Water finding it's own level
« on: February 10, 2016, 11:33:18 PM »
To me, this is one of the main phenomenon I can't rectify with a spherical earth. A standing body of water appears to have no curvature, and we have used water based levels to build very large structures with out flaw.

More so, it seems physically impossible water could ever exist on a curve as its tendency is to go from its highest elevation to the lowest. A spherical earth woud indicate that some rivers on earth would somehow have to flow up to reach the ocean. 

Lastly, is it even possible to have a flat surface on a curved planet? Would there not be a way to measure a stretch of standing water to try to detect a curvature? I know mathmatically that a circle doesnt consist of a finite amount of flat lines, in fact there is never a flat line on a circle.

Would like some input from the community on this, thanks.

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2016, 02:21:14 AM »
Bodies of water have always been flat and forever will remain. There are photos on this and the other site that show things that would be impossible if the earth was round.
God is real.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2016, 04:33:35 AM »
Bodies of water have always been flat and forever will remain. There are photos on this and the other site that show things that would be impossible if the earth was round.
Quick answer:
The surface of water simply takes on whatever shape leads to the lowest energy.
Take a big round tub on a turntable, part fill with water and rotate slowly. The water "piles up" around the edges.
On a Globe earth the natural surface of any body of water simply follows the "curve of the earth" (geoid if you want to get fussy).
There are many cases of small quantities of water taking on other shapes when surface tension comes into play.
But, there simply is no "Law" that says that the surface of water is a plane surface!

Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2016, 10:02:07 PM »
 Quick answer:
The surface of water simply takes on whatever shape leads to the lowest energy.
Take a big round tub on a turntable, part fill with water and rotate slowly. The water "piles up" around the edges.
On a Globe earth the natural surface of any body of water simply follows the "curve of the earth" (geoid if you want to get fussy).
There are many cases of small quantities of water taking on other shapes when surface tension comes into play.
But, there simply is no "Law" that says that the surface of water is a plane surface!
[/quote]

Wouldn't the shape that leads to lowest energy always be flattening itself out? I don't understand how the tub metaphor relates to a spinning sphere though, shouldn't the water be trying to leave the surface if we're spinning 16000 mph? I know that water will not appear flat in a glass flask, because as you stated the surface tension will have an effect. I just figure there would have to be a way to measure even the slightest bit of curvature, say on a large lake with calm waters. If I make a circle in illustrator, then zoom into the max, a straight line would always have to be a tangent, couldn't this type of thing be detectable with even a small stretch of water?

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2016, 07:38:54 PM »
To me, this is one of the main phenomenon I can't rectify with a spherical earth. A standing body of water appears to have no curvature, and we have used water based levels to build very large structures with out flaw.

More so, it seems physically impossible water could ever exist on a curve as its tendency is to go from its highest elevation to the lowest. A spherical earth woud indicate that some rivers on earth would somehow have to flow up to reach the ocean. 

Lastly, is it even possible to have a flat surface on a curved planet? Would there not be a way to measure a stretch of standing water to try to detect a curvature? I know mathmatically that a circle doesnt consist of a finite amount of flat lines, in fact there is never a flat line on a circle.

Would like some input from the community on this, thanks.
A standing body "appears to have no curvature" because a rate of 8 inches per mile isn't really obvious to the eye.  A constant elevation follows that curvature, therefore the surface of a large body of water simply curves with that constant elevation.  Rivers would not "have to flow uphill to reach the ocean" since the source of the river is a higher elevation and level for that given spot.


Wouldn't the shape that leads to lowest energy always be flattening itself out? I don't understand how the tub metaphor relates to a spinning sphere though, shouldn't the water be trying to leave the surface if we're spinning 16000 mph? I know that water will not appear flat in a glass flask, because as you stated the surface tension will have an effect. I just figure there would have to be a way to measure even the slightest bit of curvature, say on a large lake with calm waters. If I make a circle in illustrator, then zoom into the max, a straight line would always have to be a tangent, couldn't this type of thing be detectable with even a small stretch of water?
It isn't spinning 16,000 mph.  It's 1,037 mph, which sounds fast, but try spinning something at a rate of one revolution per day and decide how much something would be flung off.

If you're talking about a straight line tangent left to right on a horizon, let's go with a mile.  How far would you have to be from the horizon to get a 1 mile left to right view, and would an 8 inch difference be detectable at that distance?

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2016, 10:00:05 AM »
To me, this is one of the main phenomenon I can't rectify with a spherical earth. A standing body of water appears to have no curvature, and we have used water based levels to build very large structures with out flaw.

More so, it seems physically impossible water could ever exist on a curve as its tendency is to go from its highest elevation to the lowest. A spherical earth woud indicate that some rivers on earth would somehow have to flow up to reach the ocean. 

Lastly, is it even possible to have a flat surface on a curved planet? Would there not be a way to measure a stretch of standing water to try to detect a curvature? I know mathmatically that a circle doesnt consist of a finite amount of flat lines, in fact there is never a flat line on a circle.

Would like some input from the community on this, thanks.

The accepted rate of the Earths curvature is about 8 inches per mile or 1 inch per 660 feet.

Is your vision (perception) sharp enough to allow you to resolve an item that is 1 inch long from a distance of 660 feet?  How about 8 inches long at 5,280 feet?

How are you equating a bubble level with the oceans of the world?  The volume of the Earth's oceans is around 1.4 billion cubic kilometers and is spread out over thousands of miles.  The volume of a bubble level (figuring at 2 inches long by 3/8 inch diameter) is 0.23 cubic inches (not allowing for the displacement for the bubble) and is constrained by the physical size of the vial.  I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue with this statement.

As far as water going from high to low.  Water does flow from high to low, without question, unless acted on by an outside force. 

As far as flowing up to reach the ocean, implying flow from the lower portion to the upper portion of a sphere.  On a grand scale there is no up, down, left or right in space.  This holds true regardless of whether you believe in a FE or RE.  What are you basing your perception of up, down, left or right on?  More importantly what are you basing your perception of a lower portion on?

Why would it be impossible to have a flat surface on a curved planet?  Do you perceive a curve in everything around you except the earth?

Of course there is a method for measuring a stretch of standing water to detect a curvature, in fact here are the directions:  http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html .

What is your argument concerning flat lines on a circle?  Mathematically, no the line of a circle does not consist of a series of flat lines but, going back to the 8 inches per mile of curvature, it takes 7,920 inches (660 feet) of linear travel to accommodate 1 inch of curvature so from your perspective this is a flat line.

FE theory, as well as your argument/question rests on perception.  Perception implicitly relies on only that which you can see at any given point, at any given time.  At what point is that perception considered to be unreliable to describe an entire planet?

Offline Theguru

  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2016, 10:53:23 AM »
CableDawg, with all due respect I think you've oversimplified things.
That experiment you've attached a link to is about as unscientific and an error riddled as it gets.

I'm sure you're a smart person so why don't you devise a scientifically robust experiment, taking into account equipment and measurement errors which is publishable and can withstand peer review...until someone on either side of the debate does this then it is all just empty chatter

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2016, 01:00:48 PM »
To me, this is one of the main phenomenon I can't rectify with a spherical earth. A standing body of water appears to have no curvature, and we have used water based levels to build very large structures with out flaw.

More so, it seems physically impossible water could ever exist on a curve as its tendency is to go from its highest elevation to the lowest. A spherical earth woud indicate that some rivers on earth would somehow have to flow up to reach the ocean. 

Lastly, is it even possible to have a flat surface on a curved planet? Would there not be a way to measure a stretch of standing water to try to detect a curvature? I know mathmatically that a circle doesnt consist of a finite amount of flat lines, in fact there is never a flat line on a circle.

Would like some input from the community on this, thanks.

The accepted rate of the Earths curvature is about 8 inches per mile or 1 inch per 660 feet.

Is your vision (perception) sharp enough to allow you to resolve an item that is 1 inch long from a distance of 660 feet?  How about 8 inches long at 5,280 feet?

How are you equating a bubble level with the oceans of the world?  The volume of the Earth's oceans is around 1.4 billion cubic kilometers and is spread out over thousands of miles.  The volume of a bubble level (figuring at 2 inches long by 3/8 inch diameter) is 0.23 cubic inches (not allowing for the displacement for the bubble) and is constrained by the physical size of the vial.  I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue with this statement.

As far as water going from high to low.  Water does flow from high to low, without question, unless acted on by an outside force. 

As far as flowing up to reach the ocean, implying flow from the lower portion to the upper portion of a sphere.  On a grand scale there is no up, down, left or right in space.  This holds true regardless of whether you believe in a FE or RE.  What are you basing your perception of up, down, left or right on?  More importantly what are you basing your perception of a lower portion on?

Why would it be impossible to have a flat surface on a curved planet?  Do you perceive a curve in everything around you except the earth?

Of course there is a method for measuring a stretch of standing water to detect a curvature, in fact here are the directions:  http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html .

What is your argument concerning flat lines on a circle?  Mathematically, no the line of a circle does not consist of a series of flat lines but, going back to the 8 inches per mile of curvature, it takes 7,920 inches (660 feet) of linear travel to accommodate 1 inch of curvature so from your perspective this is a flat line.

FE theory, as well as your argument/question rests on perception.  Perception implicitly relies on only that which you can see at any given point, at any given time.  At what point is that perception considered to be unreliable to describe an entire planet?

Your calculation is slightly wrong,   the formula is  h = 0.666 x m2    where  h is height in ft, and m is distance in miles,   so  660 ft is  0.125 miles,   so h = 0.666 x 0.125 x 0.125 =  0.010 ft,  or less than 1/8 of an inch.
If you want to take standard refraction into account use h = 0.574 x m2,   this formula is accurate only for values of m that are small compared to the radius of the earth.


Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2016, 04:01:33 PM »
Regardless of individual perspective, isnt there a scientific way to measure the supposed curvature of a body of water? I know of bedford level experiment, but shouldnt the curvature be detected even on a microscopic scale? It would really settle things if someone could detect it, instead of arbitrarily saying "youre too small to tell, just trust us"

Offline Theguru

  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2016, 08:03:16 PM »
The failings of the Bedford level experiment are from failure to adjust for light refraction in such close proximity to the water surface, lack of independent scrutiny and reproducibility.
As far as I'm aware, there has not been a publishable experiment yet

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2016, 12:44:25 AM »
Regardless of individual perspective, isnt there a scientific way to measure the supposed curvature of a body of water? I know of bedford level experiment, but shouldnt the curvature be detected even on a microscopic scale? It would really settle things if someone could detect it, instead of arbitrarily saying "youre too small to tell, just trust us"

You can get precision levels that  will measure the curvature over distances of a few meters.   Taylor Hobson Talyvel comes to mind,   Mahr differential levels are another.   Most often used to calibrate precision granite surface plates or align machine tools to sub micron precision.  Large precision machine tools sometimes need to take earth's curvature into account when setting up.

The curvature over a distance of 10 meters will be 8 microns.   Levels like the Talyval 6 can easily measure down to that sort of accuracy.



Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2016, 03:39:11 AM »
CableDawg, with all due respect I think you've oversimplified things.
That experiment you've attached a link to is about as unscientific and an error riddled as it gets.

I'm sure you're a smart person so why don't you devise a scientifically robust experiment, taking into account equipment and measurement errors which is publishable and can withstand peer review...until someone on either side of the debate does this then it is all just empty chatter

Fortunately it is not for me to provide you with what you deem to be scientific proof since, judging by common rebuttals by FE proponents, what is considered to be scientific proof can and does change depending parties to the discussion and the topic at hand.  That you don't trust relatively basic math is none of my concern because I don't know if your lack of trust is based in the lack of knowledge of the math, knowledge of the math but choosing to ignore it or somewhere in between.  The math itself, for the topic at hand, is thousands of years old, has been repeated numerous times and can be repeated by anyone who chooses to learn it and do it.

Why don't you design and execute a scientifically robust experiment that proves the math wrong?

Offline Theguru

  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2016, 04:38:45 AM »
The point I'm making Cable is the link you posted is a very rough guide as to how to calculate the curvature of the earth, full of potential errors and whatever results you obtain will be meaningless...not a good example to cite

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2016, 05:24:31 AM »
The point I'm making Cable is the link you posted is a very rough guide as to how to calculate the curvature of the earth, full of potential errors and whatever results you obtain will be meaningless...not a good example to cite



Much the same as the FAQ and Wiki of this site are very rough guides to FE theory which are open to interpretation and full of potential errors yet they are continuously and religiously cited?

Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2016, 06:53:22 PM »
So if the Earth is spinning on an axis, and as a result is 45km larger at the equator as Neil Dumbass Tyson tells us, an oblate spheroid, should there not be a wall of water there?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2016, 08:08:43 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2016, 05:39:07 AM »
So if the Earth is spinning on an axis, and as a result is 45km larger at the equator as Neil Dumbass Tyson tells us, an oblate spheroid, should there not be a wall of water there?
No, there should not be a wall of water there!
The effect of the rotation increases gradually from the poles to the equator and both the water and the "ground" are affected in the same way.
I thought you were the one with this great knowledge of physics!
By the way, Neil de Grasse Tyson is a much more polite and better spoken person than you will ever be. You only make yourself look stupid talking like this.
I have said  before that it is good idea to put brain into gear before starting to type (or talk, or whatever)!

Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2016, 05:46:20 PM »
You honestly believe the moons gravity, 10 million times less powerful, pulls the actually earth from under our feet up? There is a such thing as seismic activity, though not an exact science is predicated on tectonic plates moving and grinding, collapsing etc. Houses are built on foundations that would crack and shift at unexplainable rates, underground oil wells would be destroyed, you say a mountain, that is the definition of rock solid, pulsates because the moon passes overhead, and with no verifiable proof, I should believe it against common sense? No thanks bud, keep believing whatever the MSM pays NDT to say and Ill do fine over here

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2016, 11:22:19 AM »
You honestly believe the moons gravity, 10 million times less powerful, pulls the actually earth from under our feet up? There is a such thing as seismic activity, though not an exact science is predicated on tectonic plates moving and grinding, collapsing etc. Houses are built on foundations that would crack and shift at unexplainable rates, underground oil wells would be destroyed, you say a mountain, that is the definition of rock solid, pulsates because the moon passes overhead, and with no verifiable proof, I should believe it against common sense? No thanks bud, keep believing whatever the MSM pays NDT to say and Ill do fine over here
Get your figures right first. The moon's gravitation at the earth's surface is about 0.004% that of the earth. Though what is more important is how much it changes over a day and that is only about 0.0003% still very small. So any ground movement is infinitesimal compared as you say to possible seismic activity.
I wish you would stop the stupid exaggeration you get up to!

It is you saying rubbish like "underground oil wells would be destroyed, you say a mountain, that is the definition of rock solid, pulsates because the moon passes overhead, and with no verifiable proof". Of course, there's no proof - it doesn't happen! Give me the source of your statements and I think we will find out that you have exaggerated again.

I do not keep believing whatever the MSM pays NDT to say. I knew nothing of your NDT and MSN (l haven't a clue what that is) when I knew that the earth is a globe! NASA and Neil deGrasse Tyson had absolutely no influence in it, so stop deluding yourself that NASA had anything to do with influencing anyone that the earth is a globe!
Mind you I have learnt a lot more since having contact with TFES, now I am more certain of the heliocentric globe than everever!
See, you people have done me and many others some good! Thanks.

Just realise that you only make yourself look ridiculous by getting up to antics like this. You are nearly as bad as the "Hundred Proofs".

*

Offline magic

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2016, 04:39:30 AM »
The tub example is insufficient as the constant rotation of the water in the tub going in one direction would never demonstrate the water receding from its original position, only maintaining its bias towards one side of the tub relative to the direction spinning preventing it from self leveling as it did when the body of water in the tub was at rest.

Observable by anybody at the shore of any ocean is the water producing a motion that approaches the shore and recedes back to whence it came. If the rotation was truly one direction or happening at all this movement of the water is in conflict of the constantly rotation being provided by a sphere Earth.

If anything the water's behavior relative to the tub example is that of a tub moving back and forth, assuming nothing but the tub's movement is responsible for the water's movement.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Water finding it's own level
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2016, 07:07:36 AM »
The tub example is insufficient as the constant rotation of the water in the tub going in one direction would never demonstrate the water receding from its original position, only maintaining its bias towards one side of the tub relative to the direction spinning preventing it from self leveling as it did when the body of water in the tub was at rest.

Observable by anybody at the shore of any ocean is the water producing a motion that approaches the shore and recedes back to whence it came. If the rotation was truly one direction or happening at all this movement of the water is in conflict of the constantly rotation being provided by a sphere Earth.

If anything the water's behavior relative to the tub example is that of a tub moving back and forth, assuming nothing but the tub's movement is responsible for the water's movement.
The rotating tub was to demonstrate that a body of water need not be flat, and nothing more.
It was never stated as demonstrating the tides at all.

The tides are due to a combination of the gravitation of the sun and moon, the rotation of  the earth (centripetal acceleration) and the very complex structure of the ocean floor. It is a simple topic at and far more than just the moon "lifting the oceans".