[fisherman]

I read that quite often and it is true enough, but "level" is a relative term.  In RET, it means level with respect to the center of gravity.

In FET, with respect to what is water "level"?

[Iceman]

In FET, 'level' and 'flat' are presented as synonyms.

This is mostly due to the assertion that gravity isnt real, and the apparent force/acceleration we feel is due to constant upward acceleration of the earth's disk at 9.8 m/s^2.

Just dont talk about water 'level' during tidal changes...

[RhesusVX]

You need to be careful because depending on scale, water can curve quite significantly regardless of FET or RET.  At the micro scale, water on a surface can bead up, and against the edges of containers you have a curved meniscus.  We all observe this every day when it rains on our freshly waxed cars and when we drink from a glass of water.  Of course these effects are different to what you describe at the macro scale.

At the macro scale, let's just all assume that gravity is a real effect for now (I'm a proponent of RET by the way, just so you know).  On a sphere, gravity acts towards the centre of the mass causing water to be held against the surface.  On a flat disc with a rim around it, the constant acceleration upwards also holds the water against the flat surface.  In both cases you can swim around and splash about and any water ejected will return back to the main body of water.  Agreed?

Let's now imagine that we have a perfectly smooth sphere and a perfectly flat disc (or dish as is more accurate) and we pour water onto those surfaces.  In both cases the water would end up at a constant depth covering both surfaces.  Agreed?

In FET, the surface of the water is both level AND flat.  As Iceman2020 says, flat and level are the same thing in this context.  In RET, the surface of the water can look level but is definitely not flat, it curves around the sphere.  The issue is one of scale, as you know.  The Earth is so large that even if you absolutely know the Earth is round, when you look out at the horizon at sea, at eye level the water still looks flat/straight/not curved, pick the word that make most sense here.

This is the underlying principle behind the Zetetic Inquiry approach that led to the conclusion that the Earth is flat, and this is where scale comes in.  People saw that water in their cups and bathtubs and in lakes was incredibly flat, and I think we would all agree with that.  Those same people looked out to sea and saw that the horizon was also flat, and again, we would all agree with that observation.  Putting those two together, the conclusion was formed that the Earth itself must also be flat, and no further testing of the hypothesis took place.  Everything else in FET stems from there and seems contingent on preserving that core conclusion, but to discuss further here would be woefully off-topic and I want to respect the rules of conduct as best I can.

[fisherman]

In FET, 'level' and 'flat' are presented as synonyms.

I guess that's the problem. They aren't the same thing.  A table top can be flat without being level.  If you want to say that it's level, you have to answer the question level compared to what?  Most people understand that to mean level with the floor.

If water always finds its own level, what determines what water's "level" is?

[k0nkeyd0ng6969]

In FET, 'level' and 'flat' are presented as synonyms.

I guess that's the problem. They aren't the same thing.  A table top can be flat without being level.  If you want to say that it's level, you have to answer the question level compared to what?  Most people understand that to mean level with the floor.

If water always finds its own level, what determines what water's "level" is?

gravitey

[fisherman]

gravitey

I understand thats the case with RET.  I am asking about FET.

[RhesusVX]

gravitey

I understand thats the case with RET.  I am asking about FET.

Strictly speaking, nothing - under FET the Earth is surrounded by (at the very least) an ice wall, so in simple terms you can think of a flat Earth as being like a petri dish - water just fills it up.  But, the added theory of Universal Acceleration (the flat Earth explanation for gravity, where the Earth is said to be constantly accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s^2) is what helps keep that water on the surface instead of floating away.

[Iceman]

The commonly-spouted phrase 'water finds it's own level' is a big part of the issue of understanding things (in my opinion). The phrase implies that water has an inherent property to seek out level or flatness. This is completely untrue, as we know from observation and experimentation.

A better phrase (but still very imperfext) would be "water responds rapidly and predictably to applied stress(es)". Every level surface of water we observe on earth is under an applied stress. We will honour equivalency here and say it's either gravity or upward acceleration. This creates the level (flat-ish) surfaces to everything from puddles to oceans.

Important distinction though: that water is not in it's natural state - it is in equilibrium with the forces applied to it. For a closed, static system, that's gravity/UA. Keep observing that water for a while and you'll see ripples in puddles as a vehicle walks by or a kid walks through it. Waves form on lakes as the wind pulls on the surface, if those are sustained long enough, a seiche can develop, creating up to several feet of difference between water levels in up wind vs downwind shorelines, on the oceans tides go up and down twice daily.

Water's 'natural' state is only observable where the forces acting upon it are net-zero, such as in space, on the ISS. Here we see water forming spherical to amorphous blobs.

That's a long rambling mess just to say that water doesnt do anything except what its told. Take a body of water that has 'found its level', put your face close to it, and just yell at it to do something. With a  loud enough voice you'll see what I mean!

[RhesusVX]

Water's 'natural' state is only observable where the forces acting upon it are net-zero, such as in space, on the ISS. Here we see water forming spherical to amorphous blobs.

I kinda' disagree, in that liquid waters natural state is observable regardless of what forces are acting upon it.  When observed on Earth in the presence of gravity, it forms a level normal to the surface (mathematically speaking).  In the complete absence of gravity it forms a sphere/globule as approximated in experiments onboard places like the ISS or Vomit Comet, where the effects of gravity are cancelled out.

[fisherman]

A better phrase (but still very imperfext) would be "water responds rapidly and predictably to applied stress(es)". Every level surface of water we observe on earth is under an applied stress. We will honour equivalency here and say it's either gravity or upward acceleration.

OK, I think I get it.  In RET, water is level relative to the center of gravity and in FET, it is level relative to UA.  The point you make supports the idea that water can curve, if it is only responding to the forces applied to it.

The surface of the water is always perpendicular to the force applied to, then water must curve in order to stay perpendicular to the force of gravity, which follows the curve of the globe.

[jack44556677]

@fisherman

Iceman said,

In FET, 'level' and 'flat' are presented as synonyms.

but this isn't quite right.

Level and horizontal are the synonyms. Level and horizontal are only ever flat (sort of a square / rectangle relationship).  These are facts, and they have no refutation - regardless of perspective on the shape of the world.  If you disagree, please provide any demonstration of your belief that level and horizontal can differ.  NOT an explanation - a demonstration!

[fisherman]

Level and horizontal are the synonyms. Level and horizontal are only ever flat (sort of a square / rectangle relationship).  These are facts, and they have no refutation - regardless of perspective on the shape of the world.  If you disagree, please provide any demonstration of your belief that level and horizontal can differ.  NOT an explanation - a demonstration!

I don't disagree that level and horizontal are the same.  It's that very fact that would allow water to curve on a globe earth.  Water conforms to the shape of the force acting upon it.  Gravity on a globe earth curves, therefore when gravity acts on water, it must also curve in order to stay horizontal (or level) to the force.

[Iceman]

@fisherman

Iceman said,

In FET, 'level' and 'flat' are presented as synonyms.

but this isn't quite right.

Level and horizontal are the synonyms. Level and horizontal are only ever flat (sort of a square / rectangle relationship).  These are facts, and they have no refutation - regardless of perspective on the shape of the world.  If you disagree, please provide any demonstration of your belief that level and horizontal can differ.  NOT an explanation - a demonstration!

Level = horizontal, but neither of those means flat.

[RhesusVX]

Flat is synonymous with straight
Level is synonymous with horizontal

Jack44556677 is 100% correct in this regard.  Something is considered level when it is either normal to a flat surface, or tangent to a curved surface.  Level definitely does not necessarily mean flat:

[fisherman]

Flat is synonymous with straight
Level is synonymous with horizontal

Jack44556677 is 100% correct in this regard.  Something is considered level when it is either normal to a flat surface, or tangent to a curved surface.  Level definitely does not necessarily mean flat:

I 100% agree with that.  My point is that a static fluid cannot have shearing forces. So any force effecting the surface of water must be horizontal to it.  On a globe earth, gravity effecting the surface of water would follow a curve, so the water must also curve to remain horizontal to gravity.

[RhesusVX]

I 100% agree with that.  My point is that a static fluid cannot have shearing forces. So any force effecting the surface of water must be horizontal to it.  On a globe earth, gravity effecting the surface of water would follow a curve, so the water must also curve to remain horizontal to gravity.

Yeah I’m not sure this can be refuted regardless of model.  On a globe Earth water follows the curve, on a flat Earth it remains flat.  Just so happens that when the globe is very large and you’re a tiny human being, water on a curved Earth still looks flat.

[Iceman]

So we all agree that water surfaces on earth are level/ horizontal. This surface develops as an equilibrium response to stress(es) applied to it, and that the surface will be perpendicular to the direction of net stress - in FET this means the direction of our upward acceleration, in RE, this means gravitational pull towards the center(ish) of the earth.

The equivalency of those two options holds for any snapshot in time, if we are considering observations made from the surface of the earth (because we arent going to use satellite or NASA hoax data to shape this discussion).

I would argue that one of the key areas where deficiencies in UA arise, is when you look at the temporal aspect of what we know about water's surface along our ocean coastlines. Tides create water surface variations of up to several meters, twice per day. Regardless of the cause of these fluctuations, we know that for water's surface to change its local elevation (with respect to a tide gauge, for instance), 'level' is not constant. Level, at broad scales, varies through time.

UA clearly does not explain these spatial and temporal changes in water levels, but they do fit with RE and our understanding of gravity related to the relative pulls of the moon and sun, over the course of earth's rotation.

This point is not meant to shift the focus of this thread to debate the origin of tides - search in the wiki and in other fora for numerous past descriptions of Tidal mechanics in FET. The point here was to emphasize that 'level' is observably transient, based on centuries of measurement of water at gauges along our coastlines.

For the curious, I would recommend looking into how we actually define "sea level" for such a common phrase, and the single most important elevation datum we have, its an amazingly complex history!

Here's a link to a video that introduces (but definitely doesnt explain in any real detail) some of the issues

[RhesusVX]

Interesting stuff Iceman2020, and while it might be going a little off-topic, I agree with your sentiments.  In any model, FET or RET, tides are complex things because they vary in number and magnitude all over the surface:

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/16556/why-high-tides-occur-simultaneously-on-opposite-sides-of-the-earth

However, if we just subscribe to the fact that generally speaking gravity causes water to bulge in places, it does raise the valid question of what "level" really means.  Perhaps in this context it's better to think of gravity as a vector (has a direction and a magnitude):

Under RET, gravity is a vector pointing directly towards the centre of the Earth.  However, the Moon also has gravity.  Its vector points towards the centre of the Moon, directly away from the Earth, just smaller in magnitude.  Same with the Sun, it too has a vector that points away from the Earth, although smaller in magnitude again due to distance and scale. The resultant gravitational effect on the body of water is the sum of those three vectors, and the surface of the water is always at a tangent to the normal vector.  Mathematically you could say it is "level" with respect to gravity, but in reality the surface would still be curved (even if we can't observe it due to scale).

Under FET, gravity (caused by UA) also has a vector always pointing directly down towards the surface of the Earth.  In this model, my understanding is that neither the Sun or Moon have the property of gravity, so given that the Earth doesn't rotate either, as Iceman2020 says, UA alone clearly does not explain the mechanics.  I couldn't find anything in the Wiki here, or much elsewhere to be honest so I'd be interested to know what those mechanics are.

[fisherman]

Under FET, gravity (caused by UA) also has a vector always pointing directly down towards the surface of the Earth.  In this model, my understanding is that neither the Sun or Moon have the property of gravity, so given that the Earth doesn't rotate either, as Iceman2020 says, UA alone clearly does not explain the mechanics.  I couldn't find anything in the Wiki here, or much elsewhere to be honest so I'd be interested to know what those mechanics are.

It isn't just tides that are a problem for FET/UA model, but the behavior of water in general on earth's surface.  Whatever the force is that keeps things "pinned down" on the surface in response to UA (inertia?), it isn't enough to keep water from flowing downhill.

There's a reason why plumbers install pipes on a downward slope.  Water in a level pipe doesn't flow.  But when it is on a slope, it begins to flow.  Movement requires force, which suggests there is a force at work when a pipe is on a slope that is not present when a pipe is level.  The Equivalence Principle wouldn't account for this because (among other reasons), it only applies to objects that are in free fall.

[RhesusVX]

@fisherman, maybe my understanding of UA isn't correct, but doesn't the Equivalence Principle go something like as follows:

• In a rocket in space, not moving, I feel weightless.  The equivalent to being in freefall on Earth.
• In a rocket accelerating upwards, I feel weight.  The equivalent to standing on the surface of the Earth with gravity.

Neglecting wind resistance and other complexities of where the ground is, in the first example, if I had a glass of water and slowly tried to pour it out, it would pretty much just stay in the glass or at least stay relative to my position.  In the second example, the water would pour out onto the surface beneath me.  If Universal Acceleration is considered actual constant upwards acceleration of the Earth (much like the rocket) wouldn't water in a sloping pipe just flow as we expect anyway?