Why Should I Believe the Earth is Flat?

The earth has a diameter of 12742km.

The average ocean depth is 3.68km

The deepest part of the ocean is 11.03km.

Scaling the earth down to say a 12cm ball... the average depth of the water would be roughly 30 microns, which is equivalent to the mist in fog.  At 30 microns the the surface of the ball would be wet but not dripping off.

To compare, a rain drop is considered to be between 0.5mm (500 microns) and 4mm (4000 microns)

This is all folly because it assumes the world a sphere at the outset (which is no way to objectively evaluate/determine its shape) - however your “gotcha” requires that the ball be hydrophilic. If the ball was hydrophobic, the water would fall off.

Generalization: Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels - she’d be a wagon.

You missed his point.

The point is you are trying to apply a rain drop to the scale size of the estimated globe.
That is not practical or realistic.

And It is not a logical fallacy to assume ball.
If the assumption the earth is a ball the measurements shoudl produce a ball.
If the measurements fail to produce a ball, it is not a ball
There are no measurements that produce a ball and a flat earth.
therefroe proof is made.

Draw the circle to scale.
Prove you visual range of a few km will maintain flatness and that ships wont disappear bottom up on the horizon.

There are many conceptions as to why which are all seemingly valid.  One is water’s inability to support shear stress, another is the isostatic nature of gas pressure, yet another is the demonstrable behavior of all fluids (wether in the presence of significant gas pressure or not).  It has never been observed (I.e. measured) to curve - ever.

Hi Jack,

Geodetic measurements of the curvature of water over long distances has literally been measured millions of times over hundreds of years. 

Is it your opinion that all of these curvature measurements,  from ground based standard surveying methods that establish geometric relationships, to incredibly precise satellite measurements that form the backbone of modern climate and marine science, don’t exist?

Did these measurements actually not happen in your mind, and their purported documented existence is part of some massive conspiracy?   Or are you just deigning yourself the arbiter right and wrong and unilaterally declaring them invalid and not worth considering?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 04, 2021, 03:16:56 PM

Except that caveat that knowledge is a subset of belief.

That’s wrong.

So you believe. Fortunately I know better.
A belief is something you think/claim to be true, regardless of any justification or lack there of.
In order to know something is true you must believe it is true.
Thus knowledge is a subset of belief.
You not liking that fact will not change it.

unless you are playing pedantic semantical games with the word truth - in which case it is TECHNICALLY correct.

There is nothing technical about it.
It is a simple fact that knowledge is a subset of belief.
By you admitting I am "technically correct" you are basically saying you know I'm correct but don't like the idea of knowledge being a subset of belief so you are going to fight against that.

If you don't like those "semantical games" don't trying claiming knowledge is entirely distinct from belief.

So you do recognize the problem with conditioning by rote under the guise of education

It is not conditioning by rote.
It is learning by rote.
There is a big difference.

globe mythology

You not wanting to accept that you live on a globe doesn't make it mythology.

The reason the globe Earth reality continues to appear in lots of subsequent lessons is due to how it is relevant for so many things.

And did you validate that

And there you go with the paranoid rejection again.
If you tried to validate everything, you would die long before you finished.

I am yet to see any compelling reason to think these photos are fake, especially with all the evidence available from Earth to confirm Earth is round.
FEers just dismiss it as fake because they have no actual argument against it.

This is the process by which many flat earth researchers are born.

No it isn't.
They follow a completely different path. They don't understand the evidence which shows Earth is round. Instead they try to manipulate it into portending Earth is flat, or just finding an excuse to dismiss it.

Level is always horizontal and flat

In your belief, yes.  In reality, no.

If you want to claim level magically means flat, prove it.
And no, baseless assertions will not help you.

there is only confirmation of this fact

There is plenty of refutation you chose to ignore, that you have been provided with several times.
The law of hydrostatics is that water adopts a level surface, not a flat one.
Again, you are trying to blatantly misrepresent the law and trying to justify your claim through circular reaosning.
You are claiming level means flat, to blatantly misrepresent the law, to pretend level means flat.

Quote

This is what is repeatedly observed, such as with water obscuring the base of a distant object, even though both the observer and the distant are above water.

That is an optical illusion chiefly caused by refraction

No it isn't.
Refraction would typically allow you to see more, not less.
Stop just dismissing refutations of your nonsense as an optical illusion.
Actually deal with the evidence that shows your claim is wrong.
Either prove that this is not curved water and instead is just an optical illusion, or admit that there is evidence contradicting your claim of magically flat water.

Surface tension is real, yes.

And refutes your claim that water is magically flat.
It shows that water doesn't have a magical flattening property which will render its surface flat rather than curving around Earth.

Or rather they COULD be consistent with an RE

There is no could be.
The measurement either is consistent or it is not.
And the simple fact is that these small scale measurements in a sink or bathtub ARE consistent with a RE.
That is because you cannot measure the surface accurately enough to show that it does not match the RE.
This means it DOES NOT REFUTE the RE.

Again, you are claiming level water refutes the RE.
But measurements consistent with the RE, does not refute the RE.
Even measurements being consistent with a hypothetical FE does not refute the RE.

In order to use water to refute the RE, you need to measure the surface of water accurately enough to show that there is no curve as expected for the RE.
Being incapable of measuring to that level of accuracy does not refute the RE.

You also have to discard the long distance (miles) observations and measurements of waters surface at rest

You mean the ones you dismiss as an optical illusion?
The ones where level water obscures the bottom of distant objects, even though both the observer and object are above the water?

Just why would I need to discard them?
They show you are wrong.

And what magical properties would that be which magically makes water flat even though it is observed to curve?

I endeavor to keep magic (and faith/belief) out of knowledge, especially scientific.
[/quote]
Then stop invoking it.
There is no magical property which will magically make things flat.
Instead, the surface of water is based upon obtaining equal energy, where if the surface is not of equal energy, water on the surface at a high energy point will move to obtain a lower energy.
This explains both why it curves around Earth and why it curves at the small scale due to surface tension.
So in fact, even though you want to pretend they are different, it is the same fundamental property.

There are many conceptions as to why which are all seemingly valid.

No, they aren't.
Instead they rely upon invalid circular reasoning where you assume Earth is flat to try to justify it being flat.
If you discard that baseless assumption (which is the very conclusion you are trying to support) it is not valid at all.

None of what you have claimed in any way indicates that the surface of water will magically be flat instead of curving around Earth.

It has ONLY ever been measured NOT to curve

You mean it has only ever been measured at an accuracy too small to detect the curvature due to Earth, and intentionally ignore the curvature due to other affects like surface tension, so you can dishonestly pretend it is flat.
However it has been observed to curve, like in the example you dismiss as an optical illusion.

barring the irrelevant non sequitur of minuscule surface tension artifacts

It is neither irrelevant nor a non-sequitur.
It clearly shows that water does not magically adopt a flat surface.
Instead it acts to minimise its energy, which for a RE, means curving around the Earth to lower its gravitational potential energy.

Practice what you preach!

I do. Perhaps you should try.

The magic that you believe in, where unmeasured things serve as proof and optical illusions serve as measurement is getting in your way of objectively evaluating what is being said.

You mean the reality I believe in, where measured things serve as proof and things which support Earth being round aren't just dismissed as fake or optical illusions.

The fact you instantly ask for validation of photos from space, rather than even entertaining the idea they could be real, and the fact you just dismiss long distance observations clearly showing the curvature of water's surface as an optical illusion, while in the same post later appealing to long distance observations as if they show Earth is flat, shows just how biased and unobjectively you are.

Anything that supports the RE, you just dismiss, without any serious justification.
But if you think you can use it to support the FE, you will, regardless of how illogical it is.

This is all folly because it assumes the world a sphere at the outset (which is no way to objectively evaluate/determine its shape) - however your “gotcha” requires that the ball be hydrophilic. If the ball was hydrophobic, the water would fall off.

There you go projecting your own inadequacies again.
Just why would water fall off if it was hydrophobic?
In what direction should it fall?
Should it fall towards the south pole? The north pole? England? America? China?
Just what direction, and why?

You think it will fall off because you disagree with the RE. You think that the water will not curve around a globe, so you use that assumption to claim it will fall.

Your "gotcha" requires that there be some magical force making things go "down", which you cannot justify at all, including the most important part, the directionality.
And before you go appealing to observations from reality showing things falling to Earth. That is you assuming Earth is flat so the direction of down is the same everywhere.
Whereas a simple/alternative conclusion of things falling to Earth will have the water fall to Earth, and thus not fall off it.

There is no reason at all to think water will not remain on the globe.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 05, 2021, 10:55:10 AM

Cool.  Care to validate this then?

Quote

There are plenty of strong cases for why the shape of the world is not and cannot be spherical - the most obvious being that water’s surface does not (and cannot due to its fundamental properties) curve the way the globe model requires it to.

I do, and have!

Where?
I have seen you repeatedly make this claim, but I am yet to see you justify it at all.
Instead you just try to prop it up with more claims which are effectively the same, and then appeal to your misrepresentation of the law of hydrodynamics to pretend you don't need to justify it.
Tell us, just what is the magical fundamental property of water that means it cannot curve around the globe?

You only have to measure water’s surface at rest

To the required accuracy to measure the curvature of Earth, and then not measure that curvature.
But again, simple measurements clearly show water curves, even at the small scale due to surface tension.
Why doesn't the magical flattening property stop this?
Again, this is relevant. You just wanting to dismiss it as irrelevant because it shows you are wrong is just you being illogical.

The point is you are trying to apply a rain drop to the scale size of the estimated globe.
That is not practical or realistic.

You seem to have missed mine.  The “meniscus defense” is an irrelevant cop-out.  Surface tension is a minuscule/negligible factor which, effectively, does not apply on large scales - the scale of the world obviously included.

And It is not a logical fallacy to assume ball.

It most certainly is; it’s called affirming the consequent - and is circular logic.  Logical fallacy aside, it is extreme bias which hinders objective study.

If the assumption the earth is a ball the measurements shoudl produce a ball... therefroe proof is made.

The fallacy goes like this : I prove the world is a sphere by expected measurements, I see expected measurements therefore the world is a sphere.  Plain, and stupid, circular logic.

Draw the circle to scale.
Prove you visual range of a few km will maintain flatness and that ships wont disappear bottom up on the horizon.

You seem to be on auto-pilot. This is not an issue of calculation, it is an issue of measurement.  You cannot measure by calculation, you can only calculate from measurement.  The water’s surface is presumed/believed/calculated to curve in the sustained convex manner the globe model requires - it has never once been measured in all of human history (which ought to surprise anyone interested in this subject!)

Geodetic measurements of the curvature of water over long distances has literally been measured millions of times over hundreds of years.

Name one.  Ideally this would be performed on a still lake (water is a fluid, and can swell/take many shapes while in motion).  In any case, no geodetic survey of any kind has ever measured water’s surface directly - that happens in hydrostatics alone.

Is it your opinion that all of these curvature measurements,  from ground based standard surveying methods that establish geometric relationships, to incredibly precise satellite measurements that form the backbone of modern climate and marine science, don’t exist?

It is a fact that they do not measure the surface of the water, yes.  They infer it from unreliable/faulty deduction as well as abject appeal to authority.

Or are you just deigning yourself the arbiter right and wrong and unilaterally declaring them invalid and not worth considering?

I just calls em as I sees em.  No conspiracy is required for humanity to be constantly stupid and wrong - we require no help!

The measurements ARE worth (re)considering, that’s my whole point.  The measurements of water’s surface curving the way the globe model requires do not exist and never have.  They are a dogma, taken on faith, and perpetually calculated throughout the ages.  When we actually measure water’s surface at rest (barring irrelevant and negligible surface tension artifacts) we find it is always flat and level/horizontal - that’s what makes it a natural law!

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 07, 2021, 11:59:37 AM

The point is you are trying to apply a rain drop to the scale size of the estimated globe.
That is not practical or realistic.

You seem to have missed mine.  The “meniscus defense” is an irrelevant cop-out.

No, it isn't. You keep wanting to claim it is, because otherwise your argument is DOA.
But it is a quite relevant refutation of your claim.
It shows that water doesn't just magically adopt a flat surface.
Instead the shape of the surface is dictated by various forces/energy.

Surface tension is a minuscule/negligible factor which, effectively, does not apply on large scales - the scale of the world obviously included.

Conversely the curvature of Earth is quite small, which means it effectively does not apply on small scales. So you can't hope to refute the RE by measuring failing to measure the curve in your sink.

Quote

And It is not a logical fallacy to assume ball.

It most certainly is; it’s called affirming the consequent - and is circular logic.

No, it's not.
Circular reasoning would be using that assumption to prove it. For example, claiming Earth is flat, so what we observe is just magical perspective on a FE, so it proves a FE, is circular reasoning.
Affirming the consequent is more complex when it comes to science.
Science relies upon logical induction, which is effectively affirming the consequent.
This is why science doesn't deal with proof and instead deals with evidence.

And you are just as guilty of that.
Taking a measurement of water over a small area where you cannot notice any curvature and applying it to the world, is effectively affirming the consequent.
While it logically follows that if the surface of water is flat, you would not measure any curvature in your sink, that is not the only possible way to reach that result.

The fallacy goes like this : I prove the world is a sphere by expected measurements, I see expected measurements therefore the world is a sphere.  Plain, and stupid, circular logic.

You missed the key part, the distinction between what is expected with Earth being a ball vs Earth being flat.
Conversely, that is exactly what you are guilty of.
You assume that the surface of water is flat (excluding surface tension), so you then measure and can't detect any curvature because the area you are measuring is too small to measure that curvature, so you then conclude that the surface of water is flat (excluding surface tension).

In order to highlight the part that is missing you need to object to his claim:
"There are no measurements that produce a ball and a flat earth."
But as that would effectively be you admitting that your measurements of the flatness of water are also consistent with curved water, it is understandable why you wouldn't.

You seem to be on auto-pilot. This is not an issue of calculation, it is an issue of measurement.  You cannot measure by calculation

Yes you can.
You measure one thing, and then perform a calculation to obtain a different measurement.
This is used so often it isn't funny, and if you truly believed that you would reject basically all measurements in existence.

The water’s surface is presumed/believed/calculated to curve in the sustained convex manner the globe model requires - it has never once been measured in all of human history (which ought to surprise anyone interested in this subject!)

It would only surprise people if you accepted less direct methods of measurement.
Using those less direct methods it has been measured countless times.
If instead you demand a direct measurement, then it isn't surprising at all to anyone who has actually thought about it.
There is simply not the required precision and accuracy to measure it directly.

But don't worry, someone tried a fairly direct measurement.
Cyrus Teed used a device called a rectilineator (which he made/invented), which was used to construct a "straight" line along 6 km of beach.
He then measured and found Earth to be concave.
The straight line he constructed ran into Earth after 4 1/8 miles.
He even flipped the rectilineators after each measurement to avoid a bias due a static curve in the instrument.

What he failed to account for was a dynamic curve, based upon the device bending due to its own weight. Nothing is perfectly rigid, so it isn't surprising that it would bend.
Depending on exactly how it bends, you could get a result of a FE, a convex Earth or a concave Earth, all with the bend too small to notice.

This is also why Davis' suggestion of an experiment with a string is useless. If I recall correctly, when calculating for a strong nylon string, stretched to breaking point, the sag due to the weight was twice the bulge due to curvature.

So with all that in mind, why should the absence of a direct measurement be surprising at all to anyone who has actually looked into it (which anyone actually interested in this subject should do)?

And again, the closest you will get to a direct measurement of the curvature of Earth are the photos from space, which you dismiss as fake.

They infer it from unreliable/faulty deduction as well as abject appeal to authority.

The only questionable aspect is if light will travel in ~ a straight line, or magically bend for no reason at all to produce results consistent with a RE.

When we actually measure water’s surface at rest (barring irrelevant and negligible surface tension artifacts) we find it is always flat and level/horizontal - that’s what makes it a natural law!

Again, say it honestly.
When you DIRECTLY measure the surface of a SMALL AREA of water at rest, you find that the curvature is too small to detect.
You are not measuring that it is flat. You are ASSUMING it is flat.
All measurements have a degree of uncertainty and you can only state that it is within that uncertainty.
But that uncertainty, over those tiny distances, include both a flat and round Earth.

If you wish to claim otherwise, provide this example of a measurement that shows Earth is flat rather than round.

Its not circular reasoning.

The measurements are plain measurements and do not hold bias.
There are no statstical variants of small sample sizes or human placebo meter sticks out there.
If the measurements only fit a flat earth, the guess what - the earth is flat.
If the measuremnets fit a ball esrth, then its a ball.

Theres no "ball circle" vs "denP circle".
Theres only "circle"
So ill "autopilot" this again and ask the again avoided answer of - how big is the tilt?


Draw the cricle.

Quote from: sobchak on May 07, 2021, 02:00:50 PM

Geodetic measurements of the curvature of water over long distances has literally been measured millions of times over hundreds of years.

Name one.

Sure.  Satellite geodesy.  Ground to space laser ranging combined with space to ground laser or radar altimetry directly define curved water surfaces.

Why should someone discount these measurements in your opinion? 

The measurements are plain measurements and do not hold bias.

Measurements do not hold the bias - we do!  It is most often in the interpretation of the data that this bias manifests (such as in the circular logic I described).

If the measurements only fit a flat earth, the guess what - the earth is flat.

By this logic, the measurements from hydrostatics show the earth can’t have curved bodies of water at rest. Many conclude that the world is not and cannot be spherical as a result.  Because the measurements show it isn’t.

If the measuremnets fit a ball esrth, then its a ball.

The point is, many don’t.  In fact, if the earth is flat - all of them don’t, and it is merely our interpretation of the measurements that are flawed (and/or the methodology of obtaining the measurements is flawed).

Theres no "ball circle" vs "denP circle".
Theres only "circle"

This sounds like a religious mantra.  I know you didn’t mean it that way, and are just trying to avoid the measurement (necessary to determine the shape of any physical object) and substitute a simple geometry calculation.

So ill "autopilot" this again and ask the again avoided answer of - how big is the tilt?

When measured, the tilt is non existent (large bridges being the primary example)

Draw the cricle.

When calculated based upon unvalidated assumption (like radius, for one example), it is calculated to be small.  But non-real calculations (fiction) have no bearing on reality.  You can keep incessantly pestering scepti about this, but I doubt it will help you understand their position (even if your minor point is valid : namely that IF the world were spherical AND IF it was the radius we assume it is, then the tilt would be expected to be minuscule).

What you are missing is that there isn’t a tilt at any scale we measure, just as there isn’t convex curvature to the surface of large bodies of water at rest.  We’ve measured it, and isn’t there.  Believing, because your hallowed calculations “say”, that it is but you just haven’t measured quite far enough yet is silly!  It is the reason we start fairy tales with “long ago and far away” - it is an incantation to suspend disbelief.  Empirical scientists worth their salt do not accept such fairy tales (nor calculations), and demand rigorous and repeated measurement instead!

Wowee
Whole lot to go throuh so please dont respond until i say done as this will take a few edits.




Bias -
We hold bias and chose to accept and not-accept measurements and information.
However.
When the overwehlming majority is telling you that YOU are omitting information then who are you actually complaining is biased?
The circle is how big?
24,900mi (131,000,000ft) circumference around.
How big a homedpeot level?
3ft?

Soo... how-to-circle?
The curvature woukd be 8in per mile (5,280ft) to give you a "circle" that is made up of 24,900 straight lined segments turning 8in between each segment.

If you want to continue showing us YOUR bias, feel free to keep omitting information.


If you want to show us OUR bias, feel free to show us the value of the tilt that we are ignoring.
Or feel free to show us the validity of how we re ingoring the straightness of a 3ft stick in how it relates to an 8in (0.75ft) curvature over 5,280ft.

Measurements do not hold the bias - we do!

Yes, such as your bias, that Earth isn't round, which has you claim that the surface of water is measured to be flat, with you ignoring that the curve is so small over the distance you can directly measure that you would not be able to measure it.

By this logic, the measurements from hydrostatics show the earth can’t have curved bodies of water at rest.

No, only with your bias and circular reasoning.
Again, surface tension shows that water is not magically flat.
Instead it shows the surface is based upon something other than magically becoming flat.

There is no law nor measurement from hydrostatics showing water must be flat.

The point is, many don’t.

Yet you can't provide an example.

In fact, if the earth is flat - all of them don’t

And this is you making the same mistake as others.
Some measurements are consistent with both, such as the measured curvature in a sink.
The problem is, that is a MASSIVE IF, based upon circular reasoning.
The fact that plenty of measurements fit a RE and not a FE, is quite conclusive evidence that Earth is not flat and in fact is round.

When measured, the tilt is non existent (large bridges being the primary example)

There you go with the same bias.
Non-existent, or non-measurable?

And for bridges, are you just checking if the tower is plumb? If so, that is not saying it doesn't tilt.

When calculated based upon unvalidated assumption (like radius, for one example), it is calculated to be small.

Those "assumptions" have been validated quite well. You not liking that validation doesn't mean it hasn't been.
But the key part is that the tilt is so small that you cannot easily see it.
As such, your inability to see the tilt doesn't mean that it isn't there and that Earth isn't round.

You can keep incessantly pestering scepti about this, but I doubt it will help you understand their position

Their position is quite simple, blatantly lie about the RE to pretend it doesn't match reality.
For example, they claim that the photos of the turbine shows Earth isn't round because the turbines appear "upright", whereas he falsly claimed there should be a massive observable tilt if Earth was round.
That is why people ask what the tilt should be.
The simple fact is that it is so small you would not notice it in such a photo, and that means his claim about the photo disproving the RE is completely wrong.

just as there isn’t convex curvature to the surface of large bodies of water at rest.  We’ve measured it

When?
Where is your direct measurement of a large body of water showing there is no curve?
The best you have are either indirect measurements clearly showing a curve, or direct measurements at a tiny scale which can't distinguish between the 2.

By this logic, the measurements from hydrostatics show the earth can’t have curved bodies of water at rest. Many conclude that the world is not and cannot be spherical as a result.  Because the measurements show it isn’t.

What are these hydrostatic measurements you speak of and where can I find them?

What you are missing is that there isn’t a tilt at any scale we measure, just as there isn’t convex curvature to the surface of large bodies of water at rest.  We’ve measured it, and isn’t there.

What measurements? Who is the 'we' that made them? Do you have a source?

You claim that there isn't curvature of water around the Earth and we can't measure it, but we can in many ways as has been mentioned already. Here is one way to see the curve, feel free to measure it.