[RhesusVX]

@Pete Svarrior, believe me, I haven’t forgotten your role here.  I answered a question about things being level and flat in this thread, and responded to your resultant critique.  If that’s being irrelevant then the boundaries seem skewed, but thanks for letting me know.

As for what I meant, let me repeat for absolute clarity just in case you’re not listening.  I 100%, categorically, unequivocally, and without refute, meant gravity, because that is specifically the thing being repeatedly dismissed.  Are you not the one who said that if true then I’ve found somebody who claims things don’t fall down to Earth?  I don’t ever remember saying I saw someone claiming things don’t fall down, I simply explored your inference of somebody dismissing gravity.  But, here you go again, suggesting I work on my reading comprehension, dishing out the childish insults.  Very professional of moderator, well done.

[RhesusVX]

So when force of gravity moves these massive body’s of water that increases elevation 10’ what replaces underneath the water.  You can’t just move water without air,dirt,etc. replacing the area that has moved.

Nothing replaces the water, it’s just deeper where the tides are and shallower everywhere else - it just moves around. 

Here’s a thought experiment.  Take a sphere with water all around it to a depth of 100m all around its surface.  Now apply a Sun and Moon so that it creates tides.  Where the tides are, the depth might be 101m now.  All around the rest of the sphere the water might be 99 m deep.  Make sense?

[Jay Seneca]

So when force of gravity moves these massive body’s of water that increases elevation 10’ what replaces underneath the water.  You can’t just move water without air,dirt,etc. replacing the area that has moved.

Nothing replaces the water, it’s just deeper where the tides are and shallower everywhere else - it just moves around. 

Here’s a thought experiment.  Take a sphere with water all around it to a depth of 100m all around its surface.  Now apply a Sun and Moon so that it creates tides.  Where the tides are, the depth might be 101m now.  All around the rest of the sphere the water might be 99 m deep.  Make sense?

Water finds its level.  If Water rises from 99m to 101m without gaining any extra water. Then water has to be raised up off the bottom or the land around it has to be pushed down.

[RhesusVX]

Water finds its level.  If Water rises from 99m to 101m without gaining any extra water. Then water has to be raised up off the bottom or the land around it has to be pushed down.

So we need to understand what you mean when you say “water finds its level”, which has been the entire topic of this thread.  In both FET and RET, the effects of gravity hold the water down, and “level” means that the water is level perpendicular to the direction of gravity.  In both models, regardless of what causes the tides, water just moves around the surface.  It gets deeper in one part by getting shallower in another.  The land is largely unaffected in comparison. 

You can do an experiment with a spherical magnet and some ferrofluid.  The ferrofluid surrounds the spherical magnet to a consistent depth let’s say.  If you introduce another magnet close to it, simulating gravity, some of the ferrofluid will be attracted towards the other magnet.  As the ferrofluid gets “deeper” at the tidal point, the ferrofluid gets shallower around the rest of the magnet.  Nothing is raised up off the bottom and no surface is getting deformed.  You could also do the same with a disc magnet to simulate a flat Earth, at least the motion and depth of fluid anyway.

Just remember, tides have to happen on a flat Earth as well, and by definition the water can’t be flat at those transition points even if the rest of it is.

[Pete Svarrior]

Are you not the one who said that if true then I’ve found somebody who claims things don’t fall down to Earth?

Yes, I provided you with the definitions of the words you were misusing.

I don’t ever remember saying I saw someone claiming things don’t fall down

Indeed. Because you never meant gravity. That much is patently obvious. Perhaps you're not a native speaker of English? If so, I apologise - for some reason I thought you were British.

But, here you go again, suggesting I work on my reading comprehension, dishing out the childish insults.  Very professional of moderator, well done.

If you cannot post without resorting to personal insults, do not post. Your inability to internalise information that's presented to you is no excuse for you to lash out like this.

As for what I meant, let me repeat for absolute clarity just in case you’re not listening.  I 100%, categorically, unequivocally, and without refute, meant gravity, because that is specifically the thing being repeatedly dismissed.

Very well. Please provide a reference for an individual in this thread who claims things do not fall down (i.e. they deny gravity, rather than gravitation). If you can't do that, I will conclude that you are cynically attempting to derail this thread, and respond accordingly. After all, you were given plenty of chances to clean your act up, and so far you've chosen to double down.

[RhesusVX]

Very well. Please provide a reference for an individual in this thread who claims things do not fall down (i.e. they deny gravity, rather than gravitation).

If you can't do that, I will conclude that you are cynically attempting to derail this thread, and respond accordingly.

Seriously?  Here’s just one reference amongst many where they deny that gravity is real.  A quick search over his his post history will show many similar wordings around gravity:

We know and can readily demonstrate this on earth's surface, where "gravity" is presumed and calculated (NEVER measured) to be strongest.  Gravity, if such a force were real and not mathematical fiction, does not help with this problem

Here’s another recent one that’s quite pertinent:

So what is gravity then?

Almost no one has any idea. I have figured it out, and I am not alone.  It is mathematical fiction with no reality whatsoever.  Weight is all there is, an inexorable and intrinsic property of all matter.

I never once said the words, “There are individuals claiming things don’t fall down to Earth”.  What I said was, there is somebody claiming that gravity is not real.  You took it upon yourself to decide that if I meant what I said, it also means I’ve found somebody who claims that things don’t fall to Earth.  Your words and your interpretation, not mine, and it infers that dismissal of gravity is to dismiss things falling to Earth.  Not once did I say that, or that anybody else did.  I merely replied by saying that dismissal of gravity does not necessarily mean things do not fall, because this individual concerned caters for weight in an alternative manner in his theory of how things behave, which itself would account for why things fall.

If you think the discussion is anything different than that, perhaps get somebody independent to review it because while my initial reply which triggered yours may not have been worded the best, in no way at all was it an active attempt to cynically derail anything, nor anything written subsequently.

[stevecanuck]

...Those same people looked out to sea and saw that the horizon was also flat ...

As I stood looking out to sea last year admiring the cut-edge look of the horizon, and trying my best to see curvature, it struck me that I was looking for it in the wrong direction, and I'm sure that's the direction you're speaking of. I was looking for the horizon to be lower to my right and left, and to be slightly higher straight ahead. But, for that to be the case, it would mean I was seeing farther out to sea on my left and right than I was in the middle, and all of a sudden I realized my error.

I WAS seeing curvature, but on the wrong plane, which is at a perspective that is imperceivable. The curvature of the earth causes you to see the same distance out to sea regardless of direction, therefore the curvature is at eye level (parallel to the ground, not up and down), and there's no way you can perceive that. Imagine holding a pole out from your body at eye level and then turning in a circle. The pole end stays the same distance from you, but is describing an arc AROUND you. That's what you see when you look out at the ocean, and why it looks flat.

I haven't been on this forum long enough to know if this has been discussed before.

[RhesusVX]

@stevecanuck, I think I get what you are saying, and yes, from our perspective as being tiny specs on a huge surface, we literally cannot observe curvature directly with our own two eyes.  There are, however, a number of different ways you can conclude curvature from down here that don’t need complex maths and physics to understand.  I’ve carried out a couple myself.

The real issue being debated here is, what does flat and level mean, and how can water be level on a curved surface?  The answer is gravity (or the effects of gravitation to keep the peace).  Level just means that the surface is at a constant height in line with the gravity vector.  In RET, gravity is caused by the mass of the Earth pulling things down, and in FET, gravity is caused by Universal Acceleration (the Earth constantly accelerating upwards, pushing up on us at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2)  In RET, water can conform to the surface of a sphere, in FET it cannot.  In RET, gravity accounts for the tides.  In FET it cannot.  There are a number of differences and discrepancies that warrant understanding on both sides to respect each other’s position.

[stevecanuck]

@stevecanuck, I think I get what you are saying, and yes, from our perspective as being tiny specs on a huge surface, we literally cannot observe curvature directly with our own two eyes.

I think you missed my point, so I'm going to try again.

Imagine being in a row boat in the middle of the ocean. Now look in any direction and you will be able to see approximately 2 miles from a sitting position with your eye level at 2'6".

If you turn in a full circle you will therefore be the center of a circle with a radius of 2 miles. Every spot on the horizon will look the same to you and will therefore appear to be flat.

Or, hold a hula hoop over you so it's parallel to the ground and at eye level. As you turn 360 degrees you will see the edge of the hula hoop at exactly the same level above the ground and at eye level height, it will be a flat plane.

So, we ARE seeing curvature. It's just on a horizontal plane and NOT down to the left and right. You're looking at the hula hoop from the middle of it looking outward, and NOT from the side with it being held vertically.

I hope that explains it. Bottom line is that it's physically impossible to see left to right curvature because, you would have to see farther to the left and right than you would have to see in the middle.

[jack44556677]

@stevecanuck

Thank you for explaining that to everyone!  Most people don't understand why the horizon doesn't curve at any altitude (regardless of conception of the shape of the world), and is always a 360 deg circle surrounding you.

So, we ARE seeing curvature.

Sort of. The horizon is an optical illusion, and the edge of nothing but our vision.  Assuming mostly uniform weather / air conditions in our viewing "bubble"/sphere, the maximum distance we can see laterally is fixed/static and linear.

The "curve" (of the hula hoop of visible area, NOT the horizon or physical earth/water), also an optical illusion - but mostly indiscernible as you describe correctly, is because of this fixed and linear "seeing distance limit" (dependent on limitations of our eyes / processing, and weather).

[WTF_Seriously]

Sort of. The horizon is an optical illusion, and the edge of nothing but our vision.  Assuming mostly uniform weather / air conditions in our viewing "bubble"/sphere, the maximum distance we can see laterally is fixed/static and linear.

So the limit of our vision is variable depending upon altitude.

[jack44556677]

@WTF_seriously

So the limit of our vision is variable depending upon altitude.

Correct!

There are two main reasons for that.  One is the angular resolution limits of the human eye, and the other is the "standard"/"normal" density gradient within our air.

[Longtitube]

@WTF_seriously

So the limit of our vision is variable depending upon altitude.

Correct!

There are two main reasons for that.  One is the angular resolution limits of the human eye, and the other is the "standard"/"normal" density gradient within our air.

So how far can we see at ground level?

[jack44556677]

@longitube

Theoretical max, around 200 miles from the top of everest under perfect visibility.

At sea level (where the air is densest) it is typically only a few miles, but it varies with weather.

If you are understanding me, then you also understand why the maximum distance you can see varies depending on the matter you are looking through.  We may need to discuss this more, because optics are tricky (smoke and mirrors) and there is more than one optical phenomenon/principle at play.

[Longtitube]

@longitube

Theoretical max, around 200 miles from the top of everest under perfect visibility.

At sea level (where the air is densest) it is typically only a few miles, but it varies with weather.

I’m not concerned with standing on Everest (where most folk wouldn’t survive without an oxygen supply) so much as normal observational height. I should have been clearer, I meant an observer standing on the ground, not lying on the ground, sees just a few miles?

[jack44556677]

@longitube

I meant an observer standing on the ground, not lying on the ground, sees just a few miles?

Yes.  That is, laterally towards the horizon through the densest air you can typically only see a few miles.

The top of everest is still the ground though!  I just think it is very interesting, and misunderstood by so many, that from the highest point on earth, under the best visibility conditions possible, you can only see a couple hundred miles (laterally, towards the horizon).  That is the max, though at sea level (the min) it's only a few miles directly through the densest air.

[stevecanuck]

@WTF_seriously

So the limit of our vision is variable depending upon altitude.

Correct!

There are two main reasons for that.  One is the angular resolution limits of the human eye, and the other is the "standard"/"normal" density gradient within our air.

So how far can we see at ground level?

I live in Calgary where we can see the mountains that start 40 miles away (as the crow flies) as clear as a bell.

[Longtitube]

@longitube

I meant an observer standing on the ground, not lying on the ground, sees just a few miles?

Yes.  That is, laterally towards the horizon through the densest air you can typically only see a few miles.

The top of everest is still the ground though!  I just think it is very interesting, and misunderstood by so many, that from the highest point on earth, under the best visibility conditions possible, you can only see a couple hundred miles (laterally, towards the horizon).  That is the max, though at sea level (the min) it's only a few miles directly through the densest air.

Jack, I don’t mean to be rude and hope you won’t be offended, but air pollution where you live must be appalling. I live by the ocean and can see cliffs and headlands twenty miles away while standing on the beach. I can see large hills inland more than thirty miles away from a roadside viewpoint that’s perhaps 150 ft above sea level. From the same beach on a clear day I can see on the horizon the top of a mountain which is 66 miles away. I know this because I’ve seen these things often with my own eyes, without using binoculars, a powerful zoom camera or Google Earth. Furthermore, at night I can watch the moon and stars setting on the horizon, and how far away are these? A few miles?

You need to do some real research, Jack, do some real investigations, before declaring how little we can see. Sorry to be blunt.

[RhesusVX]

I just think it is very interesting, and misunderstood by so many, that from the highest point on earth, under the best visibility conditions possible, you can only see a couple hundred miles (laterally, towards the horizon).  That is the max, though at sea level (the min) it's only a few miles directly through the densest air.

Jack, I don’t mean to be rude and hope you won’t be offended, but air pollution where you live must be appalling. I live by the ocean and can see cliffs and headlands twenty miles away while standing on the beach. I can see large hills inland more than thirty miles away from a roadside viewpoint that’s perhaps 150 ft above sea level. From the same beach on a clear day I can see on the horizon the top of a mountain which is 66 miles away. I know this because I’ve seen these things often with my own eyes, without using binoculars, a powerful zoom camera or Google Earth. Furthermore, at night I can watch the moon and stars setting on the horizon, and how far away are these? A few miles?

You need to do some real research, Jack, do some real investigations, before declaring how little we can see. Sorry to be blunt.

@jack44556677, I don't find it that surprising really given how large the Earth is and how relatively small Mt Everest is by comparison.  The 200 mile visibility is pretty much consistent with what you'd expect on a round Earth.

@Longtitube, what you say you can see there makes absolute sense and is consistent with what I'd expect.  At 150ft above sea level you can expect to see about 15 miles anyway, and if you are looking at a large mountain in the distance, I'm not sure how tall it is, but even if it's a small one at just 3000ft, you'd still be able to see at least part of it from 66 miles away.  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.

[jack44556677]

@stevecanuck

I live in Calgary where we can see the mountains that start 40 miles away (as the crow flies) as clear as a bell.

Yes. Because of the density gradient in the air, the angle you look through it alters/determines how far you can see.  Of course you can see objects beyond the horizon, but not behind it!  The horizon also exists on land, even when there are mountains in the distance. The horizon in that case is what the bottom of the mountain is compressed/obscured into.

@longitube

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).

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.

Furthermore, at night I can watch the moon and stars setting on the horizon, and how far away are these? A few miles?

This is a very interesting, and highly relevant unanswered question!  One of the reasons I mentioned the 200 mile maximum vision limit (this includes aid / magnification), is to help dispel the common misconception, fostered and encouraged through the pseudoscience mythology of astronomy, that we can (and ought) to be able to see forever.  We can't. Through the thinnest air on the surface of the earth, the farthest you can see is around 200 miles.

This does strongly suggest, if not prove, that the lights in the sky are far closer than we have assumed (due to the mythology of astronomy erroneously/disingenuously presented to us as science since childhood), however there is less and less air straight above us to interact/obstruct and we have no idea what the initial/source brightnesses are. 

Light attenuates without any matter in the way.  This is because light is a pressure wave.  Light doesn't travel forever, much to the chagrin of the high priests of astronomy that fancy themselves scientists.

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).

@Rhesusvx

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!

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.