You claim that the method i presented doesn't work
When? Could you quote me? I think you have misunderstood.
We are still talking about the one clam that i made. Nothing has been added or changed about it. Best not to "go for another bite" until we're done chewing the food already in our mouths, don't you think?
You won't because you can't.
Can't what? Can't come up with a procedure to measure the curvature of still water directly? Are you sure you aren't describing your own shortcomings?
It isn't hard to measure the surface of still water directly, and there are many ways to go about it. But you always have to measure the surface of the water in order to do it.
It's not poorly worded
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.
Only a disingenious dick would use an equivocation after being totally called out.
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.
You're just enabling this pussy to act like a bitch
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).
I can think of several ways, but to directly measure the surface of the water (for curvature or anything else) - you have to actually measure the surface of the water. Right?
You are an odd little bot.
Forgot you existed
And yet here you are, compelled to respond and unable to simply be silent and actually ignore/forget. Don't you have a "life" to get back to? Why are you wasting time here?
These are rhetorical questions, please don't bother answering - the answers are obvious.
But it measures the curvature
No, you merely believe it does. What device measures this curvature?
You calculate the curvature you assume is there using measurements of things which are NOT the curvature. Please let me know if you do not understand me, or still disagree!
Your reasoning is circular.
Please formally/explicitly describe it so i can understand what you mean. From my point of view, using calculations which depend on the world being spherical to "measure" that believed curvature is plainly the circular logic.
Of course it is an experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Your definition for experiment is wrong. There is no hypothesis, there is no iv or dv, there are no controls - it is in no way an experiment. It is merely a few measurements followed by a calculation which assumes / requires the world is/be spherical.
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".
There are no goal posts to move, and this is merely a discussion. You are NOT observing (or measuring) the "curved water". Full stop. You are measuring something which is NOT that curvature and then calculating curvature assuming it were the cause. There is a large and important difference which i am hoping is not lost on you. The water was never curved from your vantage and you never saw any curved water - right?
You are starting with very broad statements and once you are shown to be wrong, you add conditions
You may feel that way, but that is certainly not my intention. My original claim was that no one has ever directly measured the curvature the globe model describes in still water - including frozen lakes which are many miles long. No conditions have been added nor have you shown this claim to be wrong (though i would be pleased if you could!).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
It truly baffles me how anyone can deny that.
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.
Why would you ever claim that nobody has done this?
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.
https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
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.
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?
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?
According to this guy, water drops do not exist.
I agree that some of the questions are nonsense/poorly phrased (including this one) but surely you don't need to willfully misinterpret the questions and make strawman claims in order to criticize them.
As you can see in my transcribed list of the questions, this question is about large bodies of water - the example given is a lake hundreds of miles long which freezes over and demonstrably lacks the curve that it ought to have.
No one but you claimed that water droplets don't exist.
Op, what's the distance between Sydney and Santiago de Chile?
There is obviously no distance which would require the world to be any particular shape (flat, spherical, dodecahedron, etc.)
- [Considering the earth is an oblate spheroid, slightly bulging at the middle due to its rotation, and that water is much more free to move under the influence of both gravitational pull and that rotation] Why is there land at the equator [why isn't the land at the equator completely covered in water]?
- Can i see the earth's curvature [with my own eyes - not a photo/footage] or not? [and if so, how?]
- Why haven't we ever seen curved water [even on large still frozen lakes, some of which are hundreds of miles long]?
- How are we breathing right now [if space is a vacuum and our atmosphere is constantly heated by the sun - and hence rising]?
- Is the earth very very small, or is the sun very very near [considering crepuscular rays from the sun are plainly visible]
- How does the convex lens of the atmosphere cause light to diverge - causing the presumed illusion of visible crepuscular rays [this is sometimes claimed as the/a cause of visible crepuscular rays from the sun]?
- Why doesn't the artificial horizon (an aircraft flight instrument) roll backwards during straight and level flight?
- Why is the coriolis effect so selective? [Some claim that projectiles like bullets and artillery must consider the rotation of the world beneath them, but in the same breath claim that airplanes are not affected and rotate with the earth - see video for more detail]
- [Considering that things that are far away seem to be moving slower than things moving the same speed which are close to us, for example as is visible in the differing apparent speed of the road in front of us and the apparent speed of billboards in the periphery] What is the ISS flying over [as there is no visible/apparent difference in speed from the land traveling directly beneath the iss and the land in the periphery as we would expect from our experience]?
- How can microgravity be selective? [Specific questions about space footage - see video]
- Why are there so many craters on the side of the moon facing the earth [and why are those impacts primarily/all perpendicular to its surface considering the earth is effectively "blocking" that side - especially when the meteor is traveling perpendicularly to that visible surface]?
- Why don't we see permanent hills, valleys, and mountains in the [surface of the] oceans [that mirror the undersea topology]?
Who is more trollish? The troll or the troll who follows him?
Your score
There is no score, silly child. There are no points, no judges, and no audience.
You can't win a conversation, but you can lose the plot / point of it.
Trump lost fair and square and will never become president again because he tried to pull a coup on January 6
What an odd non sequitur. Sticking to a script / just a bot?
why you're afraid to click my links.
Lol. Grow up.
Shut up and fuck off report fag we both know it was you
? Both know what was me?
You keep acting like that idle threat will scare me when i can just make another account
It's not an idle threat, it's an earnest and considerate warning. It is true you can just make another account, but if you like posting here - you should follow the policies. They help to make the community better, and will help you to effectively communicate and learn the discipline to control your emotions. If you can't master your emotions, you will remain their slave :(
I could make 20 and just down vote all your posts if i wanted and mass report your account too but i have a life unlike you
People with "lives" don't think such things. Trolls/shills do.
Now reply again my nigger slave
This is not conpro. Tallestshil antics are not welcome here.
Ah to be young. You have no idea how pitiful you are acting :(
Those that can't attack the thought, attack the thinker instead out of desperation and incompetence.
You're the one still here forced to reply
I choose to reply, as i can choose to report you and get you banned, or simply block you at my leisure.
Remember, resorting to attacking the thinker instead of the thought is what the intellectually feeble and incompetent do. Do better, if you can.
If you used science or empirical evidence you wouldn't be a flat earther
Who said i was a "flat earther"? We all know what happens when you assume...
As for the rest of the childish ad hom, that only demonstrates your weakness and is a violation of policy here. If you like commenting here, don't make a mod explain it to you the hard way.
Like you're doing right now with your conformist way to try and not conform using child like logic that you have to see it to believe it
Lol. That's you! "Look at my picture"!
I am saying that seeing isn't good enough.
Empiricism, aka science, is about measurement.
If i didn't have anything better to do
You evidently don't. That's pretty pitiful.
Lol.
Always remember to ignore anything anyone says, especially if they have a differing view to your own. That way you'll never learn anything new, ever :(
Found the report fag
I didn't report you, but you should be afraid that someone will. You are violating the rules of this community, and do not deserve to be here.
Again, learn to read and attack content - it's what intelligent people do. Childish insult just demonstrates your weakness and incompetence :(
Do better if you can.
This isn't conpro. This kind of vapid insult can and will get you banned here.
If you like being able to comment on conspiracies, don't make a mod explain it to you the hard way.
not reading
Identifying your problem is the first step in doing something about it.
here is a picture
I have pictures of the lochness monster, bigfoot, and ghosts. Does that make them real too?
How on earth did you misunderstand my previous comment that badly? Could you please quote what you read and how you interpreted it to come to this conclusion? I was saying the opposite of that.
There are a few, but as i said - we should finish chewing the one bite before moving on to others. The main point is that the initial claim i made is correct - even though it is admittedly wild to recognize and accept.