# FE Experiment - Water Level

• 55 Replies
• 6385 Views
?

#### robinofloxley

• 309
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2021, 04:48:47 AM »
Water level.

For a globe to work there must always be a water hump. Yes, a water HUMP from your vision at one point to an object over the calm water.

You do not need a laser if you have a frozen lake to use.
You can place 5 equal sized markers along a 201 metre line.
Attach the line exactly on top of the start and end markers.
Rest the line atop the central marker between the start and end markers.
If the Earth (water) is flat and level the string line should also be touching the tops of the other two markers left and right of centre.

If the string line does not touch the left and right of centre markers and those markers are below the line, then the argument for a globe is valid.

All it takes is for 3 honest people who want to find a truth to do this experiment.
One each end to ensure the string line is taut and a person to video that string line resting on centre and to verify whether left and right of centre have a string line touching or not touching.

Something like this.

Can you draw this "hump" into your marker diagram, I'm not seeing how your globe earth example causes marker 2 and 4 to dip below markers 1-3 and 3-5?

The experiment seems a bit pointless to me. On a curved surface, with the markers all at 90 degrees to the surface and then a string, which somehow won't sag, stretched across the 4 markers, so it rests on top of all 4, surely it will look like this, with no gaps, making it indistinguishable from a flat surface.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2021, 09:17:45 AM »
The experiment seems a bit pointless to me. On a curved surface, with the markers all at 90 degrees to the surface and then a string, which somehow won't sag, stretched across the 4 markers, so it rests on top of all 4, surely it will look like this, with no gaps, making it indistinguishable from a flat surface.

Exactly! The "gap" thing makes literally no sense. The experiment is only useful to see how taught you can get a piece of string. Other than that, it's pointless.

#### Mikey T.

• 3545
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2021, 11:30:03 AM »
My diagram is correct.
You people are wrong.

If you believe the Earth is convexly curved then you also believe water conforms to it, then you also have to accept that your central marker would be sitting higher than the rest of the markers because your central marker would be sitting atop your curve in that layout of 201 metres, in this case.

Denying this is simply a desperate attempt to avoid the issue, In my opinion.
Only if the observer is standing at the central marker, would it appear to be higher.
Again, standing on a sphere straight up would be perpendicular to the ground so everything would curve downwards away from you.  Being that the Earth is a sphere and it is massively larger than we are that curve is very slight.  So slight that a 6 ft tall person can see the ground around 3 miles out depending on temperature/humidity/pressure.
A 200 meter long run wouldn't account for very much curve at all.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2021, 05:27:07 AM »

If you want another reason why, you diagram shows no curvature at all, and has the sticks at the 1/4 and 3/4 mark clearly quite shorter than the others.

Been explained.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2021, 05:29:26 AM »
Water level.

For a globe to work there must always be a water hump. Yes, a water HUMP from your vision at one point to an object over the calm water.

You do not need a laser if you have a frozen lake to use.
You can place 5 equal sized markers along a 201 metre line.
Attach the line exactly on top of the start and end markers.
Rest the line atop the central marker between the start and end markers.
If the Earth (water) is flat and level the string line should also be touching the tops of the other two markers left and right of centre.

If the string line does not touch the left and right of centre markers and those markers are below the line, then the argument for a globe is valid.

All it takes is for 3 honest people who want to find a truth to do this experiment.
One each end to ensure the string line is taut and a person to video that string line resting on centre and to verify whether left and right of centre have a string line touching or not touching.

Something like this.

Can you draw this "hump" into your marker diagram, I'm not seeing how your globe earth example causes marker 2 and 4 to dip below markers 1-3 and 3-5?

The experiment seems a bit pointless to me. On a curved surface, with the markers all at 90 degrees to the surface and then a string, which somehow won't sag, stretched across the 4 markers, so it rests on top of all 4, surely it will look like this, with no gaps, making it indistinguishable from a flat surface.

Massively wrong and I'm pretty sure you know this.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2021, 05:31:56 AM »

A 200 meter long run wouldn't account for very much curve at all.
It doesn't have to. The fact that it shows two markers, left and right of centre to be below the line would show a curve.
If not it would show flat and level.

It would be about half an inch drop of each marker left and right of the centre marker for a curve.

#### JackBlack

• 21929
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2021, 05:37:42 AM »
Been explained.
Explained why you are wrong. You haven't explained your claim.

Massively wrong and I'm pretty sure you know this.
Other than the scale being wrong, and the sticks pushing the strings up instead of just being above them, it is correct (especially noting that the string is magically tight).
The key thing it gets right, which you fail miserably at, is that the stick at the 1/4 and 3/4 position would have their tip higher than a straight line going from 0/4 to 2/4 and from 2/4 to 4/4.

If you think what he has shown is wrong, try explaining why.

Or better yet, justify your fantasy.

The fact that it shows two markers, left and right of centre to be below the line would show a curve.
If not it would show flat and level.

It would be about half an inch drop of each marker left and right of the centre marker for a curve.
That is not a fact, that is your fantasy.
Yet again you blatantly misrepresent the RE to try and pretend Earth isn't round.

You have no justification for why the markers at 1/3 and 3/4 should be below the string, and the 1/2 inch is pure BS, a number you have just pulled from your ass.

In reality, the fact is that if you had a magical string which didn't sag, the top of the stick at the 1/3 and 3/4 position would be ~ 0.2 mm above the string.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2021, 06:42:57 AM »
Been explained.
Explained why you are wrong. You haven't explained your claim.

Massively wrong and I'm pretty sure you know this.
Other than the scale being wrong, and the sticks pushing the strings up instead of just being above them, it is correct (especially noting that the string is magically tight).
The key thing it gets right, which you fail miserably at, is that the stick at the 1/4 and 3/4 position would have their tip higher than a straight line going from 0/4 to 2/4 and from 2/4 to 4/4.

If you think what he has shown is wrong, try explaining why.

Or better yet, justify your fantasy.

The fact that it shows two markers, left and right of centre to be below the line would show a curve.
If not it would show flat and level.

It would be about half an inch drop of each marker left and right of the centre marker for a curve.
That is not a fact, that is your fantasy.
Yet again you blatantly misrepresent the RE to try and pretend Earth isn't round.

You have no justification for why the markers at 1/3 and 3/4 should be below the string, and the 1/2 inch is pure BS, a number you have just pulled from your ass.

In reality, the fact is that if you had a magical string which didn't sag, the top of the stick at the 1/3 and 3/4 position would be ~ 0.2 mm above the string.
No need for any further correspondence on this. I made the mistake and I accept it's down to me.
There's some honesty for you.

?

#### sobchak

• 449
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2021, 08:02:46 AM »

A 200 meter long run wouldn't account for very much curve at all.
It doesn't have to. The fact that it shows two markers, left and right of centre to be below the line would show a curve.
If not it would show flat and level.

It would be about half an inch drop of each marker left and right of the centre marker for a curve.

Why would it be about a half inch drop?  I mean, we know you imagine it this way, but is there any way you can express your imagination to someone else in a way that makes sense to them?

#### Mikey T.

• 3545
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2021, 08:33:14 AM »

A 200 meter long run wouldn't account for very much curve at all.
It doesn't have to. The fact that it shows two markers, left and right of centre to be below the line would show a curve.
If not it would show flat and level.

It would be about half an inch drop of each marker left and right of the centre marker for a curve.
Where are you getting a half inch drop between the two markers left and right of center?

?

#### jack44556677

• 231
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2021, 06:33:36 AM »
making it indistinguishable from a flat surface.

I think this is possible.  So to accommodate/test your proposed outcome we would simply NOT place the string over the interim poles (the poles other than the first, last, and center) and the string would drop below them - correct?

Isn't this all just a question of scale though? Do you really think there is no circular curved surface which would cause a gap between the taught string and the interim poles?

#### JJA

• 6869
• Math is math!
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2021, 07:05:16 AM »
making it indistinguishable from a flat surface.

I think this is possible.  So to accommodate/test your proposed outcome we would simply NOT place the string over the interim poles (the poles other than the first, last, and center) and the string would drop below them - correct?

Isn't this all just a question of scale though? Do you really think there is no circular curved surface which would cause a gap between the taught string and the interim poles?

This is not possible.  All physical strings, cables or threads will sag. There is no material that won't exhibit noticeable sag at 50, 100 or let alone 200 meters.

The entire basis of this experiment is flawed, not to mention several peoples lack of understanding how geometry works. There is not going to be a gap for a line running along the outside of a circle no matter how big or small. There would be a gap if the earth was a bowl.  If you think otherwise, please draw your own diagram.

#### Gumwars

• 793
• A poke in your eye good sir...
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2021, 07:37:25 AM »
John Davis posited a similar experiment and the same defect was noted.

This all begs the question, did John or Scepti attempt the experiment posed?  John never came clean when pressed on this subject and I highly doubt sceptimatic will either.  If either had, as you pointed out, they'd quickly discover that no length of line, cable, or rope can be pulled taut enough, without breaking, to carry out this experiment.
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 10625
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2021, 08:11:36 AM »
Water level.

For a globe to work there must always be a water hump. Yes, a water HUMP from your vision at one point to an object over the calm water.

You do not need a laser if you have a frozen lake to use.
You can place 5 equal sized markers along a 201 metre line.
Attach the line exactly on top of the start and end markers.
Rest the line atop the central marker between the start and end markers.
If the Earth (water) is flat and level the string line should also be touching the tops of the other two markers left and right of centre.

If the string line does not touch the left and right of centre markers and those markers are below the line, then the argument for a globe is valid.

All it takes is for 3 honest people who want to find a truth to do this experiment.
One each end to ensure the string line is taut and a person to video that string line resting on centre and to verify whether left and right of centre have a string line touching or not touching.

Something like this.

Can you draw this "hump" into your marker diagram, I'm not seeing how your globe earth example causes marker 2 and 4 to dip below markers 1-3 and 3-5?

The experiment seems a bit pointless to me. On a curved surface, with the markers all at 90 degrees to the surface and then a string, which somehow won't sag, stretched across the 4 markers, so it rests on top of all 4, surely it will look like this, with no gaps, making it indistinguishable from a flat surface.

this is amazing!
sceppy another failed attempt at understanding circles?

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConcentricCircles.html

concentric circles.
not a complicated concept.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2021, 09:07:04 AM »
Skepti came clean over here:

Please accept my apologies. I totally messed up this explanation for the markers. I hold my hands up and accept it.

Sorry for the mess up, I meant to go the opposite way.
Call me whatever you want, I deserve it.

The opposite should happen with both left and right of centre markers, meaning the line should be below them not above them.

Once again, my apologies to all.

I'm still not sure what the experiment does, how it works, and it obviously wouldn't practically achieve anything because you're not going to get a taut anything at that distance, but kudos to him for admitting his original proposition was faulty.

?

#### jack44556677

• 231
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2021, 10:10:15 AM »
This is not possible.

The logistics are a challenge, I agree - but not insurmountable.  Even the sag can be accounted for (and even functionally negated through various means)

Quote
The entire basis of this experiment is flawed, not to mention several peoples lack of understanding how geometry works.

I am not totally convinced, but in any case it would seem a minor alteration to allow the cable to sag below the interim poles (factoring in the sag, measured/established beforehand) and this would be a fine observation.

?

#### Unconvinced

• 2923
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2021, 12:10:09 PM »
This is not possible.

The logistics are a challenge, I agree - but not insurmountable.  Even the sag can be accounted for (and even functionally negated through various means)

Quote
The entire basis of this experiment is flawed, not to mention several peoples lack of understanding how geometry works.

I am not totally convinced, but in any case it would seem a minor alteration to allow the cable to sag below the interim poles (factoring in the sag, measured/established beforehand) and this would be a fine observation.

But the sag would be substantially bigger than the measurement you are trying to make, and subject to variations in material, tension and cross sectional area.  I’d guess that even trying to adjust for it would leave a bigger margin of error than the curvature of the earth over a given distance.

Also, if you can accurately measure the sag, why not just use whatever you plan to do that with to measure the curve?

#### JJA

• 6869
• Math is math!
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2021, 12:20:07 PM »
This is not possible.

The logistics are a challenge, I agree - but not insurmountable.  Even the sag can be accounted for (and even functionally negated through various means)

Once again, you are making a bunch of claims and failing to back them up in any way.

You can account for the sag? With enough precision over 200 meters? Please explain how.

You can 'functionally negate' the sag? Again, explain what you are saying here and how you will accomplish it.

I don't think you truly understand the physical problems involved here.

Quote
The entire basis of this experiment is flawed, not to mention several peoples lack of understanding how geometry works.

I am not totally convinced, but in any case it would seem a minor alteration to allow the cable to sag below the interim poles (factoring in the sag, measured/established beforehand) and this would be a fine observation.

It would not be a fine observation, as you seem to not be understanding just how much sag there will be over 200 meters, and how little curve there is to detect. The magnitude of the sag and how much it varies based on wind, temperature and the flexing of the poles it's attached to is going to be vastly higher in magnitude than the tiny amount it will dip based on the Earth's curve.

If you have some magic material or some new, unknown technique to compensate, please share it with the class.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 10625
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2021, 12:26:57 PM »
Skepti came clean over here:

Please accept my apologies. I totally messed up this explanation for the markers. I hold my hands up and accept it.

Sorry for the mess up, I meant to go the opposite way.
Call me whatever you want, I deserve it.

The opposite should happen with both left and right of centre markers, meaning the line should be below them not above them.

Once again, my apologies to all.

I'm still not sure what the experiment does, how it works, and it obviously wouldn't practically achieve anything because you're not going to get a taut anything at that distance, but kudos to him for admitting his original proposition was faulty.

below or above... either is still wrong

#### JackBlack

• 21929
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2021, 04:26:21 PM »
I think this is possible.  So to accommodate/test your proposed outcome we would simply NOT place the string over the interim poles (the poles other than the first, last, and center) and the string would drop below them - correct?

Isn't this all just a question of scale though? Do you really think there is no circular curved surface which would cause a gap between the taught string and the interim poles?
No, it isn't a question of scale.
The problem is that the string would sag, with that sag being more than the drop due to curvature.
The other important point is that it would not cause a gap between the string and poles. Instead the top of the poles would be above the string.

In order to compensate for the sag, you need to know the material properties of the string, primarily its linear density, and want that to be as constant as possible.
You then need to know exactly what the tension is.

Ditching all bar the end and middle poles, you have a 100 m span for the string to sag in and for the curvature to cause a drop.
The drop due to curvature over such a distance is relatively easy to calculate. As an approximation, h=d^2/(2*R).
So for a distance of 100 m (from the middle pole to the edge) you would expect a drop of ~0.8 mm.

This is tiny.

Conversely, the string would follow a catenary curve. This can be described as y=a*(cosh(x/a)-1).
Where a=T/(lambda*g), where T is the tension in the string and lambda is the linear density.

We can further simply this by noting lambda = rho*A, where A is the cross sectional area, and we can convert T into a stress (pressure) by noting T=sigma*A.
This means we can simply as a=(sigma*A)/(rho*A*g) = sigma/(rho*g).

And the key property here would be the tensile strength divided by density. As the tensile strength is the maximum value of sigma you can use without breaking the string.
This is know as the specific strength.
For nylon, the value is roughly 70 kN m / kg, giving a drop of 0.7 m over this distance.

But you wouldn't actually want it at breaking point. If we leave plenty of margin and only have the string at 50% of its breaking point, it would give a drop of 1.4 m.
This is important due to the control of the tension.
If that tension is off by just 0.1%, then the drop will change by 1.4 mm.
That is almost 2 times the drop you are trying to measure.

Switching to a stainless steel wire isn't any better due to its much larger density.

To have any hope you would need something like zylon.
That has a specific strength of ~3800. That would give a drop (assuming loaded to 50% of breaking stress) of 25 mm. Which is still over 30 times the drop due to curvature.

Also, with this, if you had a string that was just 1 mm in diameter, this would require a force equivalent to ~ 800 kg. And you would need to make sure that massive force does not cause any deviation of the pole. That means it cannot compress the pole, nor can it bend it, bury into the ground, or put it out of perfect vertical alignment.
Which will be quite difficult to do considering you are trying to find a drop of 0.8 mm.

It is simply not pratical.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 30061
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2021, 12:59:56 AM »
John Davis posited a similar experiment and the same defect was noted.

This all begs the question, did John or Scepti attempt the experiment posed?  John never came clean when pressed on this subject and I highly doubt sceptimatic will either.  If either had, as you pointed out, they'd quickly discover that no length of line, cable, or rope can be pulled taut enough, without breaking, to carry out this experiment.
Let's all be clear.
There's a hell of a lot of stuff we're arguing about which is basically hard to impossible to relicate from mindset to actual physical proof.
That goes for me and other who think alternately to a globe and also goes exactly the same for the global mindset of people.

We are all prone to mistakes in our reasoning.

I messed up in mine and if I don't own up to it then there's no point in me carrying on delving.
The same has to apply to all, including global minded people.

Just remember that I am literally going by my own thoughts against people who are (if they're honest) adhering to accepted data and simply regurgitating that on many counts.

That's not up for argument, I'm just stating it.

If I think I'm wrong I will amend or admit I'm wrong but I will only do it when I know it can be proved to be wrong, as in this case...which does not mean it shows a globe/curve, it means I messed up my diagram and had it set up wrongly.

What I should have used was a line of sight or a laser over the same length I proposed.

The amended answer would be, if you do not see Any protruding marker along the 201 metre  distance using a levelled scope at the start point, levelled and cross hair centred along the market top, the the Earth is to a globe.

If the centre marker becomes visible and omits the farthest two markers, you have a good case for a globe.

Now then, we are talking half an inch to an inch difference but this could be extended with a laser or scope.

The laser one simply does a similar thing as in, if the laser hits the centre marker and doesn't hit a board (for instance) at the other end above the centre marker to farthest two markers, then another case for a globe.

If the laser hits the board then the Earth is not  globe.

It's up to genuine people to go and test it.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 10625
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2021, 03:22:56 AM »
Good

Either concentric circles arent a thing.
Or the "massive tilt" cant ever be quantified.
Or sooò many other things.
Own up to it.

Also
You sayin gthe gap is above the string is still equally as stupid as the gap being below.
So youve owned up to nothing.

#### Mikey T.

• 3545
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2021, 08:21:17 AM »
The total drop for 200 meters is less than one inch.
So, maybe I missed it but how far apart are each pole.
A few considerations to try to mitigate would be:
The ground falls away from you in all directions so you would have some trouble lining up the poles to all be in view simultaneously due to the closest one obscuring all the others.
You would also not be able to discern the amount of curvature if you viewed the line of poles perpendicular due to the very low amount of drop over that distance is much less than the human eye can discern.
Distance from the poles vs their angular size would be problematic in conjuction with any atmospheric/thermal distortion.

#### Gumwars

• 793
• A poke in your eye good sir...
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2021, 09:05:26 AM »
Let's all be clear.
There's a hell of a lot of stuff we're arguing about which is basically hard to impossible to relicate from mindset to actual physical proof.
That goes for me and other who think alternately to a globe and also goes exactly the same for the global mindset of people.

In this particular case, I've done work with cable and rope up to a mile long and can attest that it is impossible to pull all the slack out at distances more than a dozen yards or so.  I'd even say that at a dozen yards, there's going to be sag but would be hard to tell without some precise measuring equipment.  That's why you've run into resistance on this particular topic.  I wouldn't say there are experiments that are hard or impossible to replicate that provide actual proof.  For example, you and I could carry out Eratosthenes' experiment as I'm guessing you don't live on the US West Coast.  That one is pretty doable and will tell you straight up if the world is flat or not.

I messed up in mine and if I don't own up to it then there's no point in me carrying on delving.
The same has to apply to all, including global minded people.

I appreciate the candour.

The amended answer would be, if you do not see Any protruding marker along the 201 metre  distance using a levelled scope at the start point, levelled and cross hair centred along the market top, the the Earth is to a globe.

If the centre marker becomes visible and omits the farthest two markers, you have a good case for a globe.

Now then, we are talking half an inch to an inch difference but this could be extended with a laser or scope.

The laser one simply does a similar thing as in, if the laser hits the centre marker and doesn't hit a board (for instance) at the other end above the centre marker to farthest two markers, then another case for a globe.

If the laser hits the board then the Earth is not  globe.

It's up to genuine people to go and test it.

You know an FE supporter carried out this experiment already, right?
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

#### Mikey T.

• 3545
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #54 on: July 08, 2021, 09:22:31 AM »
Yes, jeranism with a light and holes on boards.  Close approximation, takes into account some of the possible error factors.  But he won't accept it as a proper analog.  So maybe we can help design his experiment to closer meet his requests.

#### JJA

• 6869
• Math is math!
##### Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« Reply #55 on: July 08, 2021, 01:30:03 PM »
Yes, jeranism with a light and holes on boards.  Close approximation, takes into account some of the possible error factors.  But he won't accept it as a proper analog.  So maybe we can help design his experiment to closer meet his requests.

Good luck. Don't forget to add enough tubes, crosshairs and plumb-bobs. And take a picture of the top, bottom and side at the same time with a single camera so you can't pull any fancy CGI tricks.