That is not visual evidence that water on earth is being pulled to make earth's curvature, and also falling to a lower place on earth at the same time.
No one ever said anything of the like.
This is evidence that water can be acted upon by 2 forces at once, that gravity and centrifugal forces can both act to affect the water, going directly against your claim.
Water on earth does not act like the water in the rotating container. You can't find a body of water on earth that is both being pulled from earth by centrifugal force, and falling to a lower place on earth at the same time, can you? You can't even find a body of water on earth that is being pulled away from earth by centrifugal force, can you? That is why you need to insult and use lab experiments that do not apply.
We can, every single body of water on Earth is.
You can't find a single example where it isn't. The closest you can come are examples where one is not detectable.
This lab experiment disproves your claim and that both forces can act.
But no, both forces cannot dominate. You have 3 options:
Gravity wins and the water falls, but slower than if it wasn't spinning, and such that in equilibrium, it bulges at the equator.
Centrifugal forces win, and the water flies off the surface.
The 2 forces are balanced, and instead of falling or flying away it would orbit.
Notice the water in the rotating container becomes concave when centrifugal forces are applied, the water surface does not convex to make an arch, a bow across its surface, does it?
And that is because of the direction of those forces.
Gravity is pulling it down while the centrifugal forces pushes it to the side.
To represent Earth better you need a force pulling it towards the centre (which is what causes it to adopt a roughly spherical shape) and one pushing it out.
Is this example better:
It is water in micro-gravity, where it is held together by surface tension instead of gravity. The surface tension tries to make it a sphere, or to have the water "fall to the lowest point"
while
If you spun that container to match earth's 1,000 MPH surface
Then you would be spinning it way to fast. You cannot honestly represent the force by spinning a much smaller container at the same tangential velocity.
To honestly and accurately represent it you would need to spin it between 0.1 and 1 mile per hour.
I bet the water would fly out the open top of the container. You'd have to put a lid on it to keep the liquid in the container. Bodies of water on earth don't have lids on them, do they?
I see you are back to claiming it should fly off.
You really need to make up your mind.
Once I found wiki change the Principle of Biogenesis to the hypothesis of biogenesis
Before you were claiming it was a law. What changed? Did you realise you were wrong?
And yes, the wiki does try to correct itself, unlike FE.
Number two, show me an case from earth's nature where water is obeying both forces, centrifugal and gravity, at the same time, BET YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!
We have provided you a case where water is obeying both forces. Care to address that?
"do you know how much centrifugal force is acting on the water?"
Enough to allegedly bow water on earth to make this:
No. Gravity is what does the majority of the bowing. Gravity alone would pull Earth into a sphere.
The centrifugal force results in a slight (0.15%) bulge. This acceleration is a mere 0.03 m/s^2 at the equator.
But water at the equator looks like this, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface:
You keep saying that, but you are yet to prove it. You are yet to demonstrate that it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.
Ocean water Senegal, Africa, right on the equator. I don't see centrifugal forces at work:
Because they are too small for you to detect, and they are at an equilibrium with gravity.
I have shown you'll bodies of water at the equator, where the centrifugal forces are said to be the strongest, that do not match water being subjected to centrifugal forces. Water at the equator is flat, level and horizontal across its surface, it does not bow in a curve, and still fall to a lower spot on earth.
No. They do match. You don't seem to understand what that means do you?
Matching doesn't mean it is that force alone that is acting.
The water at the equator acts just as you would expect it to on this spinning speeding Earth.
You are also yet to show it is flat rather than following the curve of Earth.
It doesn't fall to the lowest point on Earth. It is higher than at the poles, because of the centrifugal force.
See, that is what you would need to do to show it doesn't match. You would need to show that the equatorial radius is the same as the polar radius, and this has to be done to a level of uncertainty where you would expect to see the difference.
You are yet to do that.
Instead you take a picture of a tiny piece and say it looks flat.
Guess what? That doesn't contradict Earth being a spinning speeding ball at all.
Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.
No. There is plenty. It has been provided to you and you just dismiss it or lie about it or ignore it.
What there is no evidence of is Earth being flat and motionless.
Yes, there are some observations which are consistent with both, but that isn't evidence for either.
You are the one that is ignoring the physical condition of Earth.