water always finds level?

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?

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"?

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?

Did I ask this in the wrong forum moderator?

Did I ask this in the wrong forum moderator?

No, you are fine posting this here. 

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.

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
https://www.google.com/search?q=south+pole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Amundsen Scott south pole station
https://www.google.com/search?q=Amundsen+Scott+south+pole+station&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

circumnavigation pole to pole
https://www.google.com/search?q=circumnavigation+pole+to+pole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

flight circumnavigation pole to pole
https://www.google.com/search?q=flight+circumnavigation+pole+to+pole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

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.

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.   

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.

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:


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 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container.

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:


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:


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:


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.

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.

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.

Oh, by the way, anyone can visit Antarctica, and thousands of people do every year.

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

Quote from: 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?

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

Why? My head hurts from the weight of the fallacies contained therein.

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.

Quote from: 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?

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
https://www.google.com/search?q=south+pole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Amundsen Scott south pole station
https://www.google.com/search?q=Amundsen+Scott+south+pole+station&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

circumnavigation pole to pole
https://www.google.com/search?q=circumnavigation+pole+to+pole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

flight circumnavigation pole to pole
https://www.google.com/search?q=flight+circumnavigation+pole+to+pole&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

Please?

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.   


   

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.

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.

http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html

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)

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.  (note ship 2 behind ship1. The hull of ship 2 is not even visible)

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3, 28x mag. 0m alt. 

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Plenty of Curavture and a "hump" can be observed

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?

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.

Bad math is bad

Anything else we can be of help on?

no?

ok

/thread.

Hey... Giving your post a  look over.   What bad math?

     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?

Hey... Giving your post a  look over.   What bad math?

     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)

http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html

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?