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:
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"
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
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
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!
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 hereGet 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.
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.The rotating tub was to demonstrate that a body of water need not be flat, and nothing more.
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.
He's not talking about tides. He's talking about the continuous motion of the sea and it's defiance of any fluid dynamic model that could be attributed to a spinning magic hydro magenetic ball.OK, what is this "continuous motion of the sea and it's defiance of any fluid dynamic model"?
Water flattens out by nature of fluid dynamics, something we have known forever. How a hill of water could ever exist is baffling to anyone that actually thinks about it.
Celestial GravitationMind I don't agree, but that's what "the Wiki" says.
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.