Basically what Bev is doing by checking horizontal between two adjacent tubes in his setup is the same as inscribing a polygon within a circle. He checks that each segment of his polygon is straight, and then claims that the overall polygon, and therefore the circle, must also be a straight line.
Bev explicitly refuses to use an autolevel to sight more than 150 m. He claims that's the limit of the tool. He will not engage with WHY that's the limit, or what he sees when he looks farther than that.
I watched your live with him the other day. Painful. One of you tried your best to have an honest conversation and the other just wanted to be disingenuous. I've heard enough of him to know never to engage with him directly. I wouldn't like to see anyone get fooled by him which is why I made this video and shared the geometry.
Bev holding a measuring rod near blackpool tower: ignore the background, nothing to see there As he stands in frame demonstrating drop when sighting the crosshairs to far enough targets (observer a few feet amsl-the rod-blackpool tower-background mountain peaks).
This is the first time I've seen Bev. Until now, based on his voice and calcified brain that can no longer 'try thinking', I pictured some wizened, disheveled gnome in his 70s or 80s.
When it comes to this, Bev knows exactly what he's doing, that's why he chooses his words very carefully. Remember, he's a disingenuous lying...you know the rest.
Bev should study The Rainy Lake Advanced Bedford Level experiment documented on Walter Bislin's site. Maybe he would learn something about setting up an experiment with a more distance and detail.
Yep, I've said this many times to flerfs, and make no mistake Bev IS a flerf. They won't touch any of the data in that experiment with a barge pole because they know it cannot be debunked.
He doesn't even have to go to the lengths of setting up a mile of tubes. He could easily establish 2 or 3 points of equal elevation along a stretch of the canal where he lives. He has a can going right through his town. Wouldn't even need transport.
@@Petey194 he knows but refuses to acknowledge the validity much less attempt to do it because consciously or subconsciously he knows what would happen. He knows he must avoid that conclusion at all costs. His only course of action is to be disingenuous and/or lie to avoid doing that trivial observation.
@@KD0AFK33 …while keeping the middle uprights (B) there to sight A-B and A-C simultaneously to verify whether they line up (flat) or not (not flat). Instead he disingenuously removes B and sights A-C and concludes still flat (to no one’s surprise because that wasn’t what we were asking). On a flat surface with a flat level, sighting A-Z should simultaneously line up exactly with every intermediate B,C,…,X,Y. On a curved surface with curved level they wouldn’t. I suspect bev knows this and recognizes which result he would observe, thus his refusal to entertain the idea. It’s like he instinctively (or consciously) knows it’ll be the death of his rhetoric and in an act of self preservation avoids it like the plague.
This is top notch work here!! One of the biggest issues fe has is not understanding the difference between accuracy and precision. Bev has never made an actual prediction as what he would expect to see globe, of whatever shape he believes the shape is this week
top notch work 😂😂😂 you can get geogebra to display what ever you want! However try using a water level, in reality, to represent any amount of 'drop' or 'hump', and you'll have wet feet!
Bev should try this at a lake. Preferably one that is longer than a mile and has some land in the middle. If we take 8 inch/mile^2, we should see an 8 " drop. Then try again A->B, B->C and A->C. Instead of a mile long hose (I assume he used that; I did not see the original video), he could user long sticks vertically stuck in the ground with markings on them.
Bev's been thinkin' alright... thinking of ways to fudge the data so it looks a little bit less like the globe model fits, and a little bit more like the model he is reluctant to endorse fits.
Bev "confirms" his claim that "level is orrizonnal" by making sure he only measures distances short enough for curvature to have less effect than the width of the horizontal line of his autolevel.
Could someone please alert me when TryThinking has actually done some thinking. He is stuck on "level is horisontal" and that it. Thats all he has. Poor guy.
Bev wouldn't believe any results outside the documented tool limit that guarantees sub mm accuracy. That is the reason He gave for dismissing the implication of the shot his team took on the beach looking at Bev through an autolevel with Blackpool tower far in the background. As for sighting along the full length of his "realizing Euclid" stunt at the Bedford level, he never thought of it as that stretch of canal had a slight bend in it with a big tree at the bend obscuring the view along that bank between the two ends of the canal. Bev's use of the autolevel midway between the water level risers is classic technique for transferring an elevation over long distances with the risers acting as the measuring rod. It works equally well for both flat and globe. From what I have witnessed I'd say Bev is a waste of time. He acts as if he has severe memory issues and seems incapable of departing from his well worn ruts.
I'd agree it is a waste of time engaging with him. He can talk for hours without saying anything relevant while never acknowledging the globe talking points. I watched the I Can Science That video yesterday and it's clear he's just playing games. Not a serious person at all. ICST was doing his best to have an honest discussion, Bev on the other hand, not so much.
@@Petey194Bev may be a pathological liar to the degree where he isn't fully conscious of it. Who knows. It's so easy to spot his lies because he has a handful of sayings he'll use to derail honest conversation whenever he gets uncomfortable.
probably because he never said, claimed, or actually ever sighted along the total length, so bends, or trees are irrelevant! please try harder to keep up!
Excellent analysis showing that Bev is assuming level is exactly the same as horizontal. Now over short distances this does appear to be the case since, as you showed @ 7:00, the calculated curvature drop for 50 meters is a miniscule 0.196 mm and how would you measure this because an auto-level’s horizontal reference is not perfectly horizontal. A top-of-the-line auto-level has an accuracy of about ± 0.8 mm @ 30 meters (1/32 inch @ 100ft) so this would be ± 1.3 mm @ 50 meters which is much larger than the 0.196 mm curvature drop for that distance. This is why accurate differential leveling requires that the BS and FS are balanced (the same distance) since this eliminates instrument, curvature and refraction errors. The funny thing is that Bev has measured curvature drop when he set an auto-level up 1.2 meters above the beach near Southport, about 19 km south of Blackpool. The crosshairs are targeting distant Blackpool Tower where the steel tower connects to the roof of the brick building and this is 30+ meters above his auto-level’s elevation. Of course, Bev has a lot of excuses as to why we should ignore what we see. Would you mind if I use a few parts of your video since I might make a video expanding on what you presented?
Cheers and help yourself. Yeah, I've seen the photo when watching a bluemarblescience video he did on Bev and that Southport/Blackpool observation. I know both places very well and have even worked in the Tower Building for a few weeks many years ago. Like Bev, I haven't got much of a clue about surveying or the fieldwork 🤣but if I was him I wouldn't bother with water levels. Far better to do it the way Bob the science guy did it across the lake in his back yard, using poles at various points and set distances. While I accounted for refraction in this video I didn't account for instrument or user errors like you point out. While I'd like to learn about that more for myself, I didn't see any need to complicate it any further. What's good about this geometry is Bev can open it up in his own app and play with it but we know he won't. He can use it to double a distance and see the drop is x4 the unit drop. Treble it, the drop is now x9. Quadruple it, the drop is now x16.... x25.... x36 etc I should have mentioned something like that but I don't like videos going on too long. He can definitely observe this reality. I love your videos. They're always very informative and I always learn something. 👍
@@Petey194 What program do you use to make TH-cam videos? I am having problems making videos with my new computer. I have been using PowerPoint since I am able to make graphics with added commentary and I often include parts of TH-cam videos. Occasionally, maybe 2-4 times in a video, the audio I recorded had a quick break in the sound but this never happened during the audio of the TH-cam videos I used. (I rarely do a voiceover on a TH-cam video segment) Recently my old computer died so I bought a new one. I just did a test on TH-cam with a short video I made on my new computer (PowerPoint again) to make sure my audio levels were OK and every one of segments, where I recorded my voice, had quick breaks in the sound, but again no breaks in the audio of TH-cam video segments. I think I might have solved the problem by lowering the microphone's bit rate and Hz level but I need to make a longer video to test this. Any advice?
3:15 "Maybe not for larger projects though" Blue Marble Science did some videos where he showed the construction drawings for the LIGO buildings and how they in fact showed what you show here. Straight is _not_ level over a long distance, 4km in the case of LIGO.
I didn't watch it all to be honest. I never heard of Brandon before this week. I heard of Ranty. The first FE/Globe debate I watched was Ranty vs Brian's Logic and the Blackpool/Dow Crag observations. So not really that long ago.
By the way, the 'Bedford Levels' are not particularly close to Bedford, they're some 30-50miles east, in Cambridgeshire. The stretch that everyone gets excited about is part of the 'Hundred Foot Drain', which in turn has nothing to do with its physical dimensions, any more than the 'Sixteen Foot Drain'. The Drain runs from the River Great Ouse at Earith, generally north-eastwards to rejoin the Great Ouse again near Downham Market, and on to the sea at King's Lynn. The particular stretch runs from just north west of Ely, past Welney, & almost as far as Downham Market, dead straight for about 10 miles. The drains were dug in the 17th Century by Dutch engineers, to drain the Fens to create farmland. An earlier project had been carried out to drain land under the orders of the Duke of Bedford, whose land it was. Some years ago, I used to do seasonal driving work for courier companies, and explored most parts around there. It is indeed very flat, in terms of land, although the roads certainly aren't, and often run perilously close alongside the drains for long distances, with nothing between you and the water but a very steep downward bank. At least one or two cars are pulled out of the water each year.
@@RobH. just correcting a slight misapprehension by Petey, that the Bedford Levels are in Bedford. An easy mistake to make. In what other country would you expect to find Leeds Castle in Kent?
go try it yourself on a straight road then! Ah wait, you haven't got a clue what you'll be doing, how you'll do it, or what you are trying to prove. Maybe stay here and type shite!
There's a reason the Bedford Level is used, there's a completely clear, unobstructed view over 6 miles between the bridges as Welney and Salter's Lode. Both bridges are within a foot or two of being at the same height. One of Bev's minions took a photo through the autolevel from Welney to Salter's Lode - the crosshairs were pointed at some trees about 25 feet higher than the bridge. #thanksBev
Only 1min in and I’m baffled by the wizardry you can do on geogebra. Here I thought it was a tool to graph lines and shapes, measure angles and so on, but you’re out here creating automated water levels on a curved surface.
haha thanks sphaera. I think it's cool. It really helps me to visualise things and understand the talking points. Whether it's understanding why Antarctica gets a 24hr Sun in their summer or using it to predict the drop from various distances along a canal on a really big ball. 😊
I think Petey demonstrates how goofy flerfs are by the fact they guffaw what he clearly shows by the math and geometry in action. RobH is proof of this.
Just a question: aren't in reality even more variables to control? Like differences in water temperature and air pressure at distant verical pipes? Also, as i understand Bernoulli's law it would also cause a pressure differential if there's going wind over one end and but not over the oither. I didn't calculate the actual sensiviry against these factors, so I might as well overestimate them. But if I'm right, wouldn't that make the use of such devices over several kilometers impractical? I renember Slysparkane gave it a try some years ago but i also think to remember already setting up the pipes and connection hoses caused unexpected problems.
Yeah, I'm not even close to figuring those things out I'm afraid. There's no reason why Bev can't make this easy for himself and just set up a number of points of equal elevation using the canal. So much easier than messing about with water levels.
If done locally enough where conditions are more or less the same over the distance covered by the level, I wouldn’t expect too much trouble. What makes it challenging in practice, as sly found out iirc, is all these hose lines and T junctions is an open invitation for endless leaking. Resistance might also be an unexpected problem.
Yes, I think there are a number of "real world" factors that would make such an experiment very difficult to carry out. For example, if using something like a garden hose, over a distance of kilometers, friction within the pipe might have a significant effect. Even the surface tension at the ends of the pipe, where we would want to take the level reading, could pose problems. Over shorter distances that surface tension would cause the water to rise up the sides of the pipe more than the Earth curvature we would expect to see. Over long distances it would be hard to fill the pipe without bubbles getting trapped in it and hard to verify that no bubbles were indeed trapped. There are probably many more complications.
Just a side thought... If we have a water level located along the surface of the Earth, covering a distance between endpoints of, say 100 km. Assuming an unsealed tube, wouldn't there be an effect do to any differences in atmospheric pressure between the two ends? I'm pointing this out only as an example of how we need to be aware of factors affecting our measurements. We can then determine how large an effect they may have, and take them into account. Bev doesn't seem to do that very well, while you do.
Good point about atmospheric pressure. There are other factors that would have to be considered as well. For a small pipe, something like a garden hose, and a very long run, surface friction might actually come into play. Also on short runs the surface tension of the water against the edge of the tube would lead to unreliable readings. Another practical issue is the filling of a long pipe without getting bubbles trapped in it. As a "thought experiment" for discussion purposes, we can set these aside. But to actually carry out this experiment they and other problems would have to be resolved.
I hope Bev watches this video and reads some of the excellent comments here. I tried twice to post comments on his FFA Friday video, but they disappear! I've been playing with your Geogebra Water Level project. Nice!
Bev and OTL supposed to be all about Euclid and the geometry and they could easily model reality as they see it in GeoGebra. It won't happen will it. 🤭 Thanks for your kind words. 😊
@@Petey194Then comes reality, eh? It's not like the drawing, is it? Go and actually speak to the people you claim are ignorant of these things. It's an open forum.
Bev has been told/explained this numerous times by multiple globers. He always pretends like he doesn’t follow (the demand to amend his test such that it would distinguish between flat and globe).
2:57 "So is there anywhere along this string that we can call horizontal?" Horizontal is the orientation of the line that you have marked (d)ist. that you had on screen for the previous 30 or so seconds, Petey.
" All points of a water level will be at equal altitude...... ". According to my understanding, the water level knows Jack Sh£t about altitudes. It is an adaptation of a simple 'U' tube manometer. Both ends are open to atmospheric pressure. As we all know, we can change the level in the limbs by gently blowing into, or sucking on one of the limbs. Inserting 'T' joints, to make extra limbs doesn't change that. When you break it down to its fundamentals, it features 'g', gravity, because the weight of liquid, or the volume & density feature. Where the pressure on each limb differs, the weight of liquid in the column of liquid of the height difference enters the calculation of relative pressure. Under most practical applications, the two limbs will be geographically close, and atmospheric pressure can be assumed to be identical - hence the observed effect. The liquid in the tubes 'knows' nothing about the ground around or below it. Nor does it 'know' what is happening at the 'other' end of the tube, it is merely responding to the forces acting upon it, atmospheric pressure & gravity. If we constructed a level where the 2 limbs are separated far enough as to be in different atmospheric regions, the 'height' of liquid in the two limbs will not be the same. This would probably require a distance of several miles, unless there was a tornado in the vicinity, and, if there's a tornado nearby, I'm not hanging around to conduct silly schoolboy physics experiments.
Nicely broken down. I have come up with two possibilities to explain what's happened. Either Bev isn't intelligent enough to work out how to improve his observations. Or he's being deliberately deceptive. Neither is a good look for him or flat earth.
firstly, he is not, and has never claimed to be a flat earther! It's not, nicely broken down, its just an ad-hoc display of something in Geogebra, and has no relevance to anything, just a Geogebra display! I think he knows how to improve his observations, without help from you, just go to the optician, problem solved. so that leaves us with you last earth shattering comment, that he obviously deceptive, and we only have you opinion on that, so I'll ignore it, along with your other utterances!
@@RobH. "firstly, he is not, and has never claimed to be a flat earther!" A -rose- turd by any other name... Same nonsense, different preacher. It all boils down to the same universal horizontal/vertical drivel.
Another nice video Petey. But I have one small criticism. It seems you've made all the vertical tubes 'vertical' and parallel to each other. I think they should be perpendicular to the green 'surface'. And so the angle of the 'string' stretched between A and B would 'dip' and not be perfectly perpendicular at each end, only perpendicular to the tube at the midpoint.
Thanks Mike. I think it just looks that way. I can assure you that they all do project to the origin and are not parallel to each other. Maybe it looks that way because I used (xAxis 150 : 1 yAxis) which doesn't change the result. I don't think I made that clear enough to be fair. There was a little graphic on screen top right at the beginning. I think the string is ok too. There is dip there at both ends. I did check some of the angles against WB's advanced curve calculator to ensure the geometry gave the right results. Maybe you can double check. I used 0.17 as the refraction coefficient and 1.8 metres for the observer and target heights.
Just to add a bit about the geometry. I used Polar Coordinates to create the points F and T. That's the Bases and Tops of each tube. You can create a point for any angle (α) at any radius (r) like so: (r; α). If I was to create another point (r+h; α) where (h) is the height and join those 2 points with a segment then that segment would be perpendicular to a circle with radius (r). eg, If I have a circle with radius 10 and a line connecting point (10;45°) and point (13;45°), then that line would go through the origin.
@@mikefochtman7164 haha, thanks but I'm honestly grateful for your comment. I was so grateful when you found that mistake in the Haversine video. I wouldn't want to do things so wrong and not be told about it. 😊
Is a pitty that the romans din't know better, they constructed their acueducts takeing in acount the curvature of the earth. And also they adviced the new ingeeniers to not use water chanels to level distances of more than 30m/100feet or they would start to acumulate error in their leveleng. 🤷♂
This has been explained to bev numerous times, but he just doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend what is going on. People have said why doesn't he sight from one end to the other, but he just says "why would you do that?" It is beyond his intellectual capacity - your typical flat earther.
@@RobH.Leading with a strawman, nice. Nobody said the test set out to sight from one end to the other. The test is designed to determine if a level line is straight or curved. Over a large enough distance sighting from one end to the other thru a center riser would show if it was curved. And since it is curved, Bev studiously avoids doing the experiment properly, and sights both ends from the center, demonstrating exactly nothing conclusive either way.
@@Petey194 @TryThinking talked about your video a bit on his show Friday night (same start time as your video). For example: 28:51 (on his video): we didn't have the auto level when we did the water levels so I don't know what he's talking about. Petey, you seem to have completely misunderstood the realizing Euclid test. 4:36 (on this video, Bev talking to ICST): we went out there with an aurolevel... 4:50: then we turned the auto level around That's exactly what you responded to above.
@@robertbaker4291 Thanks for this. I listened until he said he wasn't going to cover it and I switched off. I heard some nonsense about having to be careful not to get my computer wet with real water levels in geogebra so even if he did cover it, there was no way he'd address it honestly. Extremely immature responses from them.
@@Petey194 He seemed to waffle a bit. First saying he won't go over it, then saying he would, then... you get the idea. BTW, I thought your video was excellent.
6:36 Does anybody actually fall for this nonsense who isn't already a "true believer"? Of course you can do it incrementally like that (setting aside the reality that the less than 1 mm curvature is beyond what these tools can manage).
No, reality dictates. I'm sorry that you have misunderstood, and that you trust the wrong people. Petey is describing what you or Bev or anyone would see, if you dared ask the right questions and make the right measurements.
The water level is independent of your green baseline, it is what would be used to measure that baseline, its elevation changes, not the reverse as you have concealed. Good to see that the cardinal directions are perpendicular.
I've shown you what the globe model is about here and I've demonstrated why Bev's 50 metre tests are pointless because standing in the middle of two risers on the globe at 50 metres from each end will not show any discernable drop. Your side on the other hand can be quoted saying, "it's horizontal all the way across", over a mile but refuse to test anywhere that is not the middle of 2 nearby risers. I can absolutely guarantee you that Bev will not carry out a test over any meaningful distance where he is not standing in the middle of 2 risers. All this should be setting off alarm bells but cog dis is real and I fully expect you to dismiss every aspect of my presentation. This was geometry and all results came from that geometry. I'd like to say that we can use a sphere to model reality but you'll just obfuscate and spend several hours saying the Earth is not a sphere with a perfectly smooth surface etc. We know and quit being so predictable! A model can be as detailed or as simple as you want and a model based on a sphere produces results that match reality very accurately. We could go further and base it on an oblate spheroid but why complicate it any more than it needs to be when a sphere gives adequate and accurate results? Nothing I can say or do can snap you out of your fiction. Only you can carry out the tests and analyse the results. If you stand at riser 1 with your auto level and observe no drop over mile then horizontal world rules and you can collect your Nobel Prize. But if you do observe drop and that drop matches predictions made from globe models, well, you can either be welcomed to globe or let your cog dis rule your thinking and you can stay a Horizontal Earther if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. So what you waiting for, prove the ballers wrong!
You drew a straight line, the water level, horizontal. You placed a curved line at the base and measured up from the curve to say it was shorter in the middle! Did you notice, no water ran out of either end of the tube? Side? What side?
@@Elder-Bear The geometry is there if you want to follow it. You guys are supposed to be all about the geometry so focus on that. The curved line was a circle with a radius value of 6371000. Usually I'd use km for the mean radius of Earth but this time I used metres. The grey tubes were 2.1 metres tall, they all diverge from each other and are all perpendicular to the curve. The tubes were all filled to a level of 1.8 metres each. The scale is important. I've used 150:1. This means I have compressed the xAxis in order fit everything in to one screen. Changing the scale does not affect the measurements shown in the table. GeoGebra will measure the drops as if it is 1:1. However, making it 150:1 might give it a somewhat squashed look but that is necessary if we're going to see 16 tubes spanning almost a mile while at the same time discern drops that are measured in millimetres with our eyes. Now I know you don't believe science but gravity is a thing. So in this model, straight down from any point on the curve will reach the centre of the circle. Straight up for any point on the circle is along the line that joins that point with the centre. This is why the tubes can diverge from each other but at the same time remain vertical. Think of the Earth as a really big ball! Now this geometry makes predictions as to what you'll measure and it's all based on the this really big ball having an atmosphere. Refraction is also a thing so it needs to be taken into consideration which I have done. Now I know you're not globers over at OTL because Bev says as much. If you're wanting to get to the truth then you're going to have to devise tests that will discover the curvature. The current test of standing between 2 nearby water levels won't cut it and I have shown you why. Yes, your side. OTL is a group of people pretending to have proofs that fly in the face of mainstream science. Do you have an alternative collective name for yourselves you'd like me to use?
Any bridge or bigger construction disproves your horizontal line. You want to see a curve over just 200 meters whereas the earth's circumference is 40030000 meters. Explain to me please why the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, Louisiana, is curved and not horizontal?
@@Elder-Bear I can use any desk globe and a tape measure to tell you any distance between any two points on earth and it will match reality, every time for every distance. Go ahead and let me know which scaled flat world map I can use to achieve this same basic function. Ta muchly.
But you do have a model. Your perception of reality is your model. Whenever you say something can't happen (like, say, level curving), you've judged a vlaim against your model. So the question is, are you honest enough to answer questions about your model?
@@Elder-Bear Your understanding of the internal mechanics of how a water level functions, is a model. It might not be very detailed, but it's still a model.
Excellent presentation, Petey. By breaking the distance into smaller "blocks" where the drop is negligibly small, he's effectively - and knowingly IMO - reducing the overall 1.6mm (or whatever it was) into fractions of that amount at the intermediate points. Bad faith if ever I saw it.
Thanks Cargy. I see your comment, lol. You must be in youtube's bad books because your comment is last when sort comments by Top even though you have more thumbs ups. Yeah, 100% bad faith.
@@Petey194 Definitely. I've spent too much time arguing with flerfs (and with people on dashcam channels), and the AI dislikes me now. 😁 1st comment usually shows, but this one will be one of those where it's counted in the stats, and you'll even get a notification... But it'll be invisible to other readers.
![ถามตรงๆ กับ อาจตุพร ทำไม ประเทศไทย ใครเป็นนายก ก็โดนด่า พอออกเเล้วคนคิดถึง!!?? l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3YFLMXxBGAs/mqdefault.jpg)
Basically what Bev is doing by checking horizontal between two adjacent tubes in his setup is the same as inscribing a polygon within a circle. He checks that each segment of his polygon is straight, and then claims that the overall polygon, and therefore the circle, must also be a straight line.
Bev explicitly refuses to use an autolevel to sight more than 150 m.
He claims that's the limit of the tool.
He will not engage with WHY that's the limit, or what he sees when he looks farther than that.
I watched your live with him the other day. Painful. One of you tried your best to have an honest conversation and the other just wanted to be disingenuous. I've heard enough of him to know never to engage with him directly. I wouldn't like to see anyone get fooled by him which is why I made this video and shared the geometry.
Bev knows it's a globe. He has measured it countless times.
Bev holding a measuring rod near blackpool tower: ignore the background, nothing to see there
As he stands in frame demonstrating drop when sighting the crosshairs to far enough targets (observer a few feet amsl-the rod-blackpool tower-background mountain peaks).
wrong, but you can keep perpetuating your lies, no one will judge you, we'll just laugh at your lies!
@@RobH. What part is wrong? Care to explain?
Bob the Science Guy did the bidirectional survey with autolevels on each side of a lake.
I think that was Jesse Kozlowski.
@vibemunster wasn't Jesse the guy who did the Reciprocal zenith angle measurements?
Bob certainly did sightings over his lake.
@@bosunbones.8815 Jesse has a good video on his channel, I haven't seen Bob's.
It really boils down to two problems - FLERFs not understanding experiments and FLERFs not telling the truth....
This is the first time I've seen Bev. Until now, based on his voice and calcified brain that can no longer 'try thinking', I pictured some wizened, disheveled gnome in his 70s or 80s.
LOL!
@@glennledrew8347 it’s not like you were far off…though I wouldn’t use “wizened” as that incorrectly implies/associates wisdom with the aged look.
is that all you've got Glennledrew8347? 😂🤣😂🤣
@@RobH.it’s more than anything the flerfs have.
He does look and sound how you would imagine a living gnome to be lol.
When it comes to this, Bev knows exactly what he's doing, that's why he chooses his words very carefully. Remember, he's a disingenuous lying...you know the rest.
Does it rhyme with front?
@citizen983 It certainly does. We call him a DLC (thanks Alan).
@@farmersboyDownloadable content? 😂
@@ThoughtandMemory Not quite...
@@farmersboy thats all you lot have, name calling, about sums up the lot of you!
Yeah I remember back in the day Brandon calling out Bev’s bollocks. Gold.
really, was it that good you can't remember the details?
@@RobH. It was great, Bev went home crying.
@@vibemunsterin your tiny mind!
@@RobH. He did go home crying lol.
@@vibemunster if those are the victories you cling too, its time to re-evaluate your whole paradigm!
Bev should study The Rainy Lake Advanced Bedford Level experiment documented on Walter Bislin's site. Maybe he would learn something about setting up an experiment with a more distance and detail.
Yep, I've said this many times to flerfs, and make no mistake Bev IS a flerf. They won't touch any of the data in that experiment with a barge pole because they know it cannot be debunked.
I'm guessing he won't repeat the task as you've described, and even if he does I'll bet my next glass of whisky that he won't publish the result.
He doesn't even have to go to the lengths of setting up a mile of tubes. He could easily establish 2 or 3 points of equal elevation along a stretch of the canal where he lives. He has a can going right through his town. Wouldn't even need transport.
@@Petey194 he knows but refuses to acknowledge the validity much less attempt to do it because consciously or subconsciously he knows what would happen. He knows he must avoid that conclusion at all costs. His only course of action is to be disingenuous and/or lie to avoid doing that trivial observation.
Bev is a poe, plain and simple.
@@kellyd6195 must make you a 'poe follower'
Bev refuses to sight along the outermost levels because he knows what it will show.
Indeed. He seems to delibrately do this in a way that can be demonstrated on a ball with the same result.
Yeah he 100% knows what not to show
@@KD0AFK33 …while keeping the middle uprights (B) there to sight A-B and A-C simultaneously to verify whether they line up (flat) or not (not flat).
Instead he disingenuously removes B and sights A-C and concludes still flat (to no one’s surprise because that wasn’t what we were asking). On a flat surface with a flat level, sighting A-Z should simultaneously line up exactly with every intermediate B,C,…,X,Y. On a curved surface with curved level they wouldn’t.
I suspect bev knows this and recognizes which result he would observe, thus his refusal to entertain the idea. It’s like he instinctively (or consciously) knows it’ll be the death of his rhetoric and in an act of self preservation avoids it like the plague.
@@sphaera2520 yup
Yeah. I'm pretty certain he's either consciously or subconsciously avoiding the scenario that he knows will bust open his world view.
This is top notch work here!!
One of the biggest issues fe has is not understanding the difference between accuracy and precision.
Bev has never made an actual prediction as what he would expect to see globe, of whatever shape he believes the shape is this week
😊 Thanks.
top notch work 😂😂😂 you can get geogebra to display what ever you want! However try using a water level, in reality, to represent any amount of 'drop' or 'hump', and you'll have wet feet!
@@RobH. Why don't you show this on a flat earth? We can then compare the measurements.
@@RobH. Denial and excuses are all you have. Sunrise/set and the horizon are impossible if the earth was flat, troll on! :)
Bev should try this at a lake. Preferably one that is longer than a mile and has some land in the middle.
If we take 8 inch/mile^2, we should see an 8 " drop. Then try again A->B, B->C and A->C.
Instead of a mile long hose (I assume he used that; I did not see the original video), he could user long sticks vertically stuck in the ground with markings on them.
you seem to know so much about it, why don't YOU try it at a lake, and show us your findings?
@@RobH. Well..... I do live next to a large enough fjord. Send me an autolevel and I'll do it.
@@RobH. Jesse Kozlowski has already done it with a theodolite accurate to 1 arcsecond. See his video, "Perfectly Flat Level Lake".
For one minute I thought I was watching one of those early morning Maths broadcasts from the 1970's.
Bev's been thinkin' alright... thinking of ways to fudge the data so it looks a little bit less like the globe model fits, and a little bit more like the model he is reluctant to endorse fits.
Bev "confirms" his claim that "level is orrizonnal" by making sure he only measures distances short enough for curvature to have less effect than the width of the horizontal line of his autolevel.
Bob The Science Guy did JUST THIS experiment across a pond near his home and found out that water isn't "level" or flat.
He used the lake as a water level and he confirmed drop. th-cam.com/video/fGcE4BJcx2Q/w-d-xo.html Bev should take notes.
Must hand it to Bev. Unlike Oakley, Pratt and Flatzoid, he can rise from a seated position.
Could someone please alert me when TryThinking has actually done some thinking.
He is stuck on "level is horisontal" and that it. Thats all he has. Poor guy.
Does the Unthinking Man really believe he's the first person to ever make these observations?
Bev wouldn't believe any results outside the documented tool limit that guarantees sub mm accuracy. That is the reason He gave for dismissing the implication of the shot his team took on the beach looking at Bev through an autolevel with Blackpool tower far in the background. As for sighting along the full length of his "realizing Euclid" stunt at the Bedford level, he never thought of it as that stretch of canal had a slight bend in it with a big tree at the bend obscuring the view along that bank between the two ends of the canal.
Bev's use of the autolevel midway between the water level risers is classic technique for transferring an elevation over long distances with the risers acting as the measuring rod. It works equally well for both flat and globe.
From what I have witnessed I'd say Bev is a waste of time. He acts as if he has severe memory issues and seems incapable of departing from his well worn ruts.
I'd agree it is a waste of time engaging with him. He can talk for hours without saying anything relevant while never acknowledging the globe talking points. I watched the I Can Science That video yesterday and it's clear he's just playing games. Not a serious person at all. ICST was doing his best to have an honest discussion, Bev on the other hand, not so much.
@@Petey194Bev may be a pathological liar to the degree where he isn't fully conscious of it. Who knows. It's so easy to spot his lies because he has a handful of sayings he'll use to derail honest conversation whenever he gets uncomfortable.
@@iridium1118 Yeah, I think he enjoys winding people up to be honest.
probably because he never said, claimed, or actually ever sighted along the total length, so bends, or trees are irrelevant! please try harder to keep up!
@@RobH. Horizon is only possible due to Earth's curvature, try harder to keep up! :)
Excellent analysis showing that Bev is assuming level is exactly the same as horizontal. Now over short distances this does appear to be the case since, as you showed @ 7:00, the calculated curvature drop for 50 meters is a miniscule 0.196 mm and how would you measure this because an auto-level’s horizontal reference is not perfectly horizontal. A top-of-the-line auto-level has an accuracy of about ± 0.8 mm @ 30 meters (1/32 inch @ 100ft) so this would be ± 1.3 mm @ 50 meters which is much larger than the 0.196 mm curvature drop for that distance. This is why accurate differential leveling requires that the BS and FS are balanced (the same distance) since this eliminates instrument, curvature and refraction errors.
The funny thing is that Bev has measured curvature drop when he set an auto-level up 1.2 meters above the beach near Southport, about 19 km south of Blackpool. The crosshairs are targeting distant Blackpool Tower where the steel tower connects to the roof of the brick building and this is 30+ meters above his auto-level’s elevation. Of course, Bev has a lot of excuses as to why we should ignore what we see.
Would you mind if I use a few parts of your video since I might make a video expanding on what you presented?
Cheers and help yourself. Yeah, I've seen the photo when watching a bluemarblescience video he did on Bev and that Southport/Blackpool observation. I know both places very well and have even worked in the Tower Building for a few weeks many years ago.
Like Bev, I haven't got much of a clue about surveying or the fieldwork 🤣but if I was him I wouldn't bother with water levels. Far better to do it the way Bob the science guy did it across the lake in his back yard, using poles at various points and set distances.
While I accounted for refraction in this video I didn't account for instrument or user errors like you point out. While I'd like to learn about that more for myself, I didn't see any need to complicate it any further.
What's good about this geometry is Bev can open it up in his own app and play with it but we know he won't.
He can use it to double a distance and see the drop is x4 the unit drop. Treble it, the drop is now x9. Quadruple it, the drop is now x16.... x25.... x36 etc I should have mentioned something like that but I don't like videos going on too long. He can definitely observe this reality.
I love your videos. They're always very informative and I always learn something. 👍
@@Petey194 What program do you use to make TH-cam videos? I am having problems making videos with my new computer.
I have been using PowerPoint since I am able to make graphics with added commentary and I often include parts of TH-cam videos. Occasionally, maybe 2-4 times in a video, the audio I recorded had a quick break in the sound but this never happened during the audio of the TH-cam videos I used. (I rarely do a voiceover on a TH-cam video segment)
Recently my old computer died so I bought a new one. I just did a test on TH-cam with a short video I made on my new computer (PowerPoint again) to make sure my audio levels were OK and every one of segments, where I recorded my voice, had quick breaks in the sound, but again no breaks in the audio of TH-cam video segments. I think I might have solved the problem by lowering the microphone's bit rate and Hz level but I need to make a longer video to test this.
Any advice?
3:15 "Maybe not for larger projects though"
Blue Marble Science did some videos where he showed the construction drawings for the LIGO buildings and how they in fact showed what you show here. Straight is _not_ level over a long distance, 4km in the case of LIGO.
Was that the episode where Brandon got testy with Bev for not answering if the “test” would differentiate between flat or globe?
I didn't watch it all to be honest. I never heard of Brandon before this week. I heard of Ranty. The first FE/Globe debate I watched was Ranty vs Brian's Logic and the Blackpool/Dow Crag observations. So not really that long ago.
By the way, the 'Bedford Levels' are not particularly close to Bedford, they're some 30-50miles east, in Cambridgeshire. The stretch that everyone gets excited about is part of the 'Hundred Foot Drain', which in turn has nothing to do with its physical dimensions, any more than the 'Sixteen Foot Drain'. The Drain runs from the River Great Ouse at Earith, generally north-eastwards to rejoin the Great Ouse again near Downham Market, and on to the sea at King's Lynn. The particular stretch runs from just north west of Ely, past Welney, & almost as far as Downham Market, dead straight for about 10 miles.
The drains were dug in the 17th Century by Dutch engineers, to drain the Fens to create farmland. An earlier project had been carried out to drain land under the orders of the Duke of Bedford, whose land it was.
Some years ago, I used to do seasonal driving work for courier companies, and explored most parts around there. It is indeed very flat, in terms of land, although the roads certainly aren't, and often run perilously close alongside the drains for long distances, with nothing between you and the water but a very steep downward bank. At least one or two cars are pulled out of the water each year.
Nice when someone talks the truth, however, nothing is relevant to the test, but good someone can speak with honesty, and be historically correct!
@@RobH. just correcting a slight misapprehension by Petey, that the Bedford Levels are in Bedford. An easy mistake to make. In what other country would you expect to find Leeds Castle in Kent?
@@chassetterfield9559 I did a job in Leeds Castle once many years ago when they received a new Ibis. I thought I was off to Yorkshire 🤣
Bev is a tired one trick pony, stuck repeating the ‘level’
and what are you, someone who repeats a one trick pony!
@@RobH.
Why are you shilling a scammer?
@@RobH.all Beverly can ever say is “level” 😂
I love how he has to do it by the Bedford River, as if any bit of straight road wouldn't do.
go try it yourself on a straight road then! Ah wait, you haven't got a clue what you'll be doing, how you'll do it, or what you are trying to prove. Maybe stay here and type shite!
@@RobH. Says the guy who's clueless about everything, troll on! :)
....and the water?
There's a reason the Bedford Level is used, there's a completely clear, unobstructed view over 6 miles between the bridges as Welney and Salter's Lode. Both bridges are within a foot or two of being at the same height. One of Bev's minions took a photo through the autolevel from Welney to Salter's Lode - the crosshairs were pointed at some trees about 25 feet higher than the bridge. #thanksBev
@@farmersboy I suspect it is more because that's the disputed ground where Rowbotham lost to Wallace.
Great video!
Only 1min in and I’m baffled by the wizardry you can do on geogebra. Here I thought it was a tool to graph lines and shapes, measure angles and so on, but you’re out here creating automated water levels on a curved surface.
haha thanks sphaera. I think it's cool. It really helps me to visualise things and understand the talking points. Whether it's understanding why Antarctica gets a 24hr Sun in their summer or using it to predict the drop from various distances along a canal on a really big ball. 😊
I'd stick with the Beano then! 🤣😂
I think Petey demonstrates how goofy flerfs are by the fact they guffaw what he clearly shows by the math and geometry in action. RobH is proof of this.
@@RobH. You're not a fan of tools that squash your social media cult, huh?
Just a question: aren't in reality even more variables to control? Like differences in water temperature and air pressure at distant verical pipes?
Also, as i understand Bernoulli's law it would also cause a pressure differential if there's going wind over one end and but not over the oither.
I didn't calculate the actual sensiviry against these factors, so I might as well overestimate them. But if I'm right, wouldn't that make the use of such devices over several kilometers impractical?
I renember Slysparkane gave it a try some years ago but i also think to remember already setting up the pipes and connection hoses caused unexpected problems.
Yeah, I'm not even close to figuring those things out I'm afraid. There's no reason why Bev can't make this easy for himself and just set up a number of points of equal elevation using the canal. So much easier than messing about with water levels.
If done locally enough where conditions are more or less the same over the distance covered by the level, I wouldn’t expect too much trouble. What makes it challenging in practice, as sly found out iirc, is all these hose lines and T junctions is an open invitation for endless leaking. Resistance might also be an unexpected problem.
Yes, I think there are a number of "real world" factors that would make such an experiment very difficult to carry out.
For example, if using something like a garden hose, over a distance of kilometers, friction within the pipe might have a significant effect.
Even the surface tension at the ends of the pipe, where we would want to take the level reading, could pose problems. Over shorter distances that surface tension would cause the water to rise up the sides of the pipe more than the Earth curvature we would expect to see.
Over long distances it would be hard to fill the pipe without bubbles getting trapped in it and hard to verify that no bubbles were indeed trapped.
There are probably many more complications.
Nice job. Still way above his altitude ; )
Just a side thought...
If we have a water level located along the surface of the Earth, covering a distance between endpoints of, say 100 km. Assuming an unsealed tube, wouldn't there be an effect do to any differences in atmospheric pressure between the two ends?
I'm pointing this out only as an example of how we need to be aware of factors affecting our measurements. We can then determine how large an effect they may have, and take them into account.
Bev doesn't seem to do that very well, while you do.
Good point about atmospheric pressure. There are other factors that would have to be considered as well. For a small pipe, something like a garden hose, and a very long run, surface friction might actually come into play. Also on short runs the surface tension of the water against the edge of the tube would lead to unreliable readings. Another practical issue is the filling of a long pipe without getting bubbles trapped in it.
As a "thought experiment" for discussion purposes, we can set these aside. But to actually carry out this experiment they and other problems would have to be resolved.
I know my post should have said "an effect _due_ to any differences". 🙄
I'm going to plead the autocorrect defense. 🙂
I hope Bev watches this video and reads some of the excellent comments here. I tried twice to post comments on his FFA Friday video, but they disappear! I've been playing with your Geogebra Water Level project. Nice!
Bev and OTL supposed to be all about Euclid and the geometry and they could easily model reality as they see it in GeoGebra. It won't happen will it. 🤭 Thanks for your kind words. 😊
@@Petey194Then comes reality, eh? It's not like the drawing, is it?
Go and actually speak to the people you claim are ignorant of these things. It's an open forum.
@@Elder-Bear What a crybaby and nice sock account.
Bev has been told/explained this numerous times by multiple globers. He always pretends like he doesn’t follow (the demand to amend his test such that it would distinguish between flat and globe).
2:57 "So is there anywhere along this string that we can call horizontal?" Horizontal is the orientation of the line that you have marked (d)ist. that you had on screen for the previous 30 or so seconds, Petey.
That was a slider. 🙄
@@Petey194 yeah and it's there to represent a horizontal distance in reality. 🙄
@@DrEMichaelJones That's just silly.
@@Petey194 it's literally how we measure distance in reality. Your model uses it. If it's "silly" why are you using it?
@@DrEMichaelJones Seems like you want to obsess over the design of the slider tool. 🥱 I'll leave you to it!
" All points of a water level will be at equal altitude...... ". According to my understanding, the water level knows Jack Sh£t about altitudes. It is an adaptation of a simple 'U' tube manometer. Both ends are open to atmospheric pressure. As we all know, we can change the level in the limbs by gently blowing into, or sucking on one of the limbs. Inserting 'T' joints, to make extra limbs doesn't change that. When you break it down to its fundamentals, it features 'g', gravity, because the weight of liquid, or the volume & density feature. Where the pressure on each limb differs, the weight of liquid in the column of liquid of the height difference enters the calculation of relative pressure.
Under most practical applications, the two limbs will be geographically close, and atmospheric pressure can be assumed to be identical - hence the observed effect. The liquid in the tubes 'knows' nothing about the ground around or below it. Nor does it 'know' what is happening at the 'other' end of the tube, it is merely responding to the forces acting upon it, atmospheric pressure & gravity. If we constructed a level where the 2 limbs are separated far enough as to be in different atmospheric regions, the 'height' of liquid in the two limbs will not be the same. This would probably require a distance of several miles, unless there was a tornado in the vicinity, and, if there's a tornado nearby, I'm not hanging around to conduct silly schoolboy physics experiments.
Nicely broken down. I have come up with two possibilities to explain what's happened. Either Bev isn't intelligent enough to work out how to improve his observations. Or he's being deliberately deceptive. Neither is a good look for him or flat earth.
firstly, he is not, and has never claimed to be a flat earther! It's not, nicely broken down, its just an ad-hoc display of something in Geogebra, and has no relevance to anything, just a Geogebra display! I think he knows how to improve his observations, without help from you, just go to the optician, problem solved. so that leaves us with you last earth shattering comment, that he obviously deceptive, and we only have you opinion on that, so I'll ignore it, along with your other utterances!
@@RobH.
Bev is a Flat Earth scammer. What he calls himself is irrelevant, his actions prove the fact.
@@RobH. You are Bev aren't you, you cheeky little gnome.
@@RobH.
"firstly, he is not, and has never claimed to be a flat earther!"
A -rose- turd by any other name... Same nonsense, different preacher. It all boils down to the same universal horizontal/vertical drivel.
Another nice video Petey. But I have one small criticism. It seems you've made all the vertical tubes 'vertical' and parallel to each other. I think they should be perpendicular to the green 'surface'. And so the angle of the 'string' stretched between A and B would 'dip' and not be perfectly perpendicular at each end, only perpendicular to the tube at the midpoint.
Thanks Mike. I think it just looks that way. I can assure you that they all do project to the origin and are not parallel to each other. Maybe it looks that way because I used (xAxis 150 : 1 yAxis) which doesn't change the result. I don't think I made that clear enough to be fair. There was a little graphic on screen top right at the beginning. I think the string is ok too. There is dip there at both ends. I did check some of the angles against WB's advanced curve calculator to ensure the geometry gave the right results. Maybe you can double check. I used 0.17 as the refraction coefficient and 1.8 metres for the observer and target heights.
That illustrates perfectly why scale matters. If the vertical lines were extended the angles to each other would be more pronounced.
Just to add a bit about the geometry. I used Polar Coordinates to create the points F and T. That's the Bases and Tops of each tube.
You can create a point for any angle (α) at any radius (r) like so: (r; α). If I was to create another point (r+h; α) where (h) is the height and join those 2 points with a segment then that segment would be perpendicular to a circle with radius (r).
eg, If I have a circle with radius 10 and a line connecting point (10;45°) and point (13;45°), then that line would go through the origin.
@@Petey194 All right then, guess it's my screen/ eyes then. I should have known you'd 'do it right'. ;)
@@mikefochtman7164 haha, thanks but I'm honestly grateful for your comment. I was so grateful when you found that mistake in the Haversine video. I wouldn't want to do things so wrong and not be told about it. 😊
In the end nothing these Flat Earthers have to say is worth bothering with unless they can produce an _accurate_ Flat Earth map.
The earth is not flat. That is obvious.
@@Elder-Bear Hi, Bev sock account.
@@RogHawk and your proof is? That someone states what horizontal and level, are, in reality?
@@Elder-Bear It's all in the use of phrases unique to Bev. While others are suspecting RobH, you seem perhaps even more likely.
We are the Flerf Borg, evidence is futile.”
Is a pitty that the romans din't know better, they constructed their acueducts takeing in acount the curvature of the earth. And also they adviced the new ingeeniers to not use water chanels to level distances of more than 30m/100feet or they would start to acumulate error in their leveleng. 🤷♂
This has been explained to bev numerous times, but he just doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend what is going on. People have said why doesn't he sight from one end to the other, but he just says "why would you do that?" It is beyond his intellectual capacity - your typical flat earther.
Oh, he knows exactly why you would do that ─ which is coincidentally why he won't do it.
the test never set out to sight from one end to the other, so, yet again, perpetuating an incorrect assumption, to justify your own belief! 😂
@@RobH.Leading with a strawman, nice. Nobody said the test set out to sight from one end to the other.
The test is designed to determine if a level line is straight or curved. Over a large enough distance sighting from one end to the other thru a center riser would show if it was curved. And since it is curved, Bev studiously avoids doing the experiment properly, and sights both ends from the center, demonstrating exactly nothing conclusive either way.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 wrong, but have another go, you may get a bit closer to the truth! Or don't, and continue to spread your untruths!
@@RobH. What I said is the truth. You perpetuate the false claim that it's untrue to justify your beliefs.
Glad you agree, obviously not flat, observably.
0.2 mm of drop? That's practically zero. Basically we've proven that the Earth is flat, LOL.
_"It's a horizontal all the way across"._ 🤣
nifty
Hello
I wonder if Robh is getting paid by Bev to cheerlead for him? He's all over this like a rash.
Yep, I noticed. And not a peep from from Bev.
@@Petey194 @TryThinking talked about your video a bit on his show Friday night (same start time as your video).
For example:
28:51 (on his video): we didn't have the auto level when we did the water levels so I don't know what he's talking about. Petey, you seem to have completely misunderstood the realizing Euclid test.
4:36 (on this video, Bev talking to ICST): we went out there with an aurolevel... 4:50: then we turned the auto level around
That's exactly what you responded to above.
@@robertbaker4291 Thanks for this. I listened until he said he wasn't going to cover it and I switched off. I heard some nonsense about having to be careful not to get my computer wet with real water levels in geogebra so even if he did cover it, there was no way he'd address it honestly. Extremely immature responses from them.
Like you for Petey, eh?
@@Petey194 He seemed to waffle a bit. First saying he won't go over it, then saying he would, then... you get the idea. BTW, I thought your video was excellent.
6:36 Does anybody actually fall for this nonsense who isn't already a "true believer"? Of course you can do it incrementally like that (setting aside the reality that the less than 1 mm curvature is beyond what these tools can manage).
🙃
The Model Dictates.
No, reality dictates.
I'm sorry that you have misunderstood, and that you trust the wrong people. Petey is describing what you or Bev or anyone would see, if you dared ask the right questions and make the right measurements.
The water level is independent of your green baseline, it is what would be used to measure that baseline, its elevation changes, not the reverse as you have concealed.
Good to see that the cardinal directions are perpendicular.
I've shown you what the globe model is about here and I've demonstrated why Bev's 50 metre tests are pointless because standing in the middle of two risers on the globe at 50 metres from each end will not show any discernable drop. Your side on the other hand can be quoted saying, "it's horizontal all the way across", over a mile but refuse to test anywhere that is not the middle of 2 nearby risers. I can absolutely guarantee you that Bev will not carry out a test over any meaningful distance where he is not standing in the middle of 2 risers. All this should be setting off alarm bells but cog dis is real and I fully expect you to dismiss every aspect of my presentation.
This was geometry and all results came from that geometry. I'd like to say that we can use a sphere to model reality but you'll just obfuscate and spend several hours saying the Earth is not a sphere with a perfectly smooth surface etc. We know and quit being so predictable! A model can be as detailed or as simple as you want and a model based on a sphere produces results that match reality very accurately. We could go further and base it on an oblate spheroid but why complicate it any more than it needs to be when a sphere gives adequate and accurate results?
Nothing I can say or do can snap you out of your fiction. Only you can carry out the tests and analyse the results. If you stand at riser 1 with your auto level and observe no drop over mile then horizontal world rules and you can collect your Nobel Prize. But if you do observe drop and that drop matches predictions made from globe models, well, you can either be welcomed to globe or let your cog dis rule your thinking and you can stay a Horizontal Earther if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
So what you waiting for, prove the ballers wrong!
You drew a straight line, the water level, horizontal.
You placed a curved line at the base and measured up from the curve to say it was shorter in the middle!
Did you notice, no water ran out of either end of the tube?
Side? What side?
@@Elder-Bear The geometry is there if you want to follow it. You guys are supposed to be all about the geometry so focus on that.
The curved line was a circle with a radius value of 6371000. Usually I'd use km for the mean radius of Earth but this time I used metres. The grey tubes were 2.1 metres tall, they all diverge from each other and are all perpendicular to the curve. The tubes were all filled to a level of 1.8 metres each.
The scale is important. I've used 150:1. This means I have compressed the xAxis in order fit everything in to one screen. Changing the scale does not affect the measurements shown in the table. GeoGebra will measure the drops as if it is 1:1. However, making it 150:1 might give it a somewhat squashed look but that is necessary if we're going to see 16 tubes spanning almost a mile while at the same time discern drops that are measured in millimetres with our eyes.
Now I know you don't believe science but gravity is a thing. So in this model, straight down from any point on the curve will reach the centre of the circle. Straight up for any point on the circle is along the line that joins that point with the centre. This is why the tubes can diverge from each other but at the same time remain vertical. Think of the Earth as a really big ball!
Now this geometry makes predictions as to what you'll measure and it's all based on the this really big ball having an atmosphere. Refraction is also a thing so it needs to be taken into consideration which I have done.
Now I know you're not globers over at OTL because Bev says as much. If you're wanting to get to the truth then you're going to have to devise tests that will discover the curvature. The current test of standing between 2 nearby water levels won't cut it and I have shown you why.
Yes, your side. OTL is a group of people pretending to have proofs that fly in the face of mainstream science. Do you have an alternative collective name for yourselves you'd like me to use?
Any bridge or bigger construction disproves your horizontal line. You want to see a curve over just 200 meters whereas the earth's circumference is 40030000 meters. Explain to me please why the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, Louisiana, is curved and not horizontal?
@@Elder-Bear I can use any desk globe and a tape measure to tell you any distance between any two points on earth and it will match reality, every time for every distance. Go ahead and let me know which scaled flat world map I can use to achieve this same basic function. Ta muchly.
I'm Not a flat earther, I dont have a model or a map to further furnish your assumptions
If you like Bev insist that all horizontals are parallel to each other than you are indeed flat earthers.
But you do have a model.
Your perception of reality is your model. Whenever you say something can't happen (like, say, level curving), you've judged a vlaim against your model.
So the question is, are you honest enough to answer questions about your model?
A water level is a tool for establishing a horizontal reference. That's reality, it's not a model to describe what reality is.
@@Elder-Bear
Your understanding of the internal mechanics of how a water level functions, is a model.
It might not be very detailed, but it's still a model.
@@Elder-Bear
I guess Bev and Paper Organist haven't educated you in the internal mechanisms of a water level 😅
First 😀
Excellent presentation, Petey.
By breaking the distance into smaller "blocks" where the drop is negligibly small, he's effectively - and knowingly IMO - reducing the overall 1.6mm (or whatever it was) into fractions of that amount at the intermediate points. Bad faith if ever I saw it.
Yes he is knowingly cheating just like Rowbotham whom he copied this from.
Thanks Cargy. I see your comment, lol. You must be in youtube's bad books because your comment is last when sort comments by Top even though you have more thumbs ups. Yeah, 100% bad faith.
@@Petey194 Definitely. I've spent too much time arguing with flerfs (and with people on dashcam channels), and the AI dislikes me now. 😁
1st comment usually shows, but this one will be one of those where it's counted in the stats, and you'll even get a notification... But it'll be invisible to other readers.
@@cargy930 Dashcam channels 😆 Don't tell me, people not giving way to vehicles on the right on roundabouts!
@@Petey194 Yep, amongst others. The cammers themselves are usually the worst drivers too😁😁