# Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.

• 57 Replies
• 7899 Views
?

#### MDCharlatan

• 44
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2007, 07:26:08 PM »
The ships on the water rise and lower with the tides. The tides are always happening. But why/how?

Now consider this experiment.
1) Take a cup (earth)
2) Fill it halfway with water
3) Take a second cup (moon)
4) Fill it 1/8 full of water

RE test:
A scale model of the earth and moon. The amount of "gravity" exerted on each other should be proportional to the "gravity" the earth and the moon actually exert on each other.
1) Sit the "earth" on a counter
2) Slide the "moon" in a circular pattern around the "earth"
3) Notice the lack of "tides" on the "earth"

FE test:
1) Hold the "earth" at ground level
2) Accelerate the "earth" upwards at 9.8 m/s^2
3) Notice the generation of tides on the "earth"

See? Even a 5 year old can tell the world is flat.

I'd like to point out that this experiment is based on you being able to hold the cup of water with no angle whatsoever, and lift it up at 9.8 m/s^2...

And beyond that.. there is nothing about the experiment that is remotely proportioned to the earth, flat or not, or the moon in regards to mass. All you are going to prove is that holding a cup of water and lifting it really fast gets the ceiling of the kitchen wet.

#### Mr. Ireland

• 14993
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2007, 07:54:36 AM »
Lol, you took narc seriously.  Don't.

?

#### Ferdinand Magellen

• 651
• REALLY now....
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2007, 07:56:04 AM »
People have mocked me for treating him seriously. I believe that everyone has the right to be treated seriously in a serious environment, regardless of how immature, how small an IQ or how ignorant they are.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

#### Mr. Ireland

• 14993
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2007, 07:59:21 AM »
People have mocked me for treating him seriously. I believe that everyone has the right to be treated seriously in a serious environment, regardless of how immature, how small an IQ or how ignorant they are.

That was probably me mocking you.  Don't take narc seriously.

#### CommonCents

• 1779
• ^_^
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2007, 08:08:56 AM »
People have mocked me for treating him seriously. I believe that everyone has the right to be treated seriously in a serious environment, regardless of how immature, how small an IQ or how ignorant they are.
Narc's not exactly trying to be serious (I think).  He's just having fun by coming up with some crazy theories and trying to defend them.
OMG!

?

#### Ferdinand Magellen

• 651
• REALLY now....
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2007, 08:10:43 AM »
Oh, I agree. But I can still treat him with the same amount of seriousness as I do anyone else.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

#### CommonCents

• 1779
• ^_^
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2007, 08:15:41 AM »
Oh, I agree. But I can still treat him with the same amount of seriousness as I do anyone else.

If you like wasting time and brainpower, yes.
OMG!

?

#### Ferdinand Magellen

• 651
• REALLY now....
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2007, 08:16:48 AM »
Eh, its never a waste of brainpower. Time, i fully agree with.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

#### Mr. Ireland

• 14993
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2007, 08:20:17 AM »
Don't take narc seriously.

?

#### MDCharlatan

• 44
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2007, 10:40:19 AM »
Don't take narc seriously.

You know... I've only been here for like 3 days, but I probably should have picked that up before now. :/

He /is/ damned amusing to watch though...

#### Roundy the Truthinessist

• Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
• The Elder Ones
• 27043
• I'm the boss.
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2007, 10:45:25 AM »
Actually, if you are going to take anyone seriously here, you might as well take narc seriously.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

#### CommonCents

• 1779
• ^_^
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2007, 10:58:25 AM »
The Moon does in fact INDICATE rather than affect the tides, and nothing of the Moon's status as an indicator or prognosticative sign for various meteorological phenomena has anything to do with alleged gravitational attraction which is a modern myth.

How do you explain the results of the Cavendish experiment?
OMG!

#### Roundy the Truthinessist

• Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
• The Elder Ones
• 27043
• I'm the boss.
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2007, 10:59:33 AM »
I'm going to venture a guess that it somehow has something to do with the conspiracy.  Or magic.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

#### Ferdinand Magellen

• 651
• REALLY now....
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2007, 11:00:08 AM »
If its tom, its the magical fact that only stars produce gravitation...
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

#### CommonCents

• 1779
• ^_^
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2007, 11:04:34 AM »
If its tom, its the magical fact that only stars produce gravitation...

That wouldn't explain the experiment fully though, would it?  What about how it can be used in one direction, reversed, and work again?
OMG!

#### CommonCents

• 1779
• ^_^
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2007, 01:37:01 PM »
It was a university professor that telephoned Max Fagin telling him about the Cavendish experiment after he did a radio show podcast about Flat Earthism.  Max subsequently introduced the Cavendish argument on the forums.

The first thing that came to mind when hearing it briefly described was obviously magnetism, but I honestly have never looked into this matter so I'll have to get back to you because I honestly do not currently know much either for or against Cavendish.  (I do understand that it is being used to try to prove the rotundity of the Earth with the main argument being gravity allegedly pulls to the centre of an object instead of downwards.)

I don't know who Max Fagin is...I've heard the name, but I brought up the experiment, myself, when someone denied that matter can bend spacetime based on its mass.  The experiment is not being used to prove the Earth round, but to prove that matter bends spacetime based on its mass.
OMG!

?

#### Ferdinand Magellen

• 651
• REALLY now....
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2007, 01:39:56 PM »
Yes, but because of that, the universal accelerator couldn't exist if we accepted the bending of space-time at face value, so there's all sorts of mishmash surrounding the experiment on this forum.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

#### narcberry

• 5623
• Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2007, 01:41:57 PM »
Actually, if you are going to take anyone seriously here, you might as well take narc seriously.

My biggest fan!

?

#### Skeptical ATM

##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2007, 03:07:08 PM »
I had wondered about the moon compared to the tides in FE. But I don't have any concrete disprofof, no reason to bring it up at this time.

#### Max Fagin

• 695
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2007, 06:04:09 PM »
It was a university professor that telephoned Max Fagin telling him about the Cavendish experiment after he did a radio show podcast about Flat Earthism.  Max subsequently introduced the Cavendish argument on the forums.

I reintroduced the Cavendish experiment after the radio broadcast, but I wasn't by any stretch of the imagination the first person to bring it up on these forums.  Erasmus predated me by a fair amount.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=7278.0

The first thing that came to mind when hearing it briefly described was obviously magnetism, but I honestly have never looked into this matter so I'll have to get back to you because I honestly do not currently know much either for or against Cavendish.  (I do understand that it is being used to try to prove the rotundity of the Earth with the main argument being gravity allegedly pulls to the centre of an object instead of downwards.)

Magnetism is highly unlikely, because the results of the experiment vary with the mass of the objects in question.  Thus, it seems a reasonable assumption that mass is what is causing the torsion balance to rotate.

Also, if it were magnetism, you would expect the two masses to repel each other some of the time.  Yet this is never observed.  The observed force is always attractive.  Gravity seems the likely conclusion.

However, having things "either for or against Cavendish" is utterly irrelevant in this case.  This is not an experiment that was conducted once by a historical scientist in antiquity and then never repeated again.

In fact, I recently discovered that the modern lab physics class at my college regularly performs the Cavendish experiment as part of a series of historical experiments.  And positive results are regularly achieved.  So let it be made clear that the Cavendish experiment works, there is know way to deny this.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."

#### sokarul

• 18883
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2007, 10:00:45 PM »
I really need to look into this one of these days.  Maybe if I didn't you would have a stronger chance in the debate.  Seriously, I will be visiting Syria and the Lebanon in late October / early November (probably too late in the season for the jews to make a strike) and I will perhaps try to set it up if you are still willing.  And I will look into the Cavendish experiment beforehand.  I do seriously apologize for taking so long - wasn't trying to blow it off.

Do you think there is a chance that Tom Bishop would go on the air?  Theoetically, if Tom Bishop and myself took the pro-Flat Earth position, then who would be your wing man?

- Dionysios
Wow another Jewish attack.  Grow the fuck up.  But down your bible and please take one college science class, that is, if you are old enough.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2007, 02:00:19 AM »
probably too late in the season for the jews to make a strike
You've been banned, what..twice now?  You are getting really close to a third.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### Skeptical ATM

##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2007, 05:54:44 PM »
Lol, the first time I read the passage I missed the Jew slander. Just shows that its true; this guy is worth listening to, while at the same time being comparable to a supremicist. If he isn't one.

?

#### andrews

• 141
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2007, 08:06:29 PM »
First of all, Are you doing it in an environ with no gravity already effecting it? No.

Second, did you calculate the formula positioning them at the same distance? No

third, you neglect the sun's effect on tides.

fourth, is the cup a sphere? no.

fifth, would the distance the water moves be measurable to the mere eye? Of course not. The tides move a few feet. Shrink it down to that size and provide the following criterion, and we're talking a few nanometers AT MOST.

I guess simple experiments will be lost on someone.

I guess simple proportions will be lost on someone.

?

#### andrews

• 141
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2007, 08:09:32 PM »
Narc, the gravitation between the two substances is weak compared to the water's attraction to the cup (water tension, van der waal forces, and centripetal forces.  That is why you cannot observe t ides at such a scale.  For the FE experiment, the cup did not produce two high tides that are well observant on earth.

Except I did observe tides at that scale... but only for FE, which is interesting.
Accelerating a cup of water upwards does not create tides.  If done right the water would not even move left or right.

I did my experiment as prescribed, and there were tides in the FE earth, and not in the RE earth.

Did your hand shake? Or are you a surgeon?

I hope you're never my surgeon...

?

#### Gulliver

• 3804
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2007, 08:30:07 PM »
First of all, Are you doing it in an environ with no gravity already effecting it? No.

Second, did you calculate the formula positioning them at the same distance? No

third, you neglect the sun's effect on tides.

fourth, is the cup a sphere? no.

fifth, would the distance the water moves be measurable to the mere eye? Of course not. The tides move a few feet. Shrink it down to that size and provide the following criterion, and we're talking a few nanometers AT MOST.

I guess simple experiments will be lost on someone.

I guess simple proportions will be lost on someone.
Good point. If we take narc seriously (and that's not a good idea), his experiment proves that FE is wrong.

Tides are about 4ft across an ocean of 3,500 miles (again using the Chesapeake City example from the RE Primer). That's (4 feet) / (3,500 miles) = 2.16450216 × 10-7. Assuming a 3 inch diameter on the cup, narc should observe tides of 16.5 nanometers, less than the width of a virus and four orders of magnitude thinner than a human hair. He quite simply should not have seen tides. Since he did in the FE case, he allows us to rule out FE.

Thanks, narc! Keep the proof for RE coming, pal.

?

#### Skeptical ATM

##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2007, 10:47:40 AM »
Those numbers make my brain hurt.

#### narcberry

• 5623
• Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
##### Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« Reply #57 on: September 02, 2007, 08:16:54 PM »
First of all, Are you doing it in an environ with no gravity already effecting it? No.

Second, did you calculate the formula positioning them at the same distance? No

third, you neglect the sun's effect on tides.

fourth, is the cup a sphere? no.

fifth, would the distance the water moves be measurable to the mere eye? Of course not. The tides move a few feet. Shrink it down to that size and provide the following criterion, and we're talking a few nanometers AT MOST.

I guess simple experiments will be lost on someone.

I guess simple proportions will be lost on someone.
Good point. If we take narc seriously (and that's not a good idea), his experiment proves that FE is wrong.

Tides are about 4ft across an ocean of 3,500 miles (again using the Chesapeake City example from the RE Primer). That's (4 feet) / (3,500 miles) = 2.16450216 × 10-7. Assuming a 3 inch diameter on the cup, narc should observe tides of 16.5 nanometers, less than the width of a virus and four orders of magnitude thinner than a human hair. He quite simply should not have seen tides. Since he did in the FE case, he allows us to rule out FE.

Thanks, narc! Keep the proof for RE coming, pal.

Yes site very small numbers. Use them to your advantage here, then later ignore this and talk about small scale experiments later. Oh blah, we can measure things on that scale, get over yourself.