Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
Pete I told you ages ago, that level isn't straight!!!!! the water at the ends of the hose is just following the curvature of the earth.

I am confused by your theory.

Are you saying if you put a straight edge between the two ends of the hose there will be a slight hump in the middle?

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..

decrepit said..
Pete I told you ages ago, that level isn't straight!!!!! the water at the ends of the hose is just following the curvature of the earth.

I am confused by your theory.

Are you saying if you put a straight edge between the two ends of the hose there will be a slight hump in the middle?

Yeah, go on Decrepit! Answer that one to his satisfaction!

Its a dumb suggestion though as clearly the hose can be straight or bent as a banana and the ends will still have the water level. Some people have even been known to use this effect to check for level across vast distances of tens of metres.

Of course the hose will be bent somewhat but what i am asking is if you were to put a solid straight edge between the two ends of the hose according to decrepit, in the middle should be higher than the solid straight edge - no or yes?

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Of course the hose will be bent somewhat but what i am asking is if you were to put a solid straight edge between the two ends of the hose according to decrepit, in the middle should be higher than the solid straight edge - no or yes?

No, and it is a no because you do not understand what the use of a hose full of water is when measuring levels. if you did, you wouldn't be asking this question.

I can tell from the question that you have never used a hose like this to work out levels. If you did, you would know that the hose between the end-points is of almost no consequence. So it could be straight or bent. The water at each end is still level to each other. The alignment of the hose generally does not matter.

If you still disagree, go to bunnings and buy 2 metres of clear hose, fill it with a fluid with colour in it, and work out why the hose straightness does not matter so much. If the straightness doesn't matter, then checking it with a ruler is pointless.

Of course the between the two does NOT matter.

The water at each end of the hose when it comes to the top shows the height between the two points is level or horizontal.

The point i was trying to make is decrepit as i understand it, is saying the water in the hose at both ends will contour down which i do not agree with.

the water at the ends of the hose is just following the curvature of the earth - decrepit wrote

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said.

I am confused by your theory.

Are you saying if you put a straight edge between the two ends of the hose there will be a slight hump in the middle?

Or you could use a laser, if it wasn't for the fact that the Illuminati bend the light.

Both of you didn't read what I said.
There's THREE hose ends, two at the ends, and one in the middle.

And yes Pete what I'm saying is the water in the middle hose will be above a straight line between the outside ends, But the hose has to be sufficiently long to notice the difference. (several kilometers I guess)

And Pete, It's NOT a theory. This is what will happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Of course the between the two does NOT matter.

The water at each end of the hose when it comes to the top shows the height between the two points is level or horizontal.

The point i was trying to make is decrepit as i understand it, is saying the water in the hose at both ends will contour down which i do not agree with.

the water at the ends of the hose is just following the curvature of the earth - decrepit wrote

What does contour down mean?

Maybe the scale at which you are looking at it is impacting your perception?

He suggests that if you take a hose and add another section in the middle to give you a total of three ends, place them inline with each other, and they will all will be level with each other. I think we all agree on that.

But if you then make the hose 20kms long between each end, the three will not align. If you shot a laser at each end, the three would not line up ever.

The world looks flat. Why? Because it is big. The tests you can do to see this make no sense if you do them on a scale so small.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
Both of you didn't read what I said.
....

I did, but PM33 specifically mentioned the two hose end example, so that's what I commented on.

See my latest reply.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
Both of you didn't read what I said.
There's THREE hose ends, two at the ends, and one in the middle.

And yes Pete what I'm saying is the water in the middle hose will be above a straight line between the outside ends, But the hose has to be sufficiently long to notice the difference. (several kilometers I guess)

And Pete, It's NOT a theory. This is what will happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep it simple by not adding a third hose.

You said the water in the middle will be above a straight line between the outside ends of the hose as i understand it.

Not demonstratable so not science.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..

Not demonstratable so not science.

PcD could you please tell us what is your definition of science? I believe this will clear up a lot of the confusion on these de-facto HW threads.

Something that the average joe can demonstrate is a start.

OK. The local effects of Empirical science is the only currency then.
So, just getting the Venn diagram in my head right: If something cannot be demonstrated an 'average Joe', it's a 'belief'. Correct?

Teaching us things that can't be proven like Big Bang and evolution is not science.

Just back to the Q at hand, did I get my Venn diagram right? If something cannot be demonstrated by an 'average Joe', it's a 'belief'. Correct?

Yes

Ok cool. I understand and I am probably not clever enough to reduce everything to a localised physical experiment, but it gives me something to ponder.

I suppose conducting experiments at home to prove one way or the other is rather impractical.
The scales involved make it almost impossible to observe most experiments at the backyard level, without a serious investment in equipment like sensors, Cameras and lenses.

Look at the cameras, lenses and accessories Dave Mckeegan uses
Well outside my price range.

But the average Joe can observe plenty of things that can inform or provide pathways for further investigation/experimentation/research.

Many individual observations may not be sufficient proof to convince anyone as to one earth or the other, but they could add up to enough to at least cast doubt on to one.
This does not automatically mean the other is correct.

But you can make a hypothesis based on what you have observed and then find ways testing it.

- Why can I see the sun reflecting off the bottom of an aeroplane at sunset and sunrise?

- Why can I, quite accurately, predict how far away a navigational light will be when it becomes visible over the horizon?

- why does my VHF radio have such short range talking to ships, but can talk to towers or aeroplanes much further away?

These are not just freak/one-off occurrences. These are repeatable and pretty much anyone with access to those areas and equipment can make those observations.

The trick is then seeing how these sorts of observations fit into your model and figuring out if they help clarify anything.

I feel the hose experiment mentioned above doesn't support one model over the other. Unless it's unfeasibly massive with an impossible straight through the earth to reference against it.

Yes, I provided a simple real world experiment with dipping point navigation that almost precisely reflected spherical navigation calculations. But that example was beyond the minuscule sphere of Pcdefender's understanding of the world we live in.

Select to expand quote

fangman said..
Ok cool. I understand and I am probably not clever enough to reduce everything to a localised physical experiment, but it gives me something to ponder.

Ahh, he forgot part 2. Part 2 allows for science to include sketchy videos from certain sites and memes. Don't forget the memes. These trump any experiments.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I suppose conducting experiments at home to prove one way or the other is rather impractical.
The scales involved make it almost impossible to observe most experiments at the backyard level, without a serious investment in equipment like sensors, Cameras and lenses.

Even just distinguishing between a change in the height of the landscape around you by looking at such a small perspective is clearly impossible. Meaning it is not possible to prove this with such a burden of proof based on a small mindset.

It's sort of incredible isn't it that over hundreds, or more likely thousands of years, that people have looked at the natural world around them and postulated ideas and then supported them or otherwise, to come up with the idea that the earth is a sphere.

Clearly any idiot can think the earth is flat. It looks flat. I open my front door and all I see is flat.

But to look at the things around you and then come up with a theory that matches, all without space travel or incredible scientific equipment shows the power of observation and thought.

Even things like watching the night sky and seeing how we move in relation to other stars and then coming up with a theory why we see what we see is pretty cool.

My friend is on an Arctic cruise off Svarlbad. Right now he is telling me that the sun is not setting. I'm afraid that he has been abducted by the Illuminati.

On the other end of our flat world, I'm staying on the 47th floor in Melbourne and can see Geelong.

One fact will beat 40 wise men. 40 facts will never defeat one idiot.

To argue with one idiot will only ever prove there are two.

How about a Foucault Pendulum? Can you make one at home that works?

Why do cyclones rotate clockwise and hurricanes rotate anti-clockwise? (hint Coriolis).

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
How about a Foucault Pendulum? Can you make one at home that works?

Yes, but tricky.

Steve Mould on YouTube did one, might be able to do a budget version.

No surprise that Da Vinci figured out the Earth was a globe.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

Yes, but tricky.

Steve Mould on YouTube did one, might be able to do a budget version.

A small tripod-mounted pendulum on one of those playground merry-go-rounds would be an excellent demonstration for young children and fools.

How long would it keep swinging? And how would you prevent children and flatteartherers correcting the swing?

Just a few minutes is all that is needed to prove the fact that the Earth is spheroidal.