FE Experiment - Water Level

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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 11:41:19 PM

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?

This is a hot mess.

Why a hump?  Im not sure about other humans, but I normally stand perpendicular to the ground.  Makes no sense, of course look at who claimed it just has to be.

First off, what is skeppti's rationale? I get his obsession with some sort of "hump", but the experiment doesn't make sense even with his out of whack notion. Why the half inch gap? Why any of it? Second of all, how is skeppti gonna make a 200 meter line not sag? Maybe there's a denpressure solution.

So much wrong with that.

A frozen lake will not necessarily be level.

A RE would have the 2 markers going ABOVE the string, not below.

The sag in the string is more significant than the curvature of Earth.
Because of that, if you tried doing this experiment on a FE, while ignoring that sagging, you would get results indicating a RE.

Oh, and over 200 m, the drop would be 3 mm.

If your Earth curves then, given that you people argue for a curve on clear water level to any rational person, then you also have to suggest there is a hump in the centre of the lake in the diagram I made.

Why?
Because, according to you people your Earth supposedly curves and if that is so then your water/ice should be curving up to the centre from both positions from each end of the markers and string line.


The centre marker would be on a slightly higher curve than the start and end markers.
And, if the 201 metre string line did sag it would go in your favour, not against you, so it would be imperative for the set up to be as I mentioned.

You people don't get it because it would show the Earth is not a globe, so why would you get it.

The thing is, if you argue for a globe even on water then you can't play the game of not knowing what this experiment is all about, to be fair.


Ohhh and by the way, the 201 metres is 1/8th of a mile.
Maybe that may help the switched on one's of you. The genuine ones which I'm sure there are some hidden away inside the peer pressure masses of you..

Why does there have to be a hump?  That makes zero sense. 
Standing on a globe, with the acceleration of gravity being towards the center on that globe would mean that the globe would curve downwards away from you in all directions.
Once again, the Earth is many orders of magnitude larger than a human. 
Do you have any logical reasoning, at all, to support your preposterous claims?  Since you have shown clearly that you refuse to provide any explanations, we can only assume that these are just more feeble attempted strawman arguments. 

 If you are stood on one side of a hill and your friend is on the other side, you can understand that you are obstructed by a hump...a curve from you to your friend.

If you want to make that hill less severe so you can see your friend but place a string line from you to your friend so it touches the top of the hill as you both hold it, you'll see the hill from the side as curving down from the string as would your friend.

If you are stood on one side of a hill and your friend is on the other side, you can understand that you are obstructed by a hump...a curve from you to your friend.

If you want to make that hill less severe so you can see your friend but place a string line from you to your friend so it touches the top of the hill as you both hold it, you'll see the hill from the side as curving down from the string as would your friend.

So now it's a hill?  Why?  Water isn't a hill.  What are you talking about now?

Still waiting on explanations. 
The supposed hump is still stupid illogical attempted strawman arguments.

So now it's a hill?  Why?  Water isn't a hill.  What are you talking about now?

Still waiting on explanations. 
The supposed hump is still stupid illogical attempted strawman arguments.

Now you know you're not living on a globe.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 11:11:08 PM

So now it's a hill?  Why?  Water isn't a hill.  What are you talking about now?

Still waiting on explanations. 
The supposed hump is still stupid illogical attempted strawman arguments.

Now you know you're not living on a globe.

The experiment has already been done for you, a light instead of a sagging string....

Here was the experiment from Behind the Curve that ardent FEr, Jeran Campanella, performed - to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth:



Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting."

For reference...painful...

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 11:11:08 PM

So now it's a hill?  Why?  Water isn't a hill.  What are you talking about now?

Still waiting on explanations. 
The supposed hump is still stupid illogical attempted strawman arguments.

Now you know you're not living on a globe.

So nothing?  Your just gonna keep up these antics. 
Still waiting on actual explanations.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 11:16:39 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 11:11:08 PM

So now it's a hill?  Why?  Water isn't a hill.  What are you talking about now?

Still waiting on explanations. 
The supposed hump is still stupid illogical attempted strawman arguments.

Now you know you're not living on a globe.

The experiment has already been done for you, a light instead of a sagging string....

Here was the experiment from Behind the Curve that ardent FEr, Jeran Campanella, performed - to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth:



Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting."

For reference...painful...

10 out of 10 for desperation.

So nothing? 

That's entirely up to you if you think I have nothing.

Quote from: Stash on June 30, 2021, 11:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2021, 11:16:39 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 11:11:08 PM

So now it's a hill?  Why?  Water isn't a hill.  What are you talking about now?

Still waiting on explanations. 
The supposed hump is still stupid illogical attempted strawman arguments.

Now you know you're not living on a globe.

The experiment has already been done for you, a light instead of a sagging string....

Here was the experiment from Behind the Curve that ardent FEr, Jeran Campanella, performed - to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth:



Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting."

For reference...painful...

10 out of 10 for desperation.

Tell that to Jeran. He literally proved curvature with his experiment which is just like yours. So there you have it, your experiment definitively shows the curvature of the earth and there's video evidence to prove it. Just watch the vid above. It's hard to watch for some, I know.

Tell that to Jeran. He literally proved curvature with his experiment which is just like yours. So there you have it, your experiment definitively shows the curvature of the earth and there's video evidence to prove it. Just watch the vid above. It's hard to watch for some, I know.

Like I said, it's massive desperation from you.

If your Earth curves then, given that you people argue for a curve on clear water level to any rational person, then you also have to suggest there is a hump in the centre of the lake in the diagram I made.

And if you had any sense of integrity you would note that the hump would be a mere 3 mm, and thus in no way visible on that diagram.
The centre would be all of 3 mm higher than the start and end.

But that is for a level surface, not a frozen lake where the elevation could easily vary by far more than 3 mm.

Because, according to you people your Earth supposedly curves and if that is so then your water/ice should be curving up to the centre from both positions from each end of the markers and string line.

No, from the centre it would be curving down.
Curving up implies it goes to a peak, not a round, continuous curve.
But even then, it isn't actually getting higher or lower. It is level.

And, if the 201 metre string line did sag it would go in your favour

There is no IF, the simple fact is that it will sag, and unless you have amazing material properties, that sag will be more than the drop due to the curvature of Earth.
This shows you haven't even attempted this experiment, as if you did, you would conclude Earth is round.
It would not show Earth is not round.

But you admitting that it goes in our favour shows your diagram is BS.

Ohhh and by the way, the 201 metres is 1/8th of a mile.

Which means the drop will be 1/8th of an inch. i.e. 8*(1/8)^2.

The drop you are trying to look for is tiny, well below the experimental uncertainty.

But with the experimental setup you have, you aren't looking at the centre for an increase in height.
Instead you are looking at 1/4 and 3/4. That means you are down to 0.8 mm (roughly 1/32nd of an inch). Nothing like the half inch you claim, and it is in the wrong direction to what you claim.

So yet again you appear to just be pulling numbers out of your ass.

10 out of 10 for desperation.

You do seem rather desperate, but that is normal.

Quote from: Stash on July 01, 2021, 12:32:57 AM

Tell that to Jeran. He literally proved curvature with his experiment which is just like yours. So there you have it, your experiment definitively shows the curvature of the earth and there's video evidence to prove it. Just watch the vid above. It's hard to watch for some, I know.

Like I said, it's massive desperation from you.

Like I said, a similar experiment to yours shows earth curvature. And there’s video evidence of a devout FEr showing it. Which is hilarious.

Desperation is yours I’m afraid because you have nothing to counter what anyone can see in just over a minute video documenting the failed flat earth experiment.

I know it’s painful when confronted with evidence you can’t refute that dashes your belief system.
Unless of course you have some actual evidence of your own experiment that you’d like to present. Oh that’s right, you don’t counter with evidence, you just claim things are rubbish when you have nothing. I forgot.

At least it will be clear to anyone who stumbles upon this that you had no counter. Carry on.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 30, 2021, 11:52:13 PM

So nothing? 

That's entirely up to you if you think I have nothing.

You have nothing, I don't "think" it, it is painfully obvious. 
Instead of trying to explain your claims, you complain about being asked for an explanation.  Pretty desperate.

An experiment was done be a FE, on camera, very similar to what you are asking for with light instead of a string.  Yet, because it showed that the Earth is a globe, you and the FE person who set it up both reject the results.  Pretty desperate.

Still waiting on an explanation. 

You have nothing, I don't "think" it, it is painfully obvious. 

By all mans you stick to that.
You really shouldn't be engaging with me if I have nothing.

I wonder why you're all so desperate?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 30, 2021, 11:21:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 11:41:19 PM

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?

This is a hot mess.

Such a mess.  Hilarious and sad at the same time. 

If you are stood on one side of a hill and your friend is on the other side, you can understand that you are obstructed by a hump...a curve from you to your friend.

If you want to make that hill less severe so you can see your friend but place a string line from you to your friend so it touches the top of the hill as you both hold it, you'll see the hill from the side as curving down from the string as would your friend.

Scepti, have you performed this experiment?

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 01, 2021, 05:28:51 AM

You have nothing, I don't "think" it, it is painfully obvious. 

By all mans you stick to that.
You really shouldn't be engaging with me if I have nothing.

I wonder why you're all so desperate?

Guess reading comprehension is another thing you fail at.  I explained several times that I will call out your BS for others sake.  You do a wonderful job of proving you are full of BS when you refuse to support the BS claims.  By all means continue the desperate dance of someone with no way out.

You guys seem to be blowing this way out of proportion.

There are minor quibbles to be had about the diagram of the test - but it perfectly describes what the test consists of.

If the line were (let's just assume perfectly) linear/taut from the first to the last stake - all the middle stakes would be expected to be higher than the line if the earth were spherical.

If, as depicted, the taut line were affixed to the farthest poles and the middle pole - we would expect the poles between them to be lower than than the line if the earth were curved.

What's the major problem?

I wonder why you're all so desperate?

You are the desperate one here.
It is quite simple to call you out on your BS.

While you continue to spout your BS, people will continue to call you out on it.

Now then, can you address the issues with your experiment?

Again, where did your 1/2 inch gap below come from?

Again, if you actually did the math (I notice I may have misread what was 201 m before), you would see that the sticks should be ABOVE the string, not below, and it should be above by (using the 8 inches per mile squared) 0.2 mm, nothing like your half inch.

And here is the math and logic for you to ignore like you always do as it shows you are wrong:
You have a distance of 201 m, which is an 8th of a mile.
But you then cut that in half, making the distance between the middle and end (where the string is held) only a 16th of a mile.
As these sticks are the same height, that makes the string the same distance from the centre of Earth.
That means they are the 2 points which then have a "hill" between.
That means the drop will be from the middle of these 2 sticks to either of the stick.
That distance is a 32nd of a mile.
That means we stick that 1/32 into our calculation.
i.e. 8*(1/32)^2
That means the middle stick will be a 128th of an inch, or 0.2 mm, higher than a perfect straight string.

You guys seem to be blowing this way out of proportion.
There are minor quibbles to be had about the diagram of the test - but it perfectly describes what the test consists of.

They are not minor quibbles, they are major flaws, and you seem to just go and repeat the same false claim:

If, as depicted, the taut line were affixed to the farthest poles and the middle pole - we would expect the poles between them to be lower than than the line if the earth were curved.

No, we wouldn't.
We would expect the poles to be HIGHER, not lower.
You are claiming the exact opposite of what would actually be expected on a RE.


As you indicated yourself, the middle pole would be higher. Why should that magically switch?
What magically changes between just having it attached to the 2 sticks 201 m apart with the middle stick being higher, and tying it between 2 sticks 100.5 m apart with the middle stick now magically being lower?

But the bigger issue (which is a sign of honesty from the REers) is that the sag in the string will be far greater than the drop due to the curvature of Earth.
Which means regardless of if Earth was flat or round, if you carried out the experiment while ignoring the sag, and did it otherwise correctly (which means noting that the poles in the middle should be HIGHER than the string line for a RE) you would obtain results indicating a RE.

The other massive issue is that the amount is tiny. Even if you had a perfectly tight and straight string, you are only going to have a tiny "bulge", with the uncertainty of the setup likely being far greater.

...all the middle stakes would be expected to be higher than the line if the earth were spherical...

...we would expect the poles between them to be lower than than the line if the earth were curved...

What's the major problem?

Think.  Can you figure it out? 

I'm cheering for you to get there, but not too hopeful. 

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.

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.

Sigh...

Yes, if you took two equal height markers spaced along a convexly curved surface and connected them with a line, an equal height marker placed at the midpoint between them would be higher than that line. 

Your diagram doesn't show this though, it shows some geometrical nonsense you imagine in your mind.   

I know you are not interested in exploring why you are wrong, but if you ever want to, make the same diagram for a 105 meter total length and then compare the two. 

My diagram is correct.

No, it isn't, as already explained.

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.

It is not correct in any sense of the word.
Denying this fact because you can't handle being wrong about the RE will not magically change it.

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.

If you accept this, then you must also accept that the marker at 1/4 position would be "higher" than the one to its left or right (i.e. the 0/4 and 2/4 positions), and the same applies to the marker at the 3/4 position which needs to be higher than the one at the 2/4 and 4/4 positions.

Why should the marker in the middle of the 200 m stretch push the string up, but then the marker between an equivalent but smaller 100 m stretch be below the string?
It makes no sense and requires you to contradict yourself.

And again, you are pulling numbers out of your ass.

Do you have any justification at all for why it should be half an inch?