You are either joking or you don't understand.....you cannot prove it....unless you can literally fly yourself out far enough to see.....otherwise.....there are all sorts of issues with the evidence...
None exists. The best I can find is 'balloon footage' from "100k+ feet"
How did they calibrate that.....how do you or I know that the 'altitude' is accurate....
What defines altitude but measurements from sensors....did you build those sensors?
Again....proof....
If Gravity is a lie....what is the altitude measuring for downward force???
You are either retarded.... seriously incapable of self control....ie. super super excited and not realising it.... Or.....you are trying to be antagonistic....not exactly....wise thing...frankly....it shows you don't have complete understanding otherwise you would be far more willing to take some time.and explain it....since you cannot...it's either not important (I think it is...) Or you are unable to
.....
More likely the latter.
I have not said it's a globe you fu king idiot.....
I said there is no proof to either.....you cannot provide proof and neither can the globe people....
Don't scapegoat one idiot to defend another....you are the idiot still...so are they unless you acknowledge your own shortcomings and ignorancee.....
Proof is not coincidence....nor is it stupid vague statements with Photoshop behind....
Seriously....selling inspiration posters....that's all you need... proof....they are not though...lmao
Curve-level :( This is like an inverse/corollary argument of that :( This won’t be very convincing to the (largely unbeknownst) believers as a result.
They say level is “curve-a-level” (which sounds just as stupid and unscientific as it is) and you say (effectively, if not intentionally) level is always flat - requiring a convex trough (at the very least) to accommodate the curvature and maintain a flat top like we observe and measure... It’s a conflation to convey the absurdity, but all it does is end up coming off as absurd.
——————————————
To all with any interest in this subject and/or topic, please join us on the community I created for its further exploration and exchange of views!
Wherever you are on a sphere, you are always at the peak of the hump; everything curves 360 degrees around you, however gradually. The hump is commonly portrayed as being in front of the observer, but that can never the case.
Yes, exactly. I thought when you were asking about where the peak of the hump is you meant the peak of the hump relative to the glass container (hence why you said things like "100 feet from the left.") That would depend on the tilt of the container
Seeing that the ground curves in all directions, would we even be able to place this extremely long container on the ground?
Nope! Unless there was a terraformed part of land, I don't think there's anywhere on earth you'd be able to place a container like that flat on the ground
Okay then I don't understand the point of your "standing on a sphere" comment.
Okay, so let's assume that we place this container midpoint first and while it rests perfectly balanced (for the sake of the thought exercise, let's assume glass doesn't break, heh), we fill in the space between its underside and the ground with dirt (or whatever) such that the container never moves until we're done. Then we fill it with water and let it rest. Would the water take any particular shape?
Great question, and actually it has me rethinking what I wrote earlier.
Short answer: the surface of the water will be flat, as the top of the container.
Disclaimer: I understand you are doubting the shape of the earth, but since you asked relative to the current working theory of a globe earth, I am going to make statements about that only due to the fact that it's relevant to the specific question. Anyway:
Gravity is a downward force, but it might be easier to say that it's an inward force, originating from the center of Earth's mass. When it comes down to it, gravity is pulling everything in to a singlular point at Earth's core, which gets weaker as we get further away. This is one important element to the equation
Fluids, like water, will always take the shape of the container they're in, in this case a rectangle. They will also obey the laws of gravity (obvi) pulling it towards the earth.
In the case of what you wrote here, the water will not curve, and that is due to the shape of the container that it's in, which is flat. Gravity is still pulling the water downward, but since the container is so long technically there is an ever so slightly weaker gravitational force on the ends of the container vs the middle, but it's negligible. The fluid will still keep the shape of its container.
So, I apologize for the comment above:
Assuming the container is flat along the top and bottom, the water wouldn't be parallel with the rim of the glass.
Why would it need to be 1.2 miles deep? at that point, the floor no longer 26 feet below sea level, but 1.2 miles below.
The builders may not account for the curve, but if they are digging relative to sea level., then they never have to. If throughout the whole stretch of the canal the depth is 26 feet, then the base of it actually is curved without them even intending it to be.
water will always act due to the forces of gravity, not necessarily stay "level." It's why when you have instances of zero gravity (such as in the infamous "vomit comet" plane ride used to train astronauts), you'll see water float.
Gravity does act on bees and flies. Their wings and the muscles they use to operate them allow them to fly. If gravity didn't affect them, they wouldn't need wings.
Because the earth is spherical, water is "curved," but it's because it is settling on a curved surface where the point of gravity is in the middle. On a flat bottom surface (such as the container example you put out), the water surface will be flat.
Where are you seeing that the laser will have a 0" change in altitude?
.....height....digging depths.....are relative to the centre....so...if I move a few feet....guess what...I am still perpendicular to the surface......lol and that is related to the rotation....relative to a reference point....but....depth....is relative to the centre....not the surface point you start at........so you would curve on every step.....you understand that?
Ie....you don't dig more
.... The ground has sunk with you.....see....you cannot use this argument logically....it's a bad shitty argument.
I am not saying it's a globe...I am saying this argument is stupid and full of holes....big ones....
What you should be doing....is building a ramp that goes up.....8 inches per square mile relative to your starting point....not present point.......and then see if you need to walk up hill hahahaha.
In theory it should be flat if built perfectly (but again ...how do you ensure you have maintained a perfect ramp?) if the world is a globe.
I guess you could cut a straight line which has a known depth and apparently follows the curve....then you calculate the apparent volume and you ramp up half the cut with measured amount of filler which should be based on the so called amount of curvature needed.
Then you have a ramp and a remaining half of the cut is empty space. You should now be able to fill the remaining space with the same amount of volume of water ( assuming non porous surfacing) and then it should perfectly fill the pools space.
If the world is flat then the ramp should not be perfect and then result should be more ddirt than water and it would overflow
This means nothing......
.... The centre of gravity would naturally move with the grounds curvature......ie....90 degree to center....
It is impossible to shift the centre of gravity without being massive..........
No single span bridge exists.....big enough ...
Stupid point imo
No...it means you have no proof of either ....
You are either joking or you don't understand.....you cannot prove it....unless you can literally fly yourself out far enough to see.....otherwise.....there are all sorts of issues with the evidence...
None exists. The best I can find is 'balloon footage' from "100k+ feet"
How did they calibrate that.....how do you or I know that the 'altitude' is accurate....
What defines altitude but measurements from sensors....did you build those sensors?
Again....proof....
If Gravity is a lie....what is the altitude measuring for downward force???
You are either retarded.... seriously incapable of self control....ie. super super excited and not realising it.... Or.....you are trying to be antagonistic....not exactly....wise thing...frankly....it shows you don't have complete understanding otherwise you would be far more willing to take some time.and explain it....since you cannot...it's either not important (I think it is...) Or you are unable to .....
More likely the latter.
I have not said it's a globe you fu king idiot.....
I said there is no proof to either.....you cannot provide proof and neither can the globe people....
Don't scapegoat one idiot to defend another....you are the idiot still...so are they unless you acknowledge your own shortcomings and ignorancee.....
Proof is not coincidence....nor is it stupid vague statements with Photoshop behind....
Seriously....selling inspiration posters....that's all you need... proof....they are not though...lmao
Curve-level :( This is like an inverse/corollary argument of that :( This won’t be very convincing to the (largely unbeknownst) believers as a result.
They say level is “curve-a-level” (which sounds just as stupid and unscientific as it is) and you say (effectively, if not intentionally) level is always flat - requiring a convex trough (at the very least) to accommodate the curvature and maintain a flat top like we observe and measure... It’s a conflation to convey the absurdity, but all it does is end up coming off as absurd.
——————————————
To all with any interest in this subject and/or topic, please join us on the community I created for its further exploration and exchange of views!
Says the bot who never leaves the server room
/u/925TheJOY
Density??? Lmao. Explain or stfu
Sea level is relative to the center of the earth though, not the surface of the land. So sea level actually does have a curve
Assuming the container is flat along the top and bottom, the water wouldn't be parallel with the rim of the glass.
As far as the "hump" is concerned, it would be a constant arc. Where the peak of the hump is depends on the position of the glass container.
Yes, exactly. I thought when you were asking about where the peak of the hump is you meant the peak of the hump relative to the glass container (hence why you said things like "100 feet from the left.") That would depend on the tilt of the container
Nope! Unless there was a terraformed part of land, I don't think there's anywhere on earth you'd be able to place a container like that flat on the ground
Okay then I don't understand the point of your "standing on a sphere" comment.
Great question, and actually it has me rethinking what I wrote earlier.
Short answer: the surface of the water will be flat, as the top of the container.
Disclaimer: I understand you are doubting the shape of the earth, but since you asked relative to the current working theory of a globe earth, I am going to make statements about that only due to the fact that it's relevant to the specific question. Anyway:
Gravity is a downward force, but it might be easier to say that it's an inward force, originating from the center of Earth's mass. When it comes down to it, gravity is pulling everything in to a singlular point at Earth's core, which gets weaker as we get further away. This is one important element to the equation
Fluids, like water, will always take the shape of the container they're in, in this case a rectangle. They will also obey the laws of gravity (obvi) pulling it towards the earth.
In the case of what you wrote here, the water will not curve, and that is due to the shape of the container that it's in, which is flat. Gravity is still pulling the water downward, but since the container is so long technically there is an ever so slightly weaker gravitational force on the ends of the container vs the middle, but it's negligible. The fluid will still keep the shape of its container.
So, I apologize for the comment above:
Because it is completely wrong
You would at that scale need to account for the weight of the glass.....and the waters own mass too. Technically.
Why would it need to be 1.2 miles deep? at that point, the floor no longer 26 feet below sea level, but 1.2 miles below.
The builders may not account for the curve, but if they are digging relative to sea level., then they never have to. If throughout the whole stretch of the canal the depth is 26 feet, then the base of it actually is curved without them even intending it to be.
water will always act due to the forces of gravity, not necessarily stay "level." It's why when you have instances of zero gravity (such as in the infamous "vomit comet" plane ride used to train astronauts), you'll see water float.
What kind of proof would you need?
26 feet is deep enough, so 1.2 miles would be plenty deep for a canal.
Gravity acts on everything, including canals. I'm not sure what your point is...
The whole water "bending" part is a little misleading. Water is a fluid. It's not bending at all. It's filling a container.
Gravity does act on bees and flies. Their wings and the muscles they use to operate them allow them to fly. If gravity didn't affect them, they wouldn't need wings.
Because the earth is spherical, water is "curved," but it's because it is settling on a curved surface where the point of gravity is in the middle. On a flat bottom surface (such as the container example you put out), the water surface will be flat.
Where are you seeing that the laser will have a 0" change in altitude?
You don't.... understand.
.....height....digging depths.....are relative to the centre....so...if I move a few feet....guess what...I am still perpendicular to the surface......lol and that is related to the rotation....relative to a reference point....but....depth....is relative to the centre....not the surface point you start at........so you would curve on every step.....you understand that?
Ie....you don't dig more .... The ground has sunk with you.....see....you cannot use this argument logically....it's a bad shitty argument.
I am not saying it's a globe...I am saying this argument is stupid and full of holes....big ones....
What you should be doing....is building a ramp that goes up.....8 inches per square mile relative to your starting point....not present point.......and then see if you need to walk up hill hahahaha.
In theory it should be flat if built perfectly (but again ...how do you ensure you have maintained a perfect ramp?) if the world is a globe.
I guess you could cut a straight line which has a known depth and apparently follows the curve....then you calculate the apparent volume and you ramp up half the cut with measured amount of filler which should be based on the so called amount of curvature needed.
Then you have a ramp and a remaining half of the cut is empty space. You should now be able to fill the remaining space with the same amount of volume of water ( assuming non porous surfacing) and then it should perfectly fill the pools space.
If the world is flat then the ramp should not be perfect and then result should be more ddirt than water and it would overflow
I have you an actual experiment to do....how about it eh?
Wanna actually do something. Run my experiment