Just go on a ship and look at other ships in the distance, you can literally see them go down over the spherical horizon, more so the closer your eyes are to the sea

Because you're on a sphere. No matter which way you look, the horizon is the same distance from you creating a flat plane around you. Even on a high mountain you'll never see the curve on the horizon.

At every degree you turn, the curvature is between you and the horizon. Draw a circle on a Walmart rubber ball. The circle is the horizon and you are always the center of that circle no matter where you are on a sphere. Notice the circle on the ball curves around you creating a flat plain.

If you were on a sphere you'd be looking down at a horizon that would obviously be lower to some extent than whatever point you were standing on and even more noticeable from any height. Just the opposite of what you maintain.

No matter how high up you go even in an airplane, the horizon is always perfectly level with your eye no matter how much further away you can actually see from that vantage point. It would and could only do that if it was a huge and completely flat surface, not a downward and continually curving away one.

No matter how high up you go even in an airplane, the horizon is always perfectly level with your eye

False.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFj7gNh3yOM

That video clearly demonstrates that that is yet another false claim made by ignorant flat earthers.

And you my friend need to see an ophthalmologist and get your eyes checked if you think the horizon is lower than the sight line in that vid.

You need a theodolite.

Its a tool designed to figure this out. The horizon is not always at eye level.

Explain why you think it would.

Are you cross-eyed?

So explain why ships dissapear over the horizon.

Exllaim why mountain peaks vanish with distance.

How come i cant see mount everest with a telescole from anywhere on earth?

Vanishing point? Why can we see the moon when it rises and sets?

Yes, but at no time can you only see half the plane. You either see it all or none of it.

Unless something blocks your vision of it, like a cloud or the horizon.

The vanishing point simply can not be different for two different parts of the same object.

No, you don't .

I challenge you to find a single image of an aircraft that shows the top half of the aircraft but the bottom half is invisible.

Or are you saying that, as a plane is flying away into the distance, and is still above a horizon, at some point, it just suddenly goes from 100% visibility to 0% visibility?

Nope. It's called perspective - something you flat earthers love to talk about until it rebuts your arguments.

The "vanishing point" for an object is the distance from the camera or eye at which the apparent size of the object becomes to small for the camera or eye to resolve. Obviously this means the object becomes "invisible" unless a higher resolution camera or eye is used, at which point the "vanishing point" simply moves further away.

If you had a perfect camera able to resolve any size object at any distance, the "vanishing point" will be at infinity.

That is why you can zoom in a camera and make something too small to see become visible again.

However, what you can't do is zoom in a camera and make only half of something visible, unless something else is blocking the view.

Vanishing Point vs Horizon

In this image I have created a sequence of red stars, scaling each one down by 50% from the one before. At the bottom I have also placed an "horizon" that obscures the bottom of the star.

In the yellow boxes I have zoomed in so that you can see that when the zoom is applied to the star without an horizon, the full star becomes visible, while zooming in on the star obscured by an horizon does not make the full star visible.

This is the difference between the "vanishing point" and an horizon.

This is why you can zoom in on a distant ship and see the top half, but not the bottom - the horizon is obscuring the bottom half, not the "vanishing point".

Yes, they are both equally visible. One is more detailed than the other, but I can clearly see both.

Now tell me, where is the image like this:

https://i.imgur.com/I0d7KmF.png

In this version of your photo, half of the shuttle is visible above an apparent horizon, while the other half is invisible.

If the "flat earth" theory of the horizon is true, we should see the same thing with the shuttle, as we see with this ship:

http://media.mlive.com/news_impact/photo/denis-sullivan-tall-ship-on-the-horizonjpg-affa348ea7f1727c.jpg

1 - vanishing point and mirages.

Do you understand what the vanishing point actually is? It is not a "horizon" beyond which you can not see. The vanishing point is different for different sized objects. The vanishing point for a container ship is a lot further away than the vanishing point for a car.

Why is this? Because the "vanishing point" is simply the point at which the apparent size of an object becomes smaller than the ability of the camera or eye to resolve it. The smaller the object to begin with, the closer to the camera or eye its vanishing point is.

So with that knowledge in hand, explain how half of an object can apparently be too small to see, while the other half of the object is still large enough to be clearly visible?

Is the object changing shape as it moves away?

Or is it in fact dropping below a physical horizon rather than actually reaching its vanishing point?

This photo is a good example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Railroad_in_Northumberland_County,_Pennsylvania.JPG

Notice anything about those tracks? Here is the same image with the tracks zoomed in:

https://i.imgur.com/vcRIuB6.jpg

Notice how the tracks do not actually converge, yet they still disappear? That is because they have not reached their vanishing point, but have instead passed below an horizon (probably over the top of a slight rise).

This is what happens when you can see the top half of a container ship, but not the bottom, as it passes over the horizon. It hasn't reached its vanishing point and is still visible, except that something is blocking the view of half of it.

That something is the curvature of the earth.

If you can see Chicago across the Great Lakes because of a Superior mirage, why then could you not equally say you could maybe have a mirage of the water in front of a boat? thereby giving the effect of a horizon.

Do you understand how light works? A mirage is caused by the bending of light as if through a lens. For the water in the foreground to appear higher, all the light coming from that direction needs to be bent downwards by some sort of lens. But that also includes the light from the ship in the background. The atmospheric lens doesn't distinguish between light from the water and light from the ship it, bends all of it.

This means that the ship will also appear to be higher. So rather than sinking below a horizon, it will simply rise with the horizon to appear to be above where it actually is.

If you can see Chicago across the Great Lakes because of a Superior mirage, why then could you not equally say you could maybe have a mirage of the water in front of a boat? thereby giving the effect of a horizon.

Do you understand how light works?

If the light from the water in front of the boat is being bent so that it appears to be higher, the light from the boat will also be bent making it appear to be higher too.

The atmosphere doesn't pick and chose which light to bend based on where it originated. It bends it all or none of it.

Or, what if it is a Minor mirage, and the boat appears lower than it actually is, because of bent light.

I assume you mean "inferior mirage":

For exhausted travelers in the desert, an inferior mirage may appear to be a lake of water in the distance. An inferior mirage is called "inferior" because the mirage is located under the real object. The real object in an inferior mirage is the (blue) sky or any distant (therefore bluish) object in that same direction. The mirage causes the observer to see a bright and bluish patch on the ground in the distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage#Inferior_mirage

Do you understand what that means? It means both the real object and the mirage are visible at the same time. An "inferior mirage", does not make the sky or distant mountains disappear, it simply creates a reflection of them below their real location.

Not only that, but an "inferior mirage" inverts the image . For a boat to appear upright and below the horizon, it can't be the result of an "inferior mirage".

This is what I am talking about when I say people don't address the whole points.

I address the points people make, not every single point related to the claim. If I had to do that, every comment would be a novel.

You made the points now, so I addressed them.

Can you explain why a mirage would cause Chicago to appear over the horizon, but a minor mirage wouldn't make a boat under the horizon.

I already did. Put simply, the light is being bent near the surface of the water, but light passing above that surface is still visible. An "inferior mirage" creates a mirror image copy, it doesn't make the original image disappear.

Logic.

You apparently wouldn't know what that is.

This experiment proves nothing because the perspective is completely different. You're talking about something being inches in front of your eyes creating an optical illusion as oppose to a horizon 30 miles away. The illusion only exists because of the spacing of your eyes and the proximity of the round object directly in front of them

Are you really comparing the sight of something that is inches from your eye apposed to something that is miles from your eye?

I can just imagine all the flat earthers sitting around with buckets on their head saying "see I told you it was flat!"

Now, in your peripheral vision, even though you know the edge of the bucket or plate is flat, and you know it curves around you, does it not look like it curves down at the edges?

Nope.

Have a close look at this image:

http://i.imgur.com/8Olk3I0.png

That image was made with a scale of one pixel to eight inches. That means a pixel represents a box with sides eight inches long.

The image is 15,840 pixels wide, which equates to 126,720 inches, or two miles.

The earth curves 8 inches per mile, that image represents that curvature by having each end of the green line be one pixel below the center.

Tell me, does that look sharply curved to you?

In fact, I bet you can't even tell that it is curved.

I mean, if you walked 2 miles, and the ground fell, like on a very very gentle hillside, would you notice that the ground was higher on one side, and not the other?

First let's specify that we're on a perfectly smooth spherical earth, where every point on the surface is equidistant from the center of the sphere - that is no mountains or valleys - and the mass of the earth is equally distributed throughout.

What direction would gravity point? It would point directly at the center of the sphere. No matter where you are on the surface you would always be the same distance from the center and the direction of gravity would be pointing directly at its center.

So, I'm standing on the North Pole and start walking south. Would I feel any change to the gravitational pull? I stay the exact same distance from the center and the pull is always straight down into the center of the earth. No matter where I am, I can not determine my location based on the strength or direction of gravity, because relative to the surface it is always in the same direction at the same distance.

In that situation, no, you would not notice you were on a curved surface, because there would be nothing to reference against that showed a difference depending on where you were. No walking uphill or down, no leaning to or fro. The angle you make with the surface and the strength of the gravitational pull would remain constant.

Can you please do the same thing, but over a distance of 100 miles, that would be grate, and I am being serious, please and thanks in advance :)

Firstly, let's do one quick equation... how many pixels would I need to show 100 miles at 8 inches per pixel? Well, there are 63,360 inches per mile, so 100 miles would be 6,336,000 inches. Divide 6,336,000 inches by 8 and I would need 792,000 pixels.

Unfortunately I do not have an image editing program that can handle an image that wide, and even if I did, I doubt my computer hardware could handle it.

Let's say I did create the image so that it shows 100 miles of surface. This means each end would be 50 miles from the center. Over 50 miles, the surface drops 1,650 feet or 19,800 inches. At 8 inches per pixel, this means that each end of the line needs to be 2,475 pixels below the center, which would be 396,000 pixels away.

Clearly I can not use 8 inches per pixel to demonstrate this curve.

What about 50 inches per pixel? At that scale, the curvature would be 1/5th of a pixel per mile. The image would still need to be 126,720 pixels wide, but the ends would be 396 pixels below the center. That is still beyond the capability of my system.

At a scale of 100 inches per pixel, the image would need to be 63,360 pixels wide, and the ends would be 198 pixels below the center.

The original image I created was 15,840 pixels wide, so what if I make the scale 400 inches per pixel? That gives me a width of 15,840 pixels! Perfect. So let's run with that. At this scale the ends of the line need to be 49.5 pixels below the center.

It would look something like this.

A small point: for the sake of ease I drew straight lines from the center to the ends rather than curved lines, so this isn't quite right.

Now of course, we can see a perfectly straight horizon line. The human field of view is about 114 degrees. For the horizon to stretch 100 miles from one edge of our field of view to the other, it would have to be 32.5 miles away from us at the center, but 59.6 miles away on the edges. This means we can see the ends of that 100 mile "horizon" because it is actually hidden behind the horizon that is actually 32.5 miles away!

The phenomenon is called "perspective" and is due to the limitations of the human eye.

Taken to the height that a eagle or a falcon cruises the skies, a human being also can't see the moving speck of a mouse that those predators have no trouble at all seeing or swooping down to make a light snack out of it.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't straight ahead in front of you, only that it's too small and far away for you to see.

Using a powerful enough telescope, the ship that you merely think is over the curve becomes fully visible again, something that wouldn't and couldn't possibly happen if there actually was a curve.

I suggest you look into some of the experiments that have been done, particularly with lasers and powerful magnifying cameras like the P900 getting results that fly in the face of any idea that the Earth's surface curves or that the curvature obscures what can be seen.

The phenomenon is called "perspective"

Bullshit. Perspective does not make the bottom half of a ship disappear below the horizon while the top half remains visible. it can't. Perspective works on the entire ship at the same time, or not at all.

The fact ships appear much smaller as they move away is due to perspective. The fact we can see the top half of the ship but not the bottom is due to the horizon.

this is one of the dumbest things i have ever read.

on the upside i thank all of you for making it so easy to find and block you, so i never have to look at this sort of stupidity again.

Nobody twisted your arm to visit or read what's posted or to make a comment that adds nothing to the conversation, for that matter. Like Forrest Gump's Mom said, you never know what you're going to get in this box of chocolates.

Using a powerful enough telescope, the ship that you merely think is over the curve becomes fully visible again, something that wouldn't and couldn't possibly happen if there actually was a real curve obscuring the full view of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpAGXpusAiQ

Please watch the above.

That's what everyone used to think... And was taught in school... Before digital cameras with powerful zooms.

And now we know it is true.

I can see my cat dissapear behind my couch. Does that prove my couch is globe shaped?

Why did Eratosthenes go to Aswan to measure the circumference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Cleomedes credited him with having calculated the Earth's circumference around 240 BC, using knowledge of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon on the summer solstice in Alexandria and on Elephantine Island near Syene (modern Aswan, Egypt).

I have been around the globe. I feel that the earth is round.

As far as Eratosthenes, I feel he brought a red granite obelisk to Alexandria, and the Roman emperor came to steal it, then burned everything Eratosthenes ever wrote.

So, whatever grand conspiracy exists... if you want continuity... it all goes back to that guy, who purportedly measured the circumference of the earth from the Elephantine Isle, using the shadow of a red granite obelisk that now sits in St Peter's (The Rock) Square.

I'll have a gander. I'll let you know.

Annnnnd he never came back lmao

Lol true flat earth studies would still look ridiculous.

please expand

have you ever studied it though?

that's great, I just want everyone to question what has been told to them since we were children. The truth they give us doesn't add up, nothing seems to make sense when you start asking the hard questions.

Whenever someone is talking about flat earth I just really have no idea if they are trolling me or not. I don't know if I love that or hate it.

go do your own independent research and decide for yourself.

That doesn't tell me if a bunch of pre pubescent boys are trolling me or not.

Flat Earth Studies are disinformation to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous.

Maybe, but a lot of believers are just gullible and believe the tricks that flat eart videos rely upon.

The same segment of the population that would buy product from snake oil salesmen.

A much simpler explanation is that there are a lot of really stupid people.

Yes, but some of those Youtube videos are TOO professionally written and edited. Some smart person is making these videos to fool the dumb people.

That's possible. But then again, people can be really smart in one area and incapable of applying that intelligence other areas. See Ben Carson.

No, the earth really is flat. You are parroting the disinformation campaign.

False: conspiracy theorists already look ridiculous.

Researching and studying a subject (proven/unproven) is expanding on your own intelligence and critical thinking.

Looked into flat earth. It is retarded. Looked into JFK and 9-11. Not retarded.

It’s like there is a whole bunch of people out there who want to be retarded.

If you believe the earth is a globe it is only because someone told you so. Just saying. Not saying I believe it's flat though. But there are some good questions out there FEers have answers for.

But there are some good questions out there FEers have answers for.

Ive done a bit of research into FE and Ill have to disagree.

I havent seen any convincing argument that the Earth is flat.

Most of it is simple ignorance.

If, as you claim the earth is a flat disk which is not spinning in space, then why does my 30 year old 6 inch reflecting telescope have an equatorial mount and an electric motor?

lol

So hd screens in the sky is a more suitable answer then a round earth? Do you maybe think that's a reach? How long has hd screens been around for? Forever?

*Source

Here I was very impressed with 4K HD TV's. I feel left out now knowing that there are sky sized HD displays. lol JK

Exactly this conversation has me wanting to get a bigger 4k. Now that I know aliens had bigger screens forever.

Not all flat earthers believe this.

Okay so let's just say for one second that the sky is a had screen (can't believe I've actually wrote that)

The equatorial mounts compensates for the distance the telescope is located from the equator.

This being, north-south on the outside of a sphere.

You would not need to adjust this angle otherwise as you move your telescope from one degree of latitude to the next.

counterpoint?

You can stand on any continent and look south to see the same constellations...

If the Earth were flat you would be staring in different directions on each continent.

Now I heard you say the sky is a moving HD projection?

Heres a test that has been performed.

During the last solar eclipse in N America you could see stars at the apex. It just so happened that people in Asia and America were seeing the same stars when they looked North.

On a FE map people in Asia and N America would have been looking in different directions.

Counterpoint?

but as I see it, there should be no problem looking north.

No... If they both look "up" they are looking North on a FE map.

In reality if they both look north they are looking over each others shoulders in opposite directions.

I guess I should have been more clear... Look north to the horizon. or near the horizon.

Where your wonderful ice wall is on that map.

Or another way to think about it is if they both look south.

See the problem?

can we just please start banning flat earthers? im getting fed up with this stupid disinfo campaign being given a voice here.

the mods supporting this idiocy discredit the entire sub.

I'll answer for him. You're a fucking retard.

What an open mind you have. You belong on this sub for sure.

Removed. Rule 10.

Yeah, let's censor the sub. It's definitely worked for the world!

if you think this sub isn't already censored, you might be a dumbass.

"What do I care if the government spies on me; I have nothing to hide!"

Is basically what you sound like right now.

And you sound like an uneducated lunatic babbling about flat earth like it anything but a gaslighting tard fest

Point me to the moment I "babbled about flat earth" please.

If the earth was flat you could never have a not stop flight from Argentina to South Africa.

I have a strange feeling that you don't want any evidence that goes against your point of view.

I never mentioned eratosthenes. And you obviously don't want an answer, because nobody who wants an answer asks a question and then follows the question with several paragraphs of rebuttals before the question has been answered. You want the answer that conforms to you bias.

Why not do the science? book a flight from argentina to south africa. And when you're on the plane do the maths to keep track of the flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno

no, I want an answer to the question I pose, which everyone keeps dancing around, how does Eratosthenes measurements prove the earth is round when he went in assuming that is was round?

Eratosthenes wasn't trying to prove the Earth was round. As you noted he already knew the earth was round. He was trying to measure the distance to the sun and the circumference of the earth.

However, his type measurements can be used to prove the earth is round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno

Answer this question: Do you believe the people that made the video above are in on the conspiracy? Do you believe they intentionally lied about their measurements to create a false "proof" that the earth is actually round?

Because unless you believe that, this one video proves the earth is round.

I have friends living in Aus that moved from South Africa and flew DIRECT, so just know that you are wrong. Lol Fucking hell dude, I'm not going to bother even arguing with you because you are going to believe what ever the fuck you're going to believe. There is NOTHING no one could show you to make you change your mind.

It's almost like it is a religion for him...

But all flat earth studies are ridiculous.

Quick questions for anyone who entertains the idea that the earth is flat. Where does the water go? Why doesn't it fall off the edge of the flat surface? Is our flat earth surrounded by mountains keeping the water inside the surface area? Is there an "upside down" flat earth, like an old school vinyl record?

Belief in a flat Earth is just any other religion - it's clearly based on faith, not logic, and all sorts of shit is made up to try and get their belief to seem credible.

Belief in a ~flat Earth~ most of mainstream Science is just any other religion - it's clearly based on faith, not logic, and all sorts of shit is made up to try and get their belief to seem credible.

FTFY

Sorry, but that's bollocks.

FTFY

So let's ignore the fact that for the last several hundred years sailors have been sailing around the world, not across and back again. or that, to date, 536 people from different countries have gone into space (3 sub-orbital), 12 of which walked on the moon, aircraft can fly around the world, satellites and the like orbit around the world, and yet you still insist that all that is a lie, some huge hoax, and the world is flat.

Amazing...

No, I'm not surprised. Why on earth would anyone want to do that? Show me photos someone's taken from the edge.

The Ross ice shelf...just a big lump of ice, nothing mysterious there.

Not sure where the sound barrier comes in, it was 'simply' a matter of getting past the compressibility problem.

We all know why the Apollo missions were cancelled - it was costing too much money and it no longer had public backing and interest. They had, after all, successfully landed on the Moon 6 times.

As for moon bases, who needed them? Who could afford them? I'm sure we will go back there and it may indeed be used as a stepping stone for the colonisation of Mars (cheaper and easier once you're out of the Earth's gravity well).

Incidentally, I'd love to know how someone could, in theory, gain entry into the supposed hollow earth at the North Pole, when there isn't a land mass there...

I'm sorry, I've clearly not had enough cheese...

Belief in a flat Earth is just any other religion - it's clearly based on faith, not logic, and all sorts of shit is made up to try and get their belief to seem credible.

Belief in a spheroid Earth is just any other religion - it's clearly based on faith, not logic, and all sorts of shit is made up to try and get their belief to seem credible.

Do you have faith in gravity to keep you on earth? Then you may be part of a religion (faith based society)

Nope, I have no faith in gravity, it seems to do quite well on it's own. It doesn't require my belief to work

so you're saying that gravity is such an all powerful force which cannot be measured is holding you here but you do not have faith in it because it doesn't care what you think.

But gravity can be measured. I don't have faith in it like I don't have faith in the sun rising and setting every day.

It's flat, or at the very least the curvature is vastly smaller than the judeo-masonic globe model requires. Which is why there's fuss about it in the first place. If it wasn't, and Nasa and science and free open discourse were all legit and not lies of the judeomasonic matrix, they would demonstrate to use beyond any doubt, that it's a globe.

Nasa is one of many judeomasonic lies, and one of its purposes is precisely to hide either more land, the flat earth and it's religious implications (judeomasonry is heavily invested in herding the cattle with dogmatic 'science', and scientific authoritarianism), or both simultaneously.

The jews deliberately chose not to canonize the book of Enoch, because it talked too openly about the nature of the earth.

Sorry, but "true flat earth studies" look ridiculous on their own.

"I know God exists, and there is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise"

Which is exactly what the "flat earthers" say, except substituting "flat earth" for "god".

Flat Earth theory does not say that Mars is observed to be round, it says, it can only be observed to be a dot in the sky, it might just be a giant dome.

Only if you exclude the evidence you don't want to hear. Remember that "nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise" quote?

relating to FES standpoint on gravity, Flat Earth does not say the disk shoots up at 9.8m per second per second simulating gravity, it says that everything is density, that's why things float and sink.

Only by ignoring the simple fact that gravity is an essential component of buoyancy.

I have a giant sphere of water. Halfway to the center of that sphere I release a balloon filled with air and another filled with mercury. Which way do they move, if at all? If you say the mercury falls down and the air rises up, explain how the balloons know which way is up or down.

The simple fact is that gravity is what gives the direction. The mercury falls towards the center and the air rises toward the surface because gravity pulls the denser material downward, and the mercury is more dense than water while the water is more dense than air. Without gravity there is no buoyancy.

Also, still waiting for an answer re this :

Here is your answer

I know you're going to ignore it because "there is nothing [I] can say that will convince [you] otherwise."

Simply put when you actually measure the angle to the sun from many points on the earth surface at the same time, you find that either the sun is in multiple places at once (impossible) or the earth is a spherical object (the truth).

if it's so simple, then answer the question.

It's been answered many times before. You just refuse to accept the answer because you have a religious belief in a "flat earth" and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise.

"why can it not ALSO be explained this way?"

The simple answer to that is, "it can't be explained THAT way, because the evidence refutes it.".

For example, your favourite question (the answer to which I notice you ignored) regarding Eratosthenes' experiment.

When you make two measurements of the angle to the sun from two different spots on the surface, the point where those angles cross is the location of the sun. Cool. But here is the problem - if you make dozens of such measurements, and the earth is flat, they should all cross in the same place.

But they do not. In fact, if the earth is flat, those measurements mean the sun must be in multiple different locations at the same time. You literally can not say the measurements are accurate, the earth is flat and the sun is only in one place at any given time. Either the earth is not flat, the sun is not in one place at any given time, or the measurements are wrong.

The latter is easily determined by making more measurements, more precisely. No flat earther has ever made these measurements and proved that the sun is always in the same place at any given time and the earth is flat.

Unless you want to argue that the sun can be in more than one place at a time, you have to accept that the experimental observations disprove the notion of a flat earth.

Put simply, the location of the sun as seen from the earth's surface disproves the flat earth theory, and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Flat earth theory simply can not explain the observations and is thus falsified .

Do you think all the video footage from cameras strapped to weather balloons is fake? Witnessing the launch of one of these would be pretty obvious proof that the world is round

Can a flat earther explain the International Date Line to me which I've flown across about 50 times? Seems rather superfluous on a flat earth. And how about the 20 hours of night you experience on a flight from New York to Sydney?

The best thing about this thread is in order to justify this conversation of flat earth you need aliens. When aliens turns into your starting point where does it end? The matrix?

You need a theodolite.

Its a tool designed to figure this out. The horizon is not always at eye level.