When a flat Earther tells you that water cannot curve
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (105)
sorted by:
The language used is often simple and imprecise, leading to misunderstandings like this.
Of course water can curve, it's a fluid! It can take the shape of anything you put it in, or forces applied to it. In the case of the droplet, it is being forced into that shape by isostatic air pressure (air pressure pushing equally on all sides)
However, aside from negligible surface tension artifacts, the surface of liquid water at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal.
It is more accurate to say that water at rest does not, and by its nature cannot, curve convexly in the manner the globe model describes/requires. This has been a law of hydrostatics for centuries.
If you went out and directly measured the supposed curve of a stationary body of water (such as a frozen lake, for instance) - you would be the first person in history to do it!
In fact, everyone who has ever tried (including the scientists in the discipline of hydrostatics) has found that it does not, and cannot, curve at rest the way we are taught it must to fit the presumptive worldview we are steeped in.
To anyone with an earnest interest (including critical!) in this subject, or the heavily funded psyop that surrounds it, please join us to exchange our views on c/flatearthresearch!
Suggested language implies words shaped by setting letters together...aka a complex/composite of more than one. Sound implies whole (perceivable) setting itself apart (perception) aka whole (oneness) into partials (ones) aka simple/single.
Sound (simple) or Words (complex)...one is perceivable as self; the other suggested by others. Consenting to the latter; tempts one to ignore former.
REST, noun - "cessation of motion" contradicts FLUID; adjective (Latin fluere) - "to flow". Water (matter) seeking level implies balancing (momentum) within motion.
The trick...ones consent to suggested words tempts one to hold onto definitions (definite; affixed), which implies ones ignorance of being (life) moved (inception towards death).
a) What if it (matter) already exists within (momentum) an outside force (motion)?
b) What if form (life) can only be shaped within the mold (momentum) of flow (motion)?
c) What if calling matter (water) motion (fluid) tempts one to ignore the perceivable mold for those molding suggestions aka those who make the calls?
How can sides differentiated from one another be equal? While you're considering that...why do few suggest equality (same) through diversity (difference) towards many?
Quote this "law".
I did.
"Barring negligible surface tension artifacts, the surface of water at rest is always flat, level, and horizontal."
The reason it is a law is because there are no measurements which contradict it. That's all laws are - repeated measurements of what is.
Prior to "newton's folly", there are many descriptions - both mathematical and, more commonly, in english of this law (aka phenomenon/behavior) which describe it plainly. After "newton's folly", the laws are surreptitiously changed to include fictional terms - but this is simply not acceptable in science. Laws are created from measurement. They cannot be changed (and should not) until and unless contradictory measurement is provided which warrants such a change.
From where did you pull this quote? Searching it yields zero results.
It's my quote.
Try the other one i mentioned if you are looking in more modern hydrostatics textbooks.
Otherwise, the older the hydrostaticks text, the more plainly it will tend to be written. The surface of still water (of significant surface area) is always level, flat, and horizontal.
Do you have an actual source for this "law" that isn't yourself?
Yes, many. It is in a great many books on hydrostatics, and phrased a number of different ways (both mathematically, and more often - in english). One way it is described in modern textbooks is "Fluids at rest cannot resist a shear stress" or equivalent.
You seem to be misunderstanding what a scientific law is, and why.
We establish them by measuring what is, not what we imagine might be.
When we measure water's surface at rest, again - barring negligible surface tension artifacts, it is always flat, level, and horizontal. The "source" of this law, as well as the place to look for a citation validating (or invalidating, as it appears you hope) it is reality! Still, if you trust books more than you trust your own competence to assess reality - there are many available on hydrostatics.