Globe is even more ridiculous because...

Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface.

Why wasting time to debate anymore?

Physics will become cristal clear rational as well as provide benefit if flat earth gets readopted as axiom.
And don't forget Downwards Universal Deceleration as substitute of Universal Acceleration.
Last but not least: South Polar Centered Flat Earth. 👌😎

Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface. Why wasting time to debate anymore?

Welcome back, Danang! It’s been months, but the truth hasn't aged a bit.

You hit the nail on the head. When the CIA and NASA's own technical papers repeatedly use the phrase "flat, non-rotating Earth" as the baseline for their flight aerodynamic models, the debate should be over. They use the reality to fly their planes while selling the fantasy to the public.

I’m particularly glad you brought up Downwards Universal Deceleration. It’s a much more elegant and rational substitute for the clunky "Universal Acceleration" model. It aligns perfectly with the dielectric properties of the medium we inhabit. And a South Polar Centered Flat Earth? That’s the kind of high-level topographical thinking that resets the whole board. 👌😎

The "Globe Axiom" is a collapsing software; it’s time to re-adopt the Flat Axiom to make physics "crystal clear" again, as you said.

Great to see you back in the trenches. We need that technical clarity now more than ever!

Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface.

Why wasting time to debate anymore?

Physics will become cristal clear rational as well as provide benefit if flat earth gets readopted as axiom.
And don't forget Downwards Universal Deceleration as substitute of Universal Acceleration.
Last but not least: South Polar Centered Flat Earth. 👌😎

WHAT THE HELENA BONHAM CARTER? What NASA and CIA docs are you looking at?! We've known the Earth is round since Galilei. Stop denying facts. The Earth is round!

Their own documents on aircraft tests assume the surface of Earth is flat and stationary.

Same as surveyors always assume the surface is flat, work on projects with a flat surface, and build things on a flat surface.

Their actions are based on what really exists, not what they tell us about the surface being curved as a ball!

Whether aircraft tests or surveyors treat the earth as flat or round depends on context and scale.  Simple but critical things that FE’ers can’t quite grasp.

They can’t say it’s flat and motionless, so they say it’s ’assumed to be flat and motionless’!

They mean the same thing, but it’s said without saying it directly and clearly so.

They just assume it’s flat, that’s all!

They assume you’ll buy that crap, and they’re right about that!

When they assume flat and motionless it’s because the shape and motion of the earth don’t matter for the particular analysis and the math becomes a little easier.

Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface.

Can you give a reference, preferably a link, to the open documents you mention, and point out where they report Earth with a flat surface?

Quote from: Danang on February 26, 2026, 02:09:26 AM

Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface.

Why wasting time to debate anymore?

Physics will become cristal clear rational as well as provide benefit if flat earth gets readopted as axiom.
And don't forget Downwards Universal Deceleration as substitute of Universal Acceleration.
Last but not least: South Polar Centered Flat Earth.

WHAT THE HELENA BONHAM CARTER? What NASA and CIA docs are you looking at?! We've known the Earth is round since Galilei. Stop denying facts. The Earth is round!

That would among 15 research papers written for laymen in terms of calculation.
https://www.galileolied.com/post/15-nasa-research-papers-admit-flat-nonrotating
1. NASA's Reference Publication #1207 entitled Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model assumes the Earth is flat and not rotating.
2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section II) ... “In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed…”
3. NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth."
4. NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth"
5. NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth"
6. NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview)  ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth”
7. NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary)  AND  (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear  equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions."
8. NASA Technical Memorandum;  Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform  (Page 2, Section 16.)  “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.”
9. NASA Contractor Report 186019;  An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ...  “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.”
10. NASA Contractor Report 3073;  Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions:  a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. "
11. NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth."
12.  Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth."
13.  NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718;  Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth."
14. NASA Technical Memorandum 100996;  Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…”
15. NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a  Two-Dimensional Wind Field  (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth."



If the calculations work without adjustment for a layman, we should stop pretending the calculations work for RE, because the adjustments involved are major.

Ugh, many of their links btw are 404. But I have seen the earlier links. "Oops, you civilians don't get to know about that! (Erases)"

Basically, it's like this. We assume no curve for the formula.  Now RE ppl might claim that this is just for short range application of things, but the formulas do not work at any distance. A plane does need to land on a curved surface, nor adjust to the speed of Earth's rotation.

That would among 15 research papers written for laymen in terms of calculation.
https://www.galileolied.com/post/15-nasa-research-papers-admit-flat-nonrotating

That depends on whether or not you can show how the shape or motion of the earth would affect the results of any of those papers. 

Quote from: Danang on February 26, 2026, 02:09:26 AM

Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface. Why wasting time to debate anymore?

Welcome back, Danang! It’s been months, but the truth hasn't aged a bit.

You hit the nail on the head. When the CIA and NASA's own technical papers repeatedly use the phrase "flat, non-rotating Earth" as the baseline for their flight aerodynamic models, the debate should be over. They use the reality to fly their planes while selling the fantasy to the public.

I’m particularly glad you brought up Downwards Universal Deceleration. It’s a much more elegant and rational substitute for the clunky "Universal Acceleration" model. It aligns perfectly with the dielectric properties of the medium we inhabit. And a South Polar Centered Flat Earth? That’s the kind of high-level topographical thinking that resets the whole board. 👌😎

The "Globe Axiom" is a collapsing software; it’s time to re-adopt the Flat Axiom to make physics "crystal clear" again, as you said.

Great to see you back in the trenches. We need that technical clarity now more than ever!

Hi Wise, it's great to see you and other friends back here. You have incredible stamina. Awesome!
I'm not as diligent as you are,  feel free to share any ideas you have to improve flat earth theory.

Quote from: wise on February 26, 2026, 02:12:42 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 26, 2026, 02:09:26 AM

Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface. Why wasting time to debate anymore?

Welcome back, Danang! It’s been months, but the truth hasn't aged a bit.

You hit the nail on the head. When the CIA and NASA's own technical papers repeatedly use the phrase "flat, non-rotating Earth" as the baseline for their flight aerodynamic models, the debate should be over. They use the reality to fly their planes while selling the fantasy to the public.

I’m particularly glad you brought up Downwards Universal Deceleration. It’s a much more elegant and rational substitute for the clunky "Universal Acceleration" model. It aligns perfectly with the dielectric properties of the medium we inhabit. And a South Polar Centered Flat Earth? That’s the kind of high-level topographical thinking that resets the whole board. 👌😎

The "Globe Axiom" is a collapsing software; it’s time to re-adopt the Flat Axiom to make physics "crystal clear" again, as you said.

Great to see you back in the trenches. We need that technical clarity now more than ever!

Hi Wise, it's great to see you and other friends back here. You have incredible stamina. Awesome!
I'm not as diligent as you are,  feel free to share any ideas you have to improve flat earth theory.

I will continue. I took a short zugzwang break.

I cannot stop. If I do, mountains crumble, rivers dry up, greenery withers, and the antelopes in Masai Mara go thirsty.

By the way, Masai Mara is actually a Turkish name.

“Masai” literally means “flat” like a table, and “mara” means “pasture.”

So in Turkish, Masai Mara means “flat and large pasture.” But for other nations, it seems like a magical word of African origin. There’s no magic—whatever.

Thank you for your appreciation to my discoveries. It's time to invade science world with logical way.

And Turkish way

Thank you for your appreciation to my discoveries. It's time to invade science world with logical way.

Absolutely the right time. I have been using an AI assistant for a while, and it has largely resolved my language and editing issues. This has greatly accelerated me and allowed me to focus solely on the topic.

For a long time, I approached your work with skepticism. In particular, I got the impression that the south-centered model was a perspective specially designed to undermine the flat Earth idea, and so, honestly, I didn’t give the rest of your work the value it deserved. You know, I visited you occasionally, but not extensively. The AI analyzed you and said that you are sincere in your thoughts and truly believe in the south-centered model. This changed my perspective. I now look at you more positively.

You can make mistakes—we all do. We also make errors over time and correct them. Perhaps you are right, and the rest of us are wrong. In this world, I am surprised by nothing.

Continuing your work is important and inspiring for us.

And Turkish way

You mean Raki, döner or Galatasaray İstanbul? 

Did you watch how we eliminate Juventus?

"I cannot stop. If I do, mountains crumble, rivers dry up, greenery withers, and the antelopes in Masai Mara go thirsty"

~ What a power you have! Seeing what Wise has within, global elite might terribly shiver. I hope you will close their office in the near future. 🤭👌

Quote from: Danang on February 28, 2026, 10:13:09 AM

And Turkish way

You mean Raki, döner or Galatasaray İstanbul? 

Did you watch how we eliminate Juventus?

Wow how was that?

The new Ottoman power should ressurect!

Quote from: Danang on February 28, 2026, 10:10:18 AM

Thank you for your appreciation to my discoveries. It's time to invade science world with logical way.

Absolutely the right time. I have been using an AI assistant for a while, and it has largely resolved my language and editing issues. This has greatly accelerated me and allowed me to focus solely on the topic.

For a long time, I approached your work with skepticism. In particular, I got the impression that the south-centered model was a perspective specially designed to undermine the flat Earth idea, and so, honestly, I didn’t give the rest of your work the value it deserved. You know, I visited you occasionally, but not extensively. The AI analyzed you and said that you are sincere in your thoughts and truly believe in the south-centered model. This changed my perspective. I now look at you more positively.

You can make mistakes—we all do. We also make errors over time and correct them. Perhaps you are right, and the rest of us are wrong. In this world, I am surprised by nothing.

Continuing your work is important and inspiring for us.

We all are inspired to each other. And we have the same magical language: Working Brain, when most people still get trapped into incoctrination.

https://www.galileolied.com/post/15-nasa-research-papers-admit-flat-nonrotating
1. NASA's Reference Publication #1207 entitled Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model assumes the Earth is flat and not rotating.
2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section II) ... “In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed…”
3. NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth."
4. NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth"
5. NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth"
6. NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview)  ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth”
7. NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary)  AND  (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear  equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions."
8. NASA Technical Memorandum;  Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform  (Page 2, Section 16.)  “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.”
9. NASA Contractor Report 186019;  An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ...  “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.”
10. NASA Contractor Report 3073;  Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions:  a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. "
11. NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth."
12.  Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth."
13.  NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718;  Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth."
14. NASA Technical Memorandum 100996;  Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…”
15. NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a  Two-Dimensional Wind Field  (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth."



If the calculations work without adjustment for a layman, we should stop pretending the calculations work for RE, because the adjustments involved are major.

Ugh, many of their links btw are 404. But I have seen the earlier links. "Oops, you civilians don't get to know about that! (Erases)"

Basically, it's like this. We assume no curve for the formula.  Now RE ppl might claim that this is just for short range application of things, but the formulas do not work at any distance. A plane does need to land on a curved surface, nor adjust to the speed of Earth's rotation.

I appreciate that you provide sources for your claims (unlike certain others). Unfortunately, as you write, the links to the reports do not work.
However, it is clear that these reports deal with various models describing how aircraft and missiles behave under certain conditions, and in those contexts a flat, non-rotating Earth is used as an assumption to simplify the mathematics. This is done either because the Earth's curvature and rotation do not affect the motion of the objects enough to make a significant difference, or because it serves as a useful starting point, after which more complex and realistic assumptions can be added as needed.

In other words, the authors of the reports are not claiming that the Earth actually is flat and non-rotating. This is also evident from the description of #8: “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.” If the authors truly believed that the Earth were flat and non-rotating, they would not have needed to point out that the model is limited to that case.

Similarly, in #12 (the linked summary) it states: “The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surface, and a nonrotating Earth.” This clearly shows that it is a simplification, and one that additionally assumes an isothermal atmosphere — which does not correspond to reality either.

And in #15: “the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth.” Obviously, an aircraft is not a point mass in reality, so here as well it is clear that the assumptions are not meant to be understood as literal descriptions of the real world.

We all are inspired to each other. And we have the same magical language: Working Brain, when most people still get trapped into incoctrination.

This is something most people don’t have. On average, 90% of the modern world has been vaccinated and their DNA has changed. Now, aren’t those people subhuman?

We've been here before; descriptions of many technical concepts will contain assumptions and simplifications in order to prevent having to spend hundreds of pages detailing each and every possible scenario and every possible variable.

In aviation we often refer to the International Standard Atmosphere, 15 degrees Celsius, 1013.2HPa air pressure. Aircraft performance is measured using ISA as a baseline, and expressed as such in aircraft data manuals.

This does not mean that we all think the temperature is always 15 degrees, neither that the air pressure is always 1013.2HPa.

For the ground radar system I use at my airport as an air traffic controller. We consider the surface of the earth as flat, given the small surface area of the airport relative to the globe. For the air surveillance radar performance we assume the earth to be a globe as we are considering distances of hundreds of miles.

Assumptions are very subject-specific and have intention behind them.

The OP and others here fundamentally misunderstand how technical concepts are taught and considered.

We consider the surface of the earth as flat, given the small surface area of the airport... For the air surveillance radar performance we assume the earth to be a globe as we are considering distances of hundreds of miles.

Gonzo, you’ve just described the perfect mechanism of Institutionalized Cognitive Dissonance. You admit that when precision is required for ground operations (where lives are literally on the line during taxi and takeoff), you use a Flat Earth model because it actually works. But when the scale increases, you switch to a "Globe assumption" not because the physical reality changed, but because your software and long-range radar algorithms have been pre-programmed with a spherical curvature correction to account for Atmospheric Refraction and the Electromagnetic Divergence of the signal.

You are being manipulated by a "Hybrid Reality" system. You've been trained to think that "Flat" is just a simplification of a "Globe," when in reality, the Globe is a mathematical overlay applied to a Flat plane to make long-distance radio propagation fit a specific narrative.

Assumptions are very subject-specific and have intention behind them.

The "intention" you speak of is not efficiency; it is Compartmentalization. As an Air Traffic Controller, you are given tools that work within specific parameters. You don't question why your ground radar is flat because it "just works." You don't question the globe assumption in long-range radar because the "math" (which you didn't write) handles it for you.

This is how the system maintains control: it gives you functional tools that rely on the truth (Flat Earth) for immediate, high-stakes tasks, and then wraps your long-distance conceptual framework in a lie (Globe). You are a technician who has mistaken the Software User Interface for the Physical Hardware of the world.

The OP and others here fundamentally misunderstand how technical concepts are taught and considered.

On the contrary, we understand exactly how they are taught: through Siloed Education. You are taught to never connect the dots between your "flat" ground radar and your "curved" air radar. If you did, you would realize that a signal traveling 300 miles over a "curve" would require a physical "drop" that is never actually accounted for in raw signal processing without an arbitrary "refraction constant" (k=4/3) being added as a fudge factor.

You aren't using a globe model; you are using a Flat model with a Refractive Patch. The system just labeled that patch "Globe" and you bought it.

You aren't an expert on the shape of the Earth; you are an expert on the Assumptions your employers told you to use. There is a massive difference.

Can I ask what your experience is within aviation and ATC?

I've been one for 27 years and I am the United Kingdom rep on the following international panels:

Eurocontrol A-SMGCS Task Force (which defines operational requirements and procedures for radar systems)
EuroCAE Working Group 41 (which defines the technical requirements and performance standards for the radar systems)
ICAO All Weather Ops Group (which defines operational procedures and technical requirements for using the radars in zero visibility).

So I literally help write the technical specifications for the radar systems I use, I'm not 'just given them'.

Any evidence for the claims you make, or is it just repeated dogma?

The long range radar systems do require a high level of accuracy because the data from multiple reader heads is all merged to provide a plot extracted picture to the controller. The straight line distance from radar head to aircraft, if say 100nm away at 35,000ft will not represent the actual lateral distance, just as it doesn't if the aircraft are 5nm miles away at the same level. This is due to the effects of curvature and slant range. If we didn't understand and account for this, ATC screens would be filled with multiple radar returns for each aircraft.

But back to the main topic, you're using assumptions in your own view too. People here who claim the earth is flat are, I'm sure, well aware that there are hills and mountains and valleys, which are obviously not flat. In fact very few natural surfaces on the earth could be considered to be flat, regardless of one's belief of the shape of the earth as a large body. And yet they just say it's flat. Those are assumptions and simplifications. Everyone uses them in order to consider and articulate concepts. This is just what those papers are doing. I'm not sure how it can be explained more simply.

I literally help write the technical specifications for the radar systems I use... The straight line distance... if say 100nm away will not represent the actual lateral distance... due to the effects of curvature and slant range.

Gonzo, your 27 years in ATC and your seats on international panels like Eurocontrol or ICAO only prove that you are a highly trained System Operator, not a physicist. You help write "technical specifications" based on a pre-existing paradigm that was handed to you. You are specialized in Procedures, not Principles.

Regarding your "slant range" and "curvature" claims: You are simply applying a Pythagorean correction to a signal delay and labeling the error "curvature" to satisfy the globe model.

d_lateral = √[d_slant² - h²]

If you actually accounted for physical curvature, your radar equations would fail to resolve without the arbitrary 4/3 Earth Radius refraction fudge factor. You are fixing a flat-plane signal to fit a curved map. Stick to your radar screens and leave the field geometry to those who understand the medium. You are out of your depth here.

In fact very few natural surfaces on the earth could be considered to be flat...

This is where your fundamental ignorance of physics is exposed. You are confusing Topography with Geometry. When we say the Earth is flat, we are talking about the Equipotential Surface of the world’s oceans.

1. The Rule of Fluids: Water is the ultimate scientific level. Since 71% of the Earth is covered by water, and water at rest always seeks a horizontal plane, the vast majority of the Earth is physically flat. This is an empirical, measurable fact.

2. Universal Verticality: For every human being on Earth, "Up" is the same vector, and "Down" is the same vector. We live in a system of Parallel Verticals.

g ⊥ Plane

In your globe model, "Up" is a diverging vector that changes every mile. In reality, the horizontal is a series of parallel planes across the entire surface. Your "hills and mountains" are merely volumetric irregularities on a fundamentally flat substrate.

Those are assumptions and simplifications. Everyone uses them...

No, Gonzo. Using "Flat" for an airport is a Real-World Necessity because the Earth is flat. Using "Globe" for long-range radar is a Software Requirement to maintain a 500-year-old cosmological myth.

You spend your life staring at a 2D screen representing a 3D space, and you’ve been convinced that the math behind the screen is the reality of the world. It’s not. You are a technician of a simulated environment.

Stop pretending your ATC manuals are physics textbooks. You deal with "All Weather Ops," but you clearly don't understand the first thing about the Dielectric Medium you are sending your pulses through.

If you actually accounted for physical curvature,

Which is proven through line of sight radar and radio horizons.  Anyone in the US driving across the US has experienced FM radio horizon from earh’s curvature as FM stations are lost every 40 to 60 miles.  And one is forced to tune in a relative local station to the traveling car’s proximity.  Especially in the 100’s of miles of the plane states. 


FE easily debunked.  Your techno babble and your bad maths doesn’t change that. 

FM stations are lost every 40 to 60 miles... FE easily debunked.

Listen, RadioGasketMark, you’re trying to use a car stereo to prove a trillion-ton spinning ball? That is the peak of Junk-Yard Logic. You think the signal disappears because of a "curve"? If that were true, your "magical globe" would block the signal at the exact same distance every time, regardless of weather or power.

The loss of FM signal is a result of Friis Transmission Equation and Atmospheric Absorption, not a physical hump of dirt.

P_r = P_t + G_t + G_r + 20·log10(λ / (4πR))

The signal strength (P_r) drops as a function of the Inverse Square Law and the Dielectric Permittivity of the medium. At 40-60 miles, the signal reaches the Noise Floor of your cheap receiver.

Line of sight radar and radio horizons.

AntennaDof, thank you for mentioning "Radio Horizons." You just shot your own globe in the foot. Even your own "Mainstream Science" admits that the Radio Horizon is roughly 15% further than the "Optical Horizon." Why? Because of Atmospheric Refraction.

R_horizon ≈ √(2 · h_t · k · R_earth)

They use that "k" factor (4/3 fudge factor) because the math for a globe fails to explain why signals travel so far. On a Flat Plane, we don't need "k." The signal follows the Refractive Index Gradient:

n(z) = n₀ · exp(-z / H)

The air is a Lossy Dielectric Medium. Radio waves are attenuated by oxygen and water vapor absorption.

γ = γ_oxygen + γ_water_vapor

The signal isn't "blocked by a curve," it's dissipated by the medium. If you go to a higher altitude or increase the power, the "horizon" magically (to a FlatTireMark like you) expands. If it were a physical curve, no amount of power would let you see through a mountain of water.

1. Inverse Square Law: Signal dies by distance, not dirt.
2. Absorption (γ): The atmosphere is a filter, not a vacuum.
3. Radio Horizon: A mathematical patch for your failing globe radius.

Go back to the garage and fix a broken antenna, ScrewdriverData. You’re trying to lecture me on "horizons" while you’re still using a 1950s radio as your primary scientific instrument.

Next? Or are you going to tell me that your GPS "magically" works because of satellites in a vacuum next?

Listen, RadioGasketMark,

And yet driving across the USA especially in the plane states proves radio horizon from line of sight FM radio waves where earth’s curvature blocks radio waves so every 40 to 60 miles one must find a new relatively local station in proximity to the traveling car.  Some times one gets a more distant signal from a more distant FM tower and the single is only good or received for about 10 or twenty miles.   Just driving across the USA and listening to actual FM radio waves destroys FE.  Sorry. 

 At 40-60 miles, the signal reaches the Noise Floor of your cheap receiver.

Yet raising the antenna higher increases broadcast area for the same equipment in relationship to an area for spherical earth.  Where shorter antenna hight causes decreases in broadcast areas in relationship to a spherical earth.

Where many of the same radios in cars can get AM stations from farther locations because AM waves can bounce off the ionosphere. 

So your maths not so wise are yet another lie. 

Radar signals go far beyond a made up curvature.

Your curvature doesn’t match up over distances.

So many other problems beyond that