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:
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
Explain it in your own words.
You won't because you can't
How high up are the stars?
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.
If the Earth isn't curved, what are you measuring when you do the experiment?
The same things that you measure when you believe it is!
The things you actually measure don't change when your beliefs of what they mean do. In any case, you are not measuring the surface of water in any way - obviously.
It is also important to recognize that the procedure you linked to is in no way an experiment. Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition in science, and we all need to do a better job not to use it incorrectly/colloquially. Calling this measurement and subsequent calculation an experiment is an attack on science, and incorrect colloquial definitions for scientific vernacular are a primary reason for the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from/with.
But it measures the curvature. Your reasoning is circular.
Of course it is an experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You just keep moving the goalposts. Every time one of your arguments is refuted you just answer with "Yes but that's not what I really meant".
Same with your claim that curvature cannot be observed. Once I explained to you how to observe it you just moved the goal posts to "yeah but that's not the way i imagined It".
You are starting with very broad statements and once you are shown to be wrong, you add conditions. That's not how it works.