No Curvation of Bodies of Water

Lol.... so true! 

Or maybe you aren't antisemitic enough? 

Anyways, don't feel bad, you have company here.

If you are trying to state as a fact that water doesn't curve, you are simply wrong.  Water has a concave curvature that changes depending on its container.  It's called a meniscus.  A concave meniscus is a sharper curve in a test tube than a beaker.  It is attributed to surface tension.  You can therefore not truly rely on the rectilineator to prove a curve on earth because, although it may show a real curve in the water, the curve may simply be caused by surface tension in a very big container.  Mercury on the other hand has a convex curvature, so if the oceans were filled with mercury, then the rectilineator might show a convex planet.  I'm not sure if steve has ever argued against this in his theory. I would be interested to hear his take.

Plum bobs are a different story.  The mine shaft experiment is one that I have not looked into in depth, but it would be interesting to know if there is a measurable convergence or divergence over a long distance. 

Will do steve. I promise you I am not ignorant. If the proven curvature of water was taken into account in this experiment, then I will stand corrected.

I have no doubt of the preciseness of the leveling and the measured curve. My reluctance comes from the assumption that the plane of water is always level to the Earth. This does in fact depend on the water's containment and the water's attraction to the sides of that containment. Certain containers of water will show a flat meniscus and others convex. My questions: Is there an attraction to the shoreline that would cause a curve? If so, should the changing depth and angles of the shoreline be taken into account when performing the experiment? Does the fact that this was done in the Gulf of Mexico cause a different conclusion than if it were done on the open sea side of Florida? I hope you don't see these questions as ignorance. If they are provable non factors I can accept it. I don't think it should be shrugged off with simple doubt or called ignorance. I'm not claiming to prove you wrong, these are just questions that come to mind.

Does and doesn't surprise me that you feel that way. Part of me thought you would have a better answer since you put so much time into the theory. I don't see it as reaching since liquid provably curves and provably is not always level to the earth. But I guess if I want to find answers to my questions, I will be doing so without your help. No hard feelings, a bit of what you say is simple and chuckle at seems more complicated to me. I do enjoy your work.

I didn't think it would take great effort to show whether salt water does or does not have an attraction to the shoreline. What's that composed mostly of?...sand? I do own up to my faults. I have not done any experimentation on this and thought you would have. My bad. That's why I asked. Guess your right though. Why should I think that I found something that heliocentric critics didn't think of? I just saw the topic and started looking up properties of water. Looks to me that the intelligence and precision was in making sure they were working with an irrefutable level. I don't refute that.
At 11:45 of your video here states that the water plane is always level to earth.


There is no intelligence or precision to that statement. It's assumed as fact. I did a quick google and found that's not necessarily the case. The attraction of water to the inside walls of its container will cause it to curve. If this is a non-factor, then I'm looking for proof. I apologize. But I do stick when something doesn't make sense to me and won't move forward until it does. I think that's the reason why most of us are here. Call me what you will.

The meniscus of water is only about 4 mm and is of no consequence when measuring large distances