But the Earth isn’t standing in the air—the vacuum of space is empty or something like that, no? (Don’t make fun of me, I don’t understand science; the question isn’t cynical at all.)
Besides, his question really is interesting…🤔

And if it’s empty, then it can stand there? The problem with standing in the air is the air surrounding you? If, say, 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. We’ll do this step by step, although it really is an embarrassing discussion.

I don’t pretend to know what happens outside our world. “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to human beings.” What can be measured, I can answer you about; what happens outside the universe cannot be measured..

You want to discuss physics, right? This is how one discusses physics. If you don’t want to discuss it, then don’t raise questions here. By the way, this is not at all outside our world. Physics deals with the entire universe. The heavens too.
And by the way, don’t flatter yourself: you can’t answer me even about what happens inside “our world.” It’s obvious that you understand nothing about this.

You’re a much smarter person than I am, and that’s why I want to hear your opinion. I’m genuinely, wholeheartedly open to accepting anything you can prove to me otherwise, as long as it’s done through measurement and not theory. Water is something measurable by all accounts. (By the way, I’m not sure of anything regarding the shape of the Earth.) From the little I’ve looked into it, I haven’t found in the spherical model one measurable thing in physical terms that proves it, whereas in the flat model there’s the water. And not that that’s proof, but in addition there’s everyone’s intuition that it doesn’t make sense that everything is moving and we don’t feel it, and that people on the other side live upside down or sideways and the water doesn’t spill, etc. etc.

I can’t understand why it’s so hard for you to discuss the topic and why you’re so aggressive about it. All I asked was a very simple question: how do you explain the behavior of the 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 many things in the flat model either (as I said, my level of knowledge in these areas is very low), so this isn’t really an argument over who’s right, so there’s no point attacking me with questions..

Sorry for butting in.
What’s even the question? On a sphere there are depressions, and the water is in the depressions. It’s like asking why water stays in a puddle and doesn’t spill out.

That’s exactly the point: if you’re right, the world would have to be square, because around 70 percent of it is water.

Is this thread more amusing or more depressing?

I explained, and I’ll explain again. The aggressive tone is the proper response to questions like these. Since there is some chance that you don’t understand why, I’ll explain it again in more detail.
Your original question (in another thread—I couldn’t find it just now) was written in a provocative, condescending manner, while the argument itself was truly foolish and showed a complete lack of understanding. Really childish. A question like that creates two problems for someone who wants to speak with you and teach you something: 1. Someone with that level of understanding can ask a question; he should not pose pseudo-difficulties and make declarations. With someone who makes declarations like that, there is nothing to discuss. 2. Even if one did want to speak with him and teach him, there is no way to do so. You can’t explain relativity to such a child if he knows nothing and is also unwilling to learn.
Think of a child who understands nothing and mocks Einstein for talking nonsense, because every child knows that time flows at a uniform rate in all frames of reference. There is no point talking to him, because he isn’t really listening and doesn’t want to learn. That is the situation with you as well.
In this thread you asked it in a somewhat more decent way, as a question and not as a challenge. Therefore in principle there is reason to address it. Problem 1 was solved. The trouble is that problem 2 remains fully in place. Your level of understanding is so low that there is no way to explain even elementary things to you. When I nevertheless try to do so in a didactic way and lead you, accessibly and clearly, to the conclusion and the understanding, you immediately disengage and refuse to answer (“things outside the world,” or “not measurable,” etc.), when it is obvious that you don’t even understand what those concepts mean. So there is no point talking to you. Clearly you do not truly want to clarify things, because otherwise you would try to understand and learn, rather than making foolish declarations and refusing to cooperate when someone tries to teach you. Therefore there is no point discussing this with you. I already wrote that about people like you it was said, “You too should blunt his teeth.” And the fact that you are now offended and protesting the tone does not change the substance. This is the right tone for dealing with pestering questions such as this one.
That’s it. To conclude: if you really want to understand, physics is open to anyone interested. Unlike wiseguys like you, there you will find intelligent people who take care to define concepts, properly ground theses in systematic observations, and build well-constructed and corroborated theories. Of course mistakes are possible, and what is beautiful about the scientific world is that when a mistake is discovered, the theory is changed. But that does not mean that every child who declares that the emperor has no clothes has in fact found an error. Sometimes he is just a child who understands nothing. So if you go study physics in an orderly way, I assume these questions will disappear. And if not—then perhaps you really will make your name as the one who changed all our physical conceptions. Best of luck.

Michael Abraham, I have to say that I really feel a lack of fairness on your part. This is the first time I’ve come to write on your site, after listening to a few of your podcasts and getting the impression that you are someone who strongly advocates critical thinking and discussing the issue itself rather than the person. And in my feeling, all your responses are not substantive at all, only about the person. I can’t understand why this is being conducted this way.

I’m really not offended, and certainly not taking anything personally, and I truly don’t care what you think of me. And if you understood from my comments any disrespect toward anyone or anything like that—first of all, I apologize, and second, that certainly wasn’t the intention. I was misunderstood. Now, if anyone has an explanation for the very simple question of how water curves, then please write it to me, and with that the ceremony is over.

@ask__dani

האם מים מתקמרים? #לומדים_עם_טיקטוק

♬ original sound – Ask Dani

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 and not theory, and now you’re challenging a measurement by means of theory? He showed that water is not always straight.

1. The law of communicating vessels is not a theory. 2. I know that a drop is round. If you pay attention to how I phrased it, I wrote water at rest, not water in the air, etc. Lakes, rivers, seas, etc.—that is water at rest, and it is straight!

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

I also don’t really understand physics, and I’m not sure this is the explanation, but it is a demonstration showing that water is not always straight.

There’s no argument about that. I don’t think there is any physicist whatsoever who disputes that water behaves by its very nature this way and always strives to level itself out… They may try to reconcile this in other ways, like gravity, etc., but there is no claim that water at rest (contained water), by its very nature, curves the way he is trying to prove in the video..

I’ll try to explain briefly. Your assumption that the law of communicating vessels means that water will be straight is simply not correct. It is approximately correct in everyday life, when the curvature of the Earth over the surfaces we see is negligible, and then the water’s surface looks straight, just like the rest of our everyday experience makes the Earth feel flat. In order to see the Earth’s curvature, you need to look at larger scales than what an average person sees in day-to-day life—for example, at sea. The surface of the sea is an excellent example of how you can see with your own eyes that the water is not straight but curved (for example, you can see a ship first from its upper edge, and you can calculate with very simple trigonometry the distance at sea that can be seen depending on the observer’s height).

If you have a quality camera or binoculars, you can easily see the things that you claim are supposedly sinking. It’s called perspective: when a given object gets farther from you, it looks like it is sinking… If you have no way to check this yourself, look at documentation people have made… there’s a lot of it on YouTube… today there are technologies that prove there is no curvature.

Why is everyone here running with this “law” that water strives to straighten itself out? Where does this shallow nonsense (pun intended) come from? Is this some law that only I’ve never heard of? Or is this a strange interpretation of some law in hydrostatics?
Water is pulled toward the Earth’s center of mass like any other object. It’s a liquid, so it doesn’t pile up—if that is what is meant by “water doesn’t curve.”

At every point on Earth, the center of mass is more or less below you, and therefore the water rests against the ground in a curved form corresponding to the spherical shape of the “ball.” In fact, your question is exactly the same question as: why don’t people on the other side of the globe fall off? Because you expect there to be one “correct” side to the globe, and that we are all pulled toward one very specific “down,” and then when the globe curves, you ask: why does the water curve together with it, instead of continuing to face the specific “up” that we chose? (Flat-earthers in Israel and in the U.S. would probably argue over what the correct “up” is and which is the correct “down” 😂)

Naftali,
I’m not sure you know what perspective is. You claimed that you’re no expert and that you came to the discussion modestly, but for some reason you’re talking nonsense with a great deal of confidence.
It doesn’t matter what binoculars you have. After the ship moves far enough away, at a certain point you can zoom in enormously and see the ship at normal dimensions—but its bottom will be cut off, and the farther away it gets, the more it will disappear from the bottom upward. It’s not a matter of it getting smaller and disappearing from our sight; rather, even with sophisticated telescopes (which can see distant galaxies), it is simply cut off more and more—while preserving normal perspective—and finally disappears altogether.

Perspective*