# Why can't the surface of water be convex?

• 7 Replies
• 3968 Views

#### Perfect Circle

• 734
• You are a pirate!
##### Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« on: November 28, 2008, 02:26:38 AM »
I know most people don't accept these experiments, but Tom Bishop almost certainly does. Rowbotham and this guy seem to base a lot of their flat earth proofs on the idea that the surface of water must be flat, and that plumb cords must always be perpendicular to a flat horizontal. That means that all the experiments in question could possible do is prove that we do not live on a round earth with flat water. Duh. In order for these experiments to disprove a round earth, they would need to first assume the RET and find a contradiction. That means ALL aspects of a round earth, including a center of gravity, non-Euclidean geometry, and geodesics.

Let me make the immediate connection between a flat water surface and a flat horizontal (as found in Euclidean geometry), being that the water surface is always parallel to the horizontal. But in RET, a horizontal in respects to the earth is not flat. Geodesics show that if a line follows a straight path along the surface of a three-dimensional object (the round earth in this case), it will not necessarily be straight in three dimensions:

This is directly related to gravity. The center of gravity is point in the center of a round earth, according to RET; it does not act in some universal 'down' direction as assumed in these experiments. Therefore, anything relying on gravity, such as leveling tools, plumb cords, and the surface of water would follow this curved horizontal plane, which is equal to the line tangent to the center of gravity at all points on the surface of the round earth. Altitude is also relative to this horizontal plane (which on a round earth follows curvature).

This knocks out all of those 'giant protractor' experiments as well as 'plane' arguments, because when a protractor attached to a plumb cord is level (the level being level when it is tangent to the center of gravity, therefore following the curved horizontal), the plumb cord will always be at the 0 minute mark on a flat earth, as long as the plumb cord falls straight (perpendicular to the tangent of the center of gravity), and a straight-flying plane will never change altitude as long as it remains the same distance from this curved horizontal and is affected by gravity (which it must be according to RET).

Now to the water. Water, being affected by gravity, is said to have a surface parallel to the horizontal. In RET, the surface of water is actually parallel to the line tangent to the center of gravity at that point on the round earth. In non-Euclidean geometry, a surface parallel to a horizontal plane (tangent to the center of gravity) that follows a curve would also follow that curve. Unless water could defy gravity, it's surface would be curved on a round earth. The idea that the water surface is always parallel to a flat horizontal came from observations that were not measured, or measurements at distances too small for curvature observable (the round earth would be too large).

I expect no response from Tom Bishop, because of 'tl;dr' (which is how I feel now that I look at it). I will just link to this whenever Tom or someone else refers to any of these experiments.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

#### Perfect Circle

• 734
• You are a pirate!
##### Re: Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2008, 12:49:05 PM »
lol Wouldn't that have more to do with surface tension, polarity and adhesion?
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

?

#### dim

• 404
• More overpowered than Aristotel.
##### Re: Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2008, 01:34:16 PM »
lol Wouldn't that have more to do with surface tension, polarity and adhesion?

Yes, the ice wall creates surface tension.

Nah. Ice wall is just ice wall. The mass of ice on the sight of our eye. No any tension i see about it.

#### Perfect Circle

• 734
• You are a pirate!
##### Re: Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2008, 02:50:59 PM »
lol Wouldn't that have more to do with surface tension, polarity and adhesion?

Yes, the ice wall creates surface tension.
The size of a meniscus would increase linearly with the size of a body of water. An ice wall would not create a measurably concave water surface on the ocean. The main point is that since a round earth would include non-Euclidean geometry, the horizontal plane would actually follow the earth's curvature, and therefore, anything related to this horizontal would not be able to detect curvature since there would be no deviation from the horizontal.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

?

#### dim

• 404
• More overpowered than Aristotel.
##### Re: Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2008, 03:47:47 AM »
lol Wouldn't that have more to do with surface tension, polarity and adhesion?

Yes, the ice wall creates surface tension.
The size of a meniscus would increase linearly with the size of a body of water. An ice wall would not create a measurably concave water surface on the ocean. The main point is that since a round earth would include non-Euclidean geometry, the horizontal plane would actually follow the earth's curvature, and therefore, anything related to this horizontal would not be able to detect curvature since there would be no deviation from the horizontal.

Hey. Do you telling us that nobody is ABLE to see the curvavture edged by the horizon? But lots of RE people all the time telling us that they see that curvature.

And once more time. Why to use numbers here, why to bind something to non-Euclidian or Euclidian. Just observe.

?

#### Cowzor

• 14
##### Re: Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2008, 04:12:31 PM »
I know most people don't accept these experiments, but Tom Bishop almost certainly does. Rowbotham and this guy seem to base a lot of their flat earth proofs on the idea that the surface of water must be flat, and that plumb cords must always be perpendicular to a flat horizontal. That means that all the experiments in question could possible do is prove that we do not live on a round earth with flat water. Duh. In order for these experiments to disprove a round earth, they would need to first assume the RET and find a contradiction. That means ALL aspects of a round earth, including a center of gravity, non-Euclidean geometry, and geodesics.

Let me make the immediate connection between a flat water surface and a flat horizontal (as found in Euclidean geometry), being that the water surface is always parallel to the horizontal. But in RET, a horizontal in respects to the earth is not flat. Geodesics show that if a line follows a straight path along the surface of a three-dimensional object (the round earth in this case), it will not necessarily be straight in three dimensions:

This is directly related to gravity. The center of gravity is point in the center of a round earth, according to RET; it does not act in some universal 'down' direction as assumed in these experiments. Therefore, anything relying on gravity, such as leveling tools, plumb cords, and the surface of water would follow this curved horizontal plane, which is equal to the line tangent to the center of gravity at all points on the surface of the round earth. Altitude is also relative to this horizontal plane (which on a round earth follows curvature).

This knocks out all of those 'giant protractor' experiments as well as 'plane' arguments, because when a protractor attached to a plumb cord is level (the level being level when it is tangent to the center of gravity, therefore following the curved horizontal), the plumb cord will always be at the 0 minute mark on a flat earth, as long as the plumb cord falls straight (perpendicular to the tangent of the center of gravity), and a straight-flying plane will never change altitude as long as it remains the same distance from this curved horizontal and is affected by gravity (which it must be according to RET).

Now to the water. Water, being affected by gravity, is said to have a surface parallel to the horizontal. In RET, the surface of water is actually parallel to the line tangent to the center of gravity at that point on the round earth. In non-Euclidean geometry, a surface parallel to a horizontal plane (tangent to the center of gravity) that follows a curve would also follow that curve. Unless water could defy gravity, it's surface would be curved on a round earth. The idea that the water surface is always parallel to a flat horizontal came from observations that were not measured, or measurements at distances too small for curvature observable (the round earth would be too large).

I expect no response from Tom Bishop, because of 'tl;dr' (which is how I feel now that I look at it). I will just link to this whenever Tom or someone else refers to any of these experiments.

I have absolutly no idea wether you are FET or RET, because your post really is tl;dr. Anyway, that picture is fundamentally flawed because those two 90 degree angles are in fact not 90 degrees but slightly less. Any idiot can figure that one out.

?

#### iznih

• 471
##### Re: Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2008, 04:40:48 PM »
he's actually showing the flaws of experiments supporting a fe.

"And once more time. Why to use numbers here, why to bind something to non-Euclidian or Euclidian. Just observe."

And one more time: would scientists use numbers if numbers weren't an advancement compared to "just observe"? no.

#### Perfect Circle

• 734
• You are a pirate!
##### Re: Why can't the surface of water be convex?
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2008, 08:39:29 AM »
I have absolutly no idea wether you are FET or RET, because your post really is tl;dr. Anyway, that picture is fundamentally flawed because those two 90 degree angles are in fact not 90 degrees but slightly less. Any idiot can figure that one out.
Come back once you've covered Riemannian geometry, so you don't look like such an idiot.

And once more time. Why to use numbers here, why to bind something to non-Euclidian or Euclidian. Just observe.
Because curved surfaces are not flat surfaces, therefore, you cannot base your calculations on a flat surface, like those experiments do, or you will always get contradictory results. The fact that you get correct results using data following a curved horizontal should be proof enough that the earth is round.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.