ships can see lighthouses from sometimes over a hundred miles away for years.
The only thing this proves is you are desperate for proof and throw anything out there without thinking. Flat Earthers have been asking balltards why ships can see lighthouses from sometimes over a hundred miles away for years. You do understand that they would be miles under the "curve" by then do you not? That is why only a few are even bothering to reply to this stupid and childish point. I would not have bothered but you mocking and proud tone compelled my response. Go study how far lighthouses can be seen and the math that is one of the ball earth greatest flaws before you embarrass yourself any further. Balltarddeness Maximass point for you.
I have studied flat earth claims for lighthouse distances, and they all work out correctly.
Show me this proof. I think you are talking big. The math is the math. Oh wait, are you using the new shape of the earth as explained by Neil DeGrasse Tyson? It's spheroid, pear shaped, chubby thing. Bullshit, the lighthouse proof is solid and if you studied it you know that.
At least be honest like the textbook writers and admit you don't know. SHOW ME these proofs you speak of.
Lets see the FEs get passed this one.
You FlatHeads do like taking comments out of context don't you? You did I suppose hear a bit of the context!. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oh wait, are you using the new shape of the earth as explained by Neil DeGrasse Tyson? It's spheroid, pear shaped, chubby thing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So in fact the earth is kind of pear shaped. So that's the shape of the earth. But how pear shaped is it? If you held Earth out here and looked at it, if you used Earth as a model for a cue ball in a pool table, it would be the smoothest cue ball anyone ever made. So these variations from the equator to the poll and from below the equator to the equator are so small that it would make no difference to you if I handed you that sphere with that shape. You would not be able to feel it and tell the difference.from http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2009/07/23/called-by-the-universe (http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2009/07/23/called-by-the-universe)
"Calvin introduced his Commentary on Genesis": "We indeed are not ignorant that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the centre."There's much more like that!
Show me this proof. I think you are talking big. The math is the math. Oh wait, are you using the new shape of the earth as explained by Neil DeGrasse Tyson? It's spheroid, pear shaped, chubby thing. Bullshit, the lighthouse proof is solid and if you studied it you know that.
At least be honest like the textbook writers and admit you don't know. SHOW ME these proofs you speak of.
At least be honest like the textbook writers and admit you don't know. SHOW ME these proofs you speak of.
Quote from: Alan FlatearthAt least be honest like the textbook writers and admit you don't know. SHOW ME these proofs you speak of.
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level.....
.... crickets ....
The below chart shows the curvature of the earth.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is 23.9 miles long.
So that at the midpoint you would not see any thing higher than 100 feet on the horizon. Of course these figures are from viewing at water level so they would be slightly different from an observer on the roadway on the causeway but illustrate why you only see water and not shore line on the horizon as you proceed on the causeway.
Distance Height
Miles Feet
--------------------------
1.0 0.67
1.23 1.0
3.0 5.95
3.9 10
6.0 23.8
10 66
12.3 100
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html (http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html)
The below chart shows the curvature of the earth.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is 23.9 miles long.
So that at the midpoint you would not see any thing higher than 100 feet on the horizon. Of course these figures are from viewing at water level so they would be slightly different from an observer on the roadway on the causeway but illustrate why you only see water and not shore line on the horizon as you proceed on the causeway.
Distance Height
Miles Feet
--------------------------
1.0 0.67
1.23 1.0
3.0 5.95
3.9 10
6.0 23.8
10 66
12.3 100
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html (http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html)
This is an incredible piece of evidence for RE, and I'd be interested to see if any FE supporters think that it's possible to recover the horizon whilst standing on the causeway by looking through a telescope.
Actually, I'd be interested if anyone, RE or FE supporter, has actually been to the causeway itself. It would be a great experiment in observation.
The below chart shows the curvature of the earth.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is 23.9 miles long.
So that at the midpoint you would not see any thing higher than 100 feet on the horizon. Of course these figures are from viewing at water level so they would be slightly different from an observer on the roadway on the causeway but illustrate why you only see water and not shore line on the horizon as you proceed on the causeway.
Distance Height
Miles Feet
--------------------------
1.0 0.67
1.23 1.0
3.0 5.95
3.9 10
6.0 23.8
10 66
12.3 100
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html (http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html)
This is an incredible piece of evidence for RE, and I'd be interested to see if any FE supporters think that it's possible to recover the horizon whilst standing on the causeway by looking through a telescope.
Actually, I'd be interested if anyone, RE or FE supporter, has actually been to the causeway itself. It would be a great experiment in observation.
Although I am sure that flat earthers would deny it as they do with anything involving photographic evidence, you can observe this by taking a "virtual trip"on the causeway by means of google maps street views. However, the cameras on google maps are of such a wide angle nature that they do give an exaggerated view of distances.
But the chart listed was factual and proven evidence , which is something flat-earthers never seem to have at their disposal. LOL. Such as a flat earth map for a beginning.
We are planning a trip from Texas to Florida next year. I am planning to intend to take a round trip on the causeway to observe this first hand. For the present, I am satisfied with reports from ordinary tourists.
Here are some pictures from cameras at the mid point of the causeway.
Water, water, everywhere !
I am willing to even bet that flat earthers are going to come up with "perspective", "fakes" or "photoshopped." Also taking even bets that they are going to add The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway to the ever growing list of "The Great Round Earth Conspiracy." LOL
http://www.thecauseway.us/traffic-cams/mid-bridge-cams (http://www.thecauseway.us/traffic-cams/mid-bridge-cams)
Isn't that area way below sea level?
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, near New Orleans, Louisiana, in the United States of America, proves the curvature of the earth. At points along the causeway the shore will be obscured by the curvature of the earth. All that you will see on the horizon in all directions will be where water and sky meet. This also disproves the flat earth "The horizon is just an indistinct blur which fades away at an infinite distance" since the horizon can be clearly seen as the line where water and sky meet in all directions.
The distance to the horizon can also be calculated by a simple bit of mathematics.The higher the observer, the farther the distance to the horizon will be observed.
http://googlesightseeing.com/2011/07/the-worlds-longest-cross-sea-bridge%e2%80%a6-or-is-it-jiaozhou-bay-bridge/ (http://googlesightseeing.com/2011/07/the-worlds-longest-cross-sea-bridge%e2%80%a6-or-is-it-jiaozhou-bay-bridge/)
Caveat:I would guess fe will try to disprove this by their distrust in photographs. I would suggest they check this out for themselves. Also see if they can "recover with a telescope" the shore line from the mid-point of the causeway.
Actually, I'd be interested if anyone, RE or FE supporter, has actually been to the causeway itself. It would be a great experiment in observation.
The images from the OP's link look like the bridge sides simply converge due to perspective. I am not sure what the point of this thread is. Are you trying to prove that the Earth is flat? ???
I have crossed that causeway for reasons of Earth shape verification. Perspective and atmospherics proved a flat Earth by even better scientific proof than I expected. Flat Earth confirmation came in the form of Zetetic proof, as well.Care to elaborate at all?
I have crossed that causeway for reasons of Earth shape verification. Perspective and atmospherics proved a flat Earth by even better scientific proof than I expected. Flat Earth confirmation came in the form of Zetetic proof, as well.Care to elaborate at all?
Yes I do, given truthful evidence, preferably backed up rather than just a claim.Certainly so but I must ask...given truthful evidence, do you have the capacity to comprehend that the Earth could be flat? I don't want to waste your time or mine trying to convince the inconvincible.I have crossed that causeway for reasons of Earth shape verification. Perspective and atmospherics proved a flat Earth by even better scientific proof than I expected. Flat Earth confirmation came in the form of Zetetic proof, as well.Care to elaborate at all?
On a busy Disc, one finds it hard finding time addressing an amateur video when I have seen other FE'ers post some mathematical proof that I do understand showing the round Earth can't be true.I have seen numerous flawed arguments claimed as proof, but none which hold up to rational scruitiny.
Look around this site and you WILL find reasons the Earth is flat. Include the Believers section, as well.
I'm not one of those "I told you so" people and don't want to become one, but when I say you will agree with FE'ers after a thorough search, I challenge you to prove me wrong.That all comes down to what constitutes "proof".
On a busy Disc, one finds it hard finding time addressing an amateur video when I have seen other FE'ers post some mathematical proof that I do understand showing the round Earth can't be true.
Look around this site and you WILL find reasons the Earth is flat. Include the Believers section, as well.
RE believers seem to have become lax in their search enthusiasm, and there you will find all your answers.
I'm not one of those "I told you so" people and don't want to become one, but when I say you will agree with FE'ers after a thorough search, I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Can anyone do better than that week attempt at diversion?
Can anyone do better than that week attempt at diversion?
Well this was a reply I didn't expect. When you get an answer to your question and you disagree, do you then request someone else to answer in some other way?
Protip: in a debate you should try your level best to prove your claim and not run this way and that to avoid the issue.
Can anyone do better than that week attempt at diversion?
Well this was a reply I didn't expect. When you get an answer to your question and you disagree, do you then request someone else to answer in some other way?
Protip: in a debate you should try your level best to prove your claim and not run this way and that to avoid the issue.
And BTW, I don't have a 'claim' to prove. I asked a question.
Protip: When answering a question READ the question and ANSWER THE QUESTION! Don't just type a load of irrelevant nonsense then act surprised when it's called out.
Can anyone do better than that week attempt at diversion?
Well this was a reply I didn't expect. When you get an answer to your question and you disagree, do you then request someone else to answer in some other way?
Protip: in a debate you should try your level best to prove your claim and not run this way and that to avoid the issue.
And BTW, I don't have a 'claim' to prove. I asked a question.
Protip: When answering a question READ the question and ANSWER THE QUESTION! Don't just type a load of irrelevant nonsense then act surprised when it's called out.
LMFAO!!!
You're currently doing all you can to avoid answering questions on this thread, retard:
httpsw.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.330
What a fucking hypocrite you are, Paul White...
Yeah, it's you, posting from work via sockpuppet like the cowardly motherfucker you are...
What's that you like saying again, paedo?
GROW UP!!!
LMFAO!!!You mean ignoring your childish bullshit?
You're currently doing all you can to avoid answering questions on this thread, retard:
httpsw.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.330
Fucking hell, could you cry a bit harder you pair of Gaylord's, they probably can't hear you in the next county yet.
And yes, you are obviously Paul fucking White, posting from work illegally via sockpuppet....
Do you think I don't recognise your pompous whinging a mile off by now?
GROW UP PAUL!!!
Lol.
What is happening is an occurrence common within The FES:Except the FEers haven't provided a legitimate answer.
Round Earth believers will pose a question they feel will somehow negate or cast doubt on FET. They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question. After receiving it, the REers then attempt, in sometimes the most original fashion, to debunk the FEers response.
There is then a bit of back and forth until the REers wave the white flag when they could have done that right from the start.
What is happening is an occurrence common within The FES:
Round Earth believers will pose a question they feel will somehow negate or cast doubt on FET. They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question. After receiving it, the REers then attempt, in sometimes the most original fashion, to debunk the FEers response.
There is then a bit of back and forth until the REers wave the white flag when they could have done that right from the start.
What is happening is an occurrence common within The FES:
Round Earth believers will pose a question they feel will somehow negate or cast doubt on FET. They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question. After receiving it, the REers then attempt, in sometimes the most original fashion, to debunk the FEers response.
There is then a bit of back and forth until the REers wave the white flag when they could have done that right from the start.
What is happening is an occurrence common within The FES:
Round Earth believers will pose a question they feel will somehow negate or cast doubt on FET. They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question. After receiving it, the REers then attempt, in sometimes the most original fashion, to debunk the FEers response.
There is then a bit of back and forth until the REers wave the white flag when they could have done that right from the start.
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question.
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question.
Look it's very simple:
Unless you can show us where this non existent answer is in this thread then you are conceding that there is no answer.
Just to confirm, my question was
how do you explain the clear curvature visible in this video using an FE model?
Incorrect. He made astute observation related to the OP. REers do not advantage of didactic methodology when presented and dig themselves deeper instead of learning and reacting properly to advice given.Incorrect. It isn't advice, it is patronising, insulting bullshit.
A major problem with REers is that they do hold their viewpoints even when their claim has been proven false.
You are only digging yourself deeper*.You mean where yet again, the FEers fail to address the issue?
*See response #56
They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question.
Look it's very simple:
Unless you can show us where this non existent answer is in this thread then you are conceding that there is no answer.
Just to confirm, my question was
how do you explain the clear curvature visible in this video using an FE model?
You are only digging yourself deeper*.
*See response #56
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
Incorrect. He made astute observation related to the OP. REers do not advantage of didactic methodology when presented and dig themselves deeper instead of learning and reacting properly to advice given.
A major problem with REers is that they do hold their viewpoints even when their claim has been proven false.
Fucking hell, could you cry a bit harder you pair of Gaylord's, they probably can't hear you in the next county yet.So that is an astute observation related to the OP? It probably isn't the exact post you are referring to but you never provide anything to support your claims, like perhaps a quote back. Plus, this is what 90 percent of Papa Legba's posts are.
And yes, you are obviously Paul fucking White, posting from work illegally via sockpuppet....
Do you think I don't recognise your pompous whinging a mile off by now?
GROW UP PAUL!!!
Lol.
But, "response #56" adds nothing to the debate.They do not anticipate that FEers will have a legitimate answer to their question.
Look it's very simple:
Unless you can show us where this non existent answer is in this thread then you are conceding that there is no answer.
Just to confirm, my question was
how do you explain the clear curvature visible in this video using an FE model?
You are only digging yourself deeper*.
*See response #56
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
Incorrect. He made astute observation related to the OP. REers do not advantage of didactic methodology when presented and dig themselves deeper instead of learning and reacting properly to advice given.
A major problem with REers is that they do hold their viewpoints even when their claim has been proven false.
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
Incorrect. He made astute observation related to the OP. REers do not advantage of didactic methodology when presented and dig themselves deeper instead of learning and reacting properly to advice given.
A major problem with REers is that they do hold their viewpoints even when their claim has been proven false.
Impact. There may be an opportunity to clear up the issue.
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
Incorrect. He made astute observation related to the OP. REers do not advantage of didactic methodology when presented and dig themselves deeper instead of learning and reacting properly to advice given.
A major problem with REers is that they do hold their viewpoints even when their claim has been proven false.
Impact. There may be an opportunity to clear up the issue.
Still talking nonsense and not answering the question I see.
Exactly what is the point of that post? Writing gibberish on forum threads and pretending to be winning an argument without actually responding to the question.
This is seriously insane.
Do you remember where you were when you decided the Earth was round?
Time out: Seriously insane is exampled by REers who can not answer this question; Do you remember where you were when you decided the Earth was round? If you are unable to answer then it is completely unrealistic for you to even consider responding to the OP with any semblance of normalcy.So more distractions.
Why? This can also be answered. It is because if you are only equipped to recognize Earth shape as round because of a lack of exposure to reality. I challenge you to ask any qualified psychiatrist about this...and then get back to me with their response.
There is no dodging here and there is no problem with FEers. The issue is with REers. We accept the debate victory and you may or may not understand the "why".No you don't. You continually ignore when you have been defeated and just pretend you are victory.
It's all in the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and how Earth shape proof or lack thereof is perpetuated. The latter is key to your ultimate defeat demonstrated in questions #1 through #4 with the solution emerging once you comprehend the "why" of inclusion #5.And when examining that we find plenty of evidence for a RE, none for a FE (which indicates FE over RE) and find ignorance and lies perpetuating the FE lie.
1. What would happen if you gave FET evidence as answers to science exam questions even though that evidence was true and provable?Does it answer the question? If not, you fail (or don't get the marks). If it answers the question and is correct (by virtue of it being true and provable), you typically get the marks. Although some courses are taught in a horrible way where you can only use content from the lectures.
2. How did your science instructors complete their own exams to qualify themselves as teachers of your beliefs?They aren't just beliefs.
3. How much FET have science instructors been exposed to before passing all their required exams?As people are yet to produce a FET and instead have just produced a bunch of contradictory models all of which fail, NONE! No one has been exposed to it.
4. What pool of data do science instructors use in forming their exams?It varies from place to place. Some use the latest information they can get. Others just use the same exams.
5. Return to #1 and continue until you realize the truth of Earth shape dynamics.I have. The truth is Earth is round.
There is no dodging here and there is no problem with FEers. The issue is with REers. We accept the debate victory and you may or may not understand the "why".
It's all in the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and how Earth shape proof or lack thereof is perpetuated. The latter is key to your ultimate defeat demonstrated in questions #1 through #4 with the solution emerging once you comprehend the "why" of inclusion #5.
1. What would happen if you gave FET evidence as answers to science exam questions even though that evidence was true and provable?
2. How did your science instructors complete their own exams to qualify themselves as teachers of your beliefs?
3. How much FET have science instructors been exposed to before passing all their required exams?
4. What pool of data do science instructors use in forming their exams?
5. Return to #1 and continue until you realize the truth of Earth shape dynamics.
1. What would happen if you gave FET evidence as answers to science exam questions even though that evidence was true and provable?Lets get before that even one FET evidence which is true and provable. "I don't see the curvature" isn't one. "I can see sometimes farther than I think I should" isn't also. And "Government and NASA lies to us about earth shape" isn't too. And thats all you actually have. If you think any other then its only nitcpicking on some observation what you just don't understand.
There is no dodging here and there is no problem with FEers. The issue is with REers. We accept the debate victory and you may or may not understand the "why".
It's all in the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and how Earth shape proof or lack thereof is perpetuated. The latter is key to your ultimate defeat demonstrated in questions #1 through #4 with the solution emerging once you comprehend the "why" of inclusion #5.
1. What would happen if you gave FET evidence as answers to science exam questions even though that evidence was true and provable?
2. How did your science instructors complete their own exams to qualify themselves as teachers of your beliefs?
3. How much FET have science instructors been exposed to before passing all their required exams?
4. What pool of data do science instructors use in forming their exams?
5. Return to #1 and continue until you realize the truth of Earth shape dynamics.
There is no dodging here and there is no problem with FEers. The issue is with REers. We accept the debate victory and you may or may not understand the "why".
It's all in the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and how Earth shape proof or lack thereof is perpetuated. The latter is key to your ultimate defeat demonstrated in questions #1 through #4 with the solution emerging once you comprehend the "why" of inclusion #5.
1. What would happen if you gave FET evidence as answers to science exam questions even though that evidence was true and provable?
There is no dodging here and there is no problem with FEers. The issue is with REers. We accept the debate victory and you may or may not understand the "why".
It's all in the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and how Earth shape proof or lack thereof is perpetuated. The latter is key to your ultimate defeat demonstrated in questions #1 through #4 with the solution emerging once you comprehend the "why" of inclusion #5.
1. What would happen if you gave FET evidence as answers to science exam questions even though that evidence was true and provable?
OK, here's a grade school science question. Please put your money where your mouth is and answer using FE:
1 In the following video, explain the visible curvature of the surface of the earth.
2 Explain what force prevents the water in this video draining away off of the curved surface.
Here is your chance to show us all that you aren't just deflecting and trolling. Will you take it?
Refraction. Ever heard of it?
Refraction. Ever heard of it?Would that be related to ::) atmoplanic ::) lensing?
Refraction. Ever heard of it?
Yes. Do you have any evidence of this? Maybe a mathematical proof that would allow the refraction of light to distort images in this way on a FE? Maybe an atmospheric theory? Anything?
Refraction. Ever heard of it?Would that be related to ::) atmoplanic ::) lensing?(https://www.dropbox.com/s/63d3wibigxlxlts/Einstein%20Duh.png?dl=1)You use refraction like Sandokhan and JRoweSkeptic use aether - to magically[1] paper over the holes in your hypothesis.
The usual atmospheric refraction makes things appear higher, not lower!
[1] That make you happy? I managed to drag some magic into the mix!
Wow, finally an answer.
So you say refraction is causing a continuous line of energy cables to gradually and smoothly curve down as they recede into the horizon?
Can you explain how refraction achieves this? As far as I am aware refraction causes light to change angle, not to curve, but I'm no science guru so I'm happy to read your explanation.
Wow, finally an answer.
So you say refraction is causing a continuous line of energy cables to gradually and smoothly curve down as they recede into the horizon?
Can you explain how refraction achieves this? As far as I am aware refraction causes light to change angle, not to curve, but I'm no science guru so I'm happy to read your explanation.
Refraction can do lots of things: make things appear higher than it should appear, make things appear lower that it should appear, make things appear upside down, make mirror images of something appear to hover above it. You should do a little research on the subject. It is fasinating,
Wow, finally an answer.
So you say refraction is causing a continuous line of energy cables to gradually and smoothly curve down as they recede into the horizon?
Can you explain how refraction achieves this? As far as I am aware refraction causes light to change angle, not to curve, but I'm no science guru so I'm happy to read your explanation.
Refraction can do lots of things: make things appear higher than it should appear, make things appear lower that it should appear, make things appear upside down, make mirror images of something appear to hover above it. You should do a little research on the subject. It is fasinating,
Got it. We don't know how or why, but it must be some magical localized refraction event.
You theorize that it is refraction, and I may be inclined to agree, if you can provide me with a model where this type of refraction would be possible on a flat plane.
Wow, finally an answer.
So you say refraction is causing a continuous line of energy cables to gradually and smoothly curve down as they recede into the horizon?
Can you explain how refraction achieves this? As far as I am aware refraction causes light to change angle, not to curve, but I'm no science guru so I'm happy to read your explanation.
Refraction can do lots of things: make things appear higher than it should appear, make things appear lower that it should appear, make things appear upside down, make mirror images of something appear to hover above it. You should do a little research on the subject. It is fasinating,
Got it. We don't know how or why, but it must be some magical localized refraction event.
You theorize that it is refraction, and I may be inclined to agree, if you can provide me with a model where this type of refraction would be possible on a flat plane.
Why would refraction not work on a flat plane? You do realize that light does not care what shape the ground below it is, right?
Wow, finally an answer.
So you say refraction is causing a continuous line of energy cables to gradually and smoothly curve down as they recede into the horizon?
Can you explain how refraction achieves this? As far as I am aware refraction causes light to change angle, not to curve, but I'm no science guru so I'm happy to read your explanation.
Refraction can do lots of things: make things appear higher than it should appear, make things appear lower that it should appear, make things appear upside down, make mirror images of something appear to hover above it. You should do a little research on the subject. It is fasinating,
Got it. We don't know how or why, but it must be some magical localized refraction event.
You theorize that it is refraction, and I may be inclined to agree, if you can provide me with a model where this type of refraction would be possible on a flat plane.
Why would refraction not work on a flat plane? You do realize that light does not care what shape the ground below it is, right?
I never said it wouldn't work. I concede that it could very well be an illusion created by refraction. The problem I am having is that while true the light does not care about the shape of the ground per-se what does effect light is the shape of the medium it is traveling through.
Without any curve in the water here, the air above it must also be flat, so what to you propose is an explanation for what would bend the light in this way?
well you need to be more specific for one. In what way is the atmoplane curved? How does it retain this curvature? Can you provide any data to support this claim? Atmospheric readings perhaps?
So you claim that density layers cause the refraction. Nice. So how does the light here get bent by density layers, since in the current example we are looking out at practically sea level to something that is visible just above the sea level?
well you need to be more specific for one. In what way is the atmoplane curved? How does it retain this curvature? Can you provide any data to support this claim? Atmospheric readings perhaps?
So you claim that density layers cause the refraction. Nice. So how does the light here get bent by density layers, since in the current example we are looking out at practically sea level to something that is visible just above the sea level?
You should really do a little research on the subject before making yourself appear more ignorant. The air temperature at sea level can be vastly warmer than the air temperature just a couple of meters higher.
No he is asking you how you think it works since you are claiming refraction. I see someone asking you to explain your use of refraction. I can see why you got confused, since you have trouble actually backing up claims and it would show again that you truly do not support FE, you just play this part on the internet for funsies.well you need to be more specific for one. In what way is the atmoplane curved? How does it retain this curvature? Can you provide any data to support this claim? Atmospheric readings perhaps?
So you claim that density layers cause the refraction. Nice. So how does the light here get bent by density layers, since in the current example we are looking out at practically sea level to something that is visible just above the sea level?
You should really do a little research on the subject before making yourself appear more ignorant. The air temperature at sea level can be vastly warmer than the air temperature just a couple of meters higher.
The images from the OP's link look like the bridge sides simply converge due to perspective. I am not sure what the point of this thread is. Are you trying to prove that the Earth is flat? ???
Wow, finally an answer.
So you say refraction is causing a continuous line of energy cables to gradually and smoothly curve down as they recede into the horizon?
Can you explain how refraction achieves this? As far as I am aware refraction causes light to change angle, not to curve, but I'm no science guru so I'm happy to read your explanation.
Refraction can do lots of things: make things appear higher than it should appear, make things appear lower that it should appear, make things appear upside down, make mirror images of something appear to hover above it. You should do a little research on the subject. It is fasinating,
Can you provide any data to support this claim?Ha! :P
Can you provide any data to support this claim?Ha! :P
Actually yes, but not in the way you think he meant. The mere thought of actual accurate verifiable data that supports FE is, at the very best, laughable.Can you provide any data to support this claim?Ha! :P
Is that really so funny?
Why do you keep demanding that we prove that refraction is a real phenomenon?
Why do you keep demanding that we prove that refraction is a real phenomenon?
They are not disputing refraction, but what you claim, WITHOUT ANY PROOF, is causing MORE refraction in the WRONG DIRECTION than physic predicts
I'm sure you'll avoid answering YET AGAIN but here goes.
Please explain this temperature inversion you claim exists and how it is perfectly uniform be it night or day, rain or shine, in all seasons and has existed for millinia.
Why do you keep demanding that we prove that refraction is a real phenomenon?No one is demanding that. They are demanding you prove it does what you claim it does.
Why do you keep demanding that we prove that refraction is a real phenomenon?
They are not disputing refraction, but what you claim, WITHOUT ANY PROOF, is causing MORE refraction in the WRONG DIRECTION than physic predicts
I'm sure you'll avoid answering YET AGAIN but here goes.
Please explain this temperature inversion you claim exists and how it is perfectly uniform be it night or day, rain or shine, in all seasons and has existed for millinia.
It is not always the same. That is why predicting the exact time of sunrise/set is not an exact science. ::)
http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/sunset_time.html
You people jump around the forum demanding explainations for why the sunset/rise is so predictable, and when I show you that it is not, you then cry and throw a tantrum. Why do you bother coming to scientific discussion forums if you simply call people names and have a fit when evidence is provided that what you think you know may not be true?
Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.Quit moaning and groaning. They can predict it to within a minute, depending on weather, which affects refraction and is constantly changing.
Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.Quit moaning and groaning. They can predict it to within a minute, depending on weather, which affects refraction and is constantly changing.
Your "stop asking for the imposdible" routine is tiresome. No one is asking that and you know it. You are just dodging around, using canned arguments.
I know it's hard to answer questions about something you do not actually support.
Just saying it is false because it doesn't match your claim is not proving it false.Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.Quit moaning and groaning. They can predict it to within a minute, depending on weather, which affects refraction and is constantly changing.
Your "stop asking for the imposdible" routine is tiresome. No one is asking that and you know it. You are just dodging around, using canned arguments.
I know it's hard to answer questions about something you do not actually support.
Perhaps you should be yelling at the roundies who are using canned arguments that have been proven false time and time again. ::)
Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.
Just saying it is false because it doesn't match your claim is not proving it false.Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.Quit moaning and groaning. They can predict it to within a minute, depending on weather, which affects refraction and is constantly changing.
Your "stop asking for the imposdible" routine is tiresome. No one is asking that and you know it. You are just dodging around, using canned arguments.
I know it's hard to answer questions about something you do not actually support.
Perhaps you should be yelling at the roundies who are using canned arguments that have been proven false time and time again. ::)
Your shtick is getting old. Dodge some more though, it seems to be your only trick.
Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.
That inaccuracy does not explain how your "model" works, it simply explains the SLIGHT differences in times of sunset.
No surprise that you avoided this part:
if the ray curvature is similar to the Earth's curvature near the sea surface, the solar refraction can become very large, even though the dip of the sea horizon is hardly affected.
You know the part where your proof that the earth is flat depends on the earth's curve.
Are you going to flee, admit you are wrong, whine like a little child or shoot yourself in the other foot with more "proof"?
I see that Jora's latest "thing" on the forum is trying to use refraction as the excuse for things going over the horizon. Here's a tip for you, Jora: the reason other FE'ers haven't been citing refraction as the excuse for sunsets and other horizon phenomena is because refraction actually makes light bend the other way, making things more visible, not less.
Just thought you should know before you make yourself look even sillier.
Jroa is just trolling. He has yet to show how it retracts in that way. He went on some silly thing about the edge getting colder and being a vacuum.
We know that more density make light travel slightly slower and "bends" light. He is just screaming refraction so later he can jump back to the other b.s. saying RE people were arguing that refraction doesn't work. He just hasn't got the right answer that he can twist yet.
Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.Any reasonably competent person would give a reference for a claim like that!
Spreading the truth and educating the ignorant is not trolling.That is fine, but to have you "educating the ignorant" is a bit having the blind leading fully sighted people!
Which part? The part where the professors at the San Diego State University physics department say that you can not accurately predict the sunrise/set? I thought I already covered that topic. Perhaps you should try taking your fingers out of your ears.Any reasonably competent person would give a reference for a claim like that!
I guess I have to hunt it up so we don't have to rely on your hearsay, see in Why We Can't Predict Sunset Times Exactly (http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/sunset_time.html), which contains:
"So it is hardly surprising that the standard tables of sunrise and sunset times are given only to the nearest minute. That's about as accurate as we can expect a prediction to be."
Now, would you please explain how to predict the times of sunrise and sunset to the nearest minute of your flat earth.If you cannot do that, I suggest that you stop pretending to know what you are talking about!
It may not explain how my model works, but it sure does prove that you roundies know very little about science and just spout off whatever you think you know, whether it is true or not.
Any reasonably competent person would have simply clicked on the link I provided. Have you taken your meds today? It's ok rayzor, I mean rabinoz. We are here for you. ::)I haven't the time to read all the thread, but predicting sunrise and sunset times to within a minute is very good considering that you still can't even explain how the sun even sets.
Spreading the truth and educating the ignorant is not trolling.But ignoring what people say and blatantly misrepresenting the truth is.
No one can predict anything exactly.
Spreading the truth and educating the ignorant is not trolling.But ignoring what people say and blatantly misrepresenting the truth is.
No one can predict anything exactly.
What we can do is use the RE model to predict sunrise and sunset times to a great deal of accuracy, typically within a few minutes (better expressed as determining the apparent position of the sun based upon time, to within less than a degree and seeing what value of the time will produce sunrise and sunset).
That is far better than the FE model which predicts the sun will always be significantly above the horizon and relies upon magical unproven refraction (I'm not saying refraction isn't real, just the BS FEers rely upon), appealing to significantly reduced examples which are highly dependent upon the atmospheric conditions and thus would not produce the regularity that we observe for sunrise and sunsets and should allow people to see the sun in the middle of the night all over the world at various times.
No one can predict anything exactly.
Thanks. I will refer to this quote often. ;D
Exactly right. And, was accurate to within ≈0.2 seconds of the predicted time and within a few arc seconds of longitude and latitude. Pretty danged accurate.Spreading the truth and educating the ignorant is not trolling.But ignoring what people say and blatantly misrepresenting the truth is.
No one can predict anything exactly.
What we can do is use the RE model to predict sunrise and sunset times to a great deal of accuracy, typically within a few minutes (better expressed as determining the apparent position of the sun based upon time, to within less than a degree and seeing what value of the time will produce sunrise and sunset).
That is far better than the FE model which predicts the sun will always be significantly above the horizon and relies upon magical unproven refraction (I'm not saying refraction isn't real, just the BS FEers rely upon), appealing to significantly reduced examples which are highly dependent upon the atmospheric conditions and thus would not produce the regularity that we observe for sunrise and sunsets and should allow people to see the sun in the middle of the night all over the world at various times.
Eclipses have been predicted EXACTLY!! Where and when TO THE METER AND TO THE SECOND going out 100 YEARS or more. Can only be done with computers programmed with RE math.
Did any FE folks go watch the eclipse last week? Did you know where to go, on which day, at what hour, at what minute?! Did you check a website to see how many seconds the total eclipse would last based on exactly where you were standing?! And was it right? (it was for me!)
THANK RE MATH!!
Hypocrite.No one can predict anything exactly.
Thanks. I will refer to this quote often. ;D
And by "refer to" I take it you mean blatantly misrepresent; pretending it has a completely different meaning?No one can predict anything exactly.
Thanks. I will refer to this quote often. ;D
Eclipses have been predicted EXACTLY!! Where and when TO THE METER AND TO THE SECOND going out 100 YEARS or more. Can only be done with computers programmed with RE math.You might want to learn what exact means (and associated words like exactly).
Exactly right. And, was accurate to within ≈0.2 seconds of the predicted time and within a few arc seconds of longitude and latitude. Pretty danged accurate.Nope, still wrong.
Maximum eclipse :
Predicted time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:31.8, 36° 58.0' N, 87° 40.3' W
Actual time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:32.0, 36° 57.98' N, 87° 40.254' W
Mike
And by "refer to" I take it you mean blatantly misrepresent; pretending it has a completely different meaning?No one can predict anything exactly.
Thanks. I will refer to this quote often. ;D
Is that a problem?Eclipses have been predicted EXACTLY!! Where and when TO THE METER AND TO THE SECOND going out 100 YEARS or more. Can only be done with computers programmed with RE math.You might want to learn what exact means (and associated words like exactly).
To the meter and to the second is not exact.
Loads of things are done far more "exact", like to the mm or ms.
Try predicting it to the plank length and plank time. Then I might believe you have it exact.Exactly right. And, was accurate to within ≈0.2 seconds of the predicted time and within a few arc seconds of longitude and latitude. Pretty danged accurate.Nope, still wrong.
Maximum eclipse :
Predicted time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:31.8, 36° 58.0' N, 87° 40.3' W
Actual time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:32.0, 36° 57.98' N, 87° 40.254' W
Mike
≈0.2 seconds is still not exact.
Do you know what the ≈ means?
Approximately equal to. Does approximate sound exact?
Does getting it wrong by 0.2 seconds sound exact?
Does a 10th of an arc minute really sound exact?
For the roughly 40 000 km circumference Earth, 1 degree is roughly 111 km.
That means 1 arc minute is roughly 1.85 km.
That means 1 tenth of an arc minute is a massive 185 m.
Does 185 m sound exact?
No, none of that is exact.
In all cases you have inexact approximations.
None are exact.
I think JackBlack has your measure. But, who is the stalker?And by "refer to" I take it you mean blatantly misrepresent; pretending it has a completely different meaning?You are a stalker.
Is that a problem?Only when people claim it is exact, which then leads to people like jroa saying it isn't and trying to use that as an argument against reality.
You should have read my post a little closer. I never said any of my numbers were exact. I “spoke” in generalities and never on stated "exactly this value" or anything remotely like it. So no, I'm not wrong.Eclipses have been predicted EXACTLY!! Where and when TO THE METER AND TO THE SECOND going out 100 YEARS or more. Can only be done with computers programmed with RE math.You might want to learn what exact means (and associated words like exactly).
To the meter and to the second is not exact.
Loads of things are done far more "exact", like to the mm or ms.
Try predicting it to the plank length and plank time. Then I might believe you have it exact.Exactly right. And, was accurate to within ≈0.2 seconds of the predicted time and within a few arc seconds of longitude and latitude. Pretty danged accurate.Nope, still wrong.
Maximum eclipse :
Predicted time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:31.8, 36° 58.0' N, 87° 40.3' W
Actual time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:32.0, 36° 57.98' N, 87° 40.254' W
Mike
≈0.2 seconds is still not exact.
Do you know what the ≈ means?
Approximately equal to. Does approximate sound exact?
Does getting it wrong by 0.2 seconds sound exact?
Does a 10th of an arc minute really sound exact?
For the roughly 40 000 km circumference Earth, 1 degree is roughly 111 km.
That means 1 arc minute is roughly 1.85 km.
That means 1 tenth of an arc minute is a massive 185 m.
Does 185 m sound exact?
No, none of that is exact.
In all cases you have inexact approximations.
None are exact.
Is that a problem?Only when people claim it is exact, which then leads to people like jroa saying it isn't and trying to use that as an argument against reality.
You should have read my post a little closer. I never said any of my numbers were exact. I “spoke” in generalities and never on stated "exactly this value" or anything remotely like it. So no, I'm not wrong.Perhaps you should have read the one you quoted. Here is your post again in context (or at least the relevant parts to it):
Notice how you said he is exactly right?Exactly right. And, was accurate to within ≈0.2 seconds of the predicted time and within a few arc seconds of longitude and latitude. Pretty danged accurate.No one can predict anything exactly.Eclipses have been predicted EXACTLY!! Where and when TO THE METER AND TO THE SECOND going out 100 YEARS or more. Can only be done with computers programmed with RE math.
What we can do is use the RE model to predict sunrise and sunset times to a great deal of accuracy
I said they were "accurate to within" an approximate value...followed by "Pretty danged accurate." I stand by both those statements.Do you stand by your statement of "Exactly right" in response to someone claiming that eclipses can be predicted EXACTLY?
I still think the predicted vs. actual path is pretty danged accurate.And I never said it wasn't. All I said was that it is not exact.
You are being silly. The term "exact" is relative. A carpenter could cut boards to exactly 3 inches wide, and a machinist might polish a piston down to exactly three inches in diameter. However, they might be slightly different due to different tolerances within the context of their needs. Given the enormous sizes, distances, variables, and complexities (Earth orbiting, Moon orbiting, Earth rotating), it is pretty effing amazing that they were off by an amount imperceptible to nearly everyone.No, that wold be you.
You are being silly. The term "exact" is relative. A carpenter could cut boards to exactly 3 inches wide, and a machinist might polish a piston down to exactly three inches in diameter. However, they might be slightly different due to different tolerances within the context of their needs. Given the enormous sizes, distances, variables, and complexities (Earth orbiting, Moon orbiting, Earth rotating), it is pretty effing amazing that they were off by an amount imperceptible to nearly everyone.No, that wold be you.
The term "exact" is absolute.
It means not approximate, accurate or correct in every detail.
Everything is inexact, it just goes to different degrees.
A carpenter can not cut boards to exactly 3 inches wide. They can accurately cut it to within a certain tolerance.
If they could cut it exactly, it would have a tolerance of 0.
What are you trying to prove, and why?You are being silly. The term "exact" is relative. A carpenter could cut boards to exactly 3 inches wide, and a machinist might polish a piston down to exactly three inches in diameter. However, they might be slightly different due to different tolerances within the context of their needs. Given the enormous sizes, distances, variables, and complexities (Earth orbiting, Moon orbiting, Earth rotating), it is pretty effing amazing that they were off by an amount imperceptible to nearly everyone.No, that wold be you.
The term "exact" is absolute.
It means not approximate, accurate or correct in every detail.
Everything is inexact, it just goes to different degrees.
A carpenter can not cut boards to exactly 3 inches wide. They can accurately cut it to within a certain tolerance.
If they could cut it exactly, it would have a tolerance of 0.
If your boss tells you to drive the train away from the station at "exactly 3:00 p.m.," are you thrown into a catatonic fit because you can't find a watch that calculates to the hundred-trillionth of a second? "Exactly" is always contextual.I'm not thrown into a fit.
What are you trying to prove, and why?You are being silly. The term "exact" is relative. A carpenter could cut boards to exactly 3 inches wide, and a machinist might polish a piston down to exactly three inches in diameter. However, they might be slightly different due to different tolerances within the context of their needs. Given the enormous sizes, distances, variables, and complexities (Earth orbiting, Moon orbiting, Earth rotating), it is pretty effing amazing that they were off by an amount imperceptible to nearly everyone.No, that wold be you.
The term "exact" is absolute.
It means not approximate, accurate or correct in every detail.
Everything is inexact, it just goes to different degrees.
A carpenter can not cut boards to exactly 3 inches wide. They can accurately cut it to within a certain tolerance.
If they could cut it exactly, it would have a tolerance of 0.
You are being silly. The term "exact" is relative.Exactly. FE predicts sunset exactly at the evening and sunrise exactly at the morning. Very exact. I guess jroa now starts claiming that FE model predicts sunset and sunrise exactly.
You are being silly. The term "exact" is relative.Exactly. FE predicts sunset exactly at the evening and sunrise exactly at the morning. Very exact. I guess jroa now starts claiming that FE model predicts sunset and sunrise exactly.
You are being silly. The term "exact" is relative.Exactly. FE predicts sunset exactly at the evening and sunrise exactly at the morning. Very exact. I guess jroa now starts claiming that FE model predicts sunset and sunrise exactly.
Well first, someone needs to define exactly what constitutes "sunrise". What is the baseline measure of , "Yep, it's sunrise" or "Nope, not quite sunrise"?
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SUNRISE/SUNSET AND MOONRISE
Question: What is the definition of sunrise/sunset and moonrise/moonset, especially regarding the exact times of day when they occur?
Answer: Sunset occurs when the upper edge of the Sun – called the upper limb – sinks just under the horizon; sunrise occurs when the upper limb rises just above the horizon. The same is true for the Moon. These events can happen earlier or later than expected because the atmosphere bends the light rays near the horizon in such a manner that the Sun and Moon can appear to be above the horizon when they are already (or still, in the case of sunrise and moonrise) beneath it.
From: WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SUNRISE/SUNSET AND MOONRISE (https://www.almanac.com/fact/what-is-the-definition-of-sunrisesunset-and)
I see that Jora's latest "thing" on the forum is trying to use refraction as the excuse for things going over the horizon. Here's a tip for you, Jora: the reason other FE'ers haven't been citing refraction as the excuse for sunsets and other horizon phenomena is because refraction actually makes light bend the other way, making things more visible, not less.
Just thought you should know before you make yourself look even sillier.
In which direction is light bending in a sinking mirage? How many more lies can you people try to pass off as some sort of argument before you take your ball and go home?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena#Sinking
I see that Jora's latest "thing" on the forum is trying to use refraction as the excuse for things going over the horizon. Here's a tip for you, Jora: the reason other FE'ers haven't been citing refraction as the excuse for sunsets and other horizon phenomena is because refraction actually makes light bend the other way, making things more visible, not less.
Just thought you should know before you make yourself look even sillier.
In which direction is light bending in a sinking mirage? How many more lies can you people try to pass off as some sort of argument before you take your ball and go home?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena#Sinking
Riiight... so you're making out that something which happens daily, everywhere in the world, in all sorts of atmospheric conditions, is actually due to a phenomenon which is noted as a phenomenon in its own right because it is something rarely seen. And to back yourself up you post a link which clearly explains that the commonplace, everyday form of atmospheric refraction is not like that.
Could you possibly fail any harder?
Oh wait, yes you can... where's your quote about Antarctic expeditions you promised me over a year ago?
I see that Jora's latest "thing" on the forum is trying to use refraction as the excuse for things going over the horizon. Here's a tip for you, Jora: the reason other FE'ers haven't been citing refraction as the excuse for sunsets and other horizon phenomena is because refraction actually makes light bend the other way, making things more visible, not less.
Just thought you should know before you make yourself look even sillier.
In which direction is light bending in a sinking mirage? How many more lies can you people try to pass off as some sort of argument before you take your ball and go home?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena#Sinking
Riiight... so you're making out that something which happens daily, everywhere in the world, in all sorts of atmospheric conditions, is actually due to a phenomenon which is noted as a phenomenon in its own right because it is something rarely seen. And to back yourself up you post a link which clearly explains that the commonplace, everyday form of atmospheric refraction is not like that.
Could you possibly fail any harder?
Oh wait, yes you can... where's your quote about Antarctic expeditions you promised me over a year ago?
Do you mean the source you demanded of people writing about seeing a wall of ice at Antarctica?
You sure are dumb, and your fellow roundies told you so. And, by the way, that was around 3 or 4 years ago, idiot.
It was March 2015, so longer ago than I thought. And not 3 or 4 years. But I kept reminding you for a long time, even though you furtively went back and deleted your original post where you said you'd provide quotes.
You're not as smart as you like to think, are you?
Neil has been dumb for many years.Looks like you're still trying to derail threads!
This site appears to be 99% globe earthers.
So 6 pages, 156 posts, from Feb 18 2016 to August 30 2017 and not one Flat Earth Theorists can come up with a full explanation on why the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway does not prove the curvature of the Earth?
Lot's of dodging (Jroa) and insults (Papa legumes or whatever his moniker is), lots of claims to have answered without showing where the answer was posted (on the same thread no less) and now silence for what 3 weeks?
I guess this proves
1. Lake Pontchartrain does prove the curvature of the Earth
2. FE theorists have no explanation for that and sunsets/sunrises in addition
3. FE theorists have no idea what perspective and refraction really are
Ammarite?
So 6 pages, 156 posts, from Feb 18 2016 to August 30 2017 and not one Flat Earth Theorists can come up with a full explanation on why the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway does not prove the curvature of the Earth?
Lot's of dodging (Jroa) and insults (Papa legumes or whatever his moniker is), lots of claims to have answered without showing where the answer was posted (on the same thread no less) and now silence for what 3 weeks?
I guess this proves
1. Lake Pontchartrain does prove the curvature of the Earth
2. FE theorists have no explanation for that and sunsets/sunrises in addition
3. FE theorists have no idea what perspective and refraction really are
Ammarite?
I'd say that's a fair assessment.
This site appears to be 99% globe earthers.
I guess this proves
1. Lake Pontchartrain does prove the curvature of the Earth
2. FE theorists have no explanation for that and sunsets/sunrises in addition
3. FE theorists have no idea what perspective and refraction really are
Ammarite?
I am a RE guy, but wouldn't it be a simple refutation to say we don't have any real evidence those powerlines, towers, supports etc, were all built (and remain) level?Not quite, because people can see the curve from both sides, and they can move along beside them in the water, verifying their height is constant.
I guess this proves
1. Lake Pontchartrain does prove the curvature of the Earth
2. FE theorists have no explanation for that and sunsets/sunrises in addition
3. FE theorists have no idea what perspective and refraction really are
Ammarite?
I am a RE guy, but wouldn't it be a simple refutation to say we don't have any real evidence those powerlines, towers, supports etc, were all built (and remain) level?
The "flat earthers" really have no fight left in them.
Let us please remember that the timeline of FE is much longer than that of RET. This makes terminology to include everyone interested in RE be properly referred to as round Earth "believers".Yes, the timeline of FE is much longer, yet RET, with its much shorter timeline, is capable of explaining so much.
Would RE believers even dare propose this causeway anomaly as a purported problem (understood by others and explained by FEers) to Jesus of Nazareth, Christopher Columbus, or Albert Einstein?
Case closed.
Let us please remember that the timeline of FE is much longer than that of RET. This makes terminology to include everyone interested in RE be properly referred to as round Earth "believers".
Would RE believers even dare propose this causeway anomaly as a purported problem (understood by others and explained by FEers) to Jesus of Nazareth, Christopher Columbus, or Albert Einstein?
Case closed.
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
FE is victorious in this debate. Proven by many who responded to the claims of the victors.
FE is victorious in this debate. Proven by many who responded to the claims of the victors.I have never seen you come up with any real evidence of the flat earth, let alone proof.
FE is victorious in this debate. Proven by many who responded to the claims of the victors.No. People responding to nutjobs claiming victory doesn't prove the nutjobs are correct.
The only way to make the FE models work is by sprinkling them with magic, manipulating space and light to make it completely indistinguishable from a round Earth.
The only way to make the FE models work is by sprinkling them with magic, manipulating space and light to make it completely indistinguishable from a round Earth.
I read the thread because it came to the top and saw this paragraph. The "magic" mentioned here is not a magic at all, but called "inversion", and is a very nice mathematical transformation – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_in_a_sphere. I think it can produce the only FE model which really works.
The only way to make the FE models work is by sprinkling them with magic, manipulating space and light to make it completely indistinguishable from a round Earth.
I read the thread because it came to the top and saw this paragraph. The "magic" mentioned here is not a magic at all, but called "inversion", and is a very nice mathematical transformation – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_in_a_sphere. I think it can produce the only FE model which really works.
Visually represented in this video:
[youtube][/youtube]
The inverse of a sphere is not a plane.
Doing something mathematically doesn't mean it isn't magic.The only way to make the FE models work is by sprinkling them with magic, manipulating space and light to make it completely indistinguishable from a round Earth.
I read the thread because it came to the top and saw this paragraph. The "magic" mentioned here is not a magic at all, but called "inversion", and is a very nice mathematical transformation – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_in_a_sphere. I think it can produce the only FE model which really works.
Doing something mathematically doesn't mean it isn't magic.The only way to make the FE models work is by sprinkling them with magic, manipulating space and light to make it completely indistinguishable from a round Earth.
I read the thread because it came to the top and saw this paragraph. The "magic" mentioned here is not a magic at all, but called "inversion", and is a very nice mathematical transformation – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_in_a_sphere. I think it can produce the only FE model which really works.
They need space to magically bend light, and space itself to be magically bent.
And no, that is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about mapping a sphere to a flat plane.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about that more in general.Doing something mathematically doesn't mean it isn't magic.The only way to make the FE models work is by sprinkling them with magic, manipulating space and light to make it completely indistinguishable from a round Earth.
I read the thread because it came to the top and saw this paragraph. The "magic" mentioned here is not a magic at all, but called "inversion", and is a very nice mathematical transformation – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_in_a_sphere. I think it can produce the only FE model which really works.
They need space to magically bend light, and space itself to be magically bent.
And no, that is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about mapping a sphere to a flat plane.
As said in wikipedia:
"7. The inverse of a sphere through the centre of inversion is a plane."
(Results of inversion in a sphere, in the page I linked to)
And also:
"2. Generally, the inverse of a line is a circle through the centre of inversion."
(There)
Which is the exact manipulation of light needed to be done for FE to work.
BTW, I forgot that after the inversion, which is done in a sphere centered in Antarctica, we also need a reflection to keep the things outside the Earth up and the things inside it down.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about that more in general.Doing something mathematically doesn't mean it isn't magic.The only way to make the FE models work is by sprinkling them with magic, manipulating space and light to make it completely indistinguishable from a round Earth.
I read the thread because it came to the top and saw this paragraph. The "magic" mentioned here is not a magic at all, but called "inversion", and is a very nice mathematical transformation – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_in_a_sphere. I think it can produce the only FE model which really works.
They need space to magically bend light, and space itself to be magically bent.
And no, that is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about mapping a sphere to a flat plane.
As said in wikipedia:
"7. The inverse of a sphere through the centre of inversion is a plane."
(Results of inversion in a sphere, in the page I linked to)
And also:
"2. Generally, the inverse of a line is a circle through the centre of inversion."
(There)
Which is the exact manipulation of light needed to be done for FE to work.
BTW, I forgot that after the inversion, which is done in a sphere centered in Antarctica, we also need a reflection to keep the things outside the Earth up and the things inside it down.
Yes, it appears that may be capable of mapping Earth to a plane.
But again, doing this mathematically doesn't mean it isn't magic. They still have space bent and light bending through space.
Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.No, not really strange ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.
Yes, and in the inversion model the space is bent such that the distance between 2 points is not the normal euclidian distance, and the light follows this and travels in the shortest path according to the new distance, which turns out to be a circle.Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.No, not really strange ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.
Also, it only bends space-time, not light. Light merely follows the curvature of space-time.
But light does not travel the shortest path in reality, it follows the curvature of space.Yes, and in the inversion model the space is bent such that the distance between 2 points is not the normal euclidian distance, and the light follows this and travels in the shortest path according to the new distance, which turns out to be a circle.Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.No, not really strange ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.
Also, it only bends space-time, not light. Light merely follows the curvature of space-time.
But light does not travel the shortest path in reality, it follows the curvature of space.Yes, and in the inversion model the space is bent such that the distance between 2 points is not the normal euclidian distance, and the light follows this and travels in the shortest path according to the new distance, which turns out to be a circle.Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.No, not really strange ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.
Also, it only bends space-time, not light. Light merely follows the curvature of space-time.
That isn't happening in this model.
If it did, the curvature of space would have the surface of Earth being flat and thus light should follow along the surface of Earth.
If all you are doing is making it so the Euclidean representation of this non-Euclidean space has Earth being flat, then you are defeating the purpose, as that still means Earth isn't flat.
I don't understand. What did you mean by "manipulating space"?Changing it from Euclidean (or roughly Euclidean, which all evidence indicates) to at least spherical in some dimensions, to render the surface of Earth flat, and have this flat surface loop in on itself.
But also on a sphere, every line except for the geodesic lines, I assume are traversed by light, isn't straight, and any sphere, from any dimension, except for the greatest spheres, isn't flat, and thus the earth isn't flat also in your model.I don't understand. What did you mean by "manipulating space"?Changing it from Euclidean (or roughly Euclidean, which all evidence indicates) to at least spherical in some dimensions, to render the surface of Earth flat, and have this flat surface loop in on itself.
It then needs to reverse this manipulation for light, to make light bend away from this flat surface.
But also on a sphere, every line except for the geodesic lines, I assume are traversed by light, isn't straight, and any sphere, from any dimension, except for the greatest spheres, isn't flat, and thus the earth isn't flat also in your model.My model is one in which Earth is round, in flat space with curved space-time (although it could just be in very large spherical space which does actually make more sense in some ways).
Or do you make Earth the greatest sphere and the light move in strange ways, like in circles through the opposite point to its center?
Zetetic proof
Let us please remember that the timeline of FE is much longer than that of RET. This makes terminology to include everyone interested in RE be properly referred to as round Earth "believers".
Would RE believers even dare propose this causeway anomaly as a purported problem (understood by others and explained by FEers) to Jesus of Nazareth, Christopher Columbus, or Albert Einstein?
Case closed.
I am now interested to see if Papa Legba has more to say about the situation and what reactions by REers are made in response.So you just want someone, who just slings insults, to come in and make a fool of himself. Yeah, that's an adequate response to questions. Really proving that FEers know how properly defend a position in a debate.
PROTIP: When you resort to insults to cover the fact you have no answer, you lose the argument. When you require someone else do the insulting for you, you not only lose the argument, you show just how much courage and conviction you actually hold in your own viewpoints.
FE is victorious in this debate. Proven by many who responded to the claims of the victors.
You keep thinking you are makig sense. And yes, if you asked any of thise people you listed up there, they'll agrre with me. All of them would have told you the earth was round and be amazed at the stupidity of you thinking it was flat.
So for earthers, like İntikam, but both limited (human) vision and terrain would make that impossible.You keep thinking you are makig sense. And yes, if you asked any of thise people you listed up there, they'll agrre with me. All of them would have told you the earth was round and be amazed at the stupidity of you thinking it was flat.
Really? The "evidence" seems to indicate Jesus thought he could be shown all of Earth from a tall mountain, something only possible on a FE.
Zetetic proof
Whenever you see someone use the word "zetetic" to describe a proof of something, every red known to man should go up to warn you that you are dealing with someone who has never been to college and they are merely regurgitating a word that sounds like reflects some level of informed intelligence.
"Zetetic Proof"... Hahahahahahahahaha
Zetetic proof
Whenever you see someone use the word "zetetic" to describe a proof of something, every red known to man should go up to warn you that you are dealing with someone who has never been to college and they are merely regurgitating a word that sounds like reflects some level of informed intelligence.
"Zetetic Proof"... Hahahahahahahahaha
"Zetetic" implies learning from personal observation, dismissing knowledge from outside sources. (at least that is my take, based on the use of the word around here).
This leads me to...
I wonder if they would use a "zetetic" neurosurgeon?
Zetetic proof
Whenever you see someone use the word "zetetic" to describe a proof of something, every red known to man should go up to warn you that you are dealing with someone who has never been to college and they are merely regurgitating a word that sounds like reflects some level of informed intelligence.
"Zetetic Proof"... Hahahahahahahahaha
"Zetetic" implies learning from personal observation, dismissing knowledge from outside sources. (at least that is my take, based on the use of the word around here).
This leads me to...
I wonder if they would use a "zetetic" neurosurgeon?
Literally all REers are products of the same instructor. True because you all confess knowledge from the same source. Your problem is that source (science) is not proven factual. Zetetic sources have been proven factual tracing back to actual observation. Advantage: FET.No. That source that all RET comes from is called reality.
Oh, Dr Rowbotham made a habit of sinking your round Earth beliefs at many a live and advertised challenge.
Literally all REers are products of the same instructor. True because you all confess knowledge from the same source. Your problem is that source (science) is not proven factual. Zetetic sources have been proven factual tracing back to actual observation. Advantage: FET.
Oh, Dr Rowbotham made a habit of sinking your round Earth beliefs at many a live and advertised challenge.
But he wrote a book.Literally all REers are products of the same instructor. True because you all confess knowledge from the same source. Your problem is that source (science) is not proven factual. Zetetic sources have been proven factual tracing back to actual observation. Advantage: FET.
Oh, Dr Rowbotham made a habit of sinking your round Earth beliefs at many a live and advertised challenge.
Why do flat earthers insist on following Rowbotham? He was a snake oil peddling con man for heavens sake.
Do you guys not ever think to yourselves 'shit, I'm quoting a child molester who claimed to heal all diseases'?
Why do flat earthers insist on following Rowbotham? He was a snake oil peddling con man for heavens sake.It's just a part of the in-joke.
Literally all REers are products of the same instructor. True because you all confess knowledge from the same source.Agreed. And that instructor is reality, not blindly following a book written over 160 years ago.
There are FEers that hold more strictly to the Rowbotham model and I may add they are extremely knowledgeable about Earth shape.If they are knowledgeable about the shape of Earth, they would know it is round.
I have yet to see an REer debate this SBR model to point of victory when competing with a true Rowbothaminian.Is that because there are no true Rowbothaminian, or is it because they shit all over the board and fly away before letting the REers win.
In fact, round Earth believers have but a sad and lonely model that has been decimated over the years and decades by past and current FEers.No, it hasn't.
There are FEers that hold more strictly to the Rowbotham model and I may add they are extremely knowledgeable about Earth shape. I have yet to see an REer debate this SBR model to point of victory when competing with a true Rowbothaminian.
In fact, round Earth believers have but a sad and lonely model that has been decimated over the years and decades by past and current FEers.
There are FEers that hold more strictly to the Rowbotham model and I may add they are extremely knowledgeable about Earth shape. I have yet to see an REer debate this SBR model to point of victory when competing with a true Rowbothaminian.
In fact, round Earth believers have but a sad and lonely model that has been decimated over the years and decades by past and current FEers.
Please make this endless stream of nonsense stop.
Who exactly do you think you are convincing with this shit? It's utterly meaningless!
Do you realize how little you comprehend the world around you, or do you know so little that you think you understand it all?
I am starting to suspect you are projecting a fake persona, like an online, FE Borrat. It's the only explanation for such blatant nonsense.
The FE population is quoted as being in the millions. Others expect this to be true and is much more than many of your round Earth believer's expectations. Why you doubt this it is not the concern of reality.So circa 0.1% of people?
Please do more research before attempting to shoot the messenger(s).
The paranoid schizophrenic population is also in the millions. Coincidence?The FE population is quoted as being in the millions.There are FEers that hold more strictly to the Rowbotham model and I may add they are extremely knowledgeable about Earth shape. I have yet to see an REer debate this SBR model to point of victory when competing with a true Rowbothaminian.
In fact, round Earth believers have but a sad and lonely model that has been decimated over the years and decades by past and current FEers.
Please make this endless stream of nonsense stop.
Who exactly do you think you are convincing with this shit? It's utterly meaningless!
Do you realize how little you comprehend the world around you, or do you know so little that you think you understand it all?
I am starting to suspect you are projecting a fake persona, like an online, FE Borrat. It's the only explanation for such blatant nonsense.
I have crossed that causeway for reasons of Earth shape verification. Perspective and atmospherics proved a flat Earth by even better scientific proof than I expected. Flat Earth confirmation came in the form of Zetetic proof, as well.Care to elaborate at all?
Certainly so but I must ask...given truthful evidence, do you have the capacity to comprehend that the Earth could be flat? I don't want to waste your time or mine trying to convince the inconvincible.
The OP and other supporting participants have not presented evidence worthy of proof necessary to the rights of victory.You ignoring the proof doesn't mean it hasn't been provided.
Why round Earth believers attempt continuing to backdoor wild claims into reality is a fine mystery?Sure, a non-existent mystery.
I have crossed that causeway for reasons of Earth shape verification. Perspective and atmospherics proved a flat Earth by even better scientific proof than I expected. Flat Earth confirmation came in the form of Zetetic proof, as well.Care to elaborate at all?
Certainly so but I must ask...given truthful evidence, do you have the capacity to comprehend that the Earth could be flat? I don't want to waste your time or mine trying to convince the inconvincible.
I would just like to give the RE causeway claim a proper burial before moving on to kicking out the underpinnings of other RE delusions of grandeur.
The OP and other supporting participants have not presented evidence worthy of proof necessary to the rights of victory.
Why round Earth believers attempt continuing to backdoor wild claims into reality is a fine mystery?
Why not laser measure the bridge? You set a laser about 25 meters above the bridge level to the bridge's surface on line end and set a target at the same height on the other side. The laser will tell you how much the bridge curves over it's length if at all.Why not get a professional Geodetic Surveyor to do the job properly? But, like any professional, his presentation is very detailed and tedious.
Why not laser measure the bridge? You set a laser about 25 meters above the bridge level to the bridge's surface on line end and set a target at the same height on the other side. The laser will tell you how much the bridge curves over it's length if at all.
Hell, if the Earth really was flat, the same could be done across the Pacific Ocean. I'd use a taller mast, but it should work. And it's a relatively cheap test. Not just any laser can travel that far through atmosphere, but there are some that can and they only run a few thousand dollars.Why not laser measure the bridge? You set a laser about 25 meters above the bridge level to the bridge's surface on line end and set a target at the same height on the other side. The laser will tell you how much the bridge curves over it's length if at all.
The same could be done on any large lake. One person on each shore and a third in a boat. Measure the distance from the water to the laser at each shore, adjust to make the equal and then measure the distance in the middle from a boat.
Hell, if the Earth really was flat, the same could be done across the Pacific Ocean. I'd use a taller mast, but it should work. And it's a relatively cheap test. Not just any laser can travel that far through atmosphere, but there are some that can and they only run a few thousand dollars.Why not laser measure the bridge? You set a laser about 25 meters above the bridge level to the bridge's surface on line end and set a target at the same height on the other side. The laser will tell you how much the bridge curves over it's length if at all.
The same could be done on any large lake. One person on each shore and a third in a boat. Measure the distance from the water to the laser at each shore, adjust to make the equal and then measure the distance in the middle from a boat.
What hasn't been explored yet in this thread is what a bridge building enterprise would say about the myth of bridge curvature having anything to do with Earth shape.
Done deal. Confirmed by bridge builders that Earth shape is not part of the planning process.
It's like grabbing at straws with round Earth believers. As many times as they try to find something, anything to prove their claim they fail in...
the end.
Show me this proof. I think you are talking big. The math is the math. Oh wait, are you using the new shape of the earth as explained by Neil DeGrasse Tyson? It's spheroid, pear shaped, chubby thing. Bullshit, the lighthouse proof is solid and if you studied it you know that.
At least be honest like the textbook writers and admit you don't know. SHOW ME these proofs you speak of.
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level, taking into account standard correction for refraction and a bridge height of 30 ft above the water line.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/922/GCKcLk.png)
The formula for calculating distance to the horizon, including refraction correction for standard atmosphere is D = 3.86 * sqrt ( h ) h = height in meters, D = distance in km.
The Planier lighthouse is 66 meters asl, and is visible for 43 km, calculated distance is 43 km, Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 29 km
The Jeddah lighthouse is 113 meters asl, and is visible for 46 km, calculated distance is 53 km, Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 38 km
The Ile Vierge lighthouse is 82.5 meters asl, and is visible for 50 km, calculated distance is 47 km, Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 33 km
The Genoa lighthouse is 76 meters asl, and is visible for 46 km, calculated distance is 45 km, Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 31 km
The conclusion is that if you do the calculations properly, the flat earth argument, falls flat on its face ( once again )
For details of the formula derivation go to ...
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)
Calculation of ducting effects.
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html)
Done deal. Confirmed by bridge builders that Earth shape is not part of the planning process.Says you.
It's like grabbing at straws with round Earth believers. As many times as they try to find something, anything to prove their claim they fail in...You keep getting RE and FE mixed up.
What hasn't been explored yet in this thread is what a bridge building enterprise would say about the myth of bridge curvature having anything to do with Earth shape.The shape of the earth is indirectly part of the planning process. The bridge is designed to a given height above the surface of the water. This clearly results in a curve to follow the curvature of the earth.
Done deal. Confirmed by bridge builders that Earth shape is not part of the planning process.
It's like grabbing at straws with round Earth believers. As many times as they try to find something, anything to prove their claim they fail in...
the end.
This video by a geodesic surveyor might be worth looking at:What hasn't been explored yet in this thread is what a bridge building enterprise would say about the myth of bridge curvature having anything to do with Earth shape.The shape of the earth is indirectly part of the planning process. The bridge is designed to a given height above the surface of the water. This clearly results in a curve to follow the curvature of the earth.
Done deal. Confirmed by bridge builders that Earth shape is not part of the planning process.
It's like grabbing at straws with round Earth believers. As many times as they try to find something, anything to prove their claim they fail in...
the end.
Mike
We are at cross purposes since I can tell you that the bridge rises above the water to avoid the waves and that any curvature is planned for stresses known to occur after traffic is added to the equation.Yes, you can repeatedly lie to us, it wont change the fact.
Lighthouses were built tall to allow masted ships to not interfere with functionality.So you have a masted ship with a mast ~ 100 m tall?
The history of travel at sea is and was a record of flat Earth transportation.Nope. It has been and always will be a record of ROUND Earth transportation.
We are at cross purposes since I can tell you that the bridge rises above the water to avoid the waves and that any curvature is planned for stresses known to occur after traffic is added to the equation.Then why are some lighthouses quite low and others very high? Look at these US lighthouses:
Lighthouses were built tall to allow masted ships to not interfere with functionality.
The history of travel at sea is and was a record of flat Earth transportation. It is from the voices of those who traveled by sea that know this.Again, you have it the wrong way around.
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/World_Map_1689.JPG/300px-World_Map_1689.JPG) Map of the world produced in 1689 by Gerard van Schagen. |
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Licht_der_Zeevaert%2C_Frontispiz.jpg/653px-Licht_der_Zeevaert%2C_Frontispiz.jpg) "The light of navigation", Dutch sailing handbook, 1608, showing compass, hourglass, sea astrolabe, terrestrial and celestial globes, divider, Jacob's staff and astrolabe. |
In 1537, Pedro Nunes published his Tratado da Sphera. In this book he included two original treatises about questions of navigation. For the first time the subject was approached using mathematical tools. This publication gave rise to a new scientific discipline: "theoretical or scientific navigation".No, these old sailors knew the earth was a Globe, no question about it!
Why round Earth believers want to use bridge building, lighthouse construction, and travel by sea to prove their claim is, in the end, doomed to failure which in all reality a good thing for those in support of FET.If you bothered to look, it is mainly flat-earthers trying to prove the earth flat using these as evidence.
Nova Orbis Tabula in Lucem Edita, ca. 1665, Frederick de Wit
I have a lithograph of this hanging on my wall.
"Commonly understood things" as created, written, and studied by round Earth believers are a travesty to what reality presents to us. You do have learn by observation, NOT just look at what your predecessors have penned and passed along through the regimen of current educational facilities.So sorry to disappoint you, but:
You can learn a lot from a trained observer and they are near and available to teach truths.Well, where are these "trained observers"? Are you sure that you don't mean observers indoctrinated into the flat earth hypothesis.
Flat maps have come a long way since those illustrated in the 17th century examples. Globes then and now are not accurate and do not reflect a reality of things understood by the many and growing number of FEers."Flat maps" may "have come a long way since those illustrated in the 17th century examples", but not "flat earth maps" - there is a big difference.
If you disagree, show me any accurate flat earth map of the whole world!
I have asked you repeatedly for this, but you refuse to supply any so I am forced to assume that you do not have any accurate flat earth maps!
We are at cross purposes since I can tell you that the bridge rises above the water to avoid the waves and that any curvature is planned for stresses known to occur after traffic is added to the equation.
Lighthouses were built tall to allow masted ships to not interfere with functionality.
The history of travel at sea is and was a record of flat Earth transportation. It is from the voices of those who traveled by sea that know this. Why round Earth believers want to use bridge building, lighthouse construction, and travel by sea to prove their claim is, in the end, doomed to failure which in all reality a good thing for those in support of FET.
Flat maps have come a long way since those illustrated in the 17th century examples. Globes then and now are not accurate and do not reflect a reality of things understood by the many and growing number of FEers.FE maps have not improved since then, only projections of the globe.
On the matter of current "map accuracy" just look at the requirements of projects like HALLANDSÅS RAILWAY TUNNELS, Skottorp - Förslöv. (http://vinci-construction-projets.com/en/realisations/hallandsas-railway-tunnels/)Flat maps have come a long way since those illustrated in the 17th century examples. Globes then and now are not accurate and do not reflect a reality of things understood by the many and growing number of FEers.FE maps have not improved since then, only projections of the globe.
The globe map is still accurate as it was back then, as some of the most accurate maps we have available.
Of course it doesn't reflect a "reality of things" as understood by FEers, as they don't seem to understand reality.
But they do reflect reality quite well; actual reality, not the FEers understanding of it.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Nova_Orbis_Tabula_in_Lucem_Edita.jpg/600px-Nova_Orbis_Tabula_in_Lucem_Edita.jpg)
Nova Orbis Tabula in Lucem Edita
ca. 1665
Frederick de Wit
I have a lithograph of this hanging on my wall.