Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"

  • 38 Replies
  • 3897 Views
Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« on: August 06, 2022, 09:53:40 AM »
In this simple experiment we can see a water surface which is not "level" but is curved instead.
With the word "always" meaning everywhere, at any time, in every case we have thus disproven the expression "Water always finds its level".

https://imgur.com/a/pzyG5XG

*

JackBlack

  • 23734
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2022, 02:49:18 PM »
This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "level" means.
Level does not mean flat.

The exact meaning will vary depending on context.
But a fairly simple one is that it will not gain or lose energy from moving along the surface.
And that allows that curved surface to be level.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2022, 02:53:10 PM »
But a fairly simple one is that it will not gain or lose energy from moving along the surface.
And that allows that curved surface to be level.

You win GOLD at the mental gymnastic Olympics sir!

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2022, 04:12:53 PM »
So using actual definitions of words is mental gymnastics.  Yep, brilliant take there.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2022, 08:51:52 PM »
This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "level" means.
Level does not mean flat.

If you need a clue that level DOES mean FLAT, here's a few examples for you...

adjective
1.
having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps.
"we had reached level ground"



level

adjective
having no part higher than another; having a flat or even surface


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/level

Synonyms & Antonyms for level
Synonyms: Noun

degree, echelon, footing, place, position, rank, ranking, reach(es), rung, situation, standing, station, status, stratum
Synonyms: Verb

balance, equalize, equate, even
Synonyms: Adjective

even, flat, flush, plane, smooth


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level#synonyms

Synonyms: horizontal, even, flat, plane

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/level


You can't change the definition of level to fit your fairy tale, no matter how you wish you could.

How sad, to go to such desperate lengths as this, all to defend a pack of liars, who all would laugh at your ignorance and foolishness. Sorry to be blunt, but you need to know that.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2022, 12:07:00 AM by turbonium2 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2022, 10:03:27 PM »
This is cool, an extension of the OP's...






Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2022, 12:20:55 AM »
They were actually referring to water in it's normal state, like in lakes, and oceans, and so on.
Everyone already knows water put into a centrifuge, or flowing over a waterfall, is NOT level, or will FIND level, in such cases. They're referring to water in normal state, seeking level, and/or being level.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2022, 12:31:10 AM »
They were actually referring to water in it's normal state, like in lakes, and oceans, and so on.
Everyone already knows water put into a centrifuge, or flowing over a waterfall, is NOT level, or will FIND level, in such cases. They're referring to water in normal state, seeking level, and/or being level.

level adjective
Definition of level
1a: having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface


Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2022, 02:32:07 AM »
They were actually referring to water in it's normal state, like in lakes, and oceans, and so on.
Everyone already knows water put into a centrifuge, or flowing over a waterfall, is NOT level, or will FIND level, in such cases. They're referring to water in normal state, seeking level, and/or being level.

level adjective
Definition of level
1a: having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface



Yes, I'm well aware of their attempt to revise the definition of 'level', specifically to include a magical, non-existent force, which they had already made up to support the original lie, that Earth is a ball speeding through endless space.

When they use a made up 'force', which they always HAVE used, to support their other claims, like the claim that level means level to a ball Earth surface, the whole argument is garbage, built upon more garbage, and so on.

'Gravity' doesn't exist, has no PROOF of existing, cannot be DEMONSTRATED as existing, because it does NOT exist. It is completely made up, start to finish. Simply knowing that any two objects placed near each other, suspended in air, do NOT attract to one another, unless by MAGNETIC force, which DOES exist, makes 'gravity' a complete lie, a made up 'force', which they HAD to make up, in order to 'explain' how a ball Earth speeding through endless 'space' could ever 'hold down' everything to it. That's why they made up 'gravity', as a massive force within Earth, holding down, pulling down from above, all things to Earth.

However, when they ALSO claimed that 'gravity' existed in ALL objects, it became something that we can actually prove true, or prove false. And we've certainly proven it false, over and over again, and we can prove it is false, today, very easily.

They've claimed that 'gravity' within Earth is a 'weak' force, overall, because they had to 'explain' how a tiny insect or bird could ever fly above Earth, to 'overcome the Earth's gravity' which would be 'holding all things down to the surface', and 'pulling all things down to Earth', when ABOVE the surface.

So they had to claim 'gravity' is actually a 'weak' force, but somehow, it can hold down all the oceans to Earth, and hold down buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and all other things, or most of them, anyway.

That is one of 'gravity's' countless contradictions, which show it is completely made up, and like ANYTHING that is made up, the result is a complete disaster, of opposing claims, that cannot be excused away. Like when 'astronauts' are 'floating' in 'space', which supposedly is 'proof of gravity' existing. Except they ALSO have claimed the moon is 'held at a distance by Earth's gravity, and/or the moon's gravity', while claiming the moon is about 250,000 miles away from Earth. But if THAT was true, it would certainly hold astronauts in place, being much, much CLOSER to Earth, than the moon would be, and weigh far less, too.

If you don't realize that 'gravity' doesn't exist, that there's not a shred of proof that it exists, then I can explain all sorts of contradictions, and conflicts, such as that one, and all the other conflicts it has, which would easily destroy any OTHER claim, but you'll never, ever accept it as BEING proof, let alone know that it IS proof.

Logical thinking, common sense, are the ONLY means we have to find the truth, the facts, or lies, and falsehoods. When they claimed there was a 'force', within Earth, within all objects, and they were attracted to each other, based on their mass and density, and we know it would easily be MORE PROVABLE than magnetic force was proven, by only some objects, with magnetic properties. For THIS force, it would be provable with ANY objects on Earth, because THAT is common sense, and logical.

And when we know that objects do NOT attract together, whatsoever, it is again common sense, and logical, to conclude that such a 'force' does NOT exist at all.

Despite having no proof that 'gravity' exists, you dream up things it can do, like make instruments measure 'level to Earth's curvature', which is ALSO made up, and has no proof of existing, just like 'gravity'.

Anyway, how do we know that level can NOT mean 'level to Earth's curvature'? Because we have another instrument, which measures level, and is called a LASER LEVEL. They do not use Earth's surface, or it's atmosphere, to measure for level. They use lights, which are concentrated to a small point, and cast that light outward, over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all.

ANY curved surface, no matter how slight a curve it has, can be measured, same as a FLAT surface can be measured, or any OTHER surface can be measured.

Your excuse that Earth's 'curve' is too 'slight' to measure, is complete BS. We can measure a curve of microns, on surfaces, with our instruments of today. So we can certainly measure a curve of 8 inches over one mile distance, with our instruments, too.

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2022, 03:12:24 AM »
They were actually referring to water in it's normal state, like in lakes, and oceans, and so on.
Everyone already knows water put into a centrifuge, or flowing over a waterfall, is NOT level, or will FIND level, in such cases. They're referring to water in normal state, seeking level, and/or being level.

level adjective
Definition of level
1a: having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface



'Gravity' doesn't exist, has no PROOF of existing, cannot be DEMONSTRATED as existing, because it does NOT exist.

Cavendish.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2022, 04:30:52 AM »
They were actually referring to water in it's normal state, like in lakes, and oceans, and so on.
Everyone already knows water put into a centrifuge, or flowing over a waterfall, is NOT level, or will FIND level, in such cases. They're referring to water in normal state, seeking level, and/or being level.

level adjective
Definition of level
1a: having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface



Yes, I'm well aware of their attempt to revise the definition of 'level', specifically to include a magical, non-existent force, which they had already made up to support the original lie, that Earth is a ball speeding through endless space.

When they use a made up 'force', which they always HAVE used, to support their other claims, like the claim that level means level to a ball Earth surface, the whole argument is garbage, built upon more garbage, and so on.

'Gravity' doesn't exist, has no PROOF of existing, cannot be DEMONSTRATED as existing, because it does NOT exist. It is completely made up, start to finish. Simply knowing that any two objects placed near each other, suspended in air, do NOT attract to one another, unless by MAGNETIC force, which DOES exist, makes 'gravity' a complete lie, a made up 'force', which they HAD to make up, in order to 'explain' how a ball Earth speeding through endless 'space' could ever 'hold down' everything to it. That's why they made up 'gravity', as a massive force within Earth, holding down, pulling down from above, all things to Earth.

However, when they ALSO claimed that 'gravity' existed in ALL objects, it became something that we can actually prove true, or prove false. And we've certainly proven it false, over and over again, and we can prove it is false, today, very easily.

They've claimed that 'gravity' within Earth is a 'weak' force, overall, because they had to 'explain' how a tiny insect or bird could ever fly above Earth, to 'overcome the Earth's gravity' which would be 'holding all things down to the surface', and 'pulling all things down to Earth', when ABOVE the surface.

So they had to claim 'gravity' is actually a 'weak' force, but somehow, it can hold down all the oceans to Earth, and hold down buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and all other things, or most of them, anyway.

That is one of 'gravity's' countless contradictions, which show it is completely made up, and like ANYTHING that is made up, the result is a complete disaster, of opposing claims, that cannot be excused away. Like when 'astronauts' are 'floating' in 'space', which supposedly is 'proof of gravity' existing. Except they ALSO have claimed the moon is 'held at a distance by Earth's gravity, and/or the moon's gravity', while claiming the moon is about 250,000 miles away from Earth. But if THAT was true, it would certainly hold astronauts in place, being much, much CLOSER to Earth, than the moon would be, and weigh far less, too.

If you don't realize that 'gravity' doesn't exist, that there's not a shred of proof that it exists, then I can explain all sorts of contradictions, and conflicts, such as that one, and all the other conflicts it has, which would easily destroy any OTHER claim, but you'll never, ever accept it as BEING proof, let alone know that it IS proof.

Logical thinking, common sense, are the ONLY means we have to find the truth, the facts, or lies, and falsehoods. When they claimed there was a 'force', within Earth, within all objects, and they were attracted to each other, based on their mass and density, and we know it would easily be MORE PROVABLE than magnetic force was proven, by only some objects, with magnetic properties. For THIS force, it would be provable with ANY objects on Earth, because THAT is common sense, and logical.

And when we know that objects do NOT attract together, whatsoever, it is again common sense, and logical, to conclude that such a 'force' does NOT exist at all.

Despite having no proof that 'gravity' exists, you dream up things it can do, like make instruments measure 'level to Earth's curvature', which is ALSO made up, and has no proof of existing, just like 'gravity'.

Anyway, how do we know that level can NOT mean 'level to Earth's curvature'? Because we have another instrument, which measures level, and is called a LASER LEVEL. They do not use Earth's surface, or it's atmosphere, to measure for level. They use lights, which are concentrated to a small point, and cast that light outward, over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all.

ANY curved surface, no matter how slight a curve it has, can be measured, same as a FLAT surface can be measured, or any OTHER surface can be measured.

Your excuse that Earth's 'curve' is too 'slight' to measure, is complete BS. We can measure a curve of microns, on surfaces, with our instruments of today. So we can certainly measure a curve of 8 inches over one mile distance, with our instruments, too.

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!
Wow, so much stupid in one post.
Yes we can measure curvature, I gave you a link to thousands of measurements and you ignored it. 
Why would the moon hold up the astronauts?
Floating in orbit is actually falling. 
My phone fell off the bed this morning, why down, why that direction?  Gravity works perfectly to explain it.  Your strawman arguments don't change that.
P

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2022, 04:35:25 AM »
Cavendish used lead balls, which have magnetic properties, that's what caused them to attract together slightly.

If you believe it was due to 'gravity', then repeat this experiment with objects that have NO magnetic properties, like solid oak or walnut, or made of plastic, or anything without magnetic properties, and see if they attract together, or not.

Suspend a boulder in air with a crane, and put it near a mountain, and see if the boulder attracts to the mountain, or not.

Or, use those SAME lead balls, but cover them up with 2 or 3 inches of rubber, or plastic, and then see if they still attract together or not. They're the same objects, so there's no excuse if they don't attract together wrapped in rubber or plastic, right? If you really wanted to prove your magical force exists, why wouldn't you do that?

If I believed that 'gravity' existed, that's the FIRST thing I would do - make sure they aren't attracted by MAGNETIC force, and I'd use wood, or plastic objects, not metal objects, that's not being honest, at all. Even if it was an honest MISTAKE, I'd repeat my experiment with non-magnetic objects afterwards. This would be honest, and transparent.

But Cavendish wasn't honest, nor those who have done the same experiments, either. Why would THAT be? Any idea?


Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2022, 04:37:54 AM »
Then explain high tide, low tide, and tidal bores without gravity.




Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2022, 06:30:14 AM »
How can we siphon water, or other liquids, which are contained in tanks, below us? How can water flow upward, by puffing up on a tube put into the tank? It seems we're 'defying gravity', somehow!

No, it's because water has hydrogen molecules, which bind together with other hydrogen molecules in the water, so it can flow upward, from pressure acting on it, which is when you inhale  on a tube in the water. This causes the water in the tank, to all flow upward, in a constant stream.

This shows how water moves with pressure acting on it, and oceans have much, much more pressure than we do, and what happens to water, in an ocean, with so much pressure acting on it? Look at a wake, created by a boat moving on a lake. Wakes create waves on water, and if they're BIG wakes, it can cause waves that hit against the shoreline, right?

Water also flows in a cycle, back and forth, which we know as tides. That's caused by pressure below the water, which builds up and releases at regular intervals, each day, each night, and repeats that same cycle again and again.

The answers are very simple, and do not need magical, IMAGINARY forces like 'gravity', the universal solvent for all problems when trying to say Earth is a ball, in endless 'space'.

But when you would believe that tides are caused by the moon's 'gravity' pulling up water on Earth's oceans, you also said astronauts 'float' above Earth, having nearly NO gravity around them, while you also said Earth's 'gravity' holds the moon at a distance away.

Obviously, you've made claims which totally contradict each other, as it's not possible for us to 'float' above Earth, while the moon is held in place, with the SAME 'force' only acting on the much more DISTANT object, and not at all on the NEAREST objects, when you claim this force is weaker with MORE distance from the source, which would be the Earth.

Then you make yet another conflicting claim, that the MOON's 'gravity' acts on Earth's oceans, and causes it's TIDES!

You're simply making up whatever you want, say that it's due to 'gravity', and ignore how all your claims conflict with one another, which they all DO.

It's very easy to make up magical forces, and have no proof they exist, that means they can do whatever you want, because it is all made up from the start. Of course, it's all BS, but who can 'prove' it's all BS, when it doesn't even exist, in the first place!

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2022, 07:02:13 AM »
Howe can we siphon water, or other liquids, which are contained in tanks, below us?

By creating a vacuum.  Not a “pressure”



Quote
How can water flow upward, by puffing up on a tube put into the tank? It seems we're 'defying gravity', somehow!

By pressure of the atmosphere or capillary action.




Quote
No, it's because water has hydrogen molecules, which bind together with other hydrogen molecules in the water, so it can flow upward

Has nothing to do with why a mercury tube barometer works.  And is the same principle why a larger water barometer works.  Nothing to do with hydrogen.


Quote
This shows how water moves with pressure acting on it, and oceans have much, much more pressure than we do, and what happens to water, in an ocean, with so much pressure acting on it? Look at a wake, created by a boat moving on a lake. Wakes create waves on water, and if they're BIG wakes, it can cause waves that hit against the shoreline, right?

Then what’s the “pressure” that you cannot name that causes repetitive and predictable high tides, low tides, and tidal bores that coincide with the gravity fields  of the sun and moon?  Sounds like your pressure is none other than gravity.

 
Quote
Water also flows in a cycle, back and forth,


When influenced by a force like gravity.

Quote
which we know as tides.

Which are predictably because they coincide with the movements of the sun and moon and their gravity fields.

 
Quote
That's caused by pressure below the water,

Nope.  There is no predictable “pressure” for high tides, low tides, and tidal bores other than the sun and moon via the interaction of their gravity.

The same “pressure” that causes the spring under force in a hanging spring scale in accordance with Hooke’s law to extend to reliably and predictable measure weight.   Gravity.


The rest of your post is more meaningless gibberish.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2022, 07:29:34 AM »
Earth, having nearly NO gravity around them, while you also said Earth's 'gravity' holds the moon at a distance away.

Are you referring to the fact the moon has velocity that isn’t fast enough to escape earth’s gravity, but enough to balance earth’s gravity.

Oh.  The moon is actually slowly escaping the earth’s gravity, and moving away from earth in an increasing larger orbit.


And the earth and moon actually orbit a point called a barycenter by the way.

How the moon can effect the earths oceans like a person that cannot lift a 300 gallon tote of water can stir the water inside the tote.

Looking forward to your explanation what “pressure” makes high tides, low tides, and tidal bores also exerts a force in accordance with Hooke’s law to make a spring in a hanging scale scale elongate when used to weigh items.   

I have gravity. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2022, 07:31:06 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2022, 11:54:46 AM »
Cavendish used lead balls, which have magnetic properties, that's what caused them to attract together slightly.

Since when?

But Cavendish wasn't honest, nor those who have done the same experiments, either. Why would THAT be? Any idea?

How would you know this?

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2022, 12:44:52 PM »
'Gravity' doesn't exist, has no PROOF of existing, cannot be DEMONSTRATED as existing, because it does NOT exist.
Here is the best measurement of the gravitational constant:

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/sites/sand.npl.washington.edu.eotwash/files/documents/prl85-2869.pdf

Proof enough.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2022, 05:33:31 AM »
Cavendish used lead balls, which have magnetic properties, that's what caused them to attract together slightly.

If you believe it was due to 'gravity', then repeat this experiment with objects that have NO magnetic properties, like solid oak or walnut, or made of plastic, or anything without magnetic properties, and see if they attract together, or not.

Suspend a boulder in air with a crane, and put it near a mountain, and see if the boulder attracts to the mountain, or not.

Or, use those SAME lead balls, but cover them up with 2 or 3 inches of rubber, or plastic, and then see if they still attract together or not. They're the same objects, so there's no excuse if they don't attract together wrapped in rubber or plastic, right? If you really wanted to prove your magical force exists, why wouldn't you do that?

If I believed that 'gravity' existed, that's the FIRST thing I would do - make sure they aren't attracted by MAGNETIC force, and I'd use wood, or plastic objects, not metal objects, that's not being honest, at all. Even if it was an honest MISTAKE, I'd repeat my experiment with non-magnetic objects afterwards. This would be honest, and transparent.

But Cavendish wasn't honest, nor those who have done the same experiments, either. Why would THAT be? Any idea?

Lead is not magnetic.
The Cavendish experiment has been repeadetd many MANY times, with consistent results, not just consistent in that they measured attraction, but in the measures strength of the attraciton. If it were anything other then gravity, the results would not be consistent to the degree that they are.
The reason why lead is used is partly because of it's high density.

That experiment is just one of many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2022, 07:09:47 AM »
Cavendish used lead balls, which have magnetic properties, that's what caused them to attract together slightly.

If you believe it was due to 'gravity', then repeat this experiment with objects that have NO magnetic properties, like solid oak or walnut, or made of plastic, or anything without magnetic properties, and see if they attract together, or not.

Suspend a boulder in air with a crane, and put it near a mountain, and see if the boulder attracts to the mountain, or not.

Or, use those SAME lead balls, but cover them up with 2 or 3 inches of rubber, or plastic, and then see if they still attract together or not. They're the same objects, so there's no excuse if they don't attract together wrapped in rubber or plastic, right? If you really wanted to prove your magical force exists, why wouldn't you do that?

If I believed that 'gravity' existed, that's the FIRST thing I would do - make sure they aren't attracted by MAGNETIC force, and I'd use wood, or plastic objects, not metal objects, that's not being honest, at all. Even if it was an honest MISTAKE, I'd repeat my experiment with non-magnetic objects afterwards. This would be honest, and transparent.

But Cavendish wasn't honest, nor those who have done the same experiments, either. Why would THAT be? Any idea?
Excuse me?  Lead has magnetic properties strong enough move the balls?  Do you know what electromagnetic charge is?  No, clearly you have no understanding. 
How would you know Cavendish wasn't honest?  Nothing, no way to even insinuate that claim.. lie.
Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of students perform the Cavendish experiment, with other materials also, but they all must be dishonest too huh.  Just because you said so.  Yeah, I'm going to believe a proven liar, aka you.  I'm gonna ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your narrative, sure.  I'm not quite crazy enough to just latch onto the conspiratorial ravings of some worthless liar on the internet.  If your claims had validity you wouldn't have to lie so much.  If you could actually provide evidence, actual evidence like measurements and mathematical predictions then we may actually listen to you instead of using your ravings as joke punchlines. 

*

JackBlack

  • 23734
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2022, 03:39:59 AM »
If you need a clue that level DOES mean FLAT, here's a few examples for you...
Playing semantics and cherry picking wont help you.

having no part higher than another; having a flat or even surface

even, flat, flush, plane, smooth

Synonyms: horizontal, even, flat, plane

You can't change the definition of level to fit your fairy tale
Likewise, you can't just ignore the definitions you don't like, just to pretend your fantasy is true.

How sad, to go to such desperate lengths as this

All while ignoring the OP, clearly showing that water doesn't magically adopt a flat surface.

Yes, I'm well aware of their attempt to revise the definition of 'level', specifically to include a magical, non-existent force, which they had already made up to support the original lie, that Earth is a ball speeding through endless space.
Or, to express it more honestly, we are aware of your attempts to ignore definitions to try and prop up your delusional BS with pathetic attempts at attacking reality.

When they use a made up 'force'
Good thing we leave that to you, with your magic home seeking force, which you fled from trivial questions which exposed it as pure BS.

We will stick to real things like gravity.

And of course, you also ignore the fact that your BS gravity substitute would work just as well for a RE and still make you just as wrong.

But there is already a thread for gravity which you fled from after being completely incapable of justifying your BS, so no need to bring it up here.

This thread just further demonstrates that water doesn't magically find its flat.
Instead, it adopts a surface based upon the forces involved to ensure it will not gain or lose energy by traversing the surface.

You not liking that because it shows you are wrong will not change that fact.


Your excuse that Earth's 'curve' is too 'slight' to measure, is complete BS. We can measure a curve of microns, on surfaces, with our instruments of today.
There is also another thread on that you repeatedly fled from.
Yes, we can measure microns over a distance less than a m.
The problem for you is that you need to measure 20 nm over 1 m.
So those instruments are not good enough.

So we can certainly measure a curve of 8 inches over one mile distance, with our instruments, too.
And we do, with a theodolite.

So you are right that it isn't that we can't measure for a curve, it is that we can and have measured the curve over long distances and cant over short distances.

If you believe it was due to 'gravity', then repeat this experiment with objects that have NO magnetic properties
So with nothing?
Because everything has magnetic properties.
You are aware basically all life has iron inside it right?
So if you suggest anything which was living, you are suggesting iron, with magnetic properties.
Almost as if you are just waiting for someone to waste their time doing it, so you can object to that later.

Or, use those SAME lead balls, but cover them up with 2 or 3 inches of rubber, or plastic, and then see if they still attract together or not.
And more stupidity.
Other than increasing the distance, just what do you expect that to do?
Go get a magnet, coat it in rubber, and see if it is still magnetic.

But Cavendish wasn't honest, nor those who have done the same experiments, either. Why would THAT be? Any idea?
Because you need to keep repeating this lie to yourself to try and hold your fantasy together, because if almost everyone on the globe isn't lying to you, that means Earth is actually a globe.

How can we siphon water, or other liquids, which are contained in tanks, below us? How can water flow upward, by puffing up on a tube put into the tank? It seems we're 'defying gravity', somehow!
You are the one saying water is magic and magically adopts a flat surface.
We are saying it is affected by forces, and doesn't just magically adopt a flat surface.

No, it's because water has hydrogen molecules, which bind together with other hydrogen molecules in the water, so it can flow upward, from pressure acting on it, which is when you inhale  on a tube in the water. This causes the water in the tank, to all flow upward, in a constant stream.
Are you trying to see just how wrong you can be?
It has hydrogen atoms, which (as they are bonded to an oxygen atom) have a partial positive charge.
This attracts them to oxygen atoms, which (as they are bonded to 2 hydrogen atoms, in a bent arrangement) have a partial negative charge.
This makes them a liquid.

Water also flows in a cycle, back and forth, which we know as tides. That's caused by pressure below the water, which builds up and releases at regular intervals, each day, each night, and repeats that same cycle again and again.
Right, so gravity, a force with so much evidence for it, is magical and imaginary.
But a pure magic pressure below the water, which no one has ever observed to precede tides, is perfectly fine to cause tides?

Again you show your dishonest double standard.
You are happy to reject things supported by mountains of evidence, while happily accepting or inventing things with no evidence to support them at all.

you also said astronauts 'float' above Earth, having nearly NO gravity around them
Why do you insist on repeating the same refuted BS?

You're simply making up whatever you want, say that it's due to 'gravity', and ignore how all your claims conflict with one another, which they all DO.
You intentionally misrepresenting things (or just having no clue what you are talking about), doesn't mean there is a contradiction.

If you think there is a contradiction, clearly explain it, without misrepresenting the model as you have done every other time.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2022, 05:04:51 PM »
Lead is not magnetic.
The Cavendish experiment has been repeadetd many MANY times, with consistent results, not just consistent in that they measured attraction, but in the measures strength of the attraciton. If it were anything other then gravity, the results would not be consistent to the degree that they are.
The reason why lead is used is partly because of it's high density.

That experiment is just one of many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

You ignored what I said - use the same lead balls, but cover them up with 2-3 inch thick rubber, and see what happens then!!

Or use two massive wood blocks, which weigh 100x more than the lead balls, and see what happens....

The reason your side uses LEAD objects, in most cases, is that most people think they are not magnetic, when they actually ARE, but so slightly, it is very hard to notice it, or see it. But when it is MEASURED, we find they DO have magnetic properties, and attract to other metals, like another lead object. And THAT is why your side uses lead balls, knowing they DO have magnetic properties, and attract to metal objects, only in lesser degree than most other metals do.

As I told you, if this was legit, you'd use wood, or plastic, or wrap the lead balls in thick rubber, to see what happens....

Or suspend a large tree by a mountain, and see if the tree attracts itself toward the much more massive mountain! 

This trick may fool some people, such as you, but I've explained to you why it's a trick, HOW TO PROVE IT IS NOT A TRICK, even using the SAME objects!

So why not wrap the lead balls in thick rubber, and see what happens? Suspend a tree beside a mountain, and see if the tree attracts to the mountain or not?

You set up the rules, use only lead balls, or similar objects, and claim it 'proves gravity', while never testing any NON-METALLIC objects!

It's utterly pathetic.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2022, 06:05:05 PM »
Lead is not magnetic, at best in a very strong magnetic field that is moving( important that it is moving ) it can have a very very weak opposition to the moving magnetic field.  Diamagnetic, read about it.  It does not, I repeat, does not attract other lead or magnetized materials unless those are very strong(neodymium will) and moving.  Copper shows this much better.  If you just place the neodymium magnet next to or on top without sliding it along the surface of the lead, it will have no magnetic effect.
Stop blatantly lying.

*

JackBlack

  • 23734
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2022, 07:15:24 PM »
You ignored what I said
No, we just don't give a damn.
There are already mountains of experiments that prove gravity exists. It is the best explanation for what is observed.
You not liking that doesn't change it.

I also pointed out that your objection is BS which does nothing.
Literally all you are doing is trying to demand someone does an experiment which you will dismiss for the same reasons.
Why should covering it in rubber change anything? Regardless of if it is due to magnetism or gravity?
You can get magnets that are coated in rubber or plastic, they are still magnetic.

Likewise, all objects have magnetic properties.

It seems like you are just trying to waste people's time just to turn around and dismiss the experiment because it is still "magnetic".

Why don't YOU do the experiment?

The reason your side uses LEAD objects, in most cases
Is because lead is an abundant, dense object.
This allows us to have quite dense objects in close proximity.

As I told you, if this was legit, you'd use wood, or plastic, or wrap the lead balls in thick rubber, to see what happens....
And like many things you say, that is pure BS.
Why would anyone do that if it is legit?
Wood and plastic are far less dense, making the result vastly harder to obtain over experimental uncertainty.
Coating it in rubber would only serve to increase the distance between the balls, which serves no purpose at all.
And importantly, all those things you suggest still have magnetic properties.

So your suggestions offer nothing of value, and there is no reason that someone would be forced to do it if it was legit.

You are just looking for whatever pathetic excuses you can to try and pretend it isn't real.

It's utterly pathetic.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2022, 10:05:59 PM »
There’s also the fact the results for the strength of gravity are consistent.

If it were really due to magnetism. The results for the strength would be highly inconsistent.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2022, 10:54:19 PM »
Lead is not magnetic.
The Cavendish experiment has been repeadetd many MANY times, with consistent results, not just consistent in that they measured attraction, but in the measures strength of the attraciton. If it were anything other then gravity, the results would not be consistent to the degree that they are.
The reason why lead is used is partly because of it's high density.

That experiment is just one of many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

You ignored what I said - use the same lead balls, but cover them up with 2-3 inch thick rubber, and see what happens then!!

Or use two massive wood blocks, which weigh 100x more than the lead balls, and see what happens....

The reason your side uses LEAD objects, in most cases, is that most people think they are not magnetic, when they actually ARE, but so slightly, it is very hard to notice it, or see it. But when it is MEASURED, we find they DO have magnetic properties, and attract to other metals, like another lead object. And THAT is why your side uses lead balls, knowing they DO have magnetic properties, and attract to metal objects, only in lesser degree than most other metals do.

You've made a terrible blunder. The classic cavendish experiment consisted of a torsion balance made of a six-foot wooden rod horizontally suspended from a wire, with two 1.61-pound lead spheres, one attached to each end. Two 348-pound lead balls were located near the smaller balls.

In short, there are 4 lead balls involved. Not 2 lead and 2 magnets.

You really have to do some soul searching and ask yourself:

- Are two balls of steel magnetically attracted to each other?
- In the Cavendish, is a small lead ball magnetically attracted to the large lead ball?
- If so, how? Can you show that two pieces of lead are magnetically attracted to one another?

I bet you can't.

Sliding a very strong magnet, emphasis on VERY, down a ramp of Aluminum, Brass, and Lead plates:



Results:



Watch how the VERY strong magnet slides quit quickly over the Lead plate. Interesting...

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2022, 06:35:06 AM »
This thing with the water is one of the dumbest arguments. First, on a globe earth level is relative to its position on the earth. A still body is water in the UK is just as level and a still body in Australia. Water does not require a flat plane to be level. The insinuation that water doesn't curve is also quite ridiculous. Droplets, waves, even a spirit "level" has water that curves. It curves all the time. The earth pulls all matter towards its centre of gravity - the centre. Imagine trying to stick a bunch of paperclips to a basketball. Obviously they fall off the bottom with nothing holding them there. Now stick a magnet inside the ball and suddenly they stick. This is the same principle we're discussing. An inward force attracts matter inwards causing them to conform to the surface. Gravity pulls matter towards the centre of the earth, so the water conforms to earths curvature. It's pretty basic stuff.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2022, 01:59:48 AM »
<snip>

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!
It can and has been measured.  Such measurements exist and, in very rare cases, are accounted for in engineering design and construction. 

Hydrodynamic test facilities are one of those few very rare situations.  In these facilities, a tow carriage rides on rails towing a model through long water filled basins to obtain flow data across the model.  Some basins are so long that the rails must be constructed to match the curvature of the water in very long tow basins.

The top surface of the rails must be constructed “level rather than flat and the ideal line is an arc of a circle with a radius equal to the radius of the Earth” (page 7 of the pdf linked below).  And constructed to a very tight tolerance (±0.005 inches).



This report provides the design criteria the rails were constructed to, the installation tolerances of the rails, the equipment used for measurement with their tolerances, measurement methods and procedures, sources of error and error mitigation, and the measurement results.

https://ia800408.us.archive.org/0/items/railstraightness8634estl/railstraightness8634estl.pdf
« Last Edit: August 16, 2022, 02:04:10 AM by MicroBeta »
Since it costs 2.72˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 5.44˘.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2022, 01:57:25 AM »
<snip>

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!
It can and has been measured.  Such measurements exist and, in very rare cases, are accounted for in engineering design and construction. 

Hydrodynamic test facilities are one of those few very rare situations.  In these facilities, a tow carriage rides on rails towing a model through long water filled basins to obtain flow data across the model.  Some basins are so long that the rails must be constructed to match the curvature of the water in very long tow basins.

The top surface of the rails must be constructed “level rather than flat and the ideal line is an arc of a circle with a radius equal to the radius of the Earth” (page 7 of the pdf linked below).  And constructed to a very tight tolerance (±0.005 inches).



This report provides the design criteria the rails were constructed to, the installation tolerances of the rails, the equipment used for measurement with their tolerances, measurement methods and procedures, sources of error and error mitigation, and the measurement results.

https://ia800408.us.archive.org/0/items/railstraightness8634estl/railstraightness8634estl.pdf

They're not talking about any 'curvature' of Earth's surface here.

They say the top surface of the rails are not flat, which likely means they are ROUNDED, while all remains level, which is NOT curved, because they don't SAY it's curved, or a level to Earth's 'curvature', anywhere at all.

The CIRCLE is not a 'curve' either. A circle can be flat, and is flat, on Earth.

Earth is flat, and shaped as a large circle. That's what they're referring to here.

Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2022, 02:44:07 AM »
<snip>

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!
It can and has been measured.  Such measurements exist and, in very rare cases, are accounted for in engineering design and construction. 

Hydrodynamic test facilities are one of those few very rare situations.  In these facilities, a tow carriage rides on rails towing a model through long water filled basins to obtain flow data across the model.  Some basins are so long that the rails must be constructed to match the curvature of the water in very long tow basins.

The top surface of the rails must be constructed “level rather than flat and the ideal line is an arc of a circle with a radius equal to the radius of the Earth” (page 7 of the pdf linked below).  And constructed to a very tight tolerance (±0.005 inches).



This report provides the design criteria the rails were constructed to, the installation tolerances of the rails, the equipment used for measurement with their tolerances, measurement methods and procedures, sources of error and error mitigation, and the measurement results.

https://ia800408.us.archive.org/0/items/railstraightness8634estl/railstraightness8634estl.pdf

They're not talking about any 'curvature' of Earth's surface here.

They say the top surface of the rails are not flat, which likely means they are ROUNDED, while all remains level, which is NOT curved, because they don't SAY it's curved, or a level to Earth's 'curvature', anywhere at all.

The CIRCLE is not a 'curve' either. A circle can be flat, and is flat, on Earth.

Earth is flat, and shaped as a large circle. That's what they're referring to here.

Haha.

Why would rails ideally have an arc (ie curve) with the same radius of a flat circular earth?