The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: sharpie325 on May 09, 2016, 07:38:55 PM

Title: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 09, 2016, 07:38:55 PM
its strange I never asked these questions before.   Perhaps someone here has some insight that can help my friend and I understand.
I was looking into ideas of collecting sunlight for a steam experiment, and that led me to learning about tracking the suns movement at my latitude, and that led me to some problems concerning the math and science with the rotation, curvature, and speed of the sun.  Something doesn't add up,  and I'm not the type to take some youtubers word for anything.
Firstly,  there seems to be something substantial to claims about Antarctica not being what we are supposed to believe it is.  I searched the internet for days, and found nothing to lead me to believe anyone has ever crossed it pole to pole, nor flew over it, nor explored it without also never being heard from again.   Strange.   Thousands of people have been to MT. Everest.  Jillions of pictures and videos.  But nothing on Antarctica.   Nothing at all. Anyone have some proof of what Antarctica is?
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?

I suggested to my friend, if water is held in the oceans by some force at the proposed curvature of the earth, then the Suez canal should heave up in the middle to follow that same curve, but this is impossible, because the same force that supposedly pulls water to the earth can't likewise push it out and away,  therefore if oceans curve to follow the crustof the earth, so likewise should the water in my glass  curve to follow the earth.  Using simple math, I find the sagitta of a 1 mile chord through the proposed radius of the earth to be reasonably measurable.  This led me to wonder if the following experiment would prove  the curvature of a sphere or prove the linear nature of our reality.  If I place a funnel at point A, and a funnel at point C, at any two points on the earth, 10 miles apart... Stretch a hose between their spouts, and fill with water, the level of water should he the same height, because water always finds level.  Now, if I place funnel B in the exact middle  of the leghth of hose, the level water in B should be.....

That's the rub.  If the oceans are curved, then B should overflow by the same force that keeps the oceans attached to then planet. BUT, and if, funnel B is the same level as A&C, being visually in the same level together...  Then the force that holds water to earth is linear, and NOT curved, and the oceans CANT be curved, because the laws pertaining to the oceans can't be different to water elsewhere. Right?  Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: 29silhouette on May 09, 2016, 07:56:57 PM
Or am I missing something?
If the surface of water follows the curvature over a long distance, and there is zero change in elevation from the center of the sphere for the entire length of that distance, is there a "hump", or is it "level"?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 09, 2016, 08:00:59 PM
That's my question too.   Relative? Linear or curved?
My sight is linear. Water finds linear level, but we are taught that level ocean surface is relative to the center of the sphere... But both can't be true. Can they?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 09, 2016, 08:46:36 PM
Did I ask this in the wrong forum moderator?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 08:52:57 PM
Did I ask this in the wrong forum moderator?

No, you are fine posting this here.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 09, 2016, 09:54:49 PM
That's my question too.   Relative? Linear or curved?
My sight is linear. Water finds linear level, but we are taught that level ocean surface is relative to the center of the sphere... But both can't be true. Can they?
Water doesn't find linear level. It's just levels (relative). At small enough distances where no curvature can be detected or doesn't make any meaningful difference it might as well be described as flat and linear leveling, which it often is to make it simple to calculate the volume of said body of water. water levels, and therefore body volume, can change a lot. Because of this, the difference curvature would make diminishes.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: MouseWalker on May 09, 2016, 11:42:45 PM
its strange I never asked these questions before.   Perhaps someone here has some insight that can help my friend and I understand.
I was looking into ideas of collecting sunlight for a steam experiment, and that led me to learning about tracking the suns movement at my latitude, and that led me to some problems concerning the math and science with the rotation, curvature, and speed of the sun.  Something doesn't add up,  and I'm not the type to take some youtubers word for anything.
Firstly,  there seems to be something substantial to claims about Antarctica not being what we are supposed to believe it is.  I searched the internet for days, and found nothing to lead me to believe anyone has ever crossed it pole to pole, nor flew over it, nor explored it without also never being heard from again.   Strange.   Thousands of people have been to MT. Everest.  Jillions of pictures and videos.  But nothing on Antarctica.   Nothing at all. Anyone have some proof of what Antarctica is?
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?

I suggested to my friend, if water is held in the oceans by some force at the proposed curvature of the earth, then the Suez canal should heave up in the middle to follow that same curve, but this is impossible, because the same force that supposedly pulls water to the earth can't likewise push it out and away,  therefore if oceans curve to follow the crustof the earth, so likewise should the water in my glass  curve to follow the earth.  Using simple math, I find the sagitta of a 1 mile chord through the proposed radius of the earth to be reasonably measurable.  This led me to wonder if the following experiment would prove  the curvature of a sphere or prove the linear nature of our reality.  If I place a funnel at point A, and a funnel at point C, at any two points on the earth, 10 miles apart... Stretch a hose between their spouts, and fill with water, the level of water should he the same height, because water always finds level.  Now, if I place funnel B in the exact middle  of the leghth of hose, the level water in B should be.....

That's the rub.  If the oceans are curved, then B should overflow by the same force that keeps the oceans attached to then planet. BUT, and if, funnel B is the same level as A&C, being visually in the same level together...  Then the force that holds water to earth is linear, and NOT curved, and the oceans CANT be curved, because the laws pertaining to the oceans can't be different to water elsewhere. Right?  Or am I missing something?

I cringe every time I see a post like this one, I am coming to the conclusion, that our public education system is failing, you have so many people coming here on the flat earth Pages  and making the same statements. Lost ready to be led, in to the false belief of a flat earth.
did you search?
south pole

Amundsen Scott south pole station

i did not have a problem

a flat level line, on a globe, gravitationally it follows the curvature of the earth, it is not like a straight line on a  piece of paper.

You will hear about the Bedford canal and if 6 mile flat area, I asked does the water flow in the canal, this is not mentioned anywhere, why was the Canal built? Are there locks in the canal, what are the depth of the locks?

when you have to go a distance of a mile to have 8 inches of  change in curvature, can you say you see that?

a bit about the Suez canal, there are problem with fish migrating from the Indian Ocean into the Mediterranean sea, and other problems.

looking at your experiment, starting at Point A, going 5 miles point B, 5 more miles to point C, on the same latitude line at sea level will probably fill to the same point. This would be very hard to actually carryout, so we'll keep it as a thought experiment.
would  the results be the same if you ran the line North south on a longitude line? And whether it straddled the equator or not? I don't have answers.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 12:52:17 AM
Thanks mouse... I did indeed look into some of the accounts of south pole circumnavigation and explorations, discoveries, and scribbles, and maps etc..   I haven't read everything there is to read, but I'll keep searching.  Yes , you should cringe at the  public school system, its a farce, and a breeding ground for mindlessness in my opinion.   The data available over the internet didn't prove a lot to me personally.  Many words have been spoken and written since the dawn of time... And now a photograph, once considered irrefutable, is no longer without justified suspicion.  Its the days we live in.   To believe everything you read, or nothing you read, is subjective.  Wouldn't you agree?  It does seem concensus that willy nilly walkabouts on either pole are strictly prohibited.... And thats a bit odd to me.
Back to the water... You suggested keeping the proposed experiment a mind experiment.   Can't do that.  Can't really get my hands on ten miles of hose either, but I think I can scrape together three funnels!    I came looking for people talking about and searching out similar questions.  I think its valid to NEED an experiment to PROVE the self leveling nature of water.  If I were rich, ten miles of rubber hose might be possible... But I gotta much smaller budget,  though my determination and curiousity is quite rich.
There really MUST be an experiment that can prove linear or curved on a micro scale.  I suggested to my friend that we buy a 5-600 \$ telescope, and try the ocean going vessel idea ourselves. But we couldn't work out determining how far away the vessel would be at the point we could no longer see it through a telescope, or the naked eye.   Any legitimate suggestion for an experiment will be met with eager execution.
I did read a little about the Bedford canal, and the history of contentions.   Seems easy enough to go there and see for yourself.    If I had the means, I'd be the first to do it.   I will be looking locally for similar circumstances to try the same experiment on.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2016, 02:52:36 AM
Thanks mouse... I did indeed look into some of the accounts of south pole circumnavigation and explorations, discoveries, and scribbles, and maps etc..   I haven't read everything there is to read, but I'll keep searching.

Yes , you should cringe at the  public school system, its a farce, and a breeding ground for mindlessness in my opinion.   The data available over the internet didn't prove a lot to me personally.  Many words have been spoken and written since the dawn of time... And now a photograph, once considered irrefutable, is no longer without justified suspicion.

Its the days we live in.   To believe everything you read, or nothing you read, is subjective.  Wouldn't you agree?  It does seem concensus that willy nilly walkabouts on either pole are strictly prohibited.... And thats a bit odd to me.

Back to the water... You suggested keeping the proposed experiment a mind experiment.   Can't do that.  Can't really get my hands on ten miles of hose either, but I think I can scrape together three funnels!    I came looking for people talking about and searching out similar questions.  I think its valid to NEED an experiment to PROVE the self leveling nature of water.

If I were rich, ten miles of rubber hose might be possible... But I gotta much smaller budget,  though my determination and curiousity is quite rich.

There really MUST be an experiment that can prove linear or curved on a micro scale.  I suggested to my friend that we buy a 5-600 \$ telescope, and try the ocean going vessel idea ourselves. But we couldn't work out determining how far away the vessel would be at the point we could no longer see it through a telescope, or the naked eye.   Any legitimate suggestion for an experiment will be met with eager execution.

I did read a little about the Bedford canal, and the history of contentions.   Seems easy enough to go there and see for yourself.    If I had the means, I'd be the first to do it.   I will be looking locally for similar circumstances to try the same experiment on.

Honestly I thought it would make more sense with paragraphs, shows what I know.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:48:41 AM
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?
I will only try to answer a small part.

Firstly, because gravitation is such a tiny force it is extremely difficult to give any convincing benchtop demonstration. You are always competing with the enormously larger earth. Because of this limitation all the "experiment" demonstrates is that the surface of water need not be straight. It does not attempt to simulate how water can stick to a globe. With that proviso:

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container (http://).

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centrifugal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Rotating%20Water%20Curving_zpsdp5i205v.png)
Rotating Water Curving

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.
I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

On the globe the nett acceleration is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost[1]) towards the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20nearly%20Flat%20on%20Globe_zpsgdvt5ny2.png)
Water nearly Flat on Globe

So, water finds its own level, but over a large distance that level is determined by the local gravity.

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 10, 2016, 05:38:42 AM
Thanks mouse... I did indeed look into some of the accounts of south pole circumnavigation and explorations, discoveries, and scribbles, and maps etc..   I haven't read everything there is to read, but I'll keep searching.  Yes , you should cringe at the  public school system, its a farce, and a breeding ground for mindlessness in my opinion.   The data available over the internet didn't prove a lot to me personally.  Many words have been spoken and written since the dawn of time... And now a photograph, once considered irrefutable, is no longer without justified suspicion.  Its the days we live in.   To believe everything you read, or nothing you read, is subjective.  Wouldn't you agree?  It does seem concensus that willy nilly walkabouts on either pole are strictly prohibited.... And thats a bit odd to me.
Back to the water... You suggested keeping the proposed experiment a mind experiment.   Can't do that.  Can't really get my hands on ten miles of hose either, but I think I can scrape together three funnels!    I came looking for people talking about and searching out similar questions.  I think its valid to NEED an experiment to PROVE the self leveling nature of water.  If I were rich, ten miles of rubber hose might be possible... But I gotta much smaller budget,  though my determination and curiousity is quite rich.
There really MUST be an experiment that can prove linear or curved on a micro scale.  I suggested to my friend that we buy a 5-600 \$ telescope, and try the ocean going vessel idea ourselves. But we couldn't work out determining how far away the vessel would be at the point we could no longer see it through a telescope, or the naked eye.   Any legitimate suggestion for an experiment will be met with eager execution.
I did read a little about the Bedford canal, and the history of contentions.   Seems easy enough to go there and see for yourself.    If I had the means, I'd be the first to do it.   I will be looking locally for similar circumstances to try the same experiment on.

If nothing else, math and logic tells us water should level. Imagine you could have a pile of water. The water on top of the pile has potential energy in relation to the ground, and masses tend to release as much potential energy as possible. Potential energy over small distances is calculated as the local gravitational strength times height over reference point (the ground, in this case). The potential energy of the water will be lowest when all the water is as close to the ground as possible (assuming the ground is completely flat, and following the curvature of the earth. Why? Because otherwise some ground would be further away from the center of the earth, and thus the potential energy at that bit of ground would be higher). So the water on top will slide down the sides of the pile to release their potential energy (or push the water under it to the side. The energy released when potential energy decreases allows this).

Also, water have surface tension. It is weak compared to gravity at any scale larger than a droplet, but it tries to decrease the surface area of the body of water as much as possible. The geometric form with the smallest surface per volume is a sphere. This is negligible in pretty much any body of water, though. But, this tells us that it lies in the nature of water to form spheres. If this is the case, then why would water ever level into a flat straight surface? This would only happen if external forces were acting on it.

And it is pretty easy to see that surfaces of large bodies of water curves. Ocean surfaces do. I have many many many times seen all kinds of boats go over the horizon. I have sometimes looked at them through binoculars, and through them I can see that the bottoms disappear first. The place I do this from also have a small Island with a lighthouse far off in the sea. You can see the lighthouse and some buildings, but not the island itself (or only a small sliver of the top). Refraction of light counters curvature (the majority of the time), and there is no other known phenomenon which could explain the apparently curved surface of the ocean.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 06:01:00 AM
That's my question too.   Relative? Linear or curved?
My sight is linear. Water finds linear level, but we are taught that level ocean surface is relative to the center of the sphere... But both can't be true. Can they?

Water doesn't find "linear level". I have no idea where you are getting that from. There is no law that says liquids find linear level, that's just a misconception. If you find it hard to imagine how water would curve around to find level, look up ferro fluid on something like a spherical magnet, which is a similar concept to gravity pulling water like that.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 06:05:27 AM
Oh, by the way, anyone can visit Antarctica, and thousands of people do every year.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 10, 2016, 10:38:48 AM
its strange I never asked these questions before.   Perhaps someone here has some insight that can help my friend and I understand.
I was looking into ideas of collecting sunlight for a steam experiment, and that led me to learning about tracking the suns movement at my latitude, and that led me to some problems concerning the math and science with the rotation, curvature, and speed of the sun.  Something doesn't add up,  and I'm not the type to take some youtubers word for anything.
Firstly,  there seems to be something substantial to claims about Antarctica not being what we are supposed to believe it is.  I searched the internet for days, and found nothing to lead me to believe anyone has ever crossed it pole to pole, nor flew over it, nor explored it without also never being heard from again.   Strange.   Thousands of people have been to MT. Everest.  Jillions of pictures and videos.  But nothing on Antarctica.   Nothing at all. Anyone have some proof of what Antarctica is?
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?

I suggested to my friend, if water is held in the oceans by some force at the proposed curvature of the earth, then the Suez canal should heave up in the middle to follow that same curve, but this is impossible, because the same force that supposedly pulls water to the earth can't likewise push it out and away,  therefore if oceans curve to follow the crustof the earth, so likewise should the water in my glass  curve to follow the earth.  Using simple math, I find the sagitta of a 1 mile chord through the proposed radius of the earth to be reasonably measurable.  This led me to wonder if the following experiment would prove  the curvature of a sphere or prove the linear nature of our reality.  If I place a funnel at point A, and a funnel at point C, at any two points on the earth, 10 miles apart... Stretch a hose between their spouts, and fill with water, the level of water should he the same height, because water always finds level.  Now, if I place funnel B in the exact middle  of the leghth of hose, the level water in B should be.....

That's the rub.  If the oceans are curved, then B should overflow by the same force that keeps the oceans attached to then planet. BUT, and if, funnel B is the same level as A&C, being visually in the same level together...  Then the force that holds water to earth is linear, and NOT curved, and the oceans CANT be curved, because the laws pertaining to the oceans can't be different to water elsewhere. Right?  Or am I missing something?

I like narcberry's floating oceans theory http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16948.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16948.0)
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: uCantBeSerious on May 10, 2016, 11:04:56 AM
its strange I never asked these questions before.   Perhaps someone here has some insight that can help my friend and I understand.
I was looking into ideas of collecting sunlight for a steam experiment, and that led me to learning about tracking the suns movement at my latitude, and that led me to some problems concerning the math and science with the rotation, curvature, and speed of the sun.  Something doesn't add up,  and I'm not the type to take some youtubers word for anything.
Firstly,  there seems to be something substantial to claims about Antarctica not being what we are supposed to believe it is.  I searched the internet for days, and found nothing to lead me to believe anyone has ever crossed it pole to pole, nor flew over it, nor explored it without also never being heard from again.   Strange.   Thousands of people have been to MT. Everest.  Jillions of pictures and videos.  But nothing on Antarctica.   Nothing at all. Anyone have some proof of what Antarctica is?
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?

I suggested to my friend, if water is held in the oceans by some force at the proposed curvature of the earth, then the Suez canal should heave up in the middle to follow that same curve, but this is impossible, because the same force that supposedly pulls water to the earth can't likewise push it out and away,  therefore if oceans curve to follow the crustof the earth, so likewise should the water in my glass  curve to follow the earth.  Using simple math, I find the sagitta of a 1 mile chord through the proposed radius of the earth to be reasonably measurable.  This led me to wonder if the following experiment would prove  the curvature of a sphere or prove the linear nature of our reality.  If I place a funnel at point A, and a funnel at point C, at any two points on the earth, 10 miles apart... Stretch a hose between their spouts, and fill with water, the level of water should he the same height, because water always finds level.  Now, if I place funnel B in the exact middle  of the leghth of hose, the level water in B should be.....

That's the rub.  If the oceans are curved, then B should overflow by the same force that keeps the oceans attached to then planet. BUT, and if, funnel B is the same level as A&C, being visually in the same level together...  Then the force that holds water to earth is linear, and NOT curved, and the oceans CANT be curved, because the laws pertaining to the oceans can't be different to water elsewhere. Right?  Or am I missing something?

I like narcberry's floating oceans theory http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16948.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16948.0)

Why? My head hurts from the weight of the fallacies contained therein.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 11:20:38 AM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Uninvited Guest on May 10, 2016, 11:32:26 AM
its strange I never asked these questions before.   Perhaps someone here has some insight that can help my friend and I understand.
I was looking into ideas of collecting sunlight for a steam experiment, and that led me to learning about tracking the suns movement at my latitude, and that led me to some problems concerning the math and science with the rotation, curvature, and speed of the sun.  Something doesn't add up,  and I'm not the type to take some youtubers word for anything.
Firstly,  there seems to be something substantial to claims about Antarctica not being what we are supposed to believe it is.  I searched the internet for days, and found nothing to lead me to believe anyone has ever crossed it pole to pole, nor flew over it, nor explored it without also never being heard from again.   Strange.   Thousands of people have been to MT. Everest.  Jillions of pictures and videos.  But nothing on Antarctica.   Nothing at all. Anyone have some proof of what Antarctica is?
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?

I suggested to my friend, if water is held in the oceans by some force at the proposed curvature of the earth, then the Suez canal should heave up in the middle to follow that same curve, but this is impossible, because the same force that supposedly pulls water to the earth can't likewise push it out and away,  therefore if oceans curve to follow the crustof the earth, so likewise should the water in my glass  curve to follow the earth.  Using simple math, I find the sagitta of a 1 mile chord through the proposed radius of the earth to be reasonably measurable.  This led me to wonder if the following experiment would prove  the curvature of a sphere or prove the linear nature of our reality.  If I place a funnel at point A, and a funnel at point C, at any two points on the earth, 10 miles apart... Stretch a hose between their spouts, and fill with water, the level of water should he the same height, because water always finds level.  Now, if I place funnel B in the exact middle  of the leghth of hose, the level water in B should be.....

That's the rub.  If the oceans are curved, then B should overflow by the same force that keeps the oceans attached to then planet. BUT, and if, funnel B is the same level as A&C, being visually in the same level together...  Then the force that holds water to earth is linear, and NOT curved, and the oceans CANT be curved, because the laws pertaining to the oceans can't be different to water elsewhere. Right?  Or am I missing something?

I cringe every time I see a post like this one, I am coming to the conclusion, that our public education system is failing, you have so many people coming here on the flat earth Pages  and making the same statements. Lost ready to be led, in to the false belief of a flat earth.
did you search?
south pole

Amundsen Scott south pole station

i did not have a problem

a flat level line, on a globe, gravitationally it follows the curvature of the earth, it is not like a straight line on a  piece of paper.

You will hear about the Bedford canal and if 6 mile flat area, I asked does the water flow in the canal, this is not mentioned anywhere, why was the Canal built? Are there locks in the canal, what are the depth of the locks?

when you have to go a distance of a mile to have 8 inches of  change in curvature, can you say you see that?

a bit about the Suez canal, there are problem with fish migrating from the Indian Ocean into the Mediterranean sea, and other problems.

looking at your experiment, starting at Point A, going 5 miles point B, 5 more miles to point C, on the same latitude line at sea level will probably fill to the same point. This would be very hard to actually carryout, so we'll keep it as a thought experiment.
would  the results be the same if you ran the line North south on a longitude line? And whether it straddled the equator or not? I don't have answers.

Your sense of "superioty" is unbelieavable. This per si indicates that you've had a poor education yourself.

Learning has to do with asking questions, whether it is asked on a forum or to a teacher, it doesnt matter. Discovering things by yourself, judging others' opinions, and applying logic to solve problems mean the "education system" is not failing. It's time to go back to learning, old man.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 12:09:30 PM
Thanks U-G..  Do yoy have an experiment I can try, to resolve our question about water finding linear, or relative/curved level?  Or some evidence as to what the south pole is?   I'd really appreciate it.
Someone earlier mentioned that the south pole is visited regularly.  I agree.  But only in a few spots along the edge.    It seems notable as well, that the big deal made over someone flying over the pole, or sailing a ship around it,  in this day and age... Is out of proportion to reality.  For instance, imagine your local news, announcing a huge event about to take place, handing out flyers, and holding fundraisers, because a cat took a nap in the west corner of the living room, instead of the east corner, where it usually sleeps. Ridiculous?  Yep.   In the same form, I see announcents about someone attempting to fly over the south pole, or sail around it... When in my world, ships sail millions of collective miles a day, and even more flight time is logged.  So what's the big deal?   Or is it just another b/s media rouse.
Truth.   When I can prove it to someone else, I believe its true.  But when I have to ask someone to swallow a horse pill of gigantic etherial nonsense- its b/s.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 12:54:40 PM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

Proving the curvature of earth is a different subject. I can do that, but not right now. You can calculate the distance of the vessel by knowing how large it is and how large it appears to be, but that also is another subject. The subject in question is water finding level. We can talk about your other questions somewhere else.

There is nothing to indicate that water tries to find linear level. It's a common misconception. The fact that the water (and all other liquids) behaves like that is simply because it falls towards the center of the earth. It's a direct consequence of it trying to minimize its potential energy. By curving around the earth, it does exactly that. I brought up the example of the ferro fluid, because it helps you with the visualization. You should look up videos with ferro fluid wrapping around magnets. Of course, it's not the same, because the field of magnets and the gravitational field of the earth aren't the same, but it does help with the visualization.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 02:48:47 PM
I think I've found something that will suffice for an experiment.   The bonneville salt flats.   12 miles long.  Dead flat.  And, if he proposed radius of earth is true, its reasonable to consider that from one shore to the other, 12 miles across, at a sagitta of 8ish inches per mile for the curvature of the earth, there ought to be a very visible hump of 96" in the middle of my linear, straight, line of sight.   But how much you folks wanna bet there is no such hump?
Water finds its own level?  Water sticks to earth per the core?   Let'sfind out!
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 04:47:16 PM
Hmm... Jillions of pictures of the Bonneville salt flats, full of water, and not so much as an inch of variation in the surface of the water over twelve miles.   Can someone please... PLEASE!  I beg you, Explain this.   I don't want to believe the oceans are flat... But if I can't prove their curved... What choice have I?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 05:17:21 PM
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 06:03:30 PM
Can it be this easy?   Billions of words spoken.  Centuries of this crap over this one little bitty question.
Forget the Bedford canal... The Bonneville salt flats are twice as long.   And still no evidence of curve?   But the curve was the evidence for the idea of a spherical planet?

Is it possible that this is just another exercise in deceptions?   Another Y2k multi billion dollar sh## sandwich?

Man... I'm getting tired of sh## sandwiches.

Time to join the iconoclast.

Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2016, 06:12:41 PM
Hmm... Jillions of pictures of the Bonneville salt flats, full of water, and not so much as an inch of variation in the surface of the water over twelve miles.   Can someone please... PLEASE!  I beg you, Explain this.   I don't want to believe the oceans are flat... But if I can't prove their curved... What choice have I?
As pointed out, level and flat are not the same thing. Once you learn this you will see how you are wrong.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: getrealzommb on May 10, 2016, 06:18:43 PM
Ill have a go....... sounds like Sharpie325 is already a Flat Earther migrating here from the likes of Jeranism

Right, firstly  a bit of required maths about how curvature and line of sight is measured:
d = OC = distance to the horizon
D = AB = diameter of the Earth
h = OB = height of the observer above sea level
D+h = OA = diameter of the Earth plus height of the observer above sea level

Then a refraction correction needs to be applied.

Or you can calculate using Earths radius

Sorry Jroa..... dem pics again..... ::)

Then take a look at these:

This series of pictures shows ships between 15-25km from the observer, photographed from both sea level and 12m altitude.  Also included are pictures of the distant shoreline of the island that lies across the bay, from both sea level and 12m altitude.  There are examples of photos taken at magnifications of 1:1, 8:1 and 28:1.  Lets see If we can observe a Hump or bulge over distance.

In these series are shown;

1. ships at 8 times magnification viewed from different elevations, the higher elevations revealing more of the hulls than are visible at sea level (0m)
2. Island coastland viewed at 8x magnification from different elevations, with more of the lower view of the coast visible from higher elevations
3. 28x telescope images of selected views of both coastal land and ships showing that higher magnification does not increase the proportion of the subject viewable but that higher elevation does increase the proportion of the subject that is visible.

Note: Some images have been reduced in size to make comparisons easier, the full view is available by cliking the image.

Ship 1, 1x mag. 12m alt. (enlarged to show detail)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6206/6155740068_63689207ed_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155740068/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155740068/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6155195173_dc4c9b9719_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155195173/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155195173/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6155738378_71f20689ea_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155738378/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155738378/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6068/6155193283_8a080a6256_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193283/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193283/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.  (note ship 2 behind ship1. The hull of ship 2 is not even visible)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6155193181_95d49890fa_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193181/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155193181/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6155192949_68fa85794e_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192949/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192949/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/6155192737_9c088a5df7_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192737/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192737/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 3, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6179/6155737584_cfc0fb517a_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155737584/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155737584/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 3, 28x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6155192491_a10315b3ca_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192491/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192491/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6155192083_0e22ed6310_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192083/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155192083/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6155736684_3a8a75f3e4_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736684/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736684/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6155191443_55b19f7652_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155191443/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155191443/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6155736064_8ef67bd611_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736064/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155736064/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 0m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6155735620_e4a5f4bb1d_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155735620/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155735620/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Houses on hill, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6155190187_f5bdb35481_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155190187/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155190187/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 12m alt.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6209/6155188787_e23985d92d_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155188787/)
Ships Below the Horizon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6155188787/#) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr

Plenty of Curavture and a "hump" can be observed

Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 06:23:08 PM
I'd love to be wrong.

The question:
If our physical reality holds the oceans curved to the curved surface of the earth, then the same should be true for smaller bodies of water.
Problem:
I can't seem to PROVE that there is any curve at all.
Sok, you say there is a difference between level and flat. GREAT!  Show me please.
If water finds the curve of the earth, then why is 12 miles of water flat & not curved?

I used the same equation everyone does to determine the sagitta of the earths surface, using the proposed radius of the earth... This gives a sagitta of 8 inches per mile no matter where you are.  And, for the sake of argument, let'ssay that WRONG by 75%.
There would still be an obstruction of water while trying to view something 12 miles away  over the surface of any water on this sphere.  But there is none.

None at all.

So now what?   How can we prove the curve of the earth?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: getrealzommb on May 10, 2016, 06:31:24 PM
I'd love to be wrong.

The question:
If our physical reality holds the oceans curved to the curved surface of the earth, then the same should be true for smaller bodies of water.
Problem:
I can't seem to PROVE that there is any curve at all.
Sok, you say there is a difference between level and flat. GREAT!  Show me please.
If water finds the curve of the earth, then why is 12 miles of water flat & not curved?

I used the same equation everyone does to determine the sagitta of the earths surface, using the proposed radius of the earth... This gives a sagitta of 8 inches per mile no matter where you are. And, for the sake of argument, let'ssay that WRONG by 75%.
There would still be an obstruction of water while trying to view something 12 miles away  over the surface of any water on this sphere.  But there is none.

None at all.

So now what?   How can we prove the curve of the earth?
You are wrong, so you can rest assured: happy in the knowledge that water conforms to a curve, relative to the earths center.

Anything else we can be of help on?

no?

ok

Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 06:42:34 PM

I used sagitta equals the radius minus the square rootof the radius squared minus the chord squared.

Is this not the equation to find the sagitta?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: getrealzommb on May 10, 2016, 06:48:44 PM

I used sagitta equals the radius minus the square rootof the radius squared minus the chord squared.

Is this not the equation to find the sagitta?

You implied that you can simply say that the curve is 8" per mile. Its not.

And then you need to correct for refraction, if working with line of sight or using any kind of photon based measurements.
Over land Line of sight is bent downward which Negates earth curvature error by 14%. (typical)
and over sea/water atmospheric conditions can Negate up to 27% (extreme)

Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 06:52:19 PM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Jadyyn on May 10, 2016, 07:04:17 PM
Please check this out. Maybe it answers some questions (like level vs flat): (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65475.msg1747863#msg1747863 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65475.msg1747863#msg1747863))

I don't know the answer because there are several factors that I don't have an intuitive feeling for their effects. You are dealing with:
1) a flat surface (ground)
2) several inches(?) of water
3) an enclosed space (lake)
4) not sure what pictures you have of the lake being "perfectly" flat

This is totally different than the ocean. *I* would expect different results. I don't know.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: getrealzommb on May 10, 2016, 07:20:03 PM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?

I provided all you need in my post above.

Exactly as you said. but you are forgetting that you need to calculate  the height of the ark at the center point between yourself and what you are observing.

Just use the curvature and refraction calculations I gave you above. Find yourself a stretch of water about 15km across and make some observations. once you confirm that a ships hull has been obscured by the "hump/bulge" you can (go home, or)  then start to make a few calculations on its distance relative to your height and the distance of your observation. then as the ship travels away how much hull is obscured. (I have done this)

If you want to get realy Anal about it

Data for every ships laden and unladen free board dimensions can be found online if one looks for it.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: getrealzommb on May 10, 2016, 07:31:11 PM

Imagine you could have a pile of water. The water on top......

Reminds me of a trip I once had. Good ole' Lysergic acid...

Keep of the Chemicals kids. Them be baaaaaad.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: 29silhouette on May 10, 2016, 08:12:28 PM
There would still be an obstruction of water while trying to view something 12 miles away  over the surface of any water on this sphere.  But there is none.

None at all.
View a distant object from a higher elevation, and then drop to a lower elevation.  Sometimes atmospheric condition cause the light to curve slightly, allowing low objects to still be seen, but higher objects still sink, as seen below.

12 miles to the hillside.
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/bridge2_zps38b17185.jpg)

Quote
I'd love to be wrong.
No need to thank me.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 08:15:29 PM
Thanks for the info zom. I'll give the data due diligence, and revisit this thread when I'm finished.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 10, 2016, 08:36:27 PM
I read the post you suggested.

I'm curious if issues of distance restrictions based on our eyeballs construction, or illusions like refraction, or other variables that are measurable, but hard to pin down at any specific calculation,  will make it impossible to actually view the proposed curvature of the earth.   I'm going to dig this down... See what's at the bottom.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 11, 2016, 12:11:25 AM
Hmm... Jillions of pictures of the Bonneville salt flats, full of water, and not so much as an inch of variation in the surface of the water over twelve miles.   Can someone please... PLEASE!  I beg you, Explain this.   I don't want to believe the oceans are flat... But if I can't prove their curved... What choice have I?

No, you shouldn't be able to see a "hump". That's also a misconception based on perspective. What you should be able to witness is very distant things being below the horizon, so that you wouldn't be able to witness them. By the way, do you live in any way near the sea?

"There would still be an obstruction of water while trying to view something 12 miles away  over the surface of any water on this sphere.  But there is none."

There is, it's just that on the salt flats, there is nothing to see. There are no distant ships moving towards or away from you, and mountains are hard to judge. You also have to find the distance to the horizon from your altitude, because even slight differences like observing something from 0.5 meters to 2 meters can make all the difference. I tried it on the beach a few days ago. When sitting on the ground, I could only see the very top of the ship. When standing up, I could almost see the entire thing, and when getting somewhere a bit more elevated I could see the entire ship.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Jadyyn on May 11, 2016, 08:46:17 AM
BTW, here is a similar topic that is a favorite because of the distances involved. It shows the "hump" in Lake Michigan when viewing Chicago from Michigan. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65804.msg1757675 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65804.msg1757675))

Logic, common sense ... When any evidence is presented that APPEARS to contradict a theory, the evidence should probably be suspect. By definition, a true theory has LOTS of evidence/non-falsified hypotheses that support it. When a piece of evidence "doesn't fit", we should first look at what makes it do that. If, after much review, the evidence looks good, either the theory may need to be MODIFIED, or APPENDED or a new better theory (supported by MUCH evidence and non-falsified hypotheses) used for this presumably special occurrence.

FEers, seeing ONE image, immediately jump to rejecting LOTS (100's, 1000's, millions+ places something works) and throw out the true theories and math and science. This is nuts and not the way true science is done.

BTW, the FE "theory" isn't a theory. At best it is a hypothesis (that has MANY failures). In truth, it is a fantasy (that is why I refer to it as FEF not FET). BTW, a fantasy doesn't require ANY evidence - no proof is needed.

Keep in mind the following definitions:

Fantasy:
• imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained
• imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings
• the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
• imagination unrestricted by reality
Fiction:
• a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
• something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
• Fiction is defined as something that is not true
• is a deliberately fabricated account of something
Hypothesis:
• A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
• In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.
• A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.
Theory:
• Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
• In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence;
• In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations

For example, this is why Dual Earth THEORY (DET) is not remotely a theory. This is why I refer to it as DEF.

Hope this helps in your discussion of theories.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2016, 08:46:27 AM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?

If you get a friend and hire two automatic levels for a combined cost of about £100 per week you can attempt to simultaneously sight along the same line of sight and that method enables you to cancel out refraction errors.   If the Earth is round you will not be able to sight along the same line of sight using the crosshairs of two automatic levels where one is positioned at each end once you are more than 1000 feet apart.    The difference in level equates to an angular difference of the two levels of one minute of arc at one mile distance and these levels are so accurate you will be able to notice that for a round earth.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:32:58 PM

Imagine you could have a pile of water. The water on top......

Reminds me of a trip I once had. Good ole' Lysergic acid...

Keep of the Chemicals kids. Them be baaaaaad.
You just joking around or...?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 11, 2016, 09:53:10 PM
Alive and kicking....
Excellent.   I will do this experiment.   1000' that's all?

Jay,  thanks for the definitions.  Its seems dogmatic to me that evidence... Which I presume to be a fact, is what's suspect when it brakes a theory's model.  Seems like there ought not to be any question about an idea before it is built upon.   Ideally.
Practice however...  Is not so.  And the result seems to be mounds of ideas stacked upon previous ideas, and when one of the beginning ones fall out everything you think you know falls down.
Strange way of doing things.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:56:46 PM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: sharpie325 on May 11, 2016, 10:14:39 PM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Yes, please post it here.   With the math in long form if you'd be so kind.
I believe that if the oceans curve to the core, then so must a lake, a river, and a glass full of water.
The experiment is contingent on the proposed radius of the earth however, which would make it impossible to view over short distances.  Agreed.
For instance, I calculated the sagitta for 100' to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .00648 inches.   To small to measure.
Alive and kickings experiment however has me intrigued.  1000'?   With 2 self leveling transits?    I can do that.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2016, 11:05:25 PM
Alive and kicking....
Excellent.   I will do this experiment.   1000' that's all?

Jay,  thanks for the definitions.  Its seems dogmatic to me that evidence... Which I presume to be a fact, is what's suspect when it brakes a theory's model.  Seems like there ought not to be any question about an idea before it is built upon.   Ideally.
Practice however...  Is not so.  And the result seems to be mounds of ideas stacked upon previous ideas, and when one of the beginning ones fall out everything you think you know falls down.
Strange way of doing things.

You can do it in less than a 1000 feet with better equipment.  For an ordinary person using good quality basic equipment 1000 is going to be a minimum needing great care.    You can for example hire theodolites which is the same sort of thing with better optics and the ability to measure vertical angles to the target.  Today surveyors can routinely measure 50km distances and angles using multiple reflectors to better than 10cm accuracy of distance and two seconds of arc.      The greater the distance the easier it becomes to notice you cannot sight back along the same line of sight.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 12:17:51 AM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?

If you get a friend and hire two automatic levels for a combined cost of about £100 per week you can attempt to simultaneously sight along the same line of sight and that method enables you to cancel out refraction errors.   If the Earth is round you will not be able to sight along the same line of sight using the crosshairs of two automatic levels where one is positioned at each end once you are more than 1000 feet apart.    The difference in level equates to an angular difference of the two levels of one minute of arc at one mile distance and these levels are so accurate you will be able to notice that for a round earth.

I'm not sure 1000 feet is enough to be out of the margin of error...
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2016, 12:26:56 AM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?

If you get a friend and hire two automatic levels for a combined cost of about £100 per week you can attempt to simultaneously sight along the same line of sight and that method enables you to cancel out refraction errors.   If the Earth is round you will not be able to sight along the same line of sight using the crosshairs of two automatic levels where one is positioned at each end once you are more than 1000 feet apart.    The difference in level equates to an angular difference of the two levels of one minute of arc at one mile distance and these levels are so accurate you will be able to notice that for a round earth.

I'm not sure 1000 feet is enough to be out of the margin of error...

Its a minimum which should be achievable with sufficient observations.   At 1000 feet you are looking for a few cm height difference.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 12:55:09 AM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?

If you get a friend and hire two automatic levels for a combined cost of about £100 per week you can attempt to simultaneously sight along the same line of sight and that method enables you to cancel out refraction errors.   If the Earth is round you will not be able to sight along the same line of sight using the crosshairs of two automatic levels where one is positioned at each end once you are more than 1000 feet apart.    The difference in level equates to an angular difference of the two levels of one minute of arc at one mile distance and these levels are so accurate you will be able to notice that for a round earth.

I'm not sure 1000 feet is enough to be out of the margin of error...

Its a minimum which should be achievable with sufficient observations.   At 1000 feet you are looking for a few cm height difference.

Yeah, that's why I said I don't know if it's enough. With sufficient equipment, it probably is, but the difference is so small and the variables are so many that I'm not sure if it will suffice. I would expect that you would need at least 3500 feet or so. Then again I might be wrong. You should perform the experiment and let us know.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2016, 01:58:59 AM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?

If you get a friend and hire two automatic levels for a combined cost of about £100 per week you can attempt to simultaneously sight along the same line of sight and that method enables you to cancel out refraction errors.   If the Earth is round you will not be able to sight along the same line of sight using the crosshairs of two automatic levels where one is positioned at each end once you are more than 1000 feet apart.    The difference in level equates to an angular difference of the two levels of one minute of arc at one mile distance and these levels are so accurate you will be able to notice that for a round earth.

I'm not sure 1000 feet is enough to be out of the margin of error...

Its a minimum which should be achievable with sufficient observations.   At 1000 feet you are looking for a few cm height difference.

Yeah, that's why I said I don't know if it's enough. With sufficient equipment, it probably is, but the difference is so small and the variables are so many that I'm not sure if it will suffice. I would expect that you would need at least 3500 feet or so. Then again I might be wrong. You should perform the experiment and let us know.

I have an automatic level and I spoke to a surveyor about doing it over a mile and he said 1000 might work with a basic good quality auto level and he had already demonstrated it over one mile using a theodolite so I was not motivated to actually go out and do it.

My idea was to build two platforms which were 'level' as measured from one direction and only use one auto level, but if you had two automatic levels at each end, you would more or less have all the time in the world to contemplate whether the other one was pointing higher or not, use tiny lights at night and so forth.   These levels are amazing accurate and my 24 times optics are very good for a £100 second hand device from ebay.     I think somebody would have to place a bet i could not do it to get me motivated to continue.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 02:21:28 AM
How do I calculate the sagitta of a curve ?

How do I then take the result and adjust for refraction using my line of sight?

If you get a friend and hire two automatic levels for a combined cost of about £100 per week you can attempt to simultaneously sight along the same line of sight and that method enables you to cancel out refraction errors.   If the Earth is round you will not be able to sight along the same line of sight using the crosshairs of two automatic levels where one is positioned at each end once you are more than 1000 feet apart.    The difference in level equates to an angular difference of the two levels of one minute of arc at one mile distance and these levels are so accurate you will be able to notice that for a round earth.

I'm not sure 1000 feet is enough to be out of the margin of error...

Its a minimum which should be achievable with sufficient observations.   At 1000 feet you are looking for a few cm height difference.

Yeah, that's why I said I don't know if it's enough. With sufficient equipment, it probably is, but the difference is so small and the variables are so many that I'm not sure if it will suffice. I would expect that you would need at least 3500 feet or so. Then again I might be wrong. You should perform the experiment and let us know.

I have an automatic level and I spoke to a surveyor about doing it over a mile and he said 1000 might work with a basic good quality auto level and he had already demonstrated it over one mile using a theodolite so I was not motivated to actually go out and do it.

My idea was to build two platforms which were 'level' as measured from one direction and only use one auto level, but if you had two automatic levels at each end, you would more or less have all the time in the world to contemplate whether the other one was pointing higher or not, use tiny lights at night and so forth.   These levels are amazing accurate and my 24 times optics are very good for a £100 second hand device from ebay.     I think somebody would have to place a bet i could not do it to get me motivated to continue.

Oh, OK then. What would you expect the outcome to be?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 12, 2016, 02:33:42 AM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Yes, please post it here.   With the math in long form if you'd be so kind.
I believe that if the oceans curve to the core, then so must a lake, a river, and a glass full of water.
The experiment is contingent on the proposed radius of the earth however, which would make it impossible to view over short distances.  Agreed.
For instance, I calculated the sagitta for 100' to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .00648 inches.   To small to measure.
Alive and kickings experiment however has me intrigued.  1000'?   With 2 self leveling transits?    I can do that.

I did it for a bucket with water with the radius=30 cm (0.3 m). The radius of the earth is 6371 km (6371000 m). Let's draw a line (or secant, if you will) between two opposite points along the edge of the water in the bucket. This one will represent "flat" level. Now draw a line from the center of the earth to each of the edge points, and one to the middle of the water in the bucket. If the water curves, this middle line will go through the secant and a little longer. The line between one edge-point and the center, the center and the secant, and secant/middle crosspoint and edge-point will make a right angle triangle with two known sides, one being 0.15 m and the other being 6371000 m. A2 + B2 = C2, where C is 6371000 m and A is 0.15 m. B = squareroot(C2 - A2) = ... Weird. My calculators (Tried internet one, handheld one, one which follows with this computer) Only gives me back 6371000 m. I guess the difference is just too small. Anyways, you take that answer minus the length of the whole middle of water-center of earth line (6371000 m) to get the answer. If you input the answer I get from these calculators, you get zero. It is of course not zero, since we know that B is in fact just a little shorter. I did this calculation earlier, maybe with another calculator, and got that the bulge was 0.0000000019 m, or: 0.00000019 cm; 0.0000019 mm; 0.0019 micrometers; 1.9 nanometers "high".
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Jadyyn on May 12, 2016, 03:51:26 AM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Yes, please post it here.   With the math in long form if you'd be so kind.
I believe that if the oceans curve to the core, then so must a lake, a river, and a glass full of water.
The experiment is contingent on the proposed radius of the earth however, which would make it impossible to view over short distances.  Agreed.
For instance, I calculated the sagitta for 100' to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .00648 inches.   To small to measure.
Alive and kickings experiment however has me intrigued.  1000'?   With 2 self leveling transits?    I can do that.

I did it for a bucket with water with the radius=30 cm (0.3 m). The radius of the earth is 6371 km (6371000 m). Let's draw a line (or secant, if you will) between two opposite points along the edge of the water in the bucket. This one will represent "flat" level. Now draw a line from the center of the earth to each of the edge points, and one to the middle of the water in the bucket. If the water curves, this middle line will go through the secant and a little longer. The line between one edge-point and the center, the center and the secant, and secant/middle crosspoint and edge-point will make a right angle triangle with two known sides, one being 0.15 m and the other being 6371000 m. A2 + B2 = C2, where C is 6371000 m and A is 0.15 m. B = squareroot(C2 - A2) = ... Weird. My calculators (Tried internet one, handheld one, one which follows with this computer) Only gives me back 6371000 m. I guess the difference is just too small. Anyways, you take that answer minus the length of the whole middle of water-center of earth line (6371000 m) to get the answer. If you input the answer I get from these calculators, you get zero. It is of course not zero, since we know that B is in fact just a little shorter. I did this calculation earlier, maybe with another calculator, and got that the bulge was 0.0000000019 m, or: 0.00000019 cm; 0.0000019 mm; 0.0019 micrometers; 1.9 nanometers "high".
Windows 10 scientific calculator gets 6,371,000.0000000017658138439805366
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: getrealzommb on May 12, 2016, 10:52:46 AM

Imagine you could have a pile of water. The water on top......

Reminds me of a trip I once had. Good ole' Lysergic acid...

Keep of the Chemicals kids. Them be baaaaaad.
You just joking around or...?

No joke.

I have seen said "Pile of water" scared the shit out of me for a while then I embraced it and everything was good!
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 01:14:20 PM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Yes, please post it here.   With the math in long form if you'd be so kind.
I believe that if the oceans curve to the core, then so must a lake, a river, and a glass full of water.
The experiment is contingent on the proposed radius of the earth however, which would make it impossible to view over short distances.  Agreed.
For instance, I calculated the sagitta for 100' to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .00648 inches.   To small to measure.
Alive and kickings experiment however has me intrigued.  1000'?   With 2 self leveling transits?    I can do that.

I did it for a bucket with water with the radius=30 cm (0.3 m). The radius of the earth is 6371 km (6371000 m). Let's draw a line (or secant, if you will) between two opposite points along the edge of the water in the bucket. This one will represent "flat" level. Now draw a line from the center of the earth to each of the edge points, and one to the middle of the water in the bucket. If the water curves, this middle line will go through the secant and a little longer. The line between one edge-point and the center, the center and the secant, and secant/middle crosspoint and edge-point will make a right angle triangle with two known sides, one being 0.15 m and the other being 6371000 m. A2 + B2 = C2, where C is 6371000 m and A is 0.15 m. B = squareroot(C2 - A2) = ... Weird. My calculators (Tried internet one, handheld one, one which follows with this computer) Only gives me back 6371000 m. I guess the difference is just too small. Anyways, you take that answer minus the length of the whole middle of water-center of earth line (6371000 m) to get the answer. If you input the answer I get from these calculators, you get zero. It is of course not zero, since we know that B is in fact just a little shorter. I did this calculation earlier, maybe with another calculator, and got that the bulge was 0.0000000019 m, or: 0.00000019 cm; 0.0000019 mm; 0.0019 micrometers; 1.9 nanometers "high".

That would be like what, 100 atoms high? Yeah, that would be pretty impossible to measure.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 12, 2016, 09:58:07 PM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Yes, please post it here.   With the math in long form if you'd be so kind.
I believe that if the oceans curve to the core, then so must a lake, a river, and a glass full of water.
The experiment is contingent on the proposed radius of the earth however, which would make it impossible to view over short distances.  Agreed.
For instance, I calculated the sagitta for 100' to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .00648 inches.   To small to measure.
Alive and kickings experiment however has me intrigued.  1000'?   With 2 self leveling transits?    I can do that.

I did it for a bucket with water with the radius=30 cm (0.3 m). The radius of the earth is 6371 km (6371000 m). Let's draw a line (or secant, if you will) between two opposite points along the edge of the water in the bucket. This one will represent "flat" level. Now draw a line from the center of the earth to each of the edge points, and one to the middle of the water in the bucket. If the water curves, this middle line will go through the secant and a little longer. The line between one edge-point and the center, the center and the secant, and secant/middle crosspoint and edge-point will make a right angle triangle with two known sides, one being 0.15 m and the other being 6371000 m. A2 + B2 = C2, where C is 6371000 m and A is 0.15 m. B = squareroot(C2 - A2) = ... Weird. My calculators (Tried internet one, handheld one, one which follows with this computer) Only gives me back 6371000 m. I guess the difference is just too small. Anyways, you take that answer minus the length of the whole middle of water-center of earth line (6371000 m) to get the answer. If you input the answer I get from these calculators, you get zero. It is of course not zero, since we know that B is in fact just a little shorter. I did this calculation earlier, maybe with another calculator, and got that the bulge was 0.0000000019 m, or: 0.00000019 cm; 0.0000019 mm; 0.0019 micrometers; 1.9 nanometers "high".
Windows 10 scientific calculator gets 6,371,000.0000000017658138439805366

Wait, wut? Are you REALLY sure? Is the squareroot of (6,371,000^2-0.15^2) REALLY 6,371,000.0000000017658138439805366? C, or 6,371,000 m, is the hypotenuse, i.e. the longest side. I'm very sure you made some mistake in calculating that, because it would defy logic otherwise.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 01:35:33 AM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Yes, please post it here.   With the math in long form if you'd be so kind.
I believe that if the oceans curve to the core, then so must a lake, a river, and a glass full of water.
The experiment is contingent on the proposed radius of the earth however, which would make it impossible to view over short distances.  Agreed.
For instance, I calculated the sagitta for 100' to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .00648 inches.   To small to measure.
Alive and kickings experiment however has me intrigued.  1000'?   With 2 self leveling transits?    I can do that.

I did it for a bucket with water with the radius=30 cm (0.3 m). The radius of the earth is 6371 km (6371000 m). Let's draw a line (or secant, if you will) between two opposite points along the edge of the water in the bucket. This one will represent "flat" level. Now draw a line from the center of the earth to each of the edge points, and one to the middle of the water in the bucket. If the water curves, this middle line will go through the secant and a little longer. The line between one edge-point and the center, the center and the secant, and secant/middle crosspoint and edge-point will make a right angle triangle with two known sides, one being 0.15 m and the other being 6371000 m. A2 + B2 = C2, where C is 6371000 m and A is 0.15 m. B = squareroot(C2 - A2) = ... Weird. My calculators (Tried internet one, handheld one, one which follows with this computer) Only gives me back 6371000 m. I guess the difference is just too small. Anyways, you take that answer minus the length of the whole middle of water-center of earth line (6371000 m) to get the answer. If you input the answer I get from these calculators, you get zero. It is of course not zero, since we know that B is in fact just a little shorter. I did this calculation earlier, maybe with another calculator, and got that the bulge was 0.0000000019 m, or: 0.00000019 cm; 0.0000019 mm; 0.0019 micrometers; 1.9 nanometers "high".
Windows 10 scientific calculator gets 6,371,000.0000000017658138439805366

Wait, wut? Are you REALLY sure? Is the squareroot of (6,371,000^2-0.15^2) REALLY 6,371,000.0000000017658138439805366? C, or 6,371,000 m, is the hypotenuse, i.e. the longest side. I'm very sure you made some mistake in calculating that, because it would defy logic otherwise.

Oh... Yeah, that can't be right. I tried it on an online scientific calculator, and i got "6,370,999.9999999982341862".
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 13, 2016, 01:43:57 AM
The quotation system has broken down for me, it seems...

@Definitely Not Official, that seems more right, and it seems to agree with the answer I got too.

6371000.0000000000000000-6370999.9999999982341862=1.0000000000000000-0.9999999982341862=0.0000000017658138, which is roughly 1.8 nanometers. Yeah, you're not going to measure that bump.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Jadyyn on May 13, 2016, 02:20:29 PM
Thank you all for your kind responses.   Digging through them,  I gather no one here has an experiment that can be easily performed to prove the facts.   When someone suggests that the proposed radius of the earth is to be believed, and not proven.... Or when the curvature of the earth is to be believed, not proven,  or endless mathematical equations to be performed in ones head, but never seen or heard...   Its smacks of religion. Perhaps the religion of science.  Wherein blind faith seems to be the dogma of choice.   It seems the only plausible experiment is indeed watching vessels traverse the surface of a body of water, but can anyone tell me how to calculate the distance of the vessel? Without having to have communication with the captain or crew?   Thank you.

So you didn't read through my experiment (I may not have presented it as one though)?

It may not answer how much the earth curves, it's more of a binary experiment. If the earth curves (and the water with it), it should be visible at some scale, right? Water tends to naturally pull itself together into a sphere at droplet-scales, so these are out of the question. In neither buckets or lakes (small ones) can we notice anything either, so they don't prove it. However, oceans are large enough to notice curvature. If you notice curvature in some way over an area as large as a part of an ocean (for example, objects disappearing behind the horizon) then there is curvature. Surface tension is not strong enough at these scales, and no other known phenomena can describe it other than curvature. If you don't notice any curvature, then this doesn't prove curvature.

FYI, water does curve in buckets and lakes. I did a calculation for a bucket a while back and got an answer a few magnitudes too small for us to perceive with the naked eye, or with any tools we have. If you want to I could post it here.
Yes, please post it here.   With the math in long form if you'd be so kind.
I believe that if the oceans curve to the core, then so must a lake, a river, and a glass full of water.
The experiment is contingent on the proposed radius of the earth however, which would make it impossible to view over short distances.  Agreed.
For instance, I calculated the sagitta for 100' to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .00648 inches.   To small to measure.
Alive and kickings experiment however has me intrigued.  1000'?   With 2 self leveling transits?    I can do that.

I did it for a bucket with water with the radius=30 cm (0.3 m). The radius of the earth is 6371 km (6371000 m). Let's draw a line (or secant, if you will) between two opposite points along the edge of the water in the bucket. This one will represent "flat" level. Now draw a line from the center of the earth to each of the edge points, and one to the middle of the water in the bucket. If the water curves, this middle line will go through the secant and a little longer. The line between one edge-point and the center, the center and the secant, and secant/middle crosspoint and edge-point will make a right angle triangle with two known sides, one being 0.15 m and the other being 6371000 m. A2 + B2 = C2, where C is 6371000 m and A is 0.15 m. B = squareroot(C2 - A2) = ... Weird. My calculators (Tried internet one, handheld one, one which follows with this computer) Only gives me back 6371000 m. I guess the difference is just too small. Anyways, you take that answer minus the length of the whole middle of water-center of earth line (6371000 m) to get the answer. If you input the answer I get from these calculators, you get zero. It is of course not zero, since we know that B is in fact just a little shorter. I did this calculation earlier, maybe with another calculator, and got that the bulge was 0.0000000019 m, or: 0.00000019 cm; 0.0000019 mm; 0.0019 micrometers; 1.9 nanometers "high".
Windows 10 scientific calculator gets 6,371,000.0000000017658138439805366

Wait, wut? Are you REALLY sure? Is the squareroot of (6,371,000^2-0.15^2) REALLY 6,371,000.0000000017658138439805366? C, or 6,371,000 m, is the hypotenuse, i.e. the longest side. I'm very sure you made some mistake in calculating that, because it would defy logic otherwise.
Ya... added instead of subtracted... 6,370,999.9999999982341861560194629. I just read my post and came to the same thing when I read this post  :P
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2016, 04:51:39 PM
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?
I will only try to answer a small part.

Firstly, because gravitation is such a tiny force it is extremely difficult to give any convincing benchtop demonstration. You are always competing with the enormously larger earth. Because of this limitation all the "experiment" demonstrates is that the surface of water need not be straight. It does not attempt to simulate how water can stick to a globe. With that proviso:

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container (http://).

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centrifugal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Rotating%20Water%20Curving_zpsdp5i205v.png)
Rotating Water Curving

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.
I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

On the globe the nett acceleration is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost[1]) towards the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20nearly%20Flat%20on%20Globe_zpsgdvt5ny2.png)
Water nearly Flat on Globe

So, water finds its own level, but over a large distance that level is determined by the local gravity.

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

I want you to post a REAL LIVE DEPICTION of replicating this pictured phenomena...an actual man-made demonstration of this in existence...With that depiction, an actual honest explanation of how it was done...

A clear container...holding curved water...man made...replicate it...come on...

When you do, I will have no further need of posting here...

To me, that picture you posted is as ridiculous as bendy light...Which can be bent by the way...in numerous ways...

Thanks.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Blue_Moon on May 18, 2016, 06:15:14 PM
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?
I will only try to answer a small part.

Firstly, because gravitation is such a tiny force it is extremely difficult to give any convincing benchtop demonstration. You are always competing with the enormously larger earth. Because of this limitation all the "experiment" demonstrates is that the surface of water need not be straight. It does not attempt to simulate how water can stick to a globe. With that proviso:

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container (http://).

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centrifugal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Rotating%20Water%20Curving_zpsdp5i205v.png)
Rotating Water Curving

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.
I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

On the globe the nett acceleration is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost[1]) towards the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20nearly%20Flat%20on%20Globe_zpsgdvt5ny2.png)
Water nearly Flat on Globe

So, water finds its own level, but over a large distance that level is determined by the local gravity.

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

I want you to post a REAL LIVE DEPICTION of replicating this pictured phenomena...an actual man-made demonstration of this in existence...With that depiction, an actual honest explanation of how it was done...

A clear container...holding curved water...man made...replicate it...come on...

When you do, I will have no further need of posting here...

To me, that picture you posted is as ridiculous as bendy light...Which can be bent by the way...in numerous ways...

Thanks.

Sure.  Water droplets form spheres.  Fluids under equal force from all sides form spheres.  In the case of water droplets, that force is surface tension, but for the earth, that force is gravity.  The state of being rounded by gravity is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and it's one of the requirements of being a planet, which the earth fulfills.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2016, 04:39:34 PM
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?
I will only try to answer a small part.

Firstly, because gravitation is such a tiny force it is extremely difficult to give any convincing benchtop demonstration. You are always competing with the enormously larger earth. Because of this limitation all the "experiment" demonstrates is that the surface of water need not be straight. It does not attempt to simulate how water can stick to a globe. With that proviso:

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container (http://).

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centrifugal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Rotating%20Water%20Curving_zpsdp5i205v.png)
Rotating Water Curving

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.
I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

On the globe the nett acceleration is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost[1]) towards the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20nearly%20Flat%20on%20Globe_zpsgdvt5ny2.png)
Water nearly Flat on Globe

So, water finds its own level, but over a large distance that level is determined by the local gravity.

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

I want you to post a REAL LIVE DEPICTION of replicating this pictured phenomena...an actual man-made demonstration of this in existence...With that depiction, an actual honest explanation of how it was done...

A clear container...holding curved water...man made...replicate it...come on...

When you do, I will have no further need of posting here...

To me, that picture you posted is as ridiculous as bendy light...Which can be bent by the way...in numerous ways...

Thanks.

Sure.  Water droplets form spheres.  Fluids under equal force from all sides form spheres.  In the case of water droplets, that force is surface tension, but for the earth, that force is gravity.  The state of being rounded by gravity is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and it's one of the requirements of being a planet, which the earth fulfills.

Fucking short bus, uh hayseed???

1. Cast or carve a globe;
2. Make the oceans to scale length, breadth, and depth;
3. Include only the largest lakes on each continent and make them to scale both breadth and depth;
4. Include only the longest rivers on each continent and make them to scale length, breadth, and depth;
5. While everything is dry (no H2O added yet)drill a hole through the globe, accurately reflecting supposed axial tilt;
6. Mount the globe on a dowel or whatever allows the globe to spin at scale speed;
7. Applying any known force available to man, add chemically correct water to the surface of the globe. The only thing that can be outside of the globe is an atmosphere identical to the composition of the one found on earth.

I want to see that picture...I want to touch it...

If you can't present that, then I think you should refrain from replying further...

Of course, you knew what I was asking for all along and decided to be a smart ass anyway...

And of course I know what I am asking for cannot be provided and therefore negates ALL SCIENCE relative to RE as all conditions of RE cannot be replicated and are therefore FALSE!

Nothing experimental on your side...just a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: getrealzommb on May 19, 2016, 05:00:32 PM

Fucking short bus, uh hayseed???

1. Cast or carve a globe;
2. Make the oceans to scale length, breadth, and depth;
3. Include only the largest lakes on each continent and make them to scale both breadth and depth;
4. Include only the longest rivers on each continent and make them to scale length, breadth, and depth;
5. While everything is dry (no H2O added yet)drill a hole through the globe, accurately reflecting supposed axial tilt;
6. Mount the globe on a dowel or whatever allows the globe to spin at scale speed;
7. Applying any known force available to man, add chemically correct water to the surface of the globe. The only thing that can be outside of the globe is an atmosphere identical to the composition of the one found on earth.

I want to see that picture...I want to touch it...

If you can't present that, then I think you should refrain from replying further...

Of course, you knew what I was asking for all along and decided to be a smart ass anyway...

And of course I know what I am asking for cannot be provided and therefore negates ALL SCIENCE relative to RE as all conditions of RE cannot be replicated and are therefore FALSE!

Nothing experimental on your side...just a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

If I were to build this model, How will I demonstrate it to you, while we are under the much larger influence of the earths gravity? are you able to switch that off? no didn't think so.
Just think about what you are asking. Maybe on board the ISS this could be done. But then I expect you believe that also dose not exist.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Blue_Moon on May 19, 2016, 05:10:05 PM

Fucking short bus, uh hayseed???

1. Cast or carve a globe;
2. Make the oceans to scale length, breadth, and depth;
3. Include only the largest lakes on each continent and make them to scale both breadth and depth;
4. Include only the longest rivers on each continent and make them to scale length, breadth, and depth;
5. While everything is dry (no H2O added yet)drill a hole through the globe, accurately reflecting supposed axial tilt;
6. Mount the globe on a dowel or whatever allows the globe to spin at scale speed;
7. Applying any known force available to man, add chemically correct water to the surface of the globe. The only thing that can be outside of the globe is an atmosphere identical to the composition of the one found on earth.

I want to see that picture...I want to touch it...

If you can't present that, then I think you should refrain from replying further...

Of course, you knew what I was asking for all along and decided to be a smart ass anyway...

And of course I know what I am asking for cannot be provided and therefore negates ALL SCIENCE relative to RE as all conditions of RE cannot be replicated and are therefore FALSE!

Nothing experimental on your side...just a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

If I were to build this model, How will I demonstrate it to you, while we are under the much larger influence of the earths gravity? are you able to switch that off? no didn't think so.
Just think about what you are asking. Maybe on board the ISS this could be done. But then I expect you believe that also dose not exist.

Even on the ISS, the microgravity of the station around you would outweigh the sphere's gravity.  You can't just scale this stuff down and expect it to behave the same way, but you can look at the effects that forces and pressures have on smaller objects, like raindrops, and apply that to the earth.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: 29silhouette on May 19, 2016, 09:38:08 PM
Fucking short bus, uh hayseed???

1. Cast or carve a globe;
2. Make the oceans to scale length, breadth, and depth;
3. Include only the largest lakes on each continent and make them to scale both breadth and depth;
4. Include only the longest rivers on each continent and make them to scale length, breadth, and depth;
5. While everything is dry (no H2O added yet)drill a hole through the globe, accurately reflecting supposed axial tilt;
6. Mount the globe on a dowel or whatever allows the globe to spin at scale speed;
7. Applying any known force available to man, add chemically correct water to the surface of the globe. The only thing that can be outside of the globe is an atmosphere identical to the composition of the one found on earth.

I want to see that picture...I want to touch it...

If you can't present that, then I think you should refrain from replying further...

Of course, you knew what I was asking for all along and decided to be a smart ass anyway...

And of course I know what I am asking for cannot be provided and therefore negates ALL SCIENCE relative to RE as all conditions of RE cannot be replicated and are therefore FALSE!

Nothing experimental on your side...just a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
I see you were a short bus rider yourself.

What material do you suggest we use that is dense enough to overcome the gravity that is holding down both you and the ball you are carving, and pull water against that ball's surface?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 20, 2016, 12:13:53 AM
So, totallackey, you made a very specific request, so let me make one as well: I want you to measure how much the water bulges in a bucket with a diameter of 30 cm. If it is less than 0.5 Nanometers, you win. I want you to make a full report of the experiment and film it. The measuring tool used should have an accuracy of at least 0.3 Nanometers. Then you have to publish it. Should be easy enough, if you are right.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: science-guy on May 20, 2016, 01:06:28 AM
hey sharpie
short answer: water doenst level.. idont even know what you mean by that. a liquid simply just flows to the state of lowest potential energy. so the complete surface is exposed to the same gravitational force. on a globe that gravitational force is not flat it is curved around the globe (which is far away from beeing round, its mor like a potato) and it also depends on density differences in the inside (which can also be meassured) and it depends on the distance to the center (on high mountains there is less gravity than on sea level, and yes one can measure that). so if you would put a straight beam through the beginning end the end point of the suez canal it would be underground in the middle.  that just means the field of equal force is not flat!
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Master_Evar on May 20, 2016, 01:10:11 AM
Actually, here's a interesting video on the concept of sea level, and how it is affected by nearby masses etc. (3 mins long)
(http://)
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: rabinoz on May 20, 2016, 03:42:49 AM
Fucking short bus, uh hayseed???
1. Cast or carve a globe;
2. Make the oceans to scale length, breadth, and depth;
3. Include only the largest lakes on each continent and make them to scale both breadth and depth;
4. Include only the longest rivers on each continent and make them to scale length, breadth, and depth;
5. While everything is dry (no H2O added yet)drill a hole through the globe, accurately reflecting supposed axial tilt;
6. Mount the globe on a dowel or whatever allows the globe to spin at scale speed;
7. Applying any known force available to man, add chemically correct water to the surface of the globe. The only thing that can be outside of the globe is an atmosphere identical to the composition of the one found on earth.

I want to see that picture...I want to touch it...

If you can't present that, then I think you should refrain from replying further...

Of course, you knew what I was asking for all along and decided to be a smart ass anyway...

And of course I know what I am asking for cannot be provided and therefore negates ALL SCIENCE relative to RE as all conditions of RE cannot be replicated and are therefore FALSE!

Nothing experimental on your side...just a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
Yes, all that would work perfectly! Of course any other gravitational influences would have to be removed. I'll leave you to work out that detail!

Now, over to you!
On the "real earth" the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon, to move over the sky and finally to set behind the horizon. As the moon moves over the sky it stays (almost) the same size - an angle of rough 0.5°.

The Flat Earth moon, about 50 km in diam and  5,000 km high, is supposed to explain this behaviour by "perspective".

Please build a scale model to demonstrate that the Flat Earth model works as claimed.

If you can't do that I will know that the Flat Earth explanation is hog-wash. Mind you if you do build you might still find it is hog-wash.

Back to the gravity problem.
You just have face up to the fact that gravitation is such a minute force that the scale model is completely impractical.
The mass of the earth is 5.972 × 1024 kg - that's really heavy. Your model might have a scale globe with a mass of a few tonnes, but it just could not compete!

You might not believe this, but that's your problem not mine!
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 20, 2016, 03:47:55 AM

Fucking short bus, uh hayseed???

1. Cast or carve a globe;
2. Make the oceans to scale length, breadth, and depth;
3. Include only the largest lakes on each continent and make them to scale both breadth and depth;
4. Include only the longest rivers on each continent and make them to scale length, breadth, and depth;
5. While everything is dry (no H2O added yet)drill a hole through the globe, accurately reflecting supposed axial tilt;
6. Mount the globe on a dowel or whatever allows the globe to spin at scale speed;
7. Applying any known force available to man, add chemically correct water to the surface of the globe. The only thing that can be outside of the globe is an atmosphere identical to the composition of the one found on earth.

I want to see that picture...I want to touch it...

If you can't present that, then I think you should refrain from replying further...

Of course, you knew what I was asking for all along and decided to be a smart ass anyway...

And of course I know what I am asking for cannot be provided and therefore negates ALL SCIENCE relative to RE as all conditions of RE cannot be replicated and are therefore FALSE!

Nothing experimental on your side...just a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

If I were to build this model, How will I demonstrate it to you, while we are under the much larger influence of the earths gravity? are you able to switch that off? no didn't think so.
Just think about what you are asking. Maybe on board the ISS this could be done. But then I expect you believe that also dose not exist.

Maybe with ferrofluid or in free fall, something could be done...
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 20, 2016, 03:51:29 AM
Secondly, water.   It seems fact that water always find level.  But my friend proposed the question,"level to what?". The  presumed curvature of the earth relative to its presumed radius? My presumtion is that level is a straight line. Exactly straight.  And that's where I went looking for a way to prove whether water finds straight level, or whether it follows the curvature of the earth. Pretty hard to prove on my kitchen table.   I'm looking for an experiment. Any suggestions?
I will only try to answer a small part.

Firstly, because gravitation is such a tiny force it is extremely difficult to give any convincing benchtop demonstration. You are always competing with the enormously larger earth. Because of this limitation all the "experiment" demonstrates is that the surface of water need not be straight. It does not attempt to simulate how water can stick to a globe. With that proviso:

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container (http://).

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centrifugal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Rotating%20Water%20Curving_zpsdp5i205v.png)
Rotating Water Curving

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.
I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

On the globe the nett acceleration is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost[1]) towards the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20nearly%20Flat%20on%20Globe_zpsgdvt5ny2.png)
Water nearly Flat on Globe

So, water finds its own level, but over a large distance that level is determined by the local gravity.

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Water%20Curves%20on%20Globe_zpsgmmmyoyv.png)
Water Curves on Globe

I want you to post a REAL LIVE DEPICTION of replicating this pictured phenomena...an actual man-made demonstration of this in existence...With that depiction, an actual honest explanation of how it was done...

A clear container...holding curved water...man made...replicate it...come on...

When you do, I will have no further need of posting here...

To me, that picture you posted is as ridiculous as bendy light...Which can be bent by the way...in numerous ways...

Thanks.

Sure.  Water droplets form spheres.  Fluids under equal force from all sides form spheres.  In the case of water droplets, that force is surface tension, but for the earth, that force is gravity.  The state of being rounded by gravity is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and it's one of the requirements of being a planet, which the earth fulfills.

Fucking short bus, uh hayseed???

1. Cast or carve a globe;
2. Make the oceans to scale length, breadth, and depth;
3. Include only the largest lakes on each continent and make them to scale both breadth and depth;
4. Include only the longest rivers on each continent and make them to scale length, breadth, and depth;
5. While everything is dry (no H2O added yet)drill a hole through the globe, accurately reflecting supposed axial tilt;
6. Mount the globe on a dowel or whatever allows the globe to spin at scale speed;
7. Applying any known force available to man, add chemically correct water to the surface of the globe. The only thing that can be outside of the globe is an atmosphere identical to the composition of the one found on earth.

I want to see that picture...I want to touch it...

If you can't present that, then I think you should refrain from replying further...

Of course, you knew what I was asking for all along and decided to be a smart ass anyway...

And of course I know what I am asking for cannot be provided and therefore negates ALL SCIENCE relative to RE as all conditions of RE cannot be replicated and are therefore FALSE!

Nothing experimental on your side...just a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

I'm sorry, why would you ever ask something like that? Can you provide a scale model of FE with the sun and moon floating above it? No! Some stuff just can't be modeled like that. It's as if I asked you to prove me Mt. Everest exists, and told you to bring Mt. Everest to my backyard so that I can touch it! That's not an experiment, that's just asking for something impossible.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 29, 2016, 04:13:14 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: 29silhouette on May 29, 2016, 06:55:32 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Why are you such an angry elf?

It's been explained why your 'desktop globe should hold water around it's surface' experiment is flawed (or stupid, whichever fits best).  You would have better luck using an instrument that can measure if there is curvature or not on the surface of a pan of water 30 cm across.  You should try it and let us all know if you find a difference of .5nm.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: rabinoz on May 29, 2016, 06:55:41 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!

But as "Definitely Not Official" requested and
"Provide a scale model of FE with the sun and moon floating above it? No! Some stuff just can't be modeled like that. "
I am serious, because the whole idea of sun, moon and stars floating around up there with no support and looks ridiculous to me!

Also, I have often queried the Flat Earth explanation of moon phases and lunar eclipses. Please look up "the Wiki" and see how the Flat Earth model explains these, then build a scale model to prove that it does or does not work.

Likewise, I think that the Flat Earth explanation of sunrise and sunset is completely false, especially the part about how the sun (and moon for that matter) stay the same apparent size all day (or night). Please make a desktop model to show how this works (or fails).

Please put up or shut up.

Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 30, 2016, 03:49:52 AM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!

But as "Definitely Not Official" requested and
"Provide a scale model of FE with the sun and moon floating above it? No! Some stuff just can't be modeled like that. "
I am serious, because the whole idea of sun, moon and stars floating around up there with no support and looks ridiculous to me!

Also, I have often queried the Flat Earth explanation of moon phases and lunar eclipses. Please look up "the Wiki" and see how the Flat Earth model explains these, then build a scale model to prove that it does or does not work.

Likewise, I think that the Flat Earth explanation of sunrise and sunset is completely false, especially the part about how the sun (and moon for that matter) stay the same apparent size all day (or night). Please make a desktop model to show how this works (or fails).

Please put up or shut up.

Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: rabinoz on May 30, 2016, 04:31:51 AM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

Please explain how it feasible to build a scale model of water on a "model globe" with a mass of a few thousand kg tops in the presence of another object (of mass 5.972 × 1024 kg)  causing competing gravitation.

There may be two ways of demonstrating the effect:
• Do the experiment in a location free of gravitation, such as one of Lagrange points), not something you or I can do.
• Simulate gravitation with electrostatic charges. I think it might just be possible.
But of course, if you dipped a "wettable"  ball in some water, and remove it what do you find?
Yes, the ball stays wet with probably a thicker layer of water (relative to diameter) than the oceans!
Why? Another force (surface tension) kept the water on the surface.

And as well, as I stated before gravitation has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798. Gravitation has been measured and is real.

And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Blue_Moon on May 30, 2016, 04:32:39 AM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!

But as "Definitely Not Official" requested and
"Provide a scale model of FE with the sun and moon floating above it? No! Some stuff just can't be modeled like that. "
I am serious, because the whole idea of sun, moon and stars floating around up there with no support and looks ridiculous to me!

Also, I have often queried the Flat Earth explanation of moon phases and lunar eclipses. Please look up "the Wiki" and see how the Flat Earth model explains these, then build a scale model to prove that it does or does not work.

Likewise, I think that the Flat Earth explanation of sunrise and sunset is completely false, especially the part about how the sun (and moon for that matter) stay the same apparent size all day (or night). Please make a desktop model to show how this works (or fails).

Please put up or shut up.

Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

Fluids under equal force from all sides form spheres.  This is self-evident.  In the case of the earth, that force is gravity.  If that's so hard to believe, climb back onto your magic short bus that you're so obsessed with, and find me a case where fluids always form flat level surfaces in free fall.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 30, 2016, 07:26:04 AM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
My, you are angry.  And ignorant.

I bet you have a Vote Trump! sticker on your bumper.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 02:59:52 AM
(http://f.tqn.com/y/chemistry/1/W/2/R/2/139802493.jpg)
There, spherical water.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 11:57:33 AM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.

It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Jadyyn on May 31, 2016, 02:12:29 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.
It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Well, you are going to have a problem if that is true.

To make the sky/heavens work, you need a SINGLE POINT S. Pole (so a SINGLE POINT S. Celestial Pole - center of southern star trails - can be above it) as demonstrated here:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0007/startrails_aat1.jpg)

So... you are going to have to have people living on BOTH sides of a disk (with the S.Pole on the underside) to make this work. Since you don't have gravity on FE disks, what is going to hold YOUR oceans and trillions of gallons of water to the disks?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 02:15:10 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.

It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Ummm
(http://f.tqn.com/y/chemistry/1/W/2/R/2/139802493.jpg)
There, spherical water.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on May 31, 2016, 03:12:36 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...

The reason why you can't do a scaled down version is because of earth's gravity. The water would stick to earth more readily than you scale model. Now if we were in outer space in a Goldie locks zone then maybe. Plus what are water dropplets?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 03:48:54 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.

It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Ummm
(http://f.tqn.com/y/chemistry/1/W/2/R/2/139802493.jpg)
There, spherical water.

What part of millions of trillions of gallons eluded you there, Maynard? Fucking hayseed...
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 03:50:31 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.
It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Well, you are going to have a problem if that is true.

To make the sky/heavens work, you need a SINGLE POINT S. Pole (so a SINGLE POINT S. Celestial Pole - center of southern star trails - can be above it) as demonstrated here:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0007/startrails_aat1.jpg)

So... you are going to have to have people living on BOTH sides of a disk (with the S.Pole on the underside) to make this work. Since you don't have gravity on FE disks, what is going to hold YOUR oceans and trillions of gallons of water to the disks?

People living on FLAT plane are not living on both sides...WTF are you trying to pull?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 03:52:54 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!

But as "Definitely Not Official" requested and
"Provide a scale model of FE with the sun and moon floating above it? No! Some stuff just can't be modeled like that. "
I am serious, because the whole idea of sun, moon and stars floating around up there with no support and looks ridiculous to me!

Also, I have often queried the Flat Earth explanation of moon phases and lunar eclipses. Please look up "the Wiki" and see how the Flat Earth model explains these, then build a scale model to prove that it does or does not work.

Likewise, I think that the Flat Earth explanation of sunrise and sunset is completely false, especially the part about how the sun (and moon for that matter) stay the same apparent size all day (or night). Please make a desktop model to show how this works (or fails).

Please put up or shut up.

Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

Fluids under equal force from all sides form spheres.  This is self-evident.  In the case of the earth, that force is gravity.  If that's so hard to believe, climb back onto your magic short bus that you're so obsessed with, and find me a case where fluids always form flat level surfaces in free fall.

WTF is the topic of the OP, nimrod? Why are you trying to fucking change the fucking subject? Oh...yeah...cause you fucking got nothing...
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 03:54:03 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
My, you are angry.  And ignorant.

I bet you have a Vote Trump! sticker on your bumper.

If I did, I would peel it off and tape it across your fucking keyboard...
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 03:55:58 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!

But as "Definitely Not Official" requested and
"Provide a scale model of FE with the sun and moon floating above it? No! Some stuff just can't be modeled like that. "
I am serious, because the whole idea of sun, moon and stars floating around up there with no support and looks ridiculous to me!

Also, I have often queried the Flat Earth explanation of moon phases and lunar eclipses. Please look up "the Wiki" and see how the Flat Earth model explains these, then build a scale model to prove that it does or does not work.

Likewise, I think that the Flat Earth explanation of sunrise and sunset is completely false, especially the part about how the sun (and moon for that matter) stay the same apparent size all day (or night). Please make a desktop model to show how this works (or fails).

Please put up or shut up.

Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

Fluids under equal force from all sides form spheres.  This is self-evident.  In the case of the earth, that force is gravity.  If that's so hard to believe, climb back onto your magic short bus that you're so obsessed with, and find me a case where fluids always form flat level surfaces in free fall.

WTF is the topic of the OP, nimrod? Why are you trying to fucking change the fucking subject? Oh...yeah...cause you fucking got nothing...

Why so hostile?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on May 31, 2016, 03:59:21 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...

The reason why you can't do a scaled down version is because of earth's gravity. The water would stick to earth more readily than you scale model. Now if we were in outer space in a Goldie locks zone then maybe. Plus what are water dropplets?

And you have abdicated true knowledge in exchange for a magic, non-existent "g." Goldie Locks is a fucking FAIRY TALE!

Bottom line, true science requires REPLICATING the hypothesis...modeling the idea...and instead of that, you fall for math trickery...
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Blue_Moon on May 31, 2016, 05:04:56 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!

But as "Definitely Not Official" requested and
"Provide a scale model of FE with the sun and moon floating above it? No! Some stuff just can't be modeled like that. "
I am serious, because the whole idea of sun, moon and stars floating around up there with no support and looks ridiculous to me!

Also, I have often queried the Flat Earth explanation of moon phases and lunar eclipses. Please look up "the Wiki" and see how the Flat Earth model explains these, then build a scale model to prove that it does or does not work.

Likewise, I think that the Flat Earth explanation of sunrise and sunset is completely false, especially the part about how the sun (and moon for that matter) stay the same apparent size all day (or night). Please make a desktop model to show how this works (or fails).

Please put up or shut up.

Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

Fluids under equal force from all sides form spheres.  This is self-evident.  In the case of the earth, that force is gravity.  If that's so hard to believe, climb back onto your magic short bus that you're so obsessed with, and find me a case where fluids always form flat level surfaces in free fall.

WTF is the topic of the OP, nimrod? Why are you trying to fucking change the fucking subject? Oh...yeah...cause you fucking got nothing...

And... blocked!

Good riddance, Legba Junior!
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Jadyyn on May 31, 2016, 06:14:22 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.
...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.
All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.
It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Well, you are going to have a problem if that is true.

To make the sky/heavens work, you need a SINGLE POINT S. Pole (so a SINGLE POINT S. Celestial Pole - center of southern star trails - can be above it) as demonstrated here:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0007/startrails_aat1.jpg)

So... you are going to have to have people living on BOTH sides of a disk (with the S.Pole on the underside) to make this work. Since you don't have gravity on FE disks, what is going to hold YOUR oceans and trillions of gallons of water to the disks?
People living on FLAT plane are not living on both sides...WTF are you trying to pull?
Um... If the people on a flat plane or disk are only living on ONE side, then then sky is wrong (i.e. it does not represent what we see). For the S. Celestial Pole to be a SINGLE POINT in the image above, it must be over the S. Pole (a SINGLE POINT). There is NO place on a disk or plane with people on ONE side that the S.Pole is a single point. When people face the SCP, EVERYWHERE on Earth they are facing due SOUTH (just like the S.Pole).

You need to understand (1) rotating bodies (Geometry - a rotation axis between a N.Pole and S.Pole) and (2) if they are stationary and the sky is moving what the effect is (this creates a N.Celestial Pole (center of N star trails ~Polaris) over the N.Pole and a S.Celestial Pole (center of S star trails ~Sigma Octantis) over the S.Pole with the rotation axis between them).

Furthermore, draw a horizontal line through the SCP in that image. ALL the stars below it are on the other side of the FE 10,000+ mi BEHIND you. How can you see them facing SOUTH?

So IF you maintain that people are on just ONE side, you are not describing the Earth we are on but some fictitious place. There is nothing concerning water levels or anything to really discuss with you on your fictitious Earth.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on May 31, 2016, 07:40:56 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...

The reason why you can't do a scaled down version is because of earth's gravity. The water would stick to earth more readily than you scale model. Now if we were in outer space in a Goldie locks zone then maybe. Plus what are water dropplets?

And you have abdicated true knowledge in exchange for a magic, non-existent "g." Goldie Locks is a FAIRY TALE!

Prove it. And gravity is not magic, its science.

Quote
Bottom line, true science requires REPLICATING the hypothesis...modeling the idea...and instead of that, you fall for math trickery...

There no math trickery, there is just math. I may not be good at it but ANYONE willing to learn can complete complicated math problems. I'm just not willing to learn (don't take that wrong math experts). And modeling, while convinent and helpful, its not existential. Speaking of modeling I'm into model railroading. What you're asking about earth is like me asking to make a 1/87th scale anatomically correct living human being. Does that disprove that human beings exist if I can't? Certain things only work full scale.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Empirical on June 01, 2016, 02:17:45 AM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.

It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Ummm
(http://f.tqn.com/y/chemistry/1/W/2/R/2/139802493.jpg)
There, spherical water.

What part of millions of trillions of gallons eluded you there, Maynard? Fucking hayseed...
You said create a smaller scale model, I found one, proving water can be spherical on the small scale, therefore it can be spherical on a large scale.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on June 24, 2016, 04:24:43 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...

The reason why you can't do a scaled down version is because of earth's gravity. The water would stick to earth more readily than you scale model. Now if we were in outer space in a Goldie locks zone then maybe. Plus what are water dropplets?

And you have abdicated true knowledge in exchange for a magic, non-existent "g." Goldie Locks is a FAIRY TALE!

Prove it. And gravity is not magic, its science.

Quote
Bottom line, true science requires REPLICATING the hypothesis...modeling the idea...and instead of that, you fall for math trickery...

There no math trickery, there is just math. I may not be good at it but ANYONE willing to learn can complete complicated math problems. I'm just not willing to learn (don't take that wrong math experts). And modeling, while convinent and helpful, its not existential. Speaking of modeling I'm into model railroading. What you're asking about earth is like me asking to make a 1/87th scale anatomically correct living human being. Does that disprove that human beings exist if I can't? Certain things only work full scale.

I can mathematically calculate a lot of things, many times in my head. Riding my bike, I can look ahead to an upcoming, open, four-way, intersection, estimating my speed and that of an intersecting car (even without a speedometer) and determine whether or not I need to slow down to stop at the intersection or blast away at the pedals.

So, I am not surprised that there may be formulas available to apply to almost anything else in life. But the FORMULA PROVES NOTHING!!!

Understand now, shill?
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: totallackey on June 24, 2016, 04:26:55 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...
Real low type aren't you!
Just admit that some things simply cannot be modeled on a small scale.
Nevertheless the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant has been measured numerous time, obtaining quite reasonable agreement with Henry Cavendish's measurements in 1797–1798, so gravity has been measured and is real!

What is the original topic, short bus rider? Answer = Water and its level
Is the OP about a flat earth model? Answer = Fuck no
Finally = STFU about me building a model and you get busy admitting you believe horseshit. You are the one who cannot replicate anything.

...And to top it off, just because you cannot perform an experiment on a small scale proves nothing.

All your cussin', splutterin' an' spittin' won't get you anywhere. It won't change the facts. It makes you look a poor loser.

It proves you cannot demonstrate your hypothesis and therefore your original premise (water in terms of millions of trillions of gallons) does NOT exist in a convex state on the supposed globe. You are the loser. Not me.
Ummm
(http://f.tqn.com/y/chemistry/1/W/2/R/2/139802493.jpg)
There, spherical water.

What part of millions of trillions of gallons eluded you there, Maynard? Fucking hayseed...
You said create a smaller scale model, I found one, proving water can be spherical on the small scale, therefore it can be spherical on a large scale.

1) You did not create it.
2) It is not in the form of the model I described.
3) What forces are at work to make your little droplet?
4) GFY
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on June 24, 2016, 08:32:57 PM
Yep...just as I thought...ALL OF YOU IN A COMBINED CHORUS!!!

"IT CANNOT BE DONE!!! IT CANNOT BE DONE!!!"

And of course, the fact an experiment cannot be used to demonstrate ANY ASPECT OF THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON WATER causes NONE OF YOU A PROBLEM...yet, we would be the ones labeled deficient?

Convex water, simply because of a miracle "g"...I spit in all of your faces...

The reason why you can't do a scaled down version is because of earth's gravity. The water would stick to earth more readily than you scale model. Now if we were in outer space in a Goldie locks zone then maybe. Plus what are water dropplets?

And you have abdicated true knowledge in exchange for a magic, non-existent "g." Goldie Locks is a FAIRY TALE!

Prove it. And gravity is not magic, its science.

Quote
Bottom line, true science requires REPLICATING the hypothesis...modeling the idea...and instead of that, you fall for math trickery...

There no math trickery, there is just math. I may not be good at it but ANYONE willing to learn can complete complicated math problems. I'm just not willing to learn (don't take that wrong math experts). And modeling, while convinent and helpful, its not existential. Speaking of modeling I'm into model railroading. What you're asking about earth is like me asking to make a 1/87th scale anatomically correct living human being. Does that disprove that human beings exist if I can't? Certain things only work full scale.

I can mathematically calculate a lot of things, many times in my head. Riding my bike, I can look ahead to an upcoming, open, four-way, intersection, estimating my speed and that of an intersecting car (even without a speedometer) and determine whether or not I need to slow down to stop at the intersection or blast away at the pedals.

Fun fact: no one knows exactly how does a bike works.

Quote
So, I am not surprised that there may be formulas available to apply to almost anything else in life. But the FORMULA PROVES NOTHING!!!

It does however explain the things we see. If formulas prove nothing the what about E=mc squared?

Quote
Understand now, shill?

Yes, though you don't have to name call, moron. ;)
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: SkepticMike on June 25, 2016, 07:50:17 AM
If you scaled the earth to the size of a large bowling ball, the average depth of the oceans would be 0.00248 inches or about 2.5 thousandths of an inch.
Title: Re: water always finds level?
Post by: Jadyyn on June 25, 2016, 08:57:04 AM
If you scaled the earth to the size of a large bowling ball, the average depth of the oceans would be 0.00248 inches or about 2.5 thousandths of an inch.
Also, on such a small amount (depth) of water, you have to take into account forces that do not scale such as evaporation and water surface tension and the size of atoms/molecules.

Evaporation would probably get rid of the water in a minute (oceans don't do that) and surface tension would probably be 1000's of times more important than gravity.

I have a great idea for anyone who wants a scale model - why don't you first demonstrate a scale model of a human at that size with functioning systems (e.g. circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, etc.). After all, size doesn't matter does it? If you can make a human 100 nm tall (scale model), I will believe humans exist.