. . . . . . . . . . . . .
If there ever was someone who came to this forum trying to obscure their preconceptions and biases, it certainly isn't you. On your first post from username "EarthIsntFlat" you ask if it really is. It's obvious it would take earth shattering proof to possibly even make you consider existence on anything but a globe.
The most convincing aspect to me is fluid dynamics, the fact water always seeks it's own level, therefore it couldn't possibly exist on a sphere. That and gravity to me, by all appearances is pseudoscience, in a similar vein as evolutionary theory.
And I could just as well say "If there ever was someone who came to this forum" convinced that they and they alone have "The Truth" it must be you, "TheTruthIsOnHere". When someone claims that they have "The Truth", immediately my instinct is to look carefully into what they claim.
Then you say your "most convincing aspect to me is fluid dynamics, the fact water always seeks it's own level, therefore it couldn't possibly exist on a sphere."
But given some sound reason for water to "stick" to that ball there is no problem at all.
To you it might seem trivial, but
if you wet a tennis ball you will find that a lot or the water does not drain away.
Why? Simply because there IS a force keeping it there. In this case it is surface tension. Now I know that this only acts on a small scale, but if there is some other force that acts on a large scale then water can "stick" to the globe. This needs to be an attractive force, and there are not many of those that act at a distance.
Water in an eddy or rotating tub does not stay level, in this case from inertial forces due to the rotation.
But the important force that does act a distance you blithely dismiss!
It is caused by gravitation.On another thread I asked you
what Cavendish (and numerous others) actually measured in there experiments. As yet you have not yet bothered to comment, so I will ask you again!
You claimed!The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon[1].
Cavendish never set out to "prove gravity". His aim was to "weigh the earth" and find its density. And he did not approach it "with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it."
Before Cavendish the density of the earth was expected to be similar to that of the surface rocks - around 2,500 to 3,000 kg/m
3 and Newton used this sort of figure to estimate the mass of the earth.
Cavendish, however,
found that the density of the earth was much higher at 5,448 kg/m3 - a little lower than the current figure.
So you are completely wrong in this!
Cavendish did not set out with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it.
Cavendish had no idea that his density of the earth would turn out so high.
From the Cavendish result we can
calculate the Universal Gravitational Constant G, and his result is
within about 1% of the accepted value. Cavendish could hardly have achieved these result by accident or guesswork!
Once you accept gravitation there is no problem with the water surface conforming to the shape of the globe. The mean sea level is what is used to define the shape of the earth - the geoid. The water simply sets it own level as you say.
[1] Saying that "a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon" is simply unfounded. Since Cavendish's time numerous experiments to find the value of the Universal Gravitational Constant G
have been performed. It has been repeated so often for two reasons. The first is simply that the forces are so small that experimental error is difficult to avoid. The second reason is that there are still very small, but so far unexplained, apparent variations in the values of G determined. Making these more mysterious is that the "Gm product" that controls g and the periods of satellites, the moon etc is perfectly stable. Yes, even in science there are still (many) unanswered questions.