*

Online Iceman2020

  • *
  • Posts: 487
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2020, 04:22:55 PM »
I dont want to be a downer but there hasnt been a post about water or level in this thread in a while...
___________________________________
"Earth isnt round or flat. It's fucked."
- Ricky LaFleur

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2020, 08:20:03 PM »
Quote
The 200 mile visibility is pretty much consistent with what you'd expect on a round Earth.

This is a different figure than distance to the horizon, but hope springs eternal! In any case, "begging the question" / circular logic is a crummy way to investigate anything.  The general format goes like this, and is to be identified and discarded/avoided wherever you see it : If the earth is round, I expect to see "something". I see "something", therefore the earth is round.  This is circular logic, and is shamefully embarrassing to scientists and children alike!

Quote
There could also be refraction effects that cause the light to track with the surface of the Earth for a few miles making it appear you can see even further.

Not for you, no.  Your faith REQUIRES you to believe (and profess, disearnestly, that you KNOW) that refraction is the reason we see too far.  It is a dogma of your faith, and no dissent is permitted.  The more objective (scientific) of us can indulge and pursue alternative explanations - but not you and the rest of the "educated" - no.  For you, there is merely the repeated mantra of "refraction" to keep the bad/inconvenient data at bay.

Perhaps I should have worded things differently rather than use "round Earth" because there's no circular logic in my statement, just merely stating what's consistent with what we broadly measure here on Earth when you factor in, yes, known refraction coefficients and the known dimensions of our water-laden rock.  Looking out over a long distance from any given altitude, the only reasons we stop seeing things are:
  • Our own visual acuity and ability to resolve something
  • Atmospheric distortion/refraction
  • Particulates/pollution
  • Something getting in the way, like a curved surface
The use of telescopes and binoculars etc. helps with the visual acuity bit, but even those aren't going to help after a point even on the best of days.  So what point is that?  It either has to be light bending out of our sight due to EA or refraction, or the object is physically being blocked by something - that something being curvature (with curvature based on a number of other observations in nature, not just one).

I have some experimental experience with light and refraction and how it behaves in different mediums of varying density, so we know that light bends according to known laws and can be mathematically modelled.  I trust you at least agree with this bit?  Regardless of the shape of the Earth, refraction can account for altering the "apparent" distance that you are able to see something at, especially in colder climates and lower altitudes.  It's also known that in some locations on Earth, at one time of year you might be able to see that skyline shimmering away in the distance, yet another time of year you might not be able to see it at all.  Nothing has changed other than the nature of the atmosphere between the two points.  I'm not saying this confirms or denies curvature, but it does provide some objective evidence for atmospheric refraction and how it can cause you to see things further away than you might otherwise expect.

If you know that there is another reason why we can sometimes see objects further away than we otherwise expect, please let us know.  I know you proclaim to be purely scientific in your research and conclusions, but throwing away almost everything you have been taught, rejecting what science experimentally shows you, and only ever choosing to trust your own observations, conclusions and interpretations of physical laws takes things to the opposite extreme and into it's own form of conspiracy-like affair.  I don't mean that in a derogatory manner either, just saying that maybe, just maybe some things simply are what they are.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #62 on: November 25, 2020, 09:11:58 AM »

@longitube

Quote
Jack, I don’t mean to be rude and hope you won’t be offended

Excellent, I feel the same way! Rudeness is mostly about lack of courtesy/empathy.  In this case, the courtesy you are lacking is in properly understanding before criticizing and recommending diminutive remedial action/"coursework" of your enlightened choosing. 

I do not wish for you to misunderstand my tone, which is intended to be playful and somewhat scathingly sarcastic.  I am very difficult to offend, and encourage others (and myself) to speak their hearts and minds freely without censure.  I encourage the ruthless/vicious attack of all thoughts and though I do not condone ad hominem, I am most functionally impervious to it (as we all should be).

Quote
but air pollution where you live must be appalling.

Though air "quality" (composition, density, refractive index etc.) has everything to do with what we are discussing, you seem to be misunderstanding.  The reason we can't see beyond the few miles is to do with the air itself (and the intensity of the distant light source of course), and requires no added help from man made particulate/pollution.  When I say we can't see more than a few miles under normal weather conditions, I am talking about specifically towards the horizon - looking through the densest air.

Quote
Sorry to be blunt.

You spoke your heart and mind earnestly and to me that IS effective communication (or at least a necessary prerequisite).  No apologies necessary, though if you earnestly wish to avoid being rude (a worthy goal) you should try to make sure you fully understand what you are criticizing first before doing so and suggest courses of action / "coursework" earnestly (not for rhetorical ad hominem).

I don’t do ad hominem, I’m only interested in facts. I may be sharp with opinions I regard as nonsense, but never with the person - there’s far too much of that on the web already, people ridiculed and their convictions mocked without addressing whatever points are under discussion.

To return to how far we can see across level water: if the limit of our vision towards the horizon is just a few miles, how is it possible to see that mountain top on the horizon from the beach on a clear day, a mountain top which is 66 miles away across the water, through the densest air at the horizon?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #63 on: December 10, 2020, 09:16:31 AM »
If I’m remembering correctly, Newton imagined gravity when an apple fell from a tree.  But if that apple would have caught on fire would the same gravity pull the smoke down like it did the apple.  What would be easier to pull.  If you have 2-100’ ropes. With a Bicycle on the end of the first rope and a train on the second rope.  The bike would be because it’s 1000’s of times smaller than the train and would require less force. 
So why would the force of gravity pull down a bowling ball faster than it would a feather.  It should take less force to move the feather. 
Gravity doesn’t effect the tides.  If it did, when it moves the oceans and seas +/- 10’ it would also move that small pond in my back yard.  But It doesn’t move it, not 1”.  Just like every other body of water that’s not connected to the oceans.

@JaySeneca you haven't quite got gravity correct there. Gravity is a mutual attractive force between two masses, with magnitude proportional to the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them.

On earth, for all but the most precise of calculations, we can ignore the distance part of the equation as the variation with elevation above the earth tends to be trivial compared to the radius of the earth. This means that any object feels a force proportional to its own mass which, in SI units, works out as F=mg, where g is a constant, known as the 'acceleration due to gravity', of around 9.8ms-2. So in your bicycle/train analogy above, yes the force required to accelerate the train is greater, but gravity exerts a force in proportion to mass, so objects accelerating in freefall do so at the same rate.

The important thing to grasp is that this only works in a vacuum. If you drop two objects of the same size and shape but very different masses, they will initially accelerate at the same rate, but the heavier one will reach a higher terminal velocity and will hit the ground first. This is because the force due to gravity is different, but the force due to air resistance at any given speed will be the same, and both objects will accelerate until the two forces are in balance. So your burning apple will indeed fall faster than the smoke around it, and a bag of feathers will fall slower than a bag of coins, all other things being equal.

So in your tidal example, yes, each water molecule in your garden pond feels precisely the same gravity force from the moon and sun as the individual water molecules in the ocean. But the aggregate effect of a small movement of all those molecules is far more visible in the sea than in your pond. Probably the best way to think of it is to visualise the moon and sun causing a tiny 'tilt' in the local angle of the gravity force, which in turn causes a tiny change in the gradient of the water. A gradient of fractions of a degree wouldn't be perceptible in your pond, but could easily generate changes in levels of a few metres at the coast when the body of water is many hundreds of miles across. Something of an over-simplification, but hopefully it illustrates the point.

*

Offline RGW

  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • For the sake of "argument for the sake of Heaven"
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2021, 10:00:48 PM »
As a retired Software Engineer I would like to add my 2c. Long ago I was writing computer programs to aim big guns on warships to targets some 30 km away.
Of course all calculations are in a orthogonal frame of reference.
We did have to correct for the earth curvature and also for refraction. (BTW, also for the Coriolis force)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7961
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #65 on: January 06, 2021, 01:38:26 AM »
As a retired Software Engineer I would like to add my 2c. Long ago I was writing computer programs to aim big guns on warships to targets some 30 km away.
Of course all calculations are in a orthogonal frame of reference.
We did have to correct for the earth curvature and also for refraction. (BTW, also for the Coriolis force)

The weakness of this argument is that artillery guns are not first round accurate. See - https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect#U.S._Army_Artillery_Coriolis_Table_Example
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline RGW

  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • For the sake of "argument for the sake of Heaven"
    • View Profile
Re: Water is always level?
« Reply #66 on: January 06, 2021, 01:40:54 PM »
At least they are accurate enough for the customer acceptance tests. Coriolis force was just a parenthetical addition, but I remember a project where the customer paid extra to remove the Coriolis correction but later paid even more to get it back in.