water always finds level?

Please check this out. Maybe it answers some questions (like level vs flat): (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.

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.

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. 

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.


Or the ships already posted.

I'd love to be wrong.

No need to thank me.

Thanks for the info zom. I'll give the data due diligence, and revisit this thread when I'm finished.

Thanks Jadyyn.
  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.

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. 

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)

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.

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.   

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 10, 2016, 05:38:42 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...?

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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: 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?

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...

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2016, 08:46:27 AM

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 12, 2016, 12:17:51 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2016, 08:46:27 AM

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2016, 12:26:56 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 12, 2016, 12:17:51 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2016, 08:46:27 AM

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 12, 2016, 12:55:09 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2016, 12:26:56 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 12, 2016, 12:17:51 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2016, 08:46:27 AM

Quote from: 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?

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?

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: 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.

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".

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 11, 2016, 10:14:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: getrealzommb on May 10, 2016, 07:31:11 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 10, 2016, 05:38:42 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!

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 11, 2016, 10:14:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 12, 2016, 02:33:42 AM

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 11, 2016, 10:14:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Jadyyn on May 12, 2016, 03:51:26 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 12, 2016, 02:33:42 AM

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 11, 2016, 10:14:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: 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.

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".

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.

Quote from: Jadyyn on May 12, 2016, 03:51:26 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 12, 2016, 02:33:42 AM

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 11, 2016, 10:14:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 11, 2016, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: 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.

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 

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 09, 2016, 07:38:55 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 " 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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:48:41 AM

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 09, 2016, 07:38:55 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 " 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:

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:

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:

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.

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. 

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2016, 04:51:39 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:48:41 AM

Quote from: sharpie325 on May 09, 2016, 07:38:55 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 " 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:

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:

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:

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.

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???

Did you read the post?

Okay, for sssslllloooowwww rrrreeeeaaaaddddeeeerrrrssss, in bullet form, the task at hand...

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!!!