I was refraining from allowing the tards to consume any of my time today, but I had to read the bit that Neil brought over to share from fairyland...

One of the things that jumped out at me was the comparison of smoke to that of an apple.

It really made me wonder, are all flat-tards confined within the concrete jungle of the modern city? Could this be an underlining problem with them that they take those simply understood things like smoke, or maybe I just take this understanding for granted, and use it as evidence without ever questioning what is smoke?

I don't know about anybody else, but it's one of the first mysterys to be understood as a child on the farm...

.
Their reference to smoke is noteworthy, since in the vacuum experiment, if they were to check which way smoke goes, they would find that since it is composed of particulates mixed with gasses, the smoke would instantly dissipate and would appear to "disappear" the moment it is released.
.
What flat-earthers would have to say about such a thing would be anyone's guess, since they come up with the most curious non-sequiturs when you least expect them.
.

.
You obviously didn't bother to read my post -- you're replying without being aware of its contents.
.
I was quoting text from your own buddy's website, but you missed that altogether.
.
Post

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

.
Wrong. As usual.
.
The horizon does not appear perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer, made clear by the word "around" since the view is a circular one, not a flat one. And the higher the viewer rises the larger the view, which describes the outlook from the top of a great sphere, not a plane.
.

The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

.
Wrong, again. So what else is new?
.
The horizon does not "rise" anywhere. The horizon stays right where it is. When you look at things, whatever they are, they don't move by the fact of you looking at them. You're confusing your own subjective movement with the the object seen. The horizon isn't rising, but your view is lowering, as you cast your eyes down toward the horizon. 
.
Nor would you ever know that's happening because you are not using any instrument to check the level of your line of sight.
.

The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. 

.
And again, you're wrong.
.
You keep posting this nonsense about the "natural physics of water" without any reference or authority. What is your source? Have you conducted experiments to test your hypothesis? Whose definition of water or physics are you using? 
.
Water, like any fluid, seeks to conform to the confines of its container. The bottom of a lake is shaped like the ground it covers, which becomes seen when the lake dries up. The perimeter of a lake is measured manually on a map by the use of a planimeter (see illustration), a simple (yet complex) device that incorporates the calculus integral continuously to measure the area bounded by the confines of an irregular closed area, like the plan view of a lake's shoreline. This is how technicians of old estimated the volume of water in a lake with changing elevation.
.
 a planimeter in use on a map of a lake
.

.
"Your posts are pretty incoherent, and even more so that you have refused the opportunity to engage in serious discussion on the flat earth."
.
Anytime you're ready for a coherent discussion, just let me know.
.
Since you flat-earthers have nothing to say about smoke, for example, perhaps we could start there?
.

Their reference to smoke is noteworthy, since in the vacuum experiment, if they were to check which way smoke goes, they would find that since it is composed of particulates mixed with gasses, the smoke would instantly dissipate and would appear to "disappear" the moment it is released.
.
What flat-earthers would have to say about such a thing would be anyone's guess, since they come up with the most curious non-sequiturs when you least expect them.

.
Their reference to smoke is noteworthy, since in the vacuum experiment, if they were to check which way smoke goes, they would find that since it is composed of particulates mixed with gasses, the smoke would instantly dissipate and would appear to "disappear" the moment it is released.
.
What flat-earthers would have to say about such a thing would be anyone's guess, since they come up with the most curious non-sequiturs when you least expect them.
.