Proof the Earth is round

[Bad Brain]

From Brave AI:

The phrase "water always finds its level" refers to the physical property of water to settle into a horizontal surface when at rest. This concept is rooted in physics and has been discussed by various sources. Aristotle is credited with being the first to articulate that "Water seeks its own level," highlighting the natural tendency of water to find a balance or equilibrium.2

In practical terms, this means that when water is in two connected basins or containers, their levels will equalize, regardless of the shape or size of the containers.2 This principle is also used in various applications, such as in the construction of storm sewers and detention basins, where water's natural tendency to seek its level helps manage water flow and prevent flooding.

 

[Bad Brain]

I like the Bigsby for the low string tension but have found if I raise the tailpiece on a tune-o-matic I can get it just as slinky. I used to like the old six point Fender trem floated but I would bash on those trem bars like a 9th grade science teacher bashes on a flat earther and they eventually would break off in the block. I could drill em' out but the last time the threads wound up stripped. I could wrap a little tape and press fit them but trem is mostly a great way to make your guitar out of tune and break strings or in the case of a Floyd, tone suck you, so I just quit using them and eventually switched to Gibson style guitars anyways.

I really like my tunomatic bridge and even more after I started top wrapping, so thanks for the suggestion.

...Speaking of bashing trem bars, in various live Jimi videos I've come across his guitar sounds plainly out of tune but somehow he always made it sound so good!

 

[VonBonfire]

I really like my tunomatic bridge and even more after I started top wrapping, so thanks for the suggestion.

Glad it worked out!!! I have one of my tuneomatics top wrapped and raised up. I used to buy into the "if it's decked the tone transfer is better/i raised it and lost sustain" stuff but I raise it until I have just enough downward tension to keep the strings in place on the saddle. Makes those blues bends so much easier and I never caught any sustain or tone loss. Might not work so great if you are heavy handed chugging though, I dunno. I've worked on having a louder amp with a lighter attack the past five years and top wrapping and/or raising the stop piece has def helped get me there.

 

[John Frum]

You're from the US and drink VB?

Yeah m8 i'll glass ya if ya want

 

[7704A]

Do you mean concave?

Whoops, yep.

At some point the water would leave the bucket entirely, IE start climbing up the walls as rotational speed increases.

I don't think so, at first glance. The water curves because of the shape of the (imaginary) force, which is a central one (spherically symmetric). Spinning the bucket faster only makes the force stronger, the shape doesn't change.

But in any case the nature of water is such that the opposite, IE convex curvature, cannot be demonstrated in an experiment with the forces that we are able to manipulate.

Water droplets are convex. At any rate, whether it's convex or concave doesn't really matter all that much, since the point is to show that water curves when subject to a central force as predicted.

I will follow up on this, as I believe there exists plenty of amateur footage where the distance is identified to be such that the ship should not be able to be seen. But we don't really need to, because we have the Chicago footage from the Michigan shore (which as I've criticized is claimed to be a mirage.)

In which case the next question would be whether the effects of refraction have been accounted for, as there is a long history of them not being corrected for in FE arguments and when you do include them, there ceases to be an issue in all situations I'm aware of.

Okay, but when this experiment is performed, such as with a cannonball, it is never demonstrated to be beyond the margin of error when accounting for wind and other variables. If you are aware otherwise, please let me know.

If the calculations predict that it should be within the margin of error as well (I'd have to do them and see), then I'd say it's not an issue. A better experimental setup (vacuum chamber?) would be required to narrow the margins.

If you could let me know specifically where you were unsatisfied I'd be happy to address it. I think it is a bad idea to assume others are not arguing in good faith, at least when they are asking you to show them how and they want to respond. Otherwise it comes across (to me at least) as a way to avoid further engagement in a debate one is losing.

I figured you'd say something like that. I am aware that it cuts off this line of conversation, which could be interpreted as trying to weasel out of things, and that if it's a misunderstanding it's possible to clear it up. However, if you are arguing in bad faith then it'd be a waste of time to try and clear it up. As it stands right now, I don't want to waste any time. Any attempts at clearing things up are on the backburner for if/when I have time to kill, or until watching your interactions with others in the thread convinces me I was wrong.

 

[7704A]

@7704A I will vouch that Bad Brain is arguing in good faith.

Unfortunately for the time being I remain unconvinced of that. I an open to being wrong, but attempting to clear things up is something I'm putting off until I have time to kill since if he is arguing in bad faith as I suspect then it's gonna be a time sink.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

From Brave AI:

The phrase "water always finds its level" refers to the physical property of water to settle into a horizontal surface when at rest. This concept is rooted in physics and has been discussed by various sources. Aristotle is credited with being the first to articulate that "Water seeks its own level," highlighting the natural tendency of water to find a balance or equilibrium.2

In practical terms, this means that when water is in two connected basins or containers, their levels will equalize, regardless of the shape or size of the containers.2 This principle is also used in various applications, such as in the construction of storm sewers and detention basins, where water's natural tendency to seek its level helps manage water flow and prevent flooding.

I see this as proof of a round earth. Water “finds level” because of gravity.
Water in zero gravity does not find level

We see gravity pull the ocean around causing tides.

So whenever we talk about water on earth, we are talking about water we are observing under the influence of gravity.

and everything about gravity says that oceans on a round earth would follow the shape of the round earth.

 

[311boogieman]

From Brave AI:

The phrase "water always finds its level" refers to the physical property of water to settle into a horizontal surface when at rest. This concept is rooted in physics and has been discussed by various sources. Aristotle is credited with being the first to articulate that "Water seeks its own level," highlighting the natural tendency of water to find a balance or equilibrium.2

In practical terms, this means that when water is in two connected basins or containers, their levels will equalize, regardless of the shape or size of the containers.2 This principle is also used in various applications, such as in the construction of storm sewers and detention basins, where water's natural tendency to seek its level helps manage water flow and prevent flooding.

Brave AI is saying detention basins?

Need to get high and eat fruit.

 

[Bad Brain]

I see this as proof of a round earth. Water “finds level” because of gravity.

The law of buoyancy also explains that objects and substances with more density than the gas or fluid environments in which they exist settle downward, while objects and substances with less density than the gas or fluid environments in which they exist 'float' upwards. It is due to the natural properties of water that it 'finds level' when contained in a gas environment. I don't see why the theory of gravity is needed to explain this phenomena.

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

"The law of buoyancy" Holy! Archimedes' Principal literally requires weight and thrust force to calculate. Answer either of those without gravity. What's next? Infinite acceleration from the edge of the Universe to it's center? You can't make this kind of entertainment up. We're running out of crazy straws to grasp.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

The law of buoyancy also explains that objects and substances with more density than the gas or fluid environments in which they exist settle downward, while objects and substances with less density than the gas or fluid environments in which they exist 'float' upwards. It is due to the natural properties of water that it 'finds level' when contained in a gas environment. I don't see why the theory of gravity is needed to explain this phenomena.

Gravity is needed because without it, none of the phenomena you mentioned will still occur.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

The overall point being is that it’s tough to use physics/science to argue against a round earth because the physics/science being used is based on earths gravity.
And earths gravity explains why a round earth works.
If you ignore gravity, earth physics is useless

 

[Bad Brain]

Archimedes' Principal literally requires weight and thrust force to calculate. Answer either of those without gravity.

The buoyant force formula requires the density of the fluid, the volume of the displaced fluid and a constant which, calling it gravity, is simply a circular argument.

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

Stay in school, kids.

 

[Bad Brain]

Gravity is needed because without it, none of the phenomena you mentioned will still occur.

How so? Wood 'floats' in water but 'sinks' in air. Likewise, water, being denser than air, 'sinks' (in air). Helium gas, being less dense than the gases that comprise earth's atmosphere, rise. The theory of gravity is not needed to explain these phenomena.

 

[Kordoba]

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

Write out the equation without gravity, Professor.

 

[Bad Brain]

Write out the equation without gravity, Professor.

Clearly my point went over your globe head

 

[Dan Gleesak]

How so? Wood 'floats' in water but 'sinks' in air. Likewise, water, being denser than air, 'sinks' (in air). Helium gas, being less dense than the gases that comprise earth's atmosphere, rise. The theory of gravity is not needed to explain these phenomena.

Yeah, you need gravity to explain those.
Take away gravity and none of those things still occur.

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

Clearly my point went over your head

You can't answer it, and you don't have a point. Literally, and I mean literally everything you've said in this entire thread is outright laughable bs. You don't know what anything you're even talking about means. You've yet to prove it, even once. You literally used a concept that requires gravity in the formula and said that it doesn't need it. You cant explain the "constant" fantasy, either. Maybe stay in your lane.