Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Behaviour of water under FET
« on: January 23, 2021, 09:21:10 AM »
[n.b. this has been split off from Questions about Flat Earth Theory by young students by SteelyBob's request. ~pete]


The natural behavior of water, and the laws of hydrostatics, unchallenged for centuries to today, that establish it cannot (due to its fundamental properties) and does not curve in the sustained convex curvature the globe model requires.  Water's surface is only ever flat, level, and horizontal at rest (of non miniscule quantity/surface area) and the believed sphericity of water is in no way a part of empirical science (in fact it would contradict it, and violate many laws - like these in hydrostatics for instance). 


One of FET's more strange facets. If the world is flat, and I'm by the sea somewhere where the tide is in, and you're by the sea somewhere where the tide is out, then there must be a difference of several metres between our respective sea levels. But it's one continuous body of water, so somehow the two levels have to resolve. Which means the water can't be flat, level and horizontal. Which means the above 'fundamental property' isn't really a fundamental property as such, but rather something that's been made up.

There is nothing about the properties of water, or indeed any other liquid, that would preclude it from adhering to the surface of the earth under the force of gravity.

Quote
Does Earth´s rotation exit?

No.  This is a common misconception.  In fact, the gyroscope was invented to convince people that the world was spherical and rotating.  There is LOT's to discuss on this one - as there are many reasons we came to the wrong conclusion regarding this and the incorrectly interpreted phenomena that appear to support it.

And yet directional gyros in aircraft have a 'drift nut', adjustable for latitude (because the error gets worse with the sine of your latitude), to compensate for the earth's rotation. If the earth wasn't rotating, this would induce an error in the instrument. These have been in use for 80+ years, and yet no complaints from angry pilots wondering why their DGs are wandering off heading more than they should.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 04:04:41 PM by Pete Svarrior »

Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2021, 09:47:22 AM »
@Steelybob

I think we should create a new thread to discuss your issues with understanding my perspective - rather than clutter up this one.  What do you think?

Quote
One of FET's more strange facets

It only appears that way due to your mental block, and your default apologetics.  Of course waves exist, we weren't talking about waves.  In fact, my statement made explicit "at rest".  No, rising and falling tide is not "at rest".  I was deliberate in my phrasing, and you seem to have missed much of what was written.

Quote
And yet directional gyros in aircraft have a 'drift nut

That's true, and is one (though not a primary/chief one) of the things I mentioned that is misinterpreted to be caused by the earth's rotation.  The drift nut is there primarily for mechanical reasons (to adjust for constant sources of error, typically caused by friction), and is not what you think it is for.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2021, 10:06:21 AM »
@Steelybob

I think we should create a new thread to discuss your issues with understanding my perspective - rather than clutter up this one.  What do you think?


Very happy to do that, thanks.

Quote
Quote
One of FET's more strange facets

It only appears that way due to your mental block, and your default apologetics.  Of course waves exist, we weren't talking about waves.  In fact, my statement made explicit "at rest".  No, rising and falling tide is not "at rest".  I was deliberate in my phrasing, and you seem to have missed much of what was written.

But we aren't talking about waves here, which fluctuate over a very short time period measured in seconds, but rather tidal rises and falls, which occur over much longer timeframes (around 6 hours between high and low tide). How long a timeframe do you require to call it 'at rest'?
Quote
Quote
And yet directional gyros in aircraft have a 'drift nut

That's true, and is one (though not a primary/chief one) of the things I mentioned that is misinterpreted to be caused by the earth's rotation.  The drift nut is there primarily for mechanical reasons (to adjust for constant sources of error, typically caused by friction), and is not what you think it is for.

But it's not a constant source of error - they are adjusted for latitude, usually on a bench for light aircraft (which can't travel far enough in one flight to generate significant latitude changes), or in older more advanced jets via a cockpit adjustable latitude input control. Why would friction change with latitude?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2068
    • View Profile
Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2021, 10:16:27 AM »
@Steelybob

I think we should create a new thread to discuss your issues with understanding my perspective - rather than clutter up this one.  What do you think?

Quote
One of FET's more strange facets

It only appears that way due to your mental block, and your default apologetics.  Of course waves exist, we weren't talking about waves.  In fact, my statement made explicit "at rest".  No, rising and falling tide is not "at rest".  I was deliberate in my phrasing, and you seem to have missed much of what was written.

What specific "laws of hydrostatics" are you referring to?

Quote
And yet directional gyros in aircraft have a 'drift nut

That's true, and is one (though not a primary/chief one) of the things I mentioned that is misinterpreted to be caused by the earth's rotation.  The drift nut is there primarily for mechanical reasons (to adjust for constant sources of error, typically caused by friction), and is not what you think it is for.

You are incorrect that the Latitude Nut is used to correct for friction.

From the Aviation Dictionary:

latitude nut
A correcting nut in a directional gyro or a direction indicator (DI), which is screwed in or out to correct drift caused by the earth’s rotation north or south of equator.

Latitude nut is fitted to side of the inner gimbal on a spindle. A counter-weight on the opposite side exactly balances the nut when it is in the center of the spindle, which is the setting for the equator any movement away from the center sets up a torque force, which compensates for the gyro drift for the set latitude.

https://aviation_dictionary.enacademic.com/4127/latitude_nut

Because the Earth rotates (ω, 15° per hour, apparent drift), and because of small accumulated errors caused by imperfect balancing of the gyro, the heading indicator will drift over time (real drift), and must be reset using a magnetic compass periodically.[1][5] The apparent drift is predicted by ω sin Latitude and will thus be greatest over the poles. To counter for the effect of Earth rate drift a latitude nut can be set (on the ground only) which induces a (hopefully equal and opposite) real wander in the gyroscope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heading_indicator

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2021, 09:55:12 AM »
@jack44556677

Pete moved these posts into a new thread here as we discussed. Looking forward to continuing the discussion with you - thoughts on my post, or on @stack's?


Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2021, 03:27:38 AM »
@Steelybob

Quote
Looking forward to continuing the discussion with you - thoughts on my post, or on @stack's?

Agreed! I most definitely have thoughts!

Quote
Very happy to do that, thanks.

Most cool.  I've already destroyed some other threads inadvertently; it's easy to get swept up in conversation!

Quote
But we aren't talking about waves here, which fluctuate over a very short time period measured in seconds, but rather tidal rises and falls, which occur over much longer timeframes (around 6 hours between high and low tide). How long a timeframe do you require to call it 'at rest'?

The oceans are never at rest, which is the only place tides occur.  You have an unemperical/unmeasured (and potentially unmeasurable, if non-real for instance) belief that water is always affected by tides (even people, "bloodbended" by the moon), perhaps based on calculation, when it can really only be demonstrated to occur in the ocean. There is some, miniscule, evidence that there are minor variances due to the tides in the great lakes - but if true (which I am personally skeptical of) once again this would only demonstrate that the phenomenon occurs only with certain large bodies of water and not all water in general.

It is my understanding that it's not that water (of significant quantity) has calculable tides that are beyond our precision to measure if interested, it is more an issue of the lack of that tidal effect to measure in lesser volumes and lack of interest.

At rest is, at equilibrium.  Not moving, for most all macro intents and purposes.  It doesn't have to stay at rest any longer than it takes to measure the thing.

Quote
But it's not a constant source of error - they are adjusted for latitude, usually on a bench for light aircraft (which can't travel far enough in one flight to generate significant latitude changes), or in older more advanced jets via a cockpit adjustable latitude input control. Why would friction change with latitude?

I agree that friction changing with latitude would be pretty novel/interesting.  If this is true, which so far I have found little support for (that the drift nut is really for anything more than constant sources of "drift"/error caused by friction, rather than anything else it is claimed to be), it could be another manifestation of the effect mistakenly referred to as the coriolis effect which causes real deflection of pendulums/gyroscopes/hydrocompasses etc.

Personally, I find things like the allais effect demonstrate that our interpretation of the cause is evidently flawed.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2021, 09:03:13 AM »
@Steelybob

The oceans are never at rest, which is the only place tides occur.  You have an unemperical/unmeasured (and potentially unmeasurable, if non-real for instance) belief that water is always affected by tides (even people, "bloodbended" by the moon), perhaps based on calculation, when it can really only be demonstrated to occur in the ocean. There is some, miniscule, evidence that there are minor variances due to the tides in the great lakes - but if true (which I am personally skeptical of) once again this would only demonstrate that the phenomenon occurs only with certain large bodies of water and not all water in general.

Tides are caused primarily by small differences in 'g' across a body of water, caused by the proximity of the sun or moon, meaning a stretch of water needs to have some appreciable distance across it. Loch Ness in Scotland, for example, has a tide variation of around 1mm, making it essentially impossible to measure. The difference in g causes a tiny in the orientation of the gravity vector, causing a small slope in the water. This is exacerbated or damped by the dynamic response of the water to the changes - in some bodies of water this acts to increase the tides, in others it reduces them, a bit like a kid sloshing the water up and down in a bath by moving back and forth.

You can prove it's the sun and moon causing it by comparing the tide times with the solar and lunar positions - the relationship is obvious.

The point to take away is that water doesn't so much 'find its level' as 'acts under the forces it is subjected to'. It sticks to the globe for the same reason it stays inside a bucket when you swing it over your head - it's just f=ma on a grand scale.

Quote
At rest is, at equilibrium.  Not moving, for most all macro intents and purposes.  It doesn't have to stay at rest any longer than it takes to measure the thing.

So back to my earlier example - if I'm stood by the coast at high tide, and you're elsewhere on the same body of water at low tide, then the water is both at rest and 'not level', is it not? The rate of change is tiny - it will take 6 hours for the effect to reverse. There is a small, but measurable slope across the water. If that slope can exist, why can't water also adopt a curved shape?

Quote
I agree that friction changing with latitude would be pretty novel/interesting.  If this is true, which so far I have found little support for (that the drift nut is really for anything more than constant sources of "drift"/error caused by friction, rather than anything else it is claimed to be), it could be another manifestation of the effect mistakenly referred to as the coriolis effect which causes real deflection of pendulums/gyroscopes/hydrocompasses etc.

I suppose I have to ask: what would it take to persuade you that you're wrong? If the answer is 'nothing', then there's little point in going further. If you're curious to know more, and willing to change your view on new evidence, then read on.

If you're interested, here's a modern explanation of the various gyro errors, including apparent drift.
Quote
https://issuu.com/bristolgs/docs/022a_inst_atpl_a__v6.1.5_ch_3_gyros

Here's a cool old document about various aircraft gyros that I found: http://ed-thelen.org/pics4/C1Gyro-ro.pdf. Take a look at page 6 -

Quote
The latitude corrector (10, figure 2) is a calibrated nut which may be adjusted in or out on a threaded stud (11) on the gyro housing to minimize gyro drift due to the earth's rotation. This drift is zero at the equator and a maximum at the poles.

This pretty clearly shows that latitude drift nuts are adjustable things - a lot of more advanced aircraft actually used to have a dial in the cockpit with the latitude graduations on it so you could change it to reflect local latitude. This stuff is either wrong, fake or real. Wrong seems highly unlikely, given that it's been understood and tested for years, and that all the millions of hours of use would fairly quickly show if you were better off not adjusting for latitude. Fake seems equally unlikely - you're talking about a conspiracy involving every avionics technician for a century. Which kind of leaves 'it's real', doesn't it? DGs do drift with time, at a rate proportional to the sine of the local latitude. Latitude nuts correct this by applying a compensating precession in the opposite direction. Set them right, and you'll get rid of a large chunk of error. Set them wrong and you'll make it considerably worse. 

I'm curious to know what you think is the cause of the coriolis effect. The wiki seems to suggest that it doesn't exist, which is to completely ignore the most stunningly obvious indication of its existence, which is Buys Ballot's law - the fact that the wind flows anti-clockwise around low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the southern. If you can find me a weather system somewhere in the world where this isn't happening - and I mean other than on a very local level, where topography and other effects can dominate - I'll be glad to hear about it.

All of this strongly adds up to something going on here on earth that is clearly related to our latitude, and something particularly important happens at the equator - things reverse. FET offers no explanation for any of that - doesn't that make you doubt your FET thinking on some level?

fortytwo

Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2021, 09:48:03 AM »
I've seen this "water at rest is level" argument now several times but I still don't get the point.
Sorry if my thoughts are too simple, but I'm neither an expert for gyros nor for coriolis effects, but I'm interested in what "in rest" and "level" means in this context.

Water as all other fluids I'm aware of has no internal force which pulls it to "level". There is an observable surface tension of water which leads to the effect that water keeps the surface as small as possible if it is not attracted by any other force. So water "at rest" would build a sphere (e.g. water drops).
On earth we observe water attracted by an acceleration which is either gravity or UA.  For water "at rest" on earth I would consider this force(s).
I'm aware of this theories:
- gravity on round earth, which appears radial towards the center of earth
- gravity on flat earth wich appears parallel
- UA on flat earth wich also appears parallel
All this forces appear perpendicular towards the surface of the earth and push the water down to the ground.

So taking this forces into account I would expect a round surface (level) of water on a round earth and a flat surface on a flat earth.
This leads back to the usual discussions like if the "sinking ship effect" is based on round earth or refraction, perspective or bending light or if the
centrifugal force of a spinning earth is strong enough to throw the water into space.

Is there anything else which forces water "at rest" to some kind of level?

Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2021, 02:45:00 PM »
@fortytwo

Quote
I've seen this "water at rest is level" argument now several times but I still don't get the point.

That's normal.  This subject is deceptively complex, and much like its apparent central question "what is the true shape of the world" - it all seems so simple at first glance.

Quote
So water "at rest" would build a sphere (e.g. water drops).

Only through theory, not empirical science.  When the surface tension forces are able to do so, yes.  At rest, water of significant surface area / volume does not attempt to become a sphere.  This is all demonstrable, which is what and why natural law is.  The "meniscus defense" is irrelevant non-sequitur and a failed attempt (though usually subconscious) to avoid the scientific facts (laws) by trying to distract from them with trivial exception.

Quote
Is there anything else which forces water "at rest" to some kind of level?

Not really, however in addition isostatic/isobaric air pressure is distributed and equal - further ensuring the shape of the surface is always flat (in addition to the real cause, which is really weight and the natural law of density separation.  There is no "gravitation" giving matter weight.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.


« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 06:29:47 PM by jack44556677 »

fortytwo

Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2021, 03:36:07 PM »
There is no "gravitation" giving matter weight.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.

Thanks Jack for your reply, this statement explains a lot. It also makes it clear to me that I cannot understand your view if this is the base. But I understand that - assuming this - water "at rest" would be flat. So at least I think I understood the words now.
But still curious ...
Is this your private view of the world or is there a group of FEers sharing this "no gravity, no UA" approach? Is there any read on this world view?
If weight is an intrinsic property, how do objects (or water) "know" which direction they should be pulled to?

Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2021, 03:59:34 PM »
@steelybob

Quote
You can prove it's the sun and moon causing it by comparing the tide times with the solar and lunar positions - the relationship is obvious.

I was taught that too.  Since scrutinizing and researching the claim more thoroughly (than the commonplace blind acceptance and repetition lamentably required by conditioning through rote under the guise of education), I have found it to be false.

There is no connection to the moon, sun, or any other light in the sky.  The tides frequencies, amplitudes, and tidal node locations (which are fixed) are wholly incompatible with newton's old assumption.

Turns out the moon is not a god which holds sway over the oceans.  That was just particularly stupid mythology, like virtually all of astronomy/cosmology.

Quote
There is a small, but measurable slope across the water. If that slope can exist, why can't water also adopt a curved shape?

No one said it couldn't! Water (fluids) can be any shape.  But its surface only has one at rest (of non-miniscule surface area / volume, and under natural conditions - obviously).

I should be clear; the contention is not that fields/forces (such as electrical / magnetic) cannot be used to cause the sustained convex curvature of water's surface (required for the globe model) against its demonstrable natural behavior - it is that no such forces exist in reality to do the job (and they would be exhausted quickly, because it is very costly to perpetually prevent natural law/behavior).  The tides are instances of water pooling/shoaling/moving periodically for reasons we do not understand, and are not tugged by invisible strings attached to the sun and moon (and everything else in conceivable reality) which continue to defy explanation, discovery/measurement, rigorous definition, and generally demonstrable reality.

Quote
I suppose I have to ask: what would it take to persuade you that you're wrong?

An important question, that is valuable we all explore and understand/keep fresh our answer(s) to.  In this case, speaking specifically about the curvature of water's surface at rest (not the shape of the whole world, which is another kettle of fish), the answer is science!

This point is all to do with scientific law.  Scientific law is established through rigorous and repeated measurement alone.  It can ONLY be refuted by rigorous and repeated measurement to the contrary.

All measurements that exist of water's surface at rest are flat, level, and horizontal.  That is HOW/WHAT the natural law of hydrostatics is.  This law has stood unchallenged for centuries (perhaps longer), but what is needed to overturn it is inarguable/explicit by the basic definitions of science (and scientific law of which it is in part comprised).

Quote
If you're curious to know more, and willing to change your view on new evidence, then read on.

Always, i hope!

Quote
Set them wrong and you'll make it considerably worse.

True, though this would be the same with a drift nut that only accommodates the mechanical frictions of the gyro as well.  I may come around on this point, as I do not doubt that the reality of the deflections (varying apparently by latitude) of gyroscopes, pendulums etc.

Quote
I'm curious to know what you think is the cause of the coriolis effect

The coriolis effect is a "pseudo-effect" that very few people I have encountered understand properly (due to commonplace miseducation).  ACTUAL deflection, caused in gyroscopes and pendulums, is NOT coriolis.  Coriolis ONLY occurs when there is a separate reference frame which is in relative motion which merely APPEARS to create deflection.  Like the wiki said, it doesn't really exist in the popularly understood way.

I expect you are really asking about the real/actual (not apparent/illusion caused by reference frame) measured deflection, for which the drift nut is needed to compensate (potentially anyhow).  Personally, I am an aetherist. I recognize that light is a pressure wave in a medium, and that medium is called aether.  It is a very fine fluid, and it permeates all of reality.  Even if you could somehow force all the matter we recognize out of a volume, the fine fluid would (and does) remain.  It is my suspicion that the aether is in motion, swirling around us and that this motion very subtly affects/interacts with matter in its turbulence.

Quote
FET offers no explanation for any of that - doesn't that make you doubt your FET thinking on some level?

In my view, FET doesn't even exist.  Theory, in a scientific context, does not exist for "flat earth" nor could the shape of the world ever be a theory.

Flat earth research is not really about offering explanation.  Indeed, recognizing/concluding/speculating that the world is flat both answers a question no one asked, and creates mountains more - many of which we thought we'd already answered.  There is nothing wrong with lacking explanation, that is how we always live our lives and must.  The honest answer to most all questions is "we don't know".

I agree that observational and - most especially - experimental evidence must be reconciled at some point with the new revelation (perhaps) that the earth is not spherical - the fact that we have trouble doing so and have many "impossible contradictions" and "lack of explanations" today is unsurprising.  Scientific revolution always goes this way.

I should be clear, if I haven't already, that I am a "globe-skeptic"/"globe denier" not a "flat earther" (if such a thing there be).  We lack the verified and verifiable data to make a determination as to the shape of the entire world, but I have concluded that it is not, and most likely cannot be, spherical.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2021, 09:47:00 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2021, 07:19:51 PM »
@fortytwo

Quote
Thanks Jack for your reply, this statement explains a lot

More than you realize, i should expect! Both mass and gravity are purely mathematical entities (non real) with no demonstrable reality.  It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as (and always were - they are fictional components of a real whole/entity).  Neither have ever been defined rigorously enough to go about trying to look for either, and this is very much true today for the same reasons.

Quote
It also makes it clear to me that I cannot understand your view if this is the base.

Hopefully that is a temporary predicament that we will overcome through discussion!

Quote
But I understand that - assuming this - water "at rest" would be flat.

You misunderstand.  The fact and scientific law are both established through measurement alone - they have no requirement/limitation for you (or anyone) to "assume this" nor anything else in science!  The reality of the situation is that you, as a result of indoctrination through conditioning by rote under the guise of education, ASSUME that gravity is both a real force AND causes a sustained convex curvature in large bodies of water.  It is unscientific to assume, and an affront to emperical science to accept and believe things which have never been measured (in fact, only their contrary has been measured, repeatedly for centuries)

Quote
But still curious ...

May we both be fortunate enough to remain that way!

Quote
Is this your private view of the world or is there a group of FEers sharing this "no gravity, no UA" approach? Is there any read on this world view?

My research approach and conclusions are my own - but the view that gravity isn't real is prominent among flat earth researchers and (mostly theoretical) physicists alike.

Quote
Is there any read on this world view?

There are many, but I am not sure how well the wiki here or on the sister site do at representing it.  I have a LOT written about it personally, but making it concise and consumable is tough.

It should be clear that my research conclusions as a result of the study of history and science do not represent a worldview. If you accept the conclusions, they destroy one that has been disingenuously/erroneously passed off as science from childhood.  The research findings, like most in flat earth research, are critical - nor formative.  They do not suggest alternatives :(. What you are left with is the lack of a (belief based, as all world-views are) worldview - which makes you better able to engage in objective science (and other research) without that mythological handicap.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1365
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2021, 08:26:56 PM »
@steelybob

Quote
You can prove it's the sun and moon causing it by comparing the tide times with the solar and lunar positions - the relationship is obvious.

I was taught that too.  Since scrutinizing and researching the claim more thoroughly (than the commonplace blind acceptance and repetition lamentably required by conditioning through rote under the guise of education), I have found it to be false.

There is no connection to the moon, sun, or any other light in the sky.  The tides frequencies, amplitudes, and tidal node locations (which are fixed) are wholly incompatible with newton's old assumption.

Turns out the moon is not a god which holds sway over the oceans.  That was just particularly stupid mythology, like virtually all of astronomy/cosmology.

I have lived for decades on both the great lakes, and two separate oceans and your claim goes against everything I have observed.  I have on many, many occasions looked up the tides in advanced either for boating or for setting up a photographic shot or simply to know when I can traverse a particular tidal bay area.  I've never found them to be anything but perfectly accurate. I've never been stranded because the tide went out in an unexpected way. I've never had to swim back to shore when a basin filled up unexpectedly.

Spending a day at the beach (of both the ocean and the great lakes) shows the tides to be very real.  These also are exactly as predicted.  Again, countless times I've spent on beaches, and tides are something I am very familiar with.  I am certainly not simply repeating something a book told me.

Going to a beach as the seasons pass you can see the high tide mark slowly changing, and as a curious child, looking up the case and finding the explanation to fit perfectly what is observed, continuing until one is an adult.

I have a question, and a challenge for you.  I would like to see the data you are basing your assumption on. How have you found the tides to not be connected with the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun?  What are your measurements, and how do they conflict with the theory and predictions of tides caused by gravity?  What are the details of how you came to your conclusion?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2021, 10:28:09 PM »
Quote
I have a question, and a challenge for you.  I would like to see the data you are basing your assumption on. How have you found the tides to not be connected with the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun?  What are your measurements, and how do they conflict with the theory and predictions of tides caused by gravity?  What are the details of how you came to your conclusion?

I was about to ask a very similar question. Jack - show us a time and place where the tide isn't in some way in sync with the moon and sun. What has prompted you to form that view? Tides are complex, of course, but that doesn't mean they aren't explicable. The relationship between tides and the moon and sun has been observed for thousands for years, well before we had an explanation for it.

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by your arguments. What, specifically, do you find implausible about the world being a globe? You keep referring to water being naturally flat, but you must surely agree that if the world is round, its dimensions are such that the seas and other large featureless expanses would have the appearance of being flat to a human on the surface, as the curvature is very small. It's not rote learning that's causing us to think this way - all of the observations we make, whether its the rotation of the stars around the celestial poles, the movement of the planets with respect to the sun, which planets pass in front of or behind which celestial bodies, the changing direction of the wind around low pressure systems on either side of the equator, the existence of latitude nuts in directional gyros whose setting reduces to zero at the equator but yet increases either side of it...all this things, large and small, all point to a globe shaped rotating planet. It's all consistent. It's ok to be skeptical, healthy even, but it's not enough to simply reject stuff - you have to say why you're rejecting it, and present evidence.