Twelve questions for u/Eisenhorn
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
Yes, it does - and i agree that it is poorly worded/phrased - but it does not claim that water droplets don't exist. That is your willful misinterpretation of it to create a strawman / falsely claim that they said/meant something they plainly didn't.
Such rhetorical tricks shouldn't be necessary - don't you agree?
Do you think that the questions posed in the video have any merit?
First answer; some of them, yes.
Second answer; all questions have merit - even the ostensibly stupid ones.
The question you were misinterpreting, for example, is certainly worth exploring - even though i agree that it is phrased poorly.
A better rephrasing (perhaps) would be, "if large bodies of water truly curve convexly the way the globe model describes - then why don't we see that curve even in frozen lakes which are hundreds of miles long?"
The bigger trouble with most all of these questions is that they won't be all that illuminating to the disinterested or the skeptical. There are "standard" answers available to all of them - which ndt, you, or anyone could provide.
The conversation and joint exploration of such questions is what is valuable/interesting, not the "quiz".
Again, using the rephrased example : a few common answers spring to mind -
we can't see that curvature, even in frozen lakes, because we are so relatively small and that curve is so relatively large.
we can see/perceive that curvature but only in, for instance, the observing of objects receding disappearing bottom first and vice versa.
we can see that curvature but only if we get far enough away from it - like from space.
An even better phrasing, getting closer to the real issue, would be : if the surface of water curves the way the globe model describes, then why hasn't anyone ever directly measured it - like on a frozen lake multiple miles long for instance?
The curvature is visible. That's why you see the tops of ships at the horizon before you see the rest of the ship. That's like the most basic observation one can make and what I learned as a little child when it came to the topic of the round earth.
It truly baffles me how anyone can deny that.
Here is how you measure the curvature. Why would you ever claim that nobody has done this?
https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
That was answer #2. However, technically/literally this is NOT seeing curvature and it is important to recognize that. The curvature is NOT visible while watching ships, as the horizon always appears flat.
The observation you mentioned is interpreted and the existence of curvature is inferred from it. This is very different than seeing (or measuring) the curvature inferred to be there.
You, me, and most everybody else too. We are taught such things as little children, long before we have the capacity or freedom to critically evaluate or refute such interpretations.
I haven't come across many who do deny it. The observation of ships over the horizon is demonstrable and repeatable. In flat earth research, it is most often the interpretation of the observation at issue, not the observation itself. Denying what is trivially demonstrable and observable is silly / borderline crazy.
Because that is the conclusion that i have arrived at after a lot of study on the subject. There is not now, nor ever was in history, a procedure (or further, measurement obtained from such a procedure) to directly measure the convex curvature (described by the globe model) of the surface of still water under natural conditions. In fact, all the procedures for doing so in hydrostatics over three plus centuries show clearly that the surface of still water (barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is always flat, level, and horizontal and cannot, by its very nature, take such a shape at rest without large amounts of energy to fight against water's inherent properties.
This is again not a measurement of the surface of still water (direct or otherwise). Such calculations (going back to the first recorded, eratosthenes) absolutely depend on the sphericity of the world in order to be meaningful. If the earth is not spherical, as these calculations assume/require, then the numbers they produce are meaningless and the cause of the observations (used to infer such sphericity) popularly believed and taught is wrong.
For the target audience (ndt and those with similar worldviews), i say it is. Their reflexive response will be the "meniscus defense". Exactly what eisenhorn did.
I appreciate why it does not appear poorly worded to you, or perhaps to me - because we know exactly what he means and would not misconstrue it the same way others commonly would.
Lol, it is to be expected though. "Q: Why don't we see curved water? A: We do, they are called water droplets!", is completely reasonable and the expected/default response from those of the presumptive (and ubiquitously taught) worldview. Which is why such questions directed at them should be more carefully worded.
Lol. I think it is important to have empathy, and understanding in these interactions. Even when met with hostility and even belligerence. Irrational anger/ire against the topic is still earnest interest in it - after all! Many of us researchers begin our journey this way.
We can't, and shouldn't, take responsibility for their behavior - only our own! We should remember that these ostensible "opponents", assuming them earnest, are actually fellow students (or aspiring) with differing views. If our views are correct, and/or theirs are incorrect (or vice versa) - continued collaborative discussion/exploration is the most important thing. Argument is for idiots. There is no "winning" a conversation, and the earnest pursuit of truth (and further will to share it) is not a silly contest (nor should it be allowed to devolve into it).