Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stevecanuck

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / When did Islam introduce fighting?
« on: May 02, 2021, 10:08:17 PM »

NOTE: This is not a cut and paste from a web site. I spent 18 months rereading the Qur'an in chronological order and summarizing it. This is from that summary.


In the first 12 years of Islam's creation Mohamed lived in the pagan city of his birth, Mecca. He spent those years trying to convince the Meccans that he had been chosen as God's final prophet, and that they should abandon their pagan ways and follow him in worship of the one and only true god. They ignored him. Two thirds of the Qur'an came from that period and all without so much as one word about fighting.

After he and his very small following moved to Medina, things changed overnight. If the expression, "Wait. What?" were in vogue at the time, it probably would have run through the minds of converts after the revelation of verses 2:154 and 2:155:

- 154 "Do not consider those who are slain for the cause of God to be dead. They are alive but you are unaware of them".
- 155 "Be sure We shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere".

During the revelation of surah 2, Mohamed embarked on a campaign that changed not only the nature of Islam, but the course of history. He started a war with the pagans of Mecca by raiding their trade caravans. For the first time, Muslims were instructed to take lives by fighting "fee sabil Allah (in the cause of God)". The pagans responded by sending forces to protect their caravans, but, despite having superior numbers, were defeated by the Muslims in the Battle of Badr (CE 624). This sparked a seven year war that ended in complete victory for the Muslims and control of Mecca and the Kaaba. These raids were the first action in a pattern of aggression that would escalate and eventually turn into the campaigns of conquest that resulted in the creation of a vast Islamic caliphate within only 100 years of Mohamed's death.

Muslims dispute this. They claim the raids were justified based on persecution they suffered at the hands of the pagans before the Hijrah. What they do not, and can not, claim is that physical abuse of Muslims occurred during that period. There are no verses in the Qur'an that speak of harm inflicted; only of mockery and refusal to obey Mohamed and abandon their long-held beliefs and gods. They also do not dispute that the 'first arrow' was fired by a Muslim named Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas when his party was sent to raid a caravan (although the raid was eventually called off). Rather, they celebrate Sa'd as a folk hero.

For Mohamed to order military action "in the cause of God", he was faced with being able to claim that a clearly offensive strike would be justified and in compliance with God's wishes. The Qur'an would therefore have to supply him with two revelations that were not so much as hinted at in all 86 Meccan surahs; a direct command to fight, and moral justification for taking lives. To that end, the following two verses were conveniently revealed:

- 190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors".
- 191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith".

Verse 190 provided the order to fight, but only in self-defense, which by itself did not justify an attack against the pagans, as there is no indication in the Qur'an that any Muslims had been killed. Therefore, Mohamed could not accuse them of being "those who fight you". He immediately solved that problem in 191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy. It breaks down as follows:

- "And slay them wherever ye catch them" removed any doubt that blood-letting had been introduced to Islam. 
- "and turn them out from where they have turned you out" is a clear reference to Mohamed's claim that he was forced to flee Mecca.
- "for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter" introduced 'fitnah' as a catch-all crime against Islam that, in the space of one verse, effectively dropped self-defense to second place as a reason to make war. 

The importance of the definition of 'fitnah', and of adding it to self-defense as the basis for which Muslims can justify attacking non-Muslims, cannot be stressed enough. 'Fitnah' is described in various English translations as any action that either impedes the practice of Islam ("suppresses faith") or simply violates any of God's commandments as stated in the Qur'an. For example, Christians are guilty of 'fitnah' every time they pray to Jesus rather than God. Six of the seven translations given in http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191 define 'fitnah' as tumult, oppression, or persecution, whereas the seventh, by Muhammad Sarwar, goes so far as to translate it as "the sin of disbelief in God".

The only 'crimes' the Meccans had committed against Islam were to "deny God's signs" (refuse to adopt Islam), and to 'desecrate' the Kaaba by using it for polytheist prayer. But, thanks to verse 191, it became enough to warrant an attack. However, that was just the beginning of the influence verse 191 had in shaping history. It not only provided the excuse Mohamed needed to attack the Meccans, and although it was crafted to solve a short term problem, it established the criteria that has inspired Islamic jihad for 1400 years and counting.

Verse 191 is noteworthy for a third reason. Although it targeted the pagans of Mecca, it demonstrates a method of instruction commonly used in the Qur'an. While the first part of the verse is specific to a given circumstance, the concluding statement is generic and suggestive of a wider application. In this case, "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith" implies that military action would be an appropriate response against any person, tribe, or nation deemed guilty of 'suppressing faith'.

The next two verses describe how far to take the fight, and what the outcome is expected to be:

- 192 "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful".
- 193 "And fight with them until there is no persecution (fitnah), and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".

Verses 190 and 192, if quoted together and without contextual consideration of surrounding and later verses, give the impression that fighting is to be strictly defensive, and that hostilities must cease as soon as the enemy quits the battle. However, 191 and 193 add conditions that paint a decidedly more aggressive picture, as they give 'fitnah' as sufficient reason to engage in hostilities, and state that annihilation of the enemy is required until "religion should be only for Allah".

2
Flat Earth Theory / UA and the atmosplane
« on: May 02, 2021, 08:48:11 PM »

I tried to find the answer to this in the wiki, but I guess I didn't word my search well enough. Here's my question:

Does the accelerating earth push against the atmosplane (air), or is the air also being accelerated?

If the former is the case, then the air would be pushed towards the edges of the earth, and that clearly is not happening. How does it all work? If there is a wiki page for this, then please just point me to it and I'll try to figure it out on my own. Thanks.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: May 01, 2021, 02:26:17 PM »
So our typical human has a TV of around 300 kmph at typical skydiving heights, due to sea-level air density.

Clarification: Skydiver TV is about 195 kmph (120 mph) when falling in the "frog" position belly to earth. Greater speeds occur when diving head first.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances
« on: April 29, 2021, 02:36:18 PM »
So, the question of distance is of the utmost importance for FEs themselves, in order to unify their models.

Which is probably why you never, ever see it being discussed among the FE community. You'd have thought there would be intense interest in measuring distances between places to see if there's a discrepancy between our maps and reality. Notice no reply at all to my 'SteelyBob ratio' post - no agreement or disagreement, no challenge, evidence or rebuttal. Just no reply at all.

Of course, there isn't a discrepancy, so to measure and investigate would blow the lid off the whole thing.

Don't forget direction. According to RET, the distance from Sydney to Cape Town is 11,000 km., AND the straight-line between them runs north of Antarctica, whereas FET would not only have the distance off by a factor of 2 or 3, but the straight line would run near India. Again - never discussed.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances
« on: April 26, 2021, 03:04:31 PM »
Your assumed distances are fallacious for a few reasons:

- People aren't walking across the oceans
- Planes use jet streams to reach far off locations
- The calculated of speed is s = d/t and requires a known distance. Distances are fundamentally in contention in this discussion

The translation to a FE model may be attributable to a number of possibilities. For example; if the outer edges of the FE celestial system are moving at a quicker speed over the Earth like the outer extremities of a record on a record player, then it stands that the upper atmosphere may be as well. A plane traveling in a high region of atmosphere may move faster in certain regions of the Earth than another.

And indeed, the winds are said to be anomalous in the South - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis


Ah, yes, the "said to be anomalous" winds. 

You may remember this thread from pre-Covid; 

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.0

LATAM, and Qantas, 2 commercial organisations that depend on knowing the distance from (for instance) Santiago, Chile, to Sydney, Australia, didn't seem to have any problem predicting the winds when they were operating their 3-times weekly return-service between the 2 cities.  Its stretching credibility somewhat to think that the winds would provide an anomalous advantage in both directions on demand.

And it's not just the distance, but direction was well. RE vs. FE direction between locations is radically different.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: April 21, 2021, 02:43:00 PM »
Aerodynamic lift is maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude, so it (and its occupants) are supported by the atmosphere (atmosplane - yuk!), which is supported by the Earth.  Thus, the aircraft and its occupants, by implication, have identical acceleration and instantaneous velocity as the Earth, so are accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s/s due to UA (also yuk!).

When you leave the aircraft you have the same instantaneous velocity as Earth and atmosphere, hence feel no windrush.  However, as you are now not being accelerated, the earth continues to accelerate towards you at 9.81m/s/s.  In a vacuum, you would remain at constant velocity until the Earth (because it is still accelerating) hits you. 

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).   

At this point your body's acceleration is identical to Earth's but, because of the period when you had reduced acceleration, your velocity is less than Earth's so it still hits you.

Right. I figured that out well after I posted. Thanks.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: April 21, 2021, 12:59:48 AM »
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?

The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?

In my young and foolish days I was a skydiver. When I stepped out of an airplane at, say 5000 feet above ground level, why is air not immediately rushing by me?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 15, 2021, 04:21:14 PM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?
Forces are differentiated in many types of situations. You do know this, correct?

I do not think this needs to be reiterated when it is undeniable.

So, that's a "no". Got it.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 15, 2021, 02:38:16 PM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 15, 2021, 03:56:59 AM »

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 15, 2021, 12:18:30 AM »
You guys are both kinda right, for all the wrong reasons.

Steve, your premise is fair, but you're assuming that surface variations in mass distributions are significant enough on the scale of the purported flat earth. Even if the flat earth disk was only one meter thicker than our deepest borehole drilled so far (~8 km), that mass of dense rock would likely be sufficient to outweigh the irregularities that arise to to mountains, valleys, ocean basins etc.


Tom  has rightly pointed this out, but is now asserting long-lasting geologic processes like mountain building and erosion account for why we see things balanced the way we do. Introducing these processes creates a host problems because they are not addressed in FET (the wiki provides no references to support the descriptions on that page, and lists a type of rock that doesnt exist).

Neither of your recent claims are based in much that is verifiable or testable.

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

This places additional criteria for FEers to explain, and obviously they haven't invented any new physics yet, such as adaptive UA, to account for it (in the case of asymmetry), or explained how the world came to have perfect symmetry.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 14, 2021, 09:06:41 PM »
I've explained why these things would work without relativity quite clearly. You can stop pretending to be confused and refer back to those posts.

Relativity is not needed for Time Dilation. Time Dilation was predicted before the advent of relativity by physicist Joseph Larmor, showing that it does not need relativity to work. He also discovered the Lorentz transformations some years before both Lorentz and Einstein. Larmor held the Lucasian Chair, the same chair held by Isaac Newton, George Airy, and Stephen Hawking.

In fact, Lamor disagreed with Einstein's approach of taking his time dilation equations to use with "spacetime".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor

"In his book Aether and Matter (1900), [Lamor] again presented the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction (treating these as dynamic rather than kinematic effects). Larmor was opposed to the spacetime interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in special relativity because he continued to believe in an absolute aether. He was also critical of the curvature of space of general relativity, to the extent that he claimed that an absolute time was essential to astronomy (Larmor 1924, 1927)."

In the following paper physicist Joseph Levy explains how aether theory explains time dilation without spacetime:

Bio - http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Joseph_Levy

Paper - https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611077.pdf

Aether Theory Clock Retardation vs. Special Relativity Time Dilation
Joseph Levy

Abstract:

"Assuming a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies, one
can provide a rational explanation of the experimental processes affecting the
measurement of time when clocks are in motion. Contrary to special relativity,
aether theory does not assume that the time itself is affected by motion; the
reading displayed by the moving clocks results from two facts: 1/ Due to their
movement through the aether, they tick at a slower rate than in the aether frame.
2/ The usual synchronization procedures generate a synchronism discrepancy
effect. These facts give rise to an alteration of the measurement of time which, as
we shall show, exactly explains the experimental results. In particular, they
enable to solve an apparent paradox that special relativity cannot explain (see
chapter 4). When the measurement distortions are corrected, the time proves to
be the same in all co-ordinate systems moving away from one another with
rectilinear uniform motion. These considerations strongly support the existence
of a privileged aether frame. The consequences concern special relativity (SR) as
well as general relativity (GR) which is an extension of SR. We should note that
Einstein himself became conscious of the necessity of the aether from 1916, in
contrast with conventional relativity."

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your efforts. I never said it was. I said it would HAVE TO BE perfectly weight balanced. And not just on top, but the entire disk. Is it? Has the site ever addressed the topic?

It's like you're not even trying. YES, it will have level water in it, BUT most of it would be on one side of the cup. The earth equivalent of that would see the oceans spilling over one side of your "cup", ie: the "ice wall", and into space.

It sounds like you made all that up as you were typing. Congratulations you have just invented a brand new branch of geology on the fly.

If you have the crooked deck of a crooked ship and pour a bucket of sand onto the crooked deck, the peak of the sand will be pointing straight up, and not be crooked with the ship's deck.

If we have two mounds of sand on the crooked deck of a ship, and push them together, it will create a bigger mound, also pointing straight up, and not aligned with the crooked deck of the ship.

It is clear that erosion and new hill and mountain creation would cause the formations to align with the vertical and not with the slope of the surface.

Your idea of water 'falling off' assumes a lot. Since those areas are far from the Sun it would most likely freeze and create a container for itself than fall off.

Still making it up as you go along I see. What you have NOT addressed is that no such tilt exists, therefore all your examples are pointless. ALL of the earth's water would have flowed to ONE SIDE of the world (as your cup example states), and it hasn't, in case you haven't noticed.

Therefore, even weight distribution and symmetry must exist, AND UA must be acting at exactly right angles to the surface of the earth, which means that FE must include those criteria as necessary elements to maintaining the flat earth claim.

But, you've obviously never had to think of this before, so it's time to step up and invent some new laws of physics as you've done with UA and EA.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 13, 2021, 08:01:11 PM »
Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination.

You are right, to a certain extent. Let me back off from my assertion that non-symmetrical. flat objects will flip. I agree they will not necessarily flip. They would have to be asymmetrical beyond a certain point for that to happen.

What WILL happen, even if they still float, is that they will list. Any object that has a flat "top side", but is not perfectly weight-distributed, will sit in the water at an angle relative to the flat surface. I don't see any way to deny that.

And what makes you think that the center of mass of the Earth is perfectly centered and weight distributed?

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your efforts. I never said it was. I said it would HAVE TO BE perfectly weight balanced. And not just on top, but the entire disk. Is it? Has the site ever addressed the topic?

Quote
A crooked cup on a crooked ship will still have level water in it.

It's like you're not even trying. YES, it will have level water in it, BUT most of it would be on one side of the cup. The earth equivalent of that would see the oceans spilling over one side of your "cup", ie: the "ice wall", and into space.

Quote
And we allow the surface structure of the 'cup' to melt and erode over eons, and allow for new mountain creation, etc., the new prominent peaks of the Earth would point vertically in relation to the water surface instead of remaining crooked.

It sounds like you made all that up as you were typing. Congratulations you have just invented a brand new branch of geology on the fly.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 12, 2021, 11:31:31 PM »
Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination.

You are right, to a certain extent. Let me back off from my assertion that non-symmetrical. flat objects will flip. I agree they will not necessarily flip. They would have to be asymmetrical beyond a certain point for that to happen.

What WILL happen, even if they still float, is that they will list. Any object that has a flat "top side", but is not perfectly weight-distributed, will sit in the water at an angle relative to the flat surface. I don't see any way to deny that.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 11, 2021, 07:33:08 PM »
When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.

Incorrect. It is not only boats that float. Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination. Gravity being physically equivalent to upwards acceleration shows that a floating object can be continuously accelerated upwards without flopping around.

It is clear that larger floating objects are more stable. It is also clear that if a bacterium can't tip over a floating circular beer tray that we would also have difficulty tipping over something with a similar size ratio.

Full circle. You can continue to deny because there's no way to prove it either way.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 11, 2021, 06:41:05 PM »
When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 11, 2021, 03:13:10 PM »

My overall point is that the earth is not symmetrical in terms of weight distribution. I'm sure the side of the flat earth on which the Pacific Ocean resides is heavier that the other side. I suspect the difference is significant enough to cause UA to push the lighter side up relative to the other and cause a flip. Again, think of a beer tray.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 11, 2021, 01:12:50 AM »
The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth

Nothing that anyone has said changes the fact that a disk that does not have even weight distribution will tilt. Think of a beer tray.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 11, 2021, 01:10:33 AM »
Quote from: stevecanuck
Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Have you ever been on a large cruise ship?



Cruiseships are pretty stable. You aren't going to be able to walk to one side and cause the cruise ship to flip over. The larger the ship, the more stable it seems to be in response to waves and currents and irregularities like people walking around on it.

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Not really. If you tied the rope to a different part of the handle other than the exact middle the water in the bucket would still be flat in relation to the center of rotation. The bucket would just be crooked and have a new center of mass.

A more realistic version might be a giant porous rock or natural object spinning around in space, with the flat ocean in one of the cavities at one side of the object, where water is flattened out away from the center of rotation due to the 1g centripetal force. It doesn't have to be a bucket and a rope.

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 10, 2021, 11:15:55 PM »
Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >