Convex water

It's not flat, it curves toward you. It's a radius with you in the center.

>I did the math
Which math?

Yep
Show math and we will rate math

It s above.
8 inches a mile times the distance squared in miles.

>hurr durr I'm fucking retarded
>listen to me or my church buddies will start a movement

It s above.

I think you may not be very smart.
Or any good at math, for that matter. That statement has units of [inches]x[miles].

I m starting to think the experiment I asked about dosen t exist.

...

okay so this website uses terrain data and a little bit of basic geometry to show you what you should be able to see from any place on earth and any altitude.

heywhatsthat.com/

When you are looking out over water, the curvature bends away from you equally over the entire body of water. So the horizon appears level. So you look out over the middle and the ocean curves away at 8 inches per mile, then you look 45 degrees to your right, the ocean here ALSO curves away from you at 8 inches per mile. Then 90 degrees to your now left, the ocean, again, still bends away from you at 8 inches per mile. So over that 90 degrees of view of ocean, you see it bending away from you at the same rate at every point on the horizon, so a flat line.

This is as you would expect. If instead when you look to your left or right the ocean suddenly was bending away from you more than that rate, then you would see a curve that was higher in the middle and lower to the left or right. But this would mean the water was uneven (that there would be a "hill" in the water) as you would if you saw a hill out on the horizon.

I m not looking left or right.
I m looking at one line, straight on.
I ve checked physical maps and Google maps and the distance is 30 miles.

That's a 600 feet.

I can t find any anything online about the convex nature of bodies of water or the name of the experiment that proves it s even possible.

If you guys could just post me the links to the information about convex bodies of water, I would appreciate it.

Yeah, I know. I can t find information on them so I came here.
I ve googled it and can t find anything.

Oh so you mean pic related

>every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

>1870
Repeated and found to show no curvature. The videos are on YouTube.

Can you sight something modern with better equipment?

Go watch the video that still is from.
The creator is posting fake videos and asking for money.
If it was real you could post numerous examples along with the name of the modern scientific experiment that demonstrates and proves that standing bodies of water are convex.

There s real pictures of those transmission tower, here s one, give the rest a google

The problem with these is that they basically don't take into account the atmosphere.
The atmosphere has an affect on light. Cold air bends light in a different way than hot air. I think we have all observed the affect of hot air on light so there's no point denying that the effect exists.

The real problem with these amateur experiments is that they don't take into account or mitigate as many variables as they can. They just make an observation and if it fits their desired result they accept it.
When faced with opposing observations they make up explanations for them, often using the same reasoning that could be affecting their own observations.

Scientists aren't perfect, but there is enough opposition in science to keep them mostly honest, unlike the Flat Earth Society. An echo chamber doesn't make for good science. None of them are looking for flaws in each others work. Anything that fits is acceptable. Anything that doesn't fit doesn't count.

Here a clearer still than the one you posted...

>they took out the markers Wallace used to prove the refraction of the light
Nicely done.

...

Could you post the link to science experiment they demonstrate and prove the that standing bodies of water are convex in schools and universities, please?

I sure hope you posted that image supporting the curved Earth, or else I have some bad news for you.

Sure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

See

See

No you don t.
Please post the link to information I requested.
epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html

So you don t have anything modern or more scientific than from 1870?
youtu.be/XUjMytEgLyw

I have some bad news for you then.
There's a clear curve in those pylons as they reach the horizon.

See again.

Wallace specifically put markers of even height at measured distances along the canal so that if any refraction were occurring it would be visible in the relative heights of the markers.

They did the test without markers.

That talks about curvature from left to right across the field of view.

See This pic is taken from too high up. The ~8 inch drop per mile squared is undetectable at this distance because the curvature does not obscure the pylons in any way, as you are well above the height of the pylons. Even if the curvature was enough to complete obscure the last pylon at the distance that pylon is from the camera, the camera being well over twice the height of the pylon from the ground would still clearly be able to see the entire pylon.

In every picture taken from below the height of the pylons: the curvature is clearly visible.

astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
Here is one meant for like kids I guess. Curvature isn't really something that is needed to be taught in universities because experiments aren't needed.. You can just go watch a ship sink below the horizon or go look at a far away building and see how the bottom is hidden from view. And the sun set experiment also benefits from all but removing the errors in the Bedford level experiment since change in atmospheric distortion would be minimal over such a short period of time, so would be basically identical for both observations. Also wear sunglasses and dont look directly at sun or even better any left over eclipse glasses

>What s the name of the scientific experiment that proves that bodies of water are convex?
What does this even mean? Why is this being used like some sort of trump card? This is just meaningless word salad. This is just asking the wrong question.

What experiment proves water can conform to the exterior of a solid sphere? Can't get much clearer than that.

Still the wrong question, faggot. Your retarded question comes from a position that assumes that liquids adhere to a surface without some external forces involve. It's still a question that doesn't make any fucking sense.

...

Globalists state that the oceans conform to the exterior of the spherical earth due to gravity.

Science requires observable, repeatable and measurable experiments to prove such claims. If you don't have any, it's not science.

>What experiment proves water can conform to the exterior of a solid sphere? Can't get much clearer than that.
Experiments that prove gravity.

Take a drinking glass and hold it 1 meter above the floor. If it doesn't become shards of smaller pieces of glass on the floor at approximately 9.8 seconds later, then you win.

Is condensation surface tension or gravity?

Not asking for experiments that prove gravity (no that there are any), but an experiment that proves gravity can hold deep bodies of water to the exterior of shapes.

That's a totally unrelated "experiment" to proving oceans are being held to the exterior of a sphere due to gravity.

youtu.be/L93WyZ01V24

>That's a totally unrelated "experiment" to proving oceans are being held to the exterior of a sphere due to gravity.
How? Gravity pulls objects towards the center of a mass. What makes you think that fluid particles are going to behave differently?

>Not asking for experiments that prove gravity (no that there are any)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Gravity exists and it holds the oceans to the planet.

Your argument is invalid because you have no argument, just denial of facts.

>flat earther is faced with argument
>lacks the capacity to think for himself and just posts a video hoping that it would contain his arguments

youtu.be/3oz7k7Wn_vo

>Electromagnetism
>Surface tension
Gravity is not the only force in this system

>Electromagnetism
Only significant when it comes to shit like difference in polarity.
>Surface tension
Only if the volume is small enough that their mass doesn't get overwhelmed by something like gravity.
You're also, probably, under the assumption that all forces probably have some sort of linear behavior.

I see one of us is far more willing to have a conversation than the other.

The ships you think are going over the horizon come back with the p900 when you zoom in.

YouTube has lots of videos.
I m going to buy a p900 to see for myself.
Have you ever heard of The Socratic method?

Thanks for your ad hominem
Have a nice day

You're right, it isn't the only force.

Glad to see you aren't denying gravity anymore.

>socratic method
>thinking that posting a video is equivalent to asking questions as an argumentative tactic
try harder, kiddo

Is there a modern version in operation we can observe? In a science exhibit or university? Could you post the link?

Ships are small, though. What about big structures that actually sink below the horizon?

So the answer to my question about the experiment that demonstrates and proves bodies of water are convex is an 1870 experiment that s been repeated with mixed results, up until it s on YouTube with flat results.

No modern scientific experiment exists proving a body of water, such as the ocean, is convex.

Got it.

It's an experiment whose only aim is to find the gravitational constant. It's operating under the assumption that gravity exists.

NOBODY FUCKING ASSUMED THAT BODIES OF WATER JUST NATURALLY FORM AS A SPHERE WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL FORCES. THAT IS A FUCKING RETARDED QUESTION COMING FROM A POSITION THAT HAS A FUCKTON OF FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

There are vids on YouTube of atmospheric lensing experiments that are interesting as well if your interested in the topic

youtu.be/w24KqhKjHxY

>proves bodies of water are convex is an 1870 experiment that s been repeated with mixed results, up until it s on YouTube with flat results.
Because they didn't use markers to measure if any refraction was taking place.

They didn't even try to remove KNOWN variables. Did they even read the wikipedia article before they attempted to recreate the experiment or were they just trying to fall into the same trap as the first person who did it?

10 minute mark to the end if you don t want to watch the whole video
youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

Same thing: youtube.com/watch?v=7oBmNe13AVE

Well, if gravity didn't exist then there would be no gravitational constant to measure.

Seeing they were able to measure the gravitational constant clearly gravity, or at least a force that acts like gravity, exists.

You can call it whatever you want. So long as it is acting like gravity then it's just gravity.

>rounding error exists
Imagine My Shock™

And there is no modern scientific experiment you can post that demonstrates and proves water, such as the ocean is curving.

I or anyone else can go and observe and measure it. Where I am, the apex of the curve should be 600 feet and clearly visible. It s flat though.

See

Luckily we have observations for that

Maybe this guy should use a filter next time so that what we're seeing is actually the sun and not a glare.

Those pictures have been debunked already.

...

Why do flat earthers always post videos without explanations? It's almost like something done intentionally to make it more difficult to argue with them. Giving us a task of deducing and explaining what their arguments are supposed to be.

Why would there be tilting left or right when it is going away from you? Are you actually retarded?

>looks like they're floating on water
Oh, he is retarded.

The math completely refutes it.
There is no modern experiment that proves a body of water is or can be convex, at least that no one has posted yet.

The fake image you just referenced, go to the author's still images and videos (which look like CGI, more so when compared to real photos of those transmission towers) and post the towers from the side view so we can all see the curve clearly.

Other examples should not be hard to find.

>There is no modern experiment that proves a body of water is or can be convex, at least that no one has posted yet.

>red arrow to left
See >tilted on angle
It is tilted away, but hardly a measurable amount at this distance. Also would not be noticeable from this camera since, you know, AWAY.

>arrow on right
See the 8 inches per mile squared stuff. If the further from you the distance is squared, then the closer the distance is square rooted. The right most pylon is closest to camera, so curvature near it is exponentially less than the ones further away.

>floating on water
I mean, because you can't see through the water to see that they aren't.. But what does it matter if they are floating or not? They are all the same height above the water either way

The curvature is 8 inches per 1 mile
That's only ~16 feet of curvature.

8 inches per mile per mile. The curve increases exponentially the further you get, otherwise you would get a straight line slope downward.

You have to square the distance.

strawpoll.me/14938555/r

The chart is posted above at

There is no missing curvature.
That photo is taken from high above. As your point of view rises the distance you can see increases. Even you argue that.

okay then, riddle me this, would that 380ft of curvature even be visible at that angle?

The math completely justifies it. On a perfect sphere under constant atmospheric pressure with a single dominant force pulling all mass equally towards the center, enough water would evenly cover the entire sphere with constant depth. Even if the sphere wasn't completely smooth, the surface of the water would be.

Math, logic, and reality all completely and entirely supports this. You aren't even (really) denying that math supports it, even though that is what you so foolishly declare. What you are REALLY asking, is that if observations made on Earth support level water on a giant ass imperfect sphere, or if they support a level but not perfectly smooth plane. And observations clearly support the former. If you with to respond with some quickly made YouTube video by someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about, go right ahead. But they fail to prove, and more importantly disprove, NOTHING.

Unlikely. If you take a rope around the entire circumference of the earth (perfect sphere version), measure it, then take another rope around the entire earth at 1m height, the difference in length between the 2 ropes would only be 6.28m (2pi). And we aren't even close to a significant percentage of the circumference at 380ft curvature. I'm too lazy to do the math but it would be even less noticeable because the camera angle is almost completely in line with the curvature of the structure. As in, the tilt would appear as a slight shrinkage of the apparent height of the structure (from the structure's base, which is hidden from view) compared the structure with no rotation (there would be no non-rotated reference near by, so you would have to calculate what the non-rotated's structure's height should be at that distance and compare to that). So I assume it would be incredibly hard go detect the tilt that results from the curvature

When you start measuring things the dimensions of Earth and the math for it aren t observable or repeatable.

If you don t feel like leaving the house, look up aerial photography of your area, identify two landmarks 20 miles or more apart and then check the posted trig chart above.

There are online earth curvature calculators and horizon calculators as well to compare your results to.

You can watch the bridge be built from the ground up on Mega Structures on you tube.

There is no measurable or observable curvature from any height.

...

Here let me go to the mega structures YouTube channel and quickly browse the video.

Hmm, yep. No curvature whatsoever you got me

Glad you found the missing 200 ft of curvature. Hard to believe what difference two inches can make.

...

They build the bridge to match the curvature of the earth, such that it remains a constant distance above the water at all points. "Accounting for the curvature of the earth" means they DON'T build it like in the lower half of your image.

Also, (you), I guess.

...

...

Honest question to flat earthers: what's the motive behind making us believe that the earth is spherical? It's not like there is a round earth tax we have to pay or anything of that sort.