The shape of the earth

But the Earth doesn't stand in the air, space is empty or something like that, right? (Don't get me wrong, I don't understand science, the question is not sarcastic at all)
Besides, his question is really interesting...🤔

And if it's empty, then can you stand on it? The problem with standing in the air is the air that surrounds you? If we assume you sucked out all the air, would the book in front of your eyes remain standing there and not fall to the ground?
I'll wait for his answer. Let's do this guided, although it's really an awkward discussion.

I do not pretend to know what is happening outside our world. The heavens are heavens for Hashem and the earth He gave to humans. I can answer you about what can be measured. What happens outside the universe cannot be measured.

You want to discuss physics, right? This is how we discuss physics. If you don't want to discuss it, don't ask questions here. By the way, it's not really outside our world. Physics deals with the entire universe. Even in the sky.
By the way, don't be under any illusions: You can't answer me about what's happening inside “our world” either. It's obvious that you don't understand anything about it.

You are a much smarter person than I am, so I am interested in hearing your opinion. I am truly open to anything that proves otherwise, as long as it is done through measurement and not theory. Water is a measurable thing by all accounts. (By the way, I am not sure about the shape of the Earth.) From the little I have researched, I have not found a single physically measurable thing in the spherical model that would prove this. On the other hand, the flat model has the water, not that this is proof, but in addition, there is everyone's intuition that it doesn't work out that everything is moving and you don't feel it, and people on the other side live upside down or on their side and the water doesn't spill, etc., etc.

I can't understand why it's so difficult for you to discuss the subject and why you're so aggressive towards it. All in all, I asked a very simple question: how do you explain the behavior of water? I'm not even close to your level of knowledge and I really don't understand physics. I just wanted to hear an answer to this specific question. That's all.

I also don't know a lot about the flat model (as I said, my level of knowledge in these areas is very low) so it's not really a debate about who's right, so there's no point in attacking me with questions.

I'm bursting out.
What's the question anyway? The ball has holes, the water is in the holes. Like asking why the water is in a puddle and doesn't pour out.

That's exactly the point, if you're right, the world should be square because around 70 percent of it is water.

Is this thread more entertaining or more depressing?

I explained and will explain again. The aggressive style is the appropriate response to such questions. Since there is a chance that you do not understand why, I will explain it again in more detail.
Your original question (in another thread. I have not found its place now) was written in arrogant defiance, while the argument itself was really stupid and indicates a complete lack of understanding. Really infantile. Such a question creates two problems for those who want to talk to and teach you something: 1. Someone endowed with such a level of understanding can ask a question and not complicate issues and make statements. There is nothing to discuss with someone who makes statements like that. 2. Even if you still want to talk to and teach him, there is no way to do it. It is impossible to explain the theory of relativity to such a child if he knows nothing and is also unwilling to learn.
Think of a child who does not understand anything and mocks Einstein who talks nonsense, after all every child knows that time flows at the same rate in all systems. There is no point in talking to him, because he does not really listen and does not want to learn. The same is true of you.
In the thread here, you asked this in a slightly more appropriate way, as a question and not as a problem. Therefore, in principle, there is a point in addressing things. Problem 1 has been solved. However, problem 2 remains the same. Your level of understanding is so poor that there is no way to explain elementary things to you. When I still try to do it in a didactic way and lead you in an accessible and clear way to a conclusion and understanding, you immediately disconnect and are not willing to answer (things that are out of this world or unmeasurable, etc. When it is clear that you do not even understand what these concepts mean). So there is no point in talking to you. It is clear that you do not really want to find out, otherwise you would try to understand and learn and not make stupid statements and refuse to cooperate when they come to teach you. Therefore, there is no point in discussing with you. I have already written about your anger that it was said, "You also darkened his teeth." And the fact that you are now offended and protesting the style does not change the essence. This is the correct style to handle confusing questions such as this.
That is it. In conclusion, if you really want to understand, physics is open to anyone who is interested. Unlike wise men like you, there are smart people who take care to define concepts and base theses properly on systematic observations and build well-constructed and verified theories. Mistakes can indeed occur, and what's great about the scientific world is that when they discover a mistake, they change the theory. That doesn't mean that every child who declares that the king is naked actually found a mistake. Sometimes he's just a child who doesn't understand anything. So if you go and study physics in an orderly manner, I assume these questions will disappear. And if not - then maybe you'll really be known as someone who changed all our physical perceptions. Good luck.

Michael Abraham I must say that I really feel dishonest on your part. This is the first time I've logged into your site after listening to some of your podcasts and I got the impression that you are a very critical thinker and discuss the substance of the matter and not the person.. and I feel that all your responses are irrelevant and only about the person.. I can't understand why this is happening.

I'm not offended and I certainly don't take anything personally and I don't really care what you think of me. And if you understood from my responses disdain for anyone or anything.. First of all I apologize and secondly that was probably not the intention.. I was misunderstood.. Now if anyone has an explanation for the very simple question of how water bends and please write it down for me and that's the end of the ceremony

https://www.tiktok.com/@ask__dani/video/7207388576785501442

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fhe.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D7%2597%25D7%2595%25D7%25A7_%25D7%259B%25D7%259C%25D7%2599%25D7%259D_%25D7%25A9%25D7%259C%25D7%2595%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D%23&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Cagsadl4%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

First you wanted measurement, not theory, and now you're making measurement difficult by virtue of theory? He showed that water is not always straight.

1 The law of interlocking vessels is not a theory, 2 I know that a drop is round, if you pay attention to the wording I wrote, water at rest, not water in the air, etc. Lakes, rivers, seas, etc., is water at rest and they are straight!

1) Every scientific law is by definition a theory.
2) Fill a glass all the way with water and you will see that the water bends even at rest.

I don't really understand physics either and I'm not sure this is the explanation, but it's a demonstration that shows the sky isn't always straight.

There is no debate about this, I don't think there is any physicist who disagrees that water behaves this way by its very nature and always strives to straighten out … they may try to reconcile this in other ways such as gravity, etc. ’ but there is no argument that water at rest (bounded water) by its very nature curves around as he tries to prove in the video..

I'll try to explain briefly. Your assumption that the law of interlocking instruments means that the sky will be straight is not true at all. It is approximately true in everyday life when the curvature of the Earth on the surface that we see is negligible and then the water surface appears straight like the rest of our daily experience that feels that the Earth is flat. To see the curvature of the Earth, you need to look at scales larger than what the average person sees in everyday life, such as at sea, for example. The sea surface is an excellent example of how you can see with your eyes that the water is not straight but curved (you can see a ship at first from its upper edge and you can calculate with very simple trigonometry the distance in the sea that you can see depending on the height of the observer).

If you have a quality camera or binoculars, you can easily see the things you claim are sinking. It's called perspective, where a certain object moves away from you and appears to be sinking. If you don't have a way to check it yourself, watch documentation that people have made. There are plenty of them on YouTube. Today, there are technologies that prove that there is no such thing as sinking.

Why is everyone here running with the ”law” that the sky tends to align? Where does this superficial (literally) nonsense come from? Is it a law that only I don't know? Or is this a strange interpretation of some law in hydrostatics?
Water is attracted to the center of mass of the Earth”a like any other object. It is a liquid substance, so it does not pile up – if this is what is meant by ”water does not curve”

Everywhere on the Earth”a the center of mass is more or less below you and therefore the water rests close to the ground in a convex manner according to the sphericity of the ”sphere”. In fact, your question is exactly the same question as: Why don't people on the other side of the sphere fall. Because you expect there to be a “right”side to a ball, and we all gravitate to a very specific ”bottom”, and then when the ball rounds, you ask: why does the water round with it, and not continue to stand next to the specific “up” that we chose (the stochasticists in Israel and the US will probably argue about which is the correct ”up” and which is the ”bottom” 😂)

Naftali,
I'm not sure you know what a perspective is. You claimed that you don't understand much and that you came for a modest discussion, but for some reason you talk nonsense with great confidence.
It doesn't matter what kind of binoculars you have. After the ship moves a long way, at some point, you can zoom in a lot and see the ship in normal dimensions – but its bottom is below you and as it moves further away it will disappear from the bottom up, not in a way that it becomes smaller and disappears from our sight, but in sophisticated telescopes (which can see distant galaxies) it simply gets cut off more and more – maintaining a normal perspective – and finally disappears completely.

https://youtu.be/nLPBAk6-ha8?si=KC_Xa2VepWMiine7

perspective*