It will have changed, even if slightly.
What I am saying is going around the world doesn't change it.

To further clarify, if you and data meet up in Sydney, you will be in the same Sydney. If you then stay put while Data goes on a round the world trip and meets you back in Sydney, you will again meet in the same Sydney. Not the same as the one from 48 hours ago, but the same that you are both in then.

Going around the world doesn't take you to a different Sydney.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 22, 2025, 12:14:26 AM

Visibility matches actual phenomena better in a flat world. Take a good look at this video.

No, it doesn't; and just looking at the thumbnail is enough to realise.
For a flat Earth, there is no obstruction.
The best you get is a resolution limit, which varies depending upon optics. Yet there are countless examples of clearly resolvable objects being hidden by the horizon.
That does not match a FE at all.

Just looking at the start, we see a building with several blocks.
The blocks are clearly resolvable, so there is no way for limited resolution to make them disappear, yet they are clearly below the horizon.
So resolution clearly has nothing to do with it.

The video is nothing more than a blatant lie to con people.

Yes, it's like two fleas on the back of a dog, having a conversation. The dog is running around and the fleas go their separate ways and meet up at the same spot in 48 hours.

Same as two people in Sydney going travelling in two different directions, and meeting up in Sydney at the same spot 48 hours later.

It's the same Sydney, and it's the same spot on the dog's back. But Earth has moved and the dog has moved.

I do think Zorbakim is drawing a distinction between the world we live in and the greater world. I'm on board with him.

Yes, it's like two fleas on the back of a dog, having a conversation. The dog is running around and the fleas go their separate ways and meet up at the same spot in 48 hours.

Same as two people in Sydney going travelling in two different directions, and meeting up in Sydney at the same spot 48 hours later.

It's the same Sydney, and it's the same spot on the dog's back. But Earth has moved and the dog has moved.

I do think Zorbakim is drawing a distinction between the world we live in and the greater world. I'm on board with him.

i.e. the cycling around Earth is different to the cycle of a clock.
The 3pm of tomorrow is different to the 3pm of today.
But the Sydney of going around Earth is the same as the Sydney of staying in Sydney. Going around doesn't take you to a different one.

Why would being upside down at the South Pole be a contradiction?

If we consider the Earth as a spherical object, there are several contradictions.
For example, let's assume that an elevator is installed by digging a straight tunnel from the South Pole to the North Pole.
Jack takes the elevator and travels from the South Pole to the North Pole.
When Jack reaches the North Pole, is he standing upside down or standing upright?
If he is standing upright at the North Pole, does that mean he was standing upside down at the South Pole?
Or does this mean the elevator itself has undergone some rotation?

The elevator hasn't done a rotation. It would be lowered down to the centre of the Earth from the South pole, and pulled up to the North Pole.

Jack would be standing on his head at the North Pole, doing a head stand. That's how gravity works.

If we consider the Earth as a spherical object, there are several contradictions.
For example, let's assume that an elevator is installed by digging a straight tunnel from the South Pole to the North Pole.
Jack takes the elevator and travels from the South Pole to the North Pole.
When Jack reaches the North Pole, is he standing upside down or standing upright?
If he is standing upright at the North Pole, does that mean he was standing upside down at the South Pole?
Or does this mean the elevator itself has undergone some rotation?

So your "contradiction" is a poorly defined thought experiment combined with a failure to understand gravity?
Lets make it more rigorous shall we?

I will start in the elevator at the south pole.
For this I will have my feet strapped to the floor. The floor is labelled A, the roof is labelled B.
The elevator is mounted to a shaft which just allows translation, but not rotation.
The elevator then goes down, with me feeling the effect of gravity decreasing as I get closer and closer to the centre of Earth.
The elevator passes through the centre and continues. Now, the trend I observed continues as well, but that means I now feel gravity pulling me towards B instead of A, and I can feel that pull increase as I get closer to the surface.
I reach the surface at the north pole. Now side A is the roof, and side B is the floor. I am still strapped to side A and am hanging upside down with gravity pulling me towards the core.

Where is the contradiction?

If you would like another example, this time for a flat Earth.

I am starting out on the Arctic circle, at a longitude of 0 degrees east. There is a room mounted to a track which travels horizontally, and can only move north and south.
I sit in this facing north.
It then starts moving, going past the north pole and ending up at the Arctic circle at 180 degrees east.
What happened? Did I turn around, did the room turn around, or am I now facing south?

It is the same non-problem.

So your "contradiction" is a poorly defined thought experiment combined with a failure to understand gravity?

I think that there might also be a failure to understand spheres involved.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 27, 2025, 01:50:00 AM

If we consider the Earth as a spherical object, there are several contradictions.
For example, let's assume that an elevator is installed by digging a straight tunnel from the South Pole to the North Pole.
Jack takes the elevator and travels from the South Pole to the North Pole.
When Jack reaches the North Pole, is he standing upside down or standing upright?
If he is standing upright at the North Pole, does that mean he was standing upside down at the South Pole?
Or does this mean the elevator itself has undergone some rotation?

So your "contradiction" is a poorly defined thought experiment combined with a failure to understand gravity?
Lets make it more rigorous shall we?

I will start in the elevator at the south pole.
For this I will have my feet strapped to the floor. The floor is labelled A, the roof is labelled B.
The elevator is mounted to a shaft which just allows translation, but not rotation.
The elevator then goes down, with me feeling the effect of gravity decreasing as I get closer and closer to the centre of Earth.
The elevator passes through the centre and continues. Now, the trend I observed continues as well, but that means I now feel gravity pulling me towards B instead of A, and I can feel that pull increase as I get closer to the surface.
I reach the surface at the north pole. Now side A is the roof, and side B is the floor. I am still strapped to side A and am hanging upside down with gravity pulling me towards the core.

What happens if you don’t tie your feet?
And what about at the center of the Earth — does a person spin around?
What you’re saying is just like the RE theory: pure imagination.
It’s something that can’t be seen in reality.

It’s something that can’t be seen in reality.

Yes, it's called a hypothetical.  You're the one who brought it up.

What happens if you don’t tie your feet?

Then as I go through the centre of Earth, I know what is happening, so I make sure I get to the other side, so I flip around and start standing on side B instead of A.
That then has the elevator rise up on the other side of Earth we me standing upright.

Again, no contradiction.

And what about at the center of the Earth — does a person spin around?

At the exact centre, there is no gravitational pull from Earth, because it is pulling you equally from all directions.

What you’re saying is just like the RE theory: pure imagination.
It’s something that can’t be seen in reality.

The round Earth can easily be seen in reality with no one able to show a fault with it.
Just look at what you have done, appealed to a hypothetical to pretend there is a contradiction.
And when that is addressed you just dismiss it.
Your hypothetical is something that can't be seen in reality, because we can't drill through the centre of Earth.

Do you admit your hypothetical does not show any contradiction?
If not, are you able to justify and explain the alleged contradiction, by clearly explaining just what parts contradict with each other and why?

And are you able to address the same kind of hypothetical for a flat Earth and explain why that isn't a contradiction?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 27, 2025, 01:52:01 PM

Quote from: zorbakim on August 27, 2025, 01:50:00 AM

If we consider the Earth as a spherical object, there are several contradictions.
For example, let's assume that an elevator is installed by digging a straight tunnel from the South Pole to the North Pole.
Jack takes the elevator and travels from the South Pole to the North Pole.
When Jack reaches the North Pole, is he standing upside down or standing upright?
If he is standing upright at the North Pole, does that mean he was standing upside down at the South Pole?
Or does this mean the elevator itself has undergone some rotation?

So your "contradiction" is a poorly defined thought experiment combined with a failure to understand gravity?
Lets make it more rigorous shall we?

I will start in the elevator at the south pole.
For this I will have my feet strapped to the floor. The floor is labelled A, the roof is labelled B.
The elevator is mounted to a shaft which just allows translation, but not rotation.
The elevator then goes down, with me feeling the effect of gravity decreasing as I get closer and closer to the centre of Earth.
The elevator passes through the centre and continues. Now, the trend I observed continues as well, but that means I now feel gravity pulling me towards B instead of A, and I can feel that pull increase as I get closer to the surface.
I reach the surface at the north pole. Now side A is the roof, and side B is the floor. I am still strapped to side A and am hanging upside down with gravity pulling me towards the core.

What happens if you don’t tie your feet?
And what about at the center of the Earth — does a person spin around?
What you’re saying is just like the RE theory: pure imagination.
It’s something that can’t be seen in reality.

I've explained it. Jack's explained it. It can't be seen in reality because such a shaft doesn't exist on earth in the real world.

But it can be seen in a hypothetical and in a model. It can also be seen if you drill a hole through a watermelon, coconut, or giant grapefruit, and insert a hollow tube that goes through the centre and out the other side. You then run a small cylinder through which represents the elevator, or run a little figurine through.

It concerns me that people as dumb as you seem to be, walk among us. How you have managed to get through life to the age you are, is beyond me.

Quote from: zorbakim on August 29, 2025, 02:50:56 AM

What happens if you don’t tie your feet?

Then as I go through the centre of Earth, I know what is happening, so I make sure I get to the other side, so I flip around and start standing on side B instead of A.
That then has the elevator rise up on the other side of Earth we me standing upright.

Again, no contradiction.

What you're saying is nothing more than building a fortress of concepts.
The orderliness of your concepts may be free of contradictions, but in reality, such things can never exist.
Claims like people standing upside down on the other side of the Earth or that there is no gravity at the center are just empty ideas based on the assumption of a spherical Earth.

True science must minimize assumptions.
But the globe theory contains the biggest assumption of all — that the Earth is round.
The flat Earth theory removes that assumption and observes nature as it is.

I said that the world has a circular nature because it is a space that circulates periodically.
But the world is not a round object (like the Earth).

What you're saying is nothing more than building a fortress of concepts.

No, what I'm saying is simply a description of the RE model.
If you want to say the round Earth has contradictions, you need to deal with that model, rather than just ignore it and spout vague BS.

such things can never exist.

Which part?
The RE? If so, that can exist quite fine.
Remember, you were claiming there was a contradiction to pretend it doesn't, and failed.

True science must minimize assumptions.

And in doing that, you end up with a round Earth.

But the globe theory contains the biggest assumption of all — that the Earth is round.

No, that is a conclusion, not an assumption.

The flat Earth theory removes that assumption and observes nature as it is.

No, it rejects that conclusions, starts with the entirely baseless assumption that Earth is flat, and then needs to invent all sorts of nonsense to pretend it works.

I said that the world has a circular nature

i.e. you made up a quite significant assumption, because your broken FE model can't work without it?

But the world is not a round object (like the Earth).

Then why does all the evidence show Earth is round?
Why are you unable to show any fault with the RE model and instead need to just baselessly assert their are contradictions, just to have them shown to be just be vague BS which doesn't produce a contradiction at all, and then just dismiss the RE model as things that can never exist?

If you truly and honestly want the model with the fewest baseless assumptions, you take the RE model, because it is what has the least.

If you truly and honestly want the model with the fewest baseless assumptions, you take the RE model, because it is what has the least. ... No, that is a conclusion, not an assumption.

Jack, you are confusing a Constructed Narrative with a Scientific Conclusion. To maintain your "Round Earth," you require a massive stack of unproven assumptions: 1. You assume Gravity can hold trillions of tons of water to a spinning ball but allows a butterfly to fly. 2. You assume the vacuum of space can exist next to an atmosphere without a physical barrier. 3. You assume light "bends" perfectly every time an observation fails to show your curvature. These aren't conclusions; they are Mathematical Scaffolding built to save a failing hypothesis.

The Flat Earth model doesn't "assume" flatness; it Acknowledges Reality as experienced by the senses. Water seeks its level—that is an observable fact. The horizon is always at eye level—that is a geometric fact. You call these "baseless assumptions" because you’ve lived so long inside a mathematical simulation that you’ve forgotten how to look out the window. You aren't minimizing assumptions, Jack; you are Compounding Complexity to avoid the obvious

Jack, you are confusing a Constructed Narrative with a Scientific Conclusion.

No, that would still be you.
Trying to prop your failed nonsense, with so many contradictory claims, just to pretend it works for everything.

1. You assume Gravity can hold

Not an assumption, a conclusion based upon the evidence, which you cannot show fault with.

2. You assume the vacuum of space can exist next to an atmosphere

Again, a conclusion, and one you agreed with.

3. You assume light "bends" perfectly

No, I admit there are unknowns, and until someone can get all the data required to show it isn't the case, I will not reject a model that works so well.

The Flat Earth model doesn't "assume" flatness;

Yes, it does.
It baselessly asserts it and then invents loads of BS to try to prop it up.

Water seeks its level

Level, not flat.

The horizon is always at eye level

A wilful lie, that even you have admitted to and pretended to explain.

Level, not flat. ... No, I admit there are unknowns, and until someone can get all the data required to show it isn't the case, I will not reject a model that works so well.

 Jack, your "Level is not Flat" argument is a Semantic Fraud. In every physical, engineering, and architectural context, "Level" means a horizontal plane perpendicular to the plumb line. If you have a 1,000-mile long lake and every inch of it is "level," it is by definition Flat. You are trying to redefine language to force a curve into a surface that physics demands stay planar. Stop the Word Games.

 

• The Admission of Blind Faith: You just admitted you have "unknowns" regarding why light supposedly bends perfectly to hide your missing curve, yet you refuse to reject the model. That isn't Science, Jack; that's Dogma. You are choosing a model that requires invisible, unproven light-bending over the physical reality of what we actually see. You’d rather believe in "unknown magic" than accept a stationary, level Earth. Dishonesty: Exposed.

 

• The Horizon Paradox: You call the eye-level horizon a "wilful lie," yet you cannot provide a single non-distorted, level-theodolite measurement from high altitude that shows a 3.3-degree drop at 35,000 feet. If the Earth were a ball, the drop would be a geometric necessity, not a debate. The fact that the horizon rises to the observer is the natural law of a plane. Your model "works so well" only in your head and on computer screens. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

 

Again, a conclusion, and one you agreed with.

 

• The Vacuum Lie: I never "agreed" that a vacuum can exist next to an atmosphere without a container. I agreed that you believe it. Back in the real world, the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that gas will fill the available volume of its container. Without a physical barrier, your atmosphere would be gone in an instant. Your "conclusion" is a violation of established physics. Stop the Fraud.

 

• Level is Flat: Water is a fluid. It cannot sustain a shear stress; therefore, its surface must conform to a Horizontal Plane. You cannot have "curved water" at rest. If the surface of the ocean is curved, it is not "level." You are abusing terminology because the Physics of Fluids has left you with no other choice. Grow up.

 Jack, you are clinging to a "Globe" that you admit has massive unknowns, while rejecting the Testable Reality of a stationary plane. You are defending a narrative, not a planet. Stop the Spam and explain how "Level" water can have a 25,000-mile circumference curve without a single measurable hump.

Jack, your "Level is not Flat"

Is honesty, not fraud.
The fraud is from lying scum like yourself who claim level must be flat.

If you have a 1,000-mile long lake and every inch of it is "level," it is by definition Flat.

No, by definition it is level.
There is no requirement for that to be flat.
That is just your pathetic, desperate, circular reasoning.
You are trying to redefine language to force Earth to be flat.
It is pathetic.

You just admitted you have "unknowns" regarding why light supposedly bends

Yes, the composition of the atmosphere, and the conditions of it.
Not surprising.
Do you have that data?
Then your objection is worthless.

unproven

Refraction has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

accept a stationary, [flat] Earth.

Given you have no evidence for it, why would I accept such BS?

You call the eye-level horizon a "wilful lie,"

Yes, because it is, as has been shown in countless threads.

You continually repeat this lie, yet you cannot provide a single non-distorted, level-theodolite measurement from high altitude that shows a level horizon.
i.e. you are worthless, and just repeating the same pathetic lies.

No, by definition it is level. There is no requirement for that to be flat. That is just your pathetic, desperate, circular reasoning.

Jack, your attempt to decouple "Level" from "Flat" is the Peak of Intellectual Dishonesty. In physics, a static liquid surface is an Equipotential Surface. If a surface is level at every point, and those points form a continuous body of water, it is physically impossible for it to be anything other than a flat plane. You are trying to invent "Curved Level" to save your ball, but water doesn't care about your definitions. It always finds its Horizontal Level. Face the physics and cut the cry.

• The Teodolite Reality Check: You keep screaming for a "non-distorted high altitude" measurement. I’ve already pointed you to Aviation PFDs and stabilized high-altitude footage (like the Dogicam or Red Bull Stratos raw feeds before the fish-eye lens kicks in). The horizon remains at $0^{\circ}$. If the Earth were a ball, the horizon would be Physically Below your level-line. You have zero evidence of a $3.2$-degree drop at altitude. You are projecting your own "worthless" lack of data onto me. Stop spreading BS.

• The Refraction Safety Blanket: You say refraction is "proven"? Sure, in a lab with varying densities. But you use it as a "God of the Gaps" to explain why we can see objects $1,000$ feet below your supposed curve. You admit you don't have the atmospheric data, yet you're $100\%$ sure it's refraction? That’s not science, Jack; that’s Blind Faith. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

The fraud is from lying scum like yourself who claim level must be flat.

• The Geometry of a Level: If I place a spirit level on a table, the bubble stays centered. If I move it $10$ miles and it's still level, the surface is flat. If the surface were curving away, the bubble would move unless I Tilted the level. You are arguing that $70\%$ of the Earth's surface (water) is tilting perfectly in every direction at all times just to look flat to us. Return to the truth and stop the word games.

• The FVEY Script: You keep calling everyone "scum" and "liar" because you are a Gatekeeper without a key. You can't explain the lack of rotation, you can't explain the level horizon, and you certainly can't explain why water doesn't bend. You are a man shouting at a wall, hoping the wall will curve. Leave the script and answer: How can a liquid be "level" without being "flat"? Provide the physics, not the insults.

Jack, you are a "weasel" trying to redefine the English language because the Natural Physics of Water has defeated your globe. Level is flat. The horizon is eye-level. Quit the semantic fraud and show us one measurable curve on a body of water. Just one.

your attempt to decouple "Level" from "Flat"

Is called intellectual honesty.
Your attempt to keep them coupled is a great example of your dishonesty.
You are so utterly pathetic, and know you have absolutely no way of defending your fantasy that you need to desperately try to define level as flat, to try to define Earth to being flat.

In physics, a static liquid surface is an Equipotential Surface. If a surface is level at every point, and those points form a continuous body of water

there is nothing requiring it to be flat.

Again, look at how desperate you are. None of that indicates flat. Your only hope is to baselessly assert level must mean flat, to pretend it must be flat.

Do you know the easiest way to see it doesn't?

Look at water in a thin tube.
It is curved, it has a meniscus.

It always finds its Horizontal Level.

Again, LEVEL, not flat.
You again are desperate to pretend level means flat, so you can pretend it finds it flat.

The Teodolite Reality Check

You are yet to produce anything that shows it is level.
Even now, you still provide nothing.
All you have are worthless claims.
You can't even provide a link to a video.

Look at water in a thin tube. It is curved, it has a meniscus.

 Jack, your attempt to use Capillary Action in a tiny tube to explain the geometry of the Earth's oceans is a False Analogy of epic proportions. A meniscus is caused by Adhesion between water molecules and the walls of a container. Are you suggesting the oceans are curving because they are "sticking" to the glass walls of the firmament? In a large, open body of water where surface tension is negligible compared to the volume, water is always, invariably Flat and Level. You are hiding in a test tube because you are terrified of the horizon. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.


 

Your attempt to keep them coupled [Level and Flat] is a great example of your dishonesty... there is nothing requiring it to be flat.

 

• The Geometric Audit: "Level" means having no part higher than another. If you have a surface where Point A and Point B are at the same altitude, and every point between them is also at that same altitude, you have a Flat Plane. To claim a surface can be "level" while curving is a Euclidean Nightmare. You are trying to invent a "Curved Level" to fix a model that contradicts your eyes. If "Level" meant "Curved," then a carpenter's level would be a semi-circle, not a straight bar. Logical Collapse: Confirmed.

 

You are yet to produce anything that shows it is level... You can't even provide a link to a video.

 

• The Evidence Audit: You want a video, Jack? Go watch any long-distance infrared photography or high-altitude balloon footage (non-GoPro). When the Theodolite crosshairs are set to 0.0 degrees, the horizon sits perfectly on that line. If "Level" were a curve, the horizon would drop away from the level line as altitude increases. It doesn't. Your demand for "links" is a deflection from the fact that Physics doesn't require a YouTube upload to be true. Every bridge, every canal, and every surveyor’s transit is a physical link to the Flat Earth. Hardware Audit: Failed.

 

You again are desperate to pretend level means flat, so you can pretend it finds it flat.

 

• The Linguistic Fraud: No one is "pretending," Jack. For thousands of years, "Level" and "Horizontal" have been used as synonyms for a flat baseline. It is only in your Globe Cult that you've had to redefine basic vocabulary to hide the lack of measurable curvature. If you can't measure the curve, and the surface is level, it's flat. You are fighting a war against the dictionary and losing. Inquiry Failure: Exposed.

 Jack, you are literally arguing that a straight line is "dishonest" while using a tiny bubble in a glass tube to explain away the Atlantic Ocean.

Actually, it’s quite simple: if water curves, show us a curve on a lake without a "meniscus" excuse. You can't.

Stop the Semantic Frauds and address the 120 miles of level water in the Suez Canal, Jack.

Jack, your attempt to use Capillary Action in a tiny tube to explain the geometry of the Earth's oceans is a False Analogy of epic proportions.

Your strawman is yet again a blatant lie.
This example serves one simple purpose - demonstrating that water does not magically become flat.
Instead, it is acted on by forces.

This calls out your pathetic circular reasoning.

You baselessly assert Earth is flat, to pretend that water should adopt a flat surface, to then claim it shows Earth is flat.
But notice the issue? What you are trying to prove is the very baseless assertion you started with.
Dismiss that baseless assertion and you have no basis at all for water being flat.
You are wilfully lying to everyone.

In a large, open body of water where surface tension is negligible compared to the volume, water is always, invariably

having a wavy surface, and when those waves are ignored/averaged, you end up with a curved, level surface.

You have NOTHING to show it is flat.
The best you get is not being able to tell.

"Level" means having no part higher than another. If you have a surface where Point A and Point B are at the same altitude, and every point between them is also at that same altitude

You have a surface which depends upon the geometry of how you are measuring altitude.
If you start with the baseless assumption that Earth is flat and you are measuring altitude in terms of a simple cartesian coordinate you get a flat plane. But reject that baseless assumption and you don't.
If instead you start with Earth being a perfect sphere with altitude being distance from the centre, then you end up with a spherical surface.

Again, you are just asserting Earth is flat, to pretend it must be flat.

To claim a surface can be "level" while curving is a Euclidean Nightmare

I don't give a damn if it means a surface is non-Euclidean.
All you are doing with that worthless statement is affectively you have lied to everyone.

a carpenter's level would be a semi-circle

Why?
Notice how you again just assert pure BS?
What would be the radius of that semicircle?
What would be the deviation from a plane across it?

Can you show the numbers, or do you know that yet again they demonstrate you are worthless, lying scum?

You want a video, Jack?

Yes, I want a video.
Not for you to just worthlessly claim they exist and tell me to go watch one.
Either provide a link to a video, or admit you have no evidence.

When the Theodolite crosshairs are set to 0.0 degrees, the horizon sits perfectly on that line.

Even the FE high prophet Row Boat knows that is a lie.

If "Level" were a curve, the horizon would drop away from the level line as altitude increases.

And it does, as shown by plenty of evidence.

It doesn't. Your demand for "links"

Is calling you out on your pathetic dishonesty.
Again, an audit requires you to be able to justify your claims, not just by repeatedly asserting them, but by providing evidence.
Something you clearly do not have.
All you have is worthless, baseless assertions.
Meanwhile, plenty of evidence clearly showing the horizon does get lower has been provided.

And even you in other threads, effectively admit it is below 0 when you try to explain away the angle of dip.

Again, all you are doing is demonstrating how utterly pathetic and dishonest you are.

No one is "pretending," Jack.

So you are just wilfully lying, knowing it is lie?

demonstrating that water does not magically become flat. Instead, it is acted on by forces.

Forces like Relative Density and Equilibrium, yes. You use capillary action in a test tube to explain the ocean. That’s like using a sponge to explain how a dam works. Scale matters, and water in large volumes always finds its level.

You baselessly assert Earth is flat, to pretend that water should adopt a flat surface

It’s not an assertion; it’s an observation. Every single body of standing water in human history has been measured as flat. You are the one asserting a curve that has never been measured, only calculated in your imagination.

end up with a curved, level surface. You have NOTHING to show it is flat.

"Curved level" is an oxymoron. If it's curved, it has a peak. If it has a peak, it’s not level. You are trying to redefine language to save a dying model. We have every lake and ocean on Earth as proof.

If instead you start with Earth being a perfect sphere with altitude being distance from the centre, then you end up with a spherical surface.

Circular reasoning again. You assume a center to define "down," then use "down" to prove a center. Meanwhile, in reality, a plumb bob always hangs perpendicular to a flat plane, not toward a mathematical point 6,000 km away.

All you are doing with that worthless statement is affectively you have lied to everyone.

Shouting "lie" is not an argument, it's a tantrum. Euclidean geometry is the basis of all engineering and architecture. If you reject it, your buildings would fall down. Reality doesn't care about your "non-Euclidean" fantasies.

What would be the radius of that semicircle? What would be the deviation from a plane across it?

On a globe with a 6,371 km radius, the drop should be 8 inches per mile squared. If you can’t find that drop on a 100-mile stretch of water, your numbers are a failure. You want numbers? There’s your number: Zero measured curvature.

Either provide a link to a video, or admit you have no evidence.

You have eyes and access to a P900. Go to any shore, watch a ship "set," then zoom in and bring it back. That is your video. You are asking for a link to avoid doing the actual audit yourself.

Even the FE high prophet Row Boat knows that is a lie.

Appealing to people instead of the data is a logical fallacy. A theodolite doesn't care about "prophets." At 30,000 feet, the horizon is still at 0.0 degrees. This is a physical fact that destroys your "dip" theory.

And it does [drop], as shown by plenty of evidence.

CGI and GoPro wide-angle lenses are not evidence of curvature; they are evidence of barrel distortion. Every high-altitude balloon with a non-fisheye lens shows a perfectly flat horizon at 120,000 feet.

an audit requires you to be able to justify your claims... by providing evidence.

The level is the evidence. The lack of measurable curve is the evidence. You are the one claiming the world is a shape it doesn't appear to be. The burden of proof is on the one claiming the absurdity, not the one observing the obvious.

So you are just wilfully lying, knowing it is lie?

Projecting your own cognitive dissonance onto me won't fix your model. You are terrified that the "audit" is showing your globe to be a mathematical construct with no physical basis. Keep shouting "liar"—it only makes your panic more obvious.