Water as proof for a FE

  • 159 Replies
  • 23755 Views
*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 05, 2016, 01:41:07 PM »
So i was reading in the Q&A section and came across a rather interesting answer in a thread about the main reason why FEers are FEers.  (thread is from observer)  As i said i read something rather curious:
2. Water level
3. it is flat because all water seeks the lowest form of energy. And in its lowest form, without any outside impetus, the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different.
The first reason (number 2) doesn't give much explanation as to how this would explain anything, so i'm gonne ignore it.

The second reason (number 3) is, how shall i say it, strange.  Whoever wrote this (originally) debunked his own argument, let me explain. 
The first part ("all water seeks the lowest form of energy") is correct, however not complete. The complete version: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."
(there are other laws of thermodynamics, but they're not important, google them if you want)
As everyone, hopefully, now understands these 2 laws will cause matter to seek a balanced state.


Now let's take this into practice for water.  Let's first look at a water molecule:

A water molecule is, as chemest call it, polar.  It has a slightly negative side (The side with oxygen) and a slightly positive side(s) (the one with the hydrogen atoms).
I hope everybody knows that positive charge and a negative charge attract each other.  This causes H2O to form, what chemists call, hydrogen bonds. 

Now because of these bonds H2O will have surface tension.  Because of this one can observe the following phenomena:

I know, a bad image. What you can hopefully see is that the water level reaches higher than the edge of the glass.  In other words there is more water in the glass then the volume of the glass. (For those who don't believe me, do it yourself. Take a glass fill it up and watch.)
Because of this there are certain insects that can walk on water.  Also because of this principle water will spontaneously form little bubbles when brought into an apolar mixture.
This is only 1 of the many forces that are applied to water at any given time. Seeing how many people don't know these forces exists one can, falsely, believe that water will always be leveled.


So we conclude that water will not always be perfectly level across the globe (earth, couldn't resist srry).

PS:"the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different"
srry one beautiful example of how people should be cautious with the words always and never.

*

JackBlack

  • 23751
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2016, 02:20:38 PM »
They are just focusing on a simplified view, rather than minor disturbances.

At the medium scale, what humans are used to dealing with, like pools, and ignoring things like wind and tides, the dominating factor is gravity. Water will get as far into the gravitational potential well as it can without it needing to displace denser objects.

At this medium scale, this produces a surface which is flat, but that is simply because the curvature is too small.

When you take this to larger scales, with a point source of gravity and thus a gravity well where the contours are spheres, water will adopt a spherical shape, which is what it does on Earth (again, simplifying a bit).

This is often quoted with things like curvature, and how if you stand at the nile delta, the source of the water there is much lower than you due to the curvature of Earth and thus it would need to flow up hill.
But in reality, as it is further from the source of gravity, that "lower" than you is a higher potential and thus the water will flow to the lower potential.

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2016, 02:40:45 PM »
They are just focusing on a simplified view, rather than minor disturbances.

At the medium scale, what humans are used to dealing with, like pools, and ignoring things like wind and tides, the dominating factor is gravity. Water will get as far into the gravitational potential well as it can without it needing to displace denser objects.

At this medium scale, this produces a surface which is flat, but that is simply because the curvature is too small.

When you take this to larger scales, with a point source of gravity and thus a gravity well where the contours are spheres, water will adopt a spherical shape, which is what it does on Earth (again, simplifying a bit).

This is often quoted with things like curvature, and how if you stand at the nile delta, the source of the water there is much lower than you due to the curvature of Earth and thus it would need to flow up hill.
But in reality, as it is further from the source of gravity, that "lower" than you is a higher potential and thus the water will flow to the lower potential.
Gravity is a sensitive subject around here, so i thought to give an alternative explanation.  As with most things in the RE model you can explain them in multiple ways and still be right.
Also i didn't try to prove the earth being round or flat here. I was simply disproving the mentioned arguments.  My explanation also presumes neither a flat nor a round earth.  In fact it works on both a flat and a round.

Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2016, 04:01:41 PM »
So i was reading in the Q&A section and came across a rather interesting answer in a thread about the main reason why FEers are FEers.  (thread is from observer)  As i said i read something rather curious:
2. Water level
3. it is flat because all water seeks the lowest form of energy. And in its lowest form, without any outside impetus, the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different.
The first reason (number 2) doesn't give much explanation as to how this would explain anything, so i'm gonne ignore it.

The second reason (number 3) is, how shall i say it, strange.  Whoever wrote this (originally) debunked his own argument, let me explain. 
The first part ("all water seeks the lowest form of energy") is correct, however not complete. The complete version: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."
(there are other laws of thermodynamics, but they're not important, google them if you want)
As everyone, hopefully, now understands these 2 laws will cause matter to seek a balanced state.


Now let's take this into practice for water.  Let's first look at a water molecule:

A water molecule is, as chemest call it, polar.  It has a slightly negative side (The side with oxygen) and a slightly positive side(s) (the one with the hydrogen atoms).
I hope everybody knows that positive charge and a negative charge attract each other.  This causes H2O to form, what chemists call, hydrogen bonds. 

Now because of these bonds H2O will have surface tension.  Because of this one can observe the following phenomena:

I know, a bad image. What you can hopefully see is that the water level reaches higher than the edge of the glass.  In other words there is more water in the glass then the volume of the glass. (For those who don't believe me, do it yourself. Take a glass fill it up and watch.)
Because of this there are certain insects that can walk on water.  Also because of this principle water will spontaneously form little bubbles when brought into an apolar mixture.
This is only 1 of the many forces that are applied to water at any given time. Seeing how many people don't know these forces exists one can, falsely, believe that water will always be leveled.


So we conclude that water will not always be perfectly level across the globe (earth, couldn't resist srry).

PS:"the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different"
srry one beautiful example of how people should be cautious with the words always and never.

All right...for the final time, is there an outside impetus acting on the water in order for it to engage in your surface tension example?

I wrote NO outside impetus and you promptly dish up an example utilizing an outside impetus.

And you write: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."

What is the total mass of water contained in the oceans? Kind of a HIGH concentration, uh?
How much ENERGY is needed to keep the water curved around the fictional globe, inderstanding water cannot stick to a spinning ball?

Come on...
« Last Edit: December 05, 2016, 04:09:49 PM by totallackey »

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2016, 04:11:04 PM »
we all know how water behaves and that it forms a "flat surface" (relative to the massive curvature of the earth, but whatever that's not important for my argument).

you can look up at venus with a telescope, (doesn't matter if venus and earth are both planets or whatever) and see that venus is round. venus is alot hotter than earth so we know it has liquid, so if you look up at venus and see liquid clinging to its surface as if by gravity. the simplest conclusion is that liquids can cling to the surfaces of massive objects. earth is a massive object. why then would liquids not cling to earth?
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2016, 04:22:43 PM »
we all know how water behaves and that it forms a "flat surface" (relative to the massive curvature of the earth, but whatever that's not important for my argument).

you can look up at venus with a telescope, (doesn't matter if venus and earth are both planets or whatever) and see that venus is round. venus is alot hotter than earth so we know it has liquid, so if you look up at venus and see liquid clinging to its surface as if by gravity. the simplest conclusion is that liquids can cling to the surfaces of massive objects. earth is a massive object. why then would liquids not cling to earth?

Aside from only believing that is true (it is okay if you believe you see water on Venus), what does that have to do with the subject of water on Earth? You have no proof of curvature of the Earth. None. Zero. Nada.You have a belief and that is find. You have certain pieces of evidence you choose to help support that belief and that is fine. But proof? Nope.

Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2016, 04:35:45 PM »
we all know how water behaves and that it forms a "flat surface" (relative to the massive curvature of the earth, but whatever that's not important for my argument).

you can look up at venus with a telescope, (doesn't matter if venus and earth are both planets or whatever) and see that venus is round. venus is alot hotter than earth so we know it has liquid, so if you look up at venus and see liquid clinging to its surface as if by gravity. the simplest conclusion is that liquids can cling to the surfaces of massive objects. earth is a massive object. why then would liquids not cling to earth?

Aside from only believing that is true (it is okay if you believe you see water on Venus), what does that have to do with the subject of water on Earth? You have no proof of curvature of the Earth. None. Zero. Nada.You have a belief and that is find. You have certain pieces of evidence you choose to help support that belief and that is fine. But proof? Nope.

Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?

there is an almost 100% chance there is no water on venus, but there is liquid. i guess under FE theory there isn't any reason for their to be liquid on venus but for those of us that embrace science, venus is the hottest planet in the solar system and thus plenty of liquids sit on its surface.

however, i'll extend this olive branch. if gravity is actually bs then i would agree that water should sit perfectly flat on the surface of the earth
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

*

disputeone

  • 25621
  • Or should I?
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2016, 06:13:56 PM »
we all know how water behaves and that it forms a "flat surface" (relative to the massive curvature of the earth, but whatever that's not important for my argument).

you can look up at venus with a telescope, (doesn't matter if venus and earth are both planets or whatever) and see that venus is round. venus is alot hotter than earth so we know it has liquid, so if you look up at venus and see liquid clinging to its surface as if by gravity. the simplest conclusion is that liquids can cling to the surfaces of massive objects. earth is a massive object. why then would liquids not cling to earth?

Aside from only believing that is true (it is okay if you believe you see water on Venus), what does that have to do with the subject of water on Earth? You have no proof of curvature of the Earth. None. Zero. Nada.You have a belief and that is find. You have certain pieces of evidence you choose to help support that belief and that is fine. But proof? Nope.

Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?

there is an almost 100% chance there is no water on venus, but there is liquid. i guess under FE theory there isn't any reason for their to be liquid on venus but for those of us that embrace science, venus is the hottest planet in the solar system and thus plenty of liquids sit on its surface.

however, i'll extend this olive branch. if gravity is actually bs then i would agree that water should sit perfectly flat on the surface of the earth

If gravity was bs what makes the water seek the lowest potential energy.

There are a few options to choose from.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns. 

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2016, 07:18:18 PM »
we all know how water behaves and that it forms a "flat surface" (relative to the massive curvature of the earth, but whatever that's not important for my argument).

you can look up at venus with a telescope, (doesn't matter if venus and earth are both planets or whatever) and see that venus is round. venus is alot hotter than earth so we know it has liquid, so if you look up at venus and see liquid clinging to its surface as if by gravity. the simplest conclusion is that liquids can cling to the surfaces of massive objects. earth is a massive object. why then would liquids not cling to earth?

Aside from only believing that is true (it is okay if you believe you see water on Venus), what does that have to do with the subject of water on Earth? You have no proof of curvature of the Earth. None. Zero. Nada.You have a belief and that is find. You have certain pieces of evidence you choose to help support that belief and that is fine. But proof? Nope.

Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?

there is an almost 100% chance there is no water on venus, but there is liquid. i guess under FE theory there isn't any reason for their to be liquid on venus but for those of us that embrace science, venus is the hottest planet in the solar system and thus plenty of liquids sit on its surface.

however, i'll extend this olive branch. if gravity is actually bs then i would agree that water should sit perfectly flat on the surface of the earth

If gravity was bs what makes the water seek the lowest potential energy.

There are a few options to choose from.

you're looking at this with much too logical a frame of mind, you have to put your self in their tin foil-on-head perspective.
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

*

JackBlack

  • 23751
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2016, 12:44:12 AM »
How much ENERGY is needed to keep the water curved around the [real] globe, inderstanding water [can] stick to a spinning ball?

None. Even without gravity, water would act to form a ball.
It is called hydro-static equilibrium.
The surface of water is not an outside impetus. It is a limit of the water.

Water will reduce its energy by reducing its surface area to volume ratio.
The 3D shape that has the lowest surface area to volume ratio (you can't use a container as that is an outside impetus), is that of a sphere.
If it is spinning (which would be an outside impetus), then that will distort the sphere due to how angular momentum works, forming it into an oblate spheroid.

As such, without the influence of gravity, spinning water will naturally form an oblate spheroid.

What makes you say water can't stick to a spinning ball? It is held down by gravity just like everything else.

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2016, 02:57:36 AM »
All right...for the final time, is there an outside impetus acting on the water in order for it to engage in your surface tension example?

I wrote NO outside impetus and you promptly dish up an example utilizing an outside impetus.

And you write: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."

What is the total mass of water contained in the oceans? Kind of a HIGH concentration, uh?
How much ENERGY is needed to keep the water curved around the fictional globe, inderstanding water cannot stick to a spinning ball?

Come on...
Have you ever had some kind of science class?  Surface tension is an intermolecular force.  INTER- not intra-molecular.  So it is an outside impetus.

And the concentration of water is, in the oceans, not higher than in a normal glass of water.  The amount of water in the ocean is different yes, but the concentration? Nope it's about the same as in a regular glass of water.  Do you even know what concentration means?

Why wouldn't water stick to a spinning ball? We see so many other planets that have liquids on their surface (not water in 99% of the cases), so why oh why can't this happen on earth? 

By the way ever seen a raindrop fall in slow motion? It forms a little ball. (After a while it will change into a different shape as the air friction (a force) becomes stronger than the surface tension)
Here is the best i could come up with after 2 seconds of searching:



*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2016, 03:02:54 AM »
So i was reading in the Q&A section and came across a rather interesting answer in a thread about the main reason why FEers are FEers.  (thread is from observer)  As i said i read something rather curious:
2. Water level
3. it is flat because all water seeks the lowest form of energy. And in its lowest form, without any outside impetus, the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different.
The first reason (number 2) doesn't give much explanation as to how this would explain anything, so i'm gonne ignore it.

The second reason (number 3) is, how shall i say it, strange.  Whoever wrote this (originally) debunked his own argument, let me explain. 
The first part ("all water seeks the lowest form of energy") is correct, however not complete. The complete version: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."
(there are other laws of thermodynamics, but they're not important, google them if you want)
As everyone, hopefully, now understands these 2 laws will cause matter to seek a balanced state.


Now let's take this into practice for water.  Let's first look at a water molecule:

A water molecule is, as chemest call it, polar.  It has a slightly negative side (The side with oxygen) and a slightly positive side(s) (the one with the hydrogen atoms).
I hope everybody knows that positive charge and a negative charge attract each other.  This causes H2O to form, what chemists call, hydrogen bonds. 

Now because of these bonds H2O will have surface tension.  Because of this one can observe the following phenomena:

I know, a bad image. What you can hopefully see is that the water level reaches higher than the edge of the glass.  In other words there is more water in the glass then the volume of the glass. (For those who don't believe me, do it yourself. Take a glass fill it up and watch.)
Because of this there are certain insects that can walk on water.  Also because of this principle water will spontaneously form little bubbles when brought into an apolar mixture.
This is only 1 of the many forces that are applied to water at any given time. Seeing how many people don't know these forces exists one can, falsely, believe that water will always be leveled.


So we conclude that water will not always be perfectly level across the globe (earth, couldn't resist srry).

PS:"the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different"
srry one beautiful example of how people should be cautious with the words always and never.

i think this efffect appears because the rim of the glass is perfectly smooth and leveled. I don't think it would happen in real life with mountains and irregularities. Plus it is really small, so if you measure it on a lake it would be totally irrelevant to the meassure of the curve if there is one
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2016, 03:08:58 AM »
Aside from only believing that is true (it is okay if you believe you see water on Venus), what does that have to do with the subject of water on Earth? You have no proof of curvature of the Earth. None. Zero. Nada.You have a belief and that is find. You have certain pieces of evidence you choose to help support that belief and that is fine. But proof? Nope.

Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?
Another fine example of how FEers cherry pick the things they want to react to.  Now they even seem to react to thing that were never said.
As for proof of the curvature of the earth there are plenty of photo's out there.  We've send people to space and the moon.  We've got plenty of satellites up there.  But seeing how you guys think that's all a conspiracy let's ignore this overwhelming load of proof for a second and look at some other stuff.
One thing that immediately springs to mind is seismology.  It can not be explained on a FE, and can be on a RE. (Dont believe me?  Read this: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68379.0)
There are other things but they don't imidiatly spring to my mind.
I also refer to my previous reply.


i think this efffect appears because the rim of the glass is perfectly smooth and leveled. I don't think it would happen in real life with mountains and irregularities. Plus it is really small, so if you measure it on a lake it would be totally irrelevant to the meassure of the curve if there is one
Yea, ignore everything else i said, it's not like i took the time to type it out because it was important. *turns sarcasm off*
Again i didn't set out to prove or disprove FE or RE.  I simply debunked those 2 reasons why people believe in a FE.
(Once you react to everything i'll react to your reaction)

*

JackBlack

  • 23751
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2016, 03:09:44 AM »
So i was reading in the Q&A section and came across a rather interesting answer in a thread about the main reason why FEers are FEers.  (thread is from observer)  As i said i read something rather curious:
2. Water level
3. it is flat because all water seeks the lowest form of energy. And in its lowest form, without any outside impetus, the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different.
The first reason (number 2) doesn't give much explanation as to how this would explain anything, so i'm gonne ignore it.

The second reason (number 3) is, how shall i say it, strange.  Whoever wrote this (originally) debunked his own argument, let me explain. 
The first part ("all water seeks the lowest form of energy") is correct, however not complete. The complete version: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."
(there are other laws of thermodynamics, but they're not important, google them if you want)
As everyone, hopefully, now understands these 2 laws will cause matter to seek a balanced state.


Now let's take this into practice for water.  Let's first look at a water molecule:

A water molecule is, as chemest call it, polar.  It has a slightly negative side (The side with oxygen) and a slightly positive side(s) (the one with the hydrogen atoms).
I hope everybody knows that positive charge and a negative charge attract each other.  This causes H2O to form, what chemists call, hydrogen bonds. 

Now because of these bonds H2O will have surface tension.  Because of this one can observe the following phenomena:

I know, a bad image. What you can hopefully see is that the water level reaches higher than the edge of the glass.  In other words there is more water in the glass then the volume of the glass. (For those who don't believe me, do it yourself. Take a glass fill it up and watch.)
Because of this there are certain insects that can walk on water.  Also because of this principle water will spontaneously form little bubbles when brought into an apolar mixture.
This is only 1 of the many forces that are applied to water at any given time. Seeing how many people don't know these forces exists one can, falsely, believe that water will always be leveled.


So we conclude that water will not always be perfectly level across the globe (earth, couldn't resist srry).

PS:"the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different"
srry one beautiful example of how people should be cautious with the words always and never.

i think this efffect appears because the rim of the glass is perfectly smooth and leveled. I don't think it would happen in real life with mountains and irregularities. Plus it is really small, so if you measure it on a lake it would be totally irrelevant to the meassure of the curve if there is one

The issue is that the mountains act as a wall.
This shows that the water tries to minimise its surface. This will naturally produce a curve.

It is similar to how if you put a small amount of water on a non-wetting surface it will bead up into balls instead of forming random squares or stars.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2016, 03:11:25 AM by JackBlack »

Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2016, 01:31:49 PM »
All right...for the final time, is there an outside impetus acting on the water in order for it to engage in your surface tension example?

I wrote NO outside impetus and you promptly dish up an example utilizing an outside impetus.

And you write: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."

What is the total mass of water contained in the oceans? Kind of a HIGH concentration, uh?
How much ENERGY is needed to keep the water curved around the fictional globe, inderstanding water cannot stick to a spinning ball?

Come on...
Have you ever had some kind of science class?  Surface tension is an intermolecular force.  INTER- not intra-molecular.  So it is an outside impetus.

And the concentration of water is, in the oceans, not higher than in a normal glass of water.  The amount of water in the ocean is different yes, but the concentration? Nope it's about the same as in a regular glass of water.  Do you even know what concentration means?

Why wouldn't water stick to a spinning ball? We see so many other planets that have liquids on their surface (not water in 99% of the cases), so why oh why can't this happen on earth? 

By the way ever seen a raindrop fall in slow motion? It forms a little ball. (After a while it will change into a different shape as the air friction (a force) becomes stronger than the surface tension)
Here is the best i could come up with after 2 seconds of searching:


Yes I know what concentration means. And yes I also know the oceans of the Earth hold higher concentrations of differing types of water than anywhere else on Earth. For crying out loud, there are even pools of fresh water found in the oceans. Not to mention differing strata. I cannot believe you posted this an argument. Stop trying to school me on science.

You believe we have seen liquids on other planets. Nice. You have not seen them.

Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2016, 01:34:00 PM »

What makes you say water can't stick to a spinning ball? It is held down by gravity just like everything else.

Because every spinning ball I have ever seen with water on it sheds that water.

You want to believe in something else, fine.

Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2016, 01:37:50 PM »
Aside from only believing that is true (it is okay if you believe you see water on Venus), what does that have to do with the subject of water on Earth? You have no proof of curvature of the Earth. None. Zero. Nada.You have a belief and that is find. You have certain pieces of evidence you choose to help support that belief and that is fine. But proof? Nope.

Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?
Another fine example of how FEers cherry pick the things they want to react to.  Now they even seem to react to thing that were never said.
As for proof of the curvature of the earth there are plenty of photo's out there.  We've send people to space and the moon.  We've got plenty of satellites up there.  But seeing how you guys think that's all a conspiracy let's ignore this overwhelming load of proof for a second and look at some other stuff.
One thing that immediately springs to mind is seismology.  It can not be explained on a FE, and can be on a RE. (Dont believe me?  Read this: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68379.0)
There are other things but they don't imidiatly spring to my mind.
I also refer to my previous reply.


i think this efffect appears because the rim of the glass is perfectly smooth and leveled. I don't think it would happen in real life with mountains and irregularities. Plus it is really small, so if you measure it on a lake it would be totally irrelevant to the meassure of the curve if there is one
Yea, ignore everything else i said, it's not like i took the time to type it out because it was important. *turns sarcasm off*
Again i didn't set out to prove or disprove FE or RE.  I simply debunked those 2 reasons why people believe in a FE.
(Once you react to everything i'll react to your reaction)

My reaction is this: You make a claim about a reaction to something that was not even said, then you promptly want to introduce the topic of seismology into a discussion about water.

Any other goalposts you wish to play with?

By the way, those are not photos. They are stitched together scans of a surface area, then added colors. That is exactly what they are.

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2016, 02:59:52 PM »
Yes I know what concentration means. And yes I also know the oceans of the Earth hold higher concentrations of differing types of water than anywhere else on Earth. For crying out loud, there are even pools of fresh water found in the oceans. Not to mention differing strata. I cannot believe you posted this an argument. Stop trying to school me on science.

You believe we have seen liquids on other planets. Nice. You have not seen them.
Woah different types of water, now you've disproved the entire thing.  Oh no wait ... you haven't.  What exactly does this have to do with intermolecular forces?

Question: Do you believe we have seen gases on other planets?  (And you're right, i personally haven't seen them, but i do know that there are.)

Because every spinning ball I have ever seen with water on it sheds that water.

You want to believe in something else, fine.
How fast was your ball spinning? I guess more than 1 rotation every 24 HOURS?  How much water was on your ball?  More than 1 percent of the volume of your ball?

Let's do some calculus;
Earth's rotation (at the equator): 0,00436 rad /minute (=1 full rotation every 24 hours)
Let's multiply this with earth's radius: 0,00436 rad /minute * 6371 km = 27.77756 km/minute = 0.46 km/h = 1.667 m/s

Seems rather slow doesn't it?

Now for the water;
Average depth of our oceans: about 4 km
Surface these oceans cover: roughly 3.6 x 108 km2
Now this gives us a very rough volume of about 1.3*10^9 km³

Compare this to the volume of the earth (= (aprox) 10^12) you get that the oceans contain only 0.1% of the volume of the earth.

So if you ball was about 10 cm in diameter and it had more than 1mm of water on it and it was spinning faster than once every 24 hours you did your experiment wrong.

My reaction is this: You make a claim about a reaction to something that was not even said, then you promptly want to introduce the topic of seismology into a discussion about water.

Any other goalposts you wish to play with?

By the way, those are not photos. They are stitched together scans of a surface area, then added colors. That is exactly what they are.
So you claim that RE can't prove curvation, i point you in a direction you should look to come to a conclusion earth has to have curvature and I'm the one doing something wrong?  Really now?  (By the way i didn't introduce it in here i made a reference,  big difference)

And what?  I don't play football (or soccer for the americans) so could you skip the metaphors?
And what aren't photo's?

Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2016, 04:29:58 PM »

Woah different types of water, now you've disproved the entire thing.  Oh no wait ... you haven't.  What exactly does this have to do with intermolecular forces?

Self - evident and does not deserve an answer.

Question: Do you believe we have seen gases on other planets?  (And you're right, i personally haven't seen them, but i do know believethat there are.)
Answer = no and I ftrfy.

How fast was your ball spinning? I guess more than 1 rotation every 24 HOURS?  How much water was on your ball?  More than 1 percent of the volume of your ball?

Let's do some calculus;
Earth's rotation (at the equator): 0,00436 rad /minute (=1 full rotation every 24 hours)
Let's multiply this with earth's radius: 0,00436 rad /minute * 6371 km = 27.77756 km/minute = 0.46 km/h = 1.667 m/s

Seems rather slow doesn't it?

Now for the water;
Average depth of our oceans: about 4 km
Surface these oceans cover: roughly 3.6 x 108 km2
Now this gives us a very rough volume of about 1.3*10^9 km³

Compare this to the volume of the earth (= (aprox) 10^12) you get that the oceans contain only 0.1% of the volume of the earth.

So if you ball was about 10 cm in diameter and it had more than 1mm of water on it and it was spinning faster than once every 24 hours you did your experiment wrong.

Fine. You do an experiment in the correct fashion, conclusively demonstrating water can stick to any portion of an earthen sphere that is spinning at a rate of once every 24 hours and I will believe it. I want the experiment to be repeatable and in correct ratios for materials and substances involved. Have the experiment peer reviewed. You are the one subscribing to an affirmative claim of a spinning globe. I am not. I can easily replicate water on a flat earth.

So you claim that RE can't prove curvation, i point you in a direction you should look to come to a conclusion earth has to have curvature and I'm the one doing something wrong?  Really now?  (By the way i didn't introduce it in here i made a reference,  big difference)

And what?  I don't play football (or soccer for the americans) so could you skip the metaphors?
And what aren't photo's?

You are right. Your thread. You can introduce whatever malarkey you wish into it. Seismology proves nothing about curvature.

No, I will not skip metaphors.

The composites which you call photos are not photos.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2016, 09:06:19 PM »
Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?
A "high CONCENTRATION of mass"! How do you work that one out? The concentration of the oceans is just that of sea-water. So what.
There is a lot of it, but less on the globe than there would be on your flat earth - yes, turned up edges to keep the oceans in.

Then you make a fuss about the "massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve"!
No energy is required to keep the oceans in place, they are already there because that is their lowest energy state.

Mr. Totally Lacking, you are another master of the "Straw-man Argument".
You deny gravitation,  then claim that there is nothing to hold the oceans in place. It's simple, gravitation holds the oceans in place.

No, it won't wash! You have to disprove gravitation first, and have not seen you do that.

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2016, 09:23:30 PM »
Now, do you actually wish to address the points (high CONCENTRATION of mass and the amount of massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve?
A "high CONCENTRATION of mass"! How do you work that one out? The concentration of the oceans is just that of sea-water. So what.
There is a lot of it, but less on the globe than there would be on your flat earth - yes, turned up edges to keep the oceans in.

Then you make a fuss about the "massive ENERGY required for water to adopt your fictional curve"!
No energy is required to keep the oceans in place, they are already there because that is their lowest energy state.

Mr. Totally Lacking, you are another master of the "Straw-man Argument".
You deny gravitation,  then claim that there is nothing to hold the oceans in place. It's simple, gravitation holds the oceans in place.

No, it won't wash! You have to disprove gravitation first, and have not seen you do that.

i predict you will receive one of the two following responses: "gravity is laughable, don't blame me for your lack of ability to explain your puny globe earth." or he'll just ignore your statement all together and go on to make another ridiculous claim without any supporting evidence.
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2016, 09:40:11 PM »
Fine. You do an experiment in the correct fashion, conclusively demonstrating water can stick to any portion of an earthen sphere that is spinning at a rate of once every 24 hours and I will believe it. I want the experiment to be repeatable and in correct ratios for materials and substances involved. Have the experiment peer reviewed. You are the one subscribing to an affirmative claim of a spinning globe. I am not. I can easily replicate water on a flat earth.

Fine, but the "scale model" must have everything to scale, and be free from outside influence. When you suggest a location free from the earth's gravity so that it won't interfere we can start planning the rest.

Unless you can do that, you know very well that your request is ridiculous.

Of course, if you dip said earthen sphere into water, the water would stick to it in a layer of relative thickness greater the oceans on earth. This water is held in place by surface tension, not gravity.

So, you could say your requirement has been met, so stop bitching!

Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2016, 10:34:59 PM »

What makes you say water can't stick to a spinning ball? It is held down by gravity just like everything else.

Because every spinning ball I have ever seen with water on it sheds that water.

You want to believe in something else, fine.
In light of totallackey's awesome science skills, i thought i would do some experimenting... I looked around and saw a rolled up sock, this will be the moon, ok?, then i moved it over some water, and guess what, the water did not bulge!! That means that tides are not caused by the moon! I'm starting to wake up now!
FE science is so simple! RE science just complicates things...

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2016, 11:00:15 PM »

What makes you say water can't stick to a spinning ball? It is held down by gravity just like everything else.

Because every spinning ball I have ever seen with water on it sheds that water.

You want to believe in something else, fine.
In light of totallackey's awesome science skills, i thought i would do some experimenting... I looked around and saw a rolled up sock, this will be the moon, ok?, then i moved it over some water, and guess what, the water did not bulge!! That means that tides are not caused by the moon! I'm starting to wake up now!
FE science is so simple! RE science just complicates things...
:D ::) ;D Now ya larnin' Totally Crappy Fizix  ;D ::) :D
Easy peasy!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2016, 11:21:54 PM »
Yes I know what concentration means. And yes I also know the oceans of the Earth hold higher concentrations of differing types of water than anywhere else on Earth. For crying out loud, there are even pools of fresh water found in the oceans. Not to mention differing strata. I cannot believe you posted this an argument. Stop trying to school me on science.

Care to give some references to "there are even pools of fresh water found in the oceans."

Yes, there's enough on fresh water found in aquifers under the ocean floor, but that is quite different.
And what has this to do with the flat/globe question - these oceans exists on the "real earth", the different concentration exist in the "real ocean", whatever shape it is!

But, I fail to see what any of this has to do with gravity holding the oceans in place.

By the way, what holds the oceans in place on the flat earth? Or, do things just naturally fall down?
We see all sorts of explanations ranging from UA, denspressure, aether pressure, dextro-rotary crickets[1] (something like that), even good old Newtonian Gravitation down to things just naturally fall down!
Cre to enlighten us to just what stops you oceans from floating away into the wild blue yonder.

You waste all you time trying to pull the globe down, mainly by "straw-man arguments". but have no reasonable explanations for the simple things we see around us, funny that!

[1] On reflection, they might have been quarks and not crickets, who cares?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26236
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2016, 11:28:55 PM »
Oxygen has blue color.
Hydrogene has no color.

Oxygen + Hydrogene2 = blue water.

The other  rest does not interest me.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:

Jura II (until 2031)
Bulma (Until 2030)
Jackblack (Until 2032)

I’m I a globalist AI.

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2016, 11:32:35 PM »
Oxygen has blue color.
Hydrogene has no color.

Oxygen + Hydrogene2 = blue water.

The other  rest does not interest me.

then why isn't car exhaust, carbon monoxide (carbon+oxygen) blue.
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26236
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2016, 11:33:39 PM »
Oxygen has blue color.
Hydrogene has no color.

Oxygen + Hydrogene2 = blue water.

The other  rest does not interest me.

then why isn't car exhaust, carbon monoxide (carbon+oxygen) blue.

Stick carbon monoxide to your ass. Keeps warm. You were ignored.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:

Jura II (until 2031)
Bulma (Until 2030)
Jackblack (Until 2032)

I’m I a globalist AI.

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2016, 11:42:14 PM »
Oxygen has blue color.
Hydrogene has no color.

Oxygen + Hydrogene2 = blue water.

The other  rest does not interest me.

then why isn't car exhaust, carbon monoxide (carbon+oxygen) blue.

Stick carbon monoxide to your ass. Keeps warm. You were ignored.

answering me isn't exactly ignoring me. however i'm just messing with you. O2 in liquid form is actually blue.
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Water as proof for a FE
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2016, 12:26:04 AM »
Oxygen has blue color.
Hydrogene has no color.

Oxygen + Hydrogene2 = blue water.

The other  rest does not interest me.
If it doesn't interest you, why answer?