Industrial flat glass, needs a flat earth

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 07:40:06 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 07:36:44 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 07:36:11 AM

That's right it's not perfectly flat glass. The marketing literature lies, and probably meant flat since glass bows easily. Now do you understand? Can we get on to a meaningful debate, please?

Oh, how hypocritical. FE'ers are criticized for invoking the conspiracy to say something is false, but then RE'ers go and do it.

Really? A marketing ad that exaggerates in your mind constitutes a conspiracy? How narrow-minded of you.

You have no proof it is exaggerating. Rather, you are assuming it is in an attempt to dismiss it.

Here, Your point that flat glass is perfectly flat is wrong. http://www.safti.com/articles/visual_distortions.htm
Please read all posted links.

Float glass, made by floating molten glass on liquid tin, is in theory extremely fiat and parallel, but as Sir Anthony Pilkington pointed out, even float glass is net perfectly fiat; it does follow the curvature of the earth

Sir Anthony's assertion would only be true if the Earth had curvature. After all, the company goes to great lengths to ensure it is perfectly flat. So it appears Sir Anthony would be correct only is there was measurable curvature in the glass, since there isn't any, obviously it does not follow the curvature of the Earth.

All your link did is state that just because something looks flat, doesn't mean in every case that it is.

I like how nobody has addressed this.

If it is a small body of liquid, there is going to be a lot of curvature. Even with larger amounts of liquid (the ocean) the effect is smaller, but not non-existent. If this weren't true, than there wouldn't be any curvature to the oceans. If there wasn't any curvature in the oceans, it would seem you would have to take the FE'ers side and explain how boats passing over the horizon works.

Probably because your statement that liquids will not follow the curvature of the Earth is baseless, ans your own RE sources are against you.

Quote from: zork on October 15, 2010, 03:38:44 AM

Good. You just claimed that you understand that part of article. Please show now how it applies to the large area of water where the bottom is flat. Take account the gravity, the force which the bottom applies, surface tension, the fact that the surface are is large and explain what is this pressure mentioned in that section.

Define large area of water. Earlier in this thork demonstrated that even a 6m sheet of glass would have detectable curvature. If it is a small body of liquid, there is going to be a lot of curvature. Even with larger amounts of liquid (the ocean) the effect is smaller, but not non-existent. If this weren't true, than there wouldn't be any curvature to the oceans. If there wasn't any curvature in the oceans, it would seem you would have to take the FE'ers side and explain how boats passing over the horizon works.

 You have a picture on http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1072608#msg1072608 . Talk is about pic 2 and situation A. Large is large and the bottom is flat. As I said earlier:
Gravitational force works best over large dimensions so by making the free surface large, you ensure that gravity dominates and you have a flat surface. Surface tension works best over small dimensions so by shrinking the glass to smaller diameters, you will see the surface change from flat to highly curved.
 It is not about the oceans but just the large amount of water with large surface area in some big hole which has a flat bottom.

I'm sorry, but my skeptical, zetetic mind can't seem to get past the "perfectly flat" claim.  Amazing how some others on the site take it as fact without questioning it.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 07:36:44 AM

Quote from: zork on October 15, 2010, 03:38:44 AM

Good. You just claimed that you understand that part of article. Please show now how it applies to the large area of water where the bottom is flat. Take account the gravity, the force which the bottom applies, surface tension, the fact that the surface are is large and explain what is this pressure mentioned in that section.

Define large area of water. Earlier in this thork demonstrated that even a 6m sheet of glass would have detectable curvature. If it is a small body of liquid, there is going to be a lot of curvature. Even with larger amounts of liquid (the ocean) the effect is smaller, but not non-existent. If this weren't true, than there wouldn't be any curvature to the oceans. If there wasn't any curvature in the oceans, it would seem you would have to take the FE'ers side and explain how boats passing over the horizon works.

 You have a picture on http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1072608#msg1072608 . Talk is about pic 2 and situation A. Large is large and the bottom is flat. As I said earlier:
Gravitational force works best over large dimensions so by making the free surface large, you ensure that gravity dominates and you have a flat surface. Surface tension works best over small dimensions so by shrinking the glass to smaller diameters, you will see the surface change from flat to highly curved.
 It is not about the oceans but just the large amount of water with large surface area in some big hole which has a flat bottom.

Are you suggesting that if the oceans had a flat bottom there would be no curvature?

If not, I see no reason why this liquid should behave any different.

Quote from: zork on October 15, 2010, 09:56:56 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 07:36:44 AM

Quote from: zork on October 15, 2010, 03:38:44 AM

Good. You just claimed that you understand that part of article. Please show now how it applies to the large area of water where the bottom is flat. Take account the gravity, the force which the bottom applies, surface tension, the fact that the surface are is large and explain what is this pressure mentioned in that section.

Define large area of water. Earlier in this thork demonstrated that even a 6m sheet of glass would have detectable curvature. If it is a small body of liquid, there is going to be a lot of curvature. Even with larger amounts of liquid (the ocean) the effect is smaller, but not non-existent. If this weren't true, than there wouldn't be any curvature to the oceans. If there wasn't any curvature in the oceans, it would seem you would have to take the FE'ers side and explain how boats passing over the horizon works.

 You have a picture on http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1072608#msg1072608 . Talk is about pic 2 and situation A. Large is large and the bottom is flat. As I said earlier:
Gravitational force works best over large dimensions so by making the free surface large, you ensure that gravity dominates and you have a flat surface. Surface tension works best over small dimensions so by shrinking the glass to smaller diameters, you will see the surface change from flat to highly curved.
 It is not about the oceans but just the large amount of water with large surface area in some big hole which has a flat bottom.

Are you suggesting that if the oceans had a flat bottom there would be no curvature?

If not, I see no reason why this liquid should behave any different.

Scale, Please read all posts.

Are you suggesting that if the oceans had a flat bottom there would be no curvature?

I said, it's not about oceans. But sure, if you shaved off the 1/4 of the earth so that you have the flat surface and poured the water onto it you think you get the nice curved ocean which complements the 3/4 round earth to the full roundness?
 But you still haven't explained me the wikipedia Surface tension Surface_curvature_and_pressure section which you so proudly quoted. How does it applies here? If I am stupid then I am stupid but at least try to explain to me about what I am stupid.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 11:29:00 AM

Are you suggesting that if the oceans had a flat bottom there would be no curvature?

I said, it's not about oceans. But sure, if you shaved off the 1/4 of the earth so that you have the flat surface and poured the water onto it you think you get the nice curved ocean which complements the 3/4 round earth to the full roundness?
 But you still haven't explained me the wikipedia Surface tension Surface_curvature_and_pressure section which you so proudly quoted. How does it applies here? If I am stupid then I am stupid but at least try to explain to me about what I am stupid.

zork, pal, I think you're wrong here. Yes, you would get the full sphere. Perhaps oblated slightly due to the difference in density, but still pretty much a sphere. I renew my suggestion that ignoring EG, as a troll, is probably the best course.

Quote from: zork on October 15, 2010, 11:59:29 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 11:29:00 AM

Are you suggesting that if the oceans had a flat bottom there would be no curvature?

I said, it's not about oceans. But sure, if you shaved off the 1/4 of the earth so that you have the flat surface and poured the water onto it you think you get the nice curved ocean which complements the 3/4 round earth to the full roundness?
 But you still haven't explained me the wikipedia Surface tension Surface_curvature_and_pressure section which you so proudly quoted. How does it applies here? If I am stupid then I am stupid but at least try to explain to me about what I am stupid.

zork, pal, I think you're wrong here. Yes, you would get the full sphere. Perhaps oblated slightly due to the difference in density, but still pretty much a sphere. I renew my suggestion that ignoring EG, as a troll, is probably the best course.

Its worth noting that Earth is slightly oblate and not a perfect sphere. I say this because this was an issue in the beginning of the thread. Round Earth Theory does not hinge on the fact that earth is an perfect sphere.

Its worth noting that Earth is slightly oblate and not a perfect sphere. I say this because this was an issue in the beginning of the thread. Round Earth Theory does not hinge on the fact that earth is an perfect sphere.

Um.... what? It is irrelevant whether the Earth is a perfect sphere or oblate spheroid in this as each would require the glass to follow the Earth's curvature anyways.

Guys - I mean really?  11 pages on an industrial process that has no bearing on whether the world is flat or not?  I could see if it was someone's personal Bedford level experiment, or a proof of a photograph, or on spaceflight, but on an industrial process that not only makes flat glass but makes curved glass, shaped glass, concave glass, convex glass.

Berny
Thinks this topic has gone too long

Proving the shape of the earth is serious business.

@berny
The laughable thing is, I have given the RE answer to this in 2 different threads. Many of those still trying to debunk this, have read and posted in those threads, but still insist the glass isn't flat or that its a marketing lie or that liquids don't conform to physics.

The glass is perfectly flat and flawless. I have explained how they do this.
The glass should bend with earth's curvature as mentioned 113 times in this thread.
It was a fun mystery, but damn. Berny has a point.

Still if someone is new to the site and hasn't Lurked up the answer yet, its a good little puzzle to get your teeth into when you start.

@thork

You need to eat some sauerkraut
Berny
Loves his kraut with apples and cranberries

@berny
The laughable thing is, I have given the RE answer to this in 2 different threads.

Someone should inform EG of this.

@berny

Don't go near any naked flames.

When I had a job (until this morning) I went to Germany all the time. I love real black-forest gateaux, schnitzle (undoubtedly spelt wrong), and German larger. I also have a thing for Bavarian women, but Czech women are the best I have found in Europe. They are also considerably less fussy than German women.

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 02:50:23 PM

@berny
The laughable thing is, I have given the RE answer to this in 2 different threads.

Someone should inform EG of this.

All I have been doing for the past three pages is informing people how liquids will follow the Earth's curvature, regardless if they are in a square container.

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 02:50:23 PM

@berny
The laughable thing is, I have given the RE answer to this in 2 different threads.

Someone should inform EG of this.

I think it is because he actually absorbed the information, that he can happily tell REr's that what they are posting is rubbish. I suspect he disagrees with the RE answer, but that is for another thread.

I think it is because he actually absorbed the information, that he can happily tell REr's that what they are posting is rubbish.

That is all I have been doing since some noobs + zork rezed this thread.

@berny

Don't go near any naked flames.

When I had a job (until this morning) I went to Germany all the time. I love real black-forest gateaux, schnitzle (undoubtedly spelt wrong), and German larger. I also have a thing for Bavarian women, but Czech women are the best I have found in Europe. They are also considerably less fussy than German women.

Excuse me???
You haven't been to Poland have you? Those are the hottest women ever!

Quote from: General Disarray on October 15, 2010, 02:54:43 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 02:50:23 PM

@berny
The laughable thing is, I have given the RE answer to this in 2 different threads.

Someone should inform EG of this.

All I have been doing for the past three pages is informing people how liquids will follow the Earth's curvature, regardless if they are in a square container.

We proved you wrong and explained why. You haven't read the posts clearly. I declare Round Earth Victory. Englsh, maybe the debate form has gone over your head, the general form is a better place, FYI.

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 02:56:56 PM

@berny

Don't go near any naked flames.

When I had a job (until this morning) I went to Germany all the time. I love real black-forest gateaux, schnitzle (undoubtedly spelt wrong), and German larger. I also have a thing for Bavarian women, but Czech women are the best I have found in Europe. They are also considerably less fussy than German women.

Excuse me???
You haven't been to Poland have you? Those are the hottest women ever!

You are wrong. They have little round flat faces. Its not to my taste. I was quite taken aback by the difference between neighbouring countries, but spent a lot of time in Czech Rep. Slovak Girls however would be a good rival.

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 02:56:56 PM

@berny

Don't go near any naked flames.

When I had a job (until this morning) I went to Germany all the time. I love real black-forest gateaux, schnitzle (undoubtedly spelt wrong), and German larger. I also have a thing for Bavarian women, but Czech women are the best I have found in Europe. They are also considerably less fussy than German women.

Excuse me???
You haven't been to Poland have you? Those are the hottest women ever!

Oh man - Malta hands down flat.  That is the sexiest english/italian accent ever!
Argentina came close as well.  Followed by Brazil.

Berny
Going to pickle some Ham Hocks in a couple of days.

In water slab A, the middle of it is the closest to the Earth, which means that the middle part of it is going to have the greatest gravitational pull on it. The edges that are farther from the core are going to be less affected by gravity. Because of this, the water is going to be pulled slightly towards the center creating a bulge.

Do I understand you correctly, because the center is pulled harder toward the earth is there a bulge in center and because the sides pull is weaker they should be closer to the bottom? Shortly, the stronger the pull the greater the bulge?
[/quote]

Kinda. The farther something is away from the core, the greater the angle that the water is pulled, which means that even if it is in a flat container, it is going to move along it and create a bulge at the point that is closest to the Earth. Consider this.


[/quote]

Sorry, you are right, my model was incorrect. The surface molecules of the water should all be of equal distance from the core of the earth when the liquid has settled.

We proved you wrong and explained why. You haven't read the posts clearly. I declare Round Earth Victory. Englsh, maybe the debate form has gone over your head, the general form is a better place, FYI.

Look Dan, you are making yourself just look stupid here. Everyone agrees on this aspect except you. Thork agrees, ClockTower agrees, now even Daniel agrees. Both RE'ers and FE'ers are in an agreement that a body of liquid will indeed follow the curvature of the Earth regardless of the contain it is in. You really need to check yourself and stop being such a stubborn baby. Just because want to keep posting "Baaaawwww no I'm actually right, so there!" doesn't mean you actually are.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 08:36:17 PM

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 15, 2010, 06:05:43 PM

We proved you wrong and explained why. You haven't read the posts clearly. I declare Round Earth Victory. Englsh, maybe the debate form has gone over your head, the general form is a better place, FYI.

Look Dan, you are making yourself just look stupid here. Everyone agrees on this aspect except you. Thork agrees, ClockTower agrees, now even Daniel agrees. Both RE'ers and FE'ers are in an agreement that a body of liquid will indeed follow the curvature of the Earth regardless of the contain it is in. You really need to check yourself and stop being such a stubborn baby. Just because want to keep posting "Baaaawwww no I'm actually right, so there!" doesn't mean you actually are.

What the hell are you talking about, I just admitted you were right? I'm still looking for your your reply to our debate about the ISS that you bailed on.

FE'ers agree that a body of liquid will follow the curvature of the earth? Then its a total victory because they acknowledge earth is at least curved and not flat. Note I never denied that it wasn't curved and to add to this you never read the posted link that explained this. Try not posting tripe and pay attention to all posts.

Quote from: Daniel39363 on October 15, 2010, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 08:36:17 PM

Look Dan, you are making yourself just look stupid here. Everyone agrees on this aspect except you. Thork agrees, ClockTower agrees, now even Daniel agrees. Both RE'ers and FE'ers are in an agreement that a body of liquid will indeed follow the curvature of the Earth regardless of the contain it is in. You really need to check yourself and stop being such a stubborn baby. Just because want to keep posting "Baaaawwww no I'm actually right, so there!" doesn't mean you actually are.

What the hell are you talking about, I just admitted you were right? I'm still looking for your your reply to our debate about the ISS that you bailed on.

FE'ers agree that a body of liquid will follow the curvature of the earth? Then its a total victory because they acknowledge earth is at least curved and not flat. Note I never denied that it wasn't curved and to add to this you never read the posted link that explained this. Try not posting tripe and pay attention to all posts.

How about you pay attention to the posts. If you did, we still wouldn't be here. All you did in your posted links is talk about how just because it looks flat, doesn't mean it actually is. Then you also said that the scale of this means that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, which is incorrect. If you had actually read the thread instead of just pulling stuff out of your rear, you'd find that people have demonstrated even on a small scale the curvature would be easily detected.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 02:57:46 PM

All I have been doing for the past three pages is informing people how liquids will follow the Earth's curvature, regardless if they are in a square container.

We proved you wrong and explained why. You haven't read the posts clearly.

Further more, you did deny that a liquid will follow the curvature of the Earth. You did it only a few posts ago.

How about you stop making random statements in a hope that one of them will be correct?

FE'ers agree that a body of liquid will follow the curvature of the earth? Then its a total victory because they acknowledge earth is at least curved and not flat.

No FE'er denies that a body of liquid will follow the curvature of the Earth in RE theory, which is the context of this entire thread if you paid attention. Do troll harder.

What the hell are you talking about, I just admitted you were right? I'm still looking for your your reply to our debate about the ISS that you bailed on.

Daniel I didn't say you admitted that FET is correct, I said you admitted this certain aspect of RET is correct, and this is what we have been discussing for the last three pages.

If you had actually read the thread instead of just pulling stuff out of your rear, you'd find that people have demonstrated even on a small scale the curvature would be easily detected.

Link please. I sure don't know that on a small scale that the RE's curvature would be easily detected.

*I'm not gonna post the whole thing here since it is huge, but you can easily follow the link.*
-EG

Despite your objections, you were incapable of proving Thork's maths wrong. In fact, zork even agreed his maths are correct, just to start with his claim liquids won't follow the Earth's curvature.

As your numbers may be somehow correct (at least surveyors got their number for 1km quite same  ) they don't apply just like that to fluids.

Quote from: Thork on September 17, 2010, 05:14:03 PM

*I'm not gonna post the whole thing here since it is huge, but you can easily follow the link.*
-EG

Despite your objections, you were incapable of proving Thork's maths wrong. In fact, zork even agreed his maths are correct, just to start with his claim liquids won't follow the Earth's curvature.

There is nothing in that link to support your claim. Your failure to understand the math doesn't make Thork's maths right. Indeed, I believe that even Thork understand his error now, after I explained it in 'baby steps' for him. Are there smaller steps I can take for you? What do you think the displacement formula is for the RE?