Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Proves The Curvature Of The Earth

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 16, 2017, 07:11:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 16, 2017, 06:14:56 PM

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.

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.

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.
Protip:  provide a link to posts you claim are "astute observations"  or you look foolish when the first preceeding post by that person is shown to be nothing but silly insults.

Quote from: Edge_Loop on August 16, 2017, 10:52:55 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 15, 2017, 03:37:49 PM

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

But, "response #56" adds nothing to the debate.
So where has that "curved water" been proven false?

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 16, 2017, 07:11:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 16, 2017, 06:14:56 PM

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.

Quote from: gotham on August 17, 2017, 03:16:56 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 16, 2017, 07:11:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 16, 2017, 06:14:56 PM

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.

Quote from: gotham on August 24, 2017, 02:28:10 AM

Quote from: gotham on August 17, 2017, 03:16:56 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 16, 2017, 07:11:47 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 16, 2017, 06:14:56 PM

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.

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.

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.       

Yeah yeah, whatever. I'll ask a qualified scientist next time I see one.

Now, you are still dodging giving what should be a simple answer to a simple question.



Why is there obvious visible curvature?

Why is the water not 'draining away'?

I'm interested to see what diversion you come up with next. Or will you tag team with that other numb skull who will turn up accusing me of being a CIA agent called Paul 🙄

And BTW, I can no more tell you when I first 'decided' the earth was round than I can tell you when I 'decided' that I breathed in order to take in oxygen.

Do you remember where you were when you decided the Earth was round?

Cypremort Point LA 1969

I didn't "decide" it was proven to me beyond any doubt.

If you really wanted the truth you could easily prove it to yourself in many ways.

Instead you'd rather handle snakes, talk in tongues, and deny facts.

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.

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.       

So more distractions.

Why should we need to be able to answer that question?

Do you remember where you were when you decided Earth was real? If not, does that mean you are unable to discuss if Earth is real?

Then there is also the issue of what constitutes "decided".
Do you mean when I heard about these FE people and saw their arguments and thus thought about it, analysed their arguments and models and so on and found out it was crap; then compared it to the round Earth and found no problems?
Or would it include simply being educated?

A big part of the problem is that flat earthers will not put forward a clear proposition. RE all agree on the size of Earth, distance to Sun, etc. FE are all fighting amongst themselves about whether the Earth is an infinite pancake or an inside-out doughnut. They don't want to be specific because the second they say something tangible it's torn apart by simple observation.

FE logic:
1) the Earth is flat
2) because the Earth is flat, all RE evidence must be fake
3) because all RE evidence is fake, there is no evidence for RE
4) because there is no evidence for RE, the Earth is flat

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".

No you don't. You continually ignore when you have been defeated and just pretend you are victory.
There is repeated dodging as FEers still haven't answered the question.

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.
It started ages ago with rational enquiry into reality. There were revolutionary changes which were accepted so that clearly isn't an issue.

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.

Are you mentally afflicted? You do realize you still haven't answered the question you claim to have answered.

Please stop lying and deflecting.

Once again:



Please explain the visible curvature using an FE model?

Please explain why the water is not draining away if this is not water being drawn to the center of mass on a giant sphere?

Again, to anyone on the fence about FE, please recognize this persistent deflection and inability to answer for what it is. A symptom of the fact that FE is BS pushed by people that know better but can't admit it.

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.

So - just to be clear - your 'evidence' that the earth is flat is that it is universally held to be 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?   

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?

 crickets...

Quote from: gotham on August 25, 2017, 04:19:53 PM

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?

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?
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.

Quote from: jroa on August 26, 2017, 05:09:05 AM

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?

You want for me to prove that refraction exists?  Do you think that that tower in the background is just floating in the air?

lol, you people get sillier every day.  It never gets old with you. 

Quote from: jroa on August 26, 2017, 05:09:05 AM

Refraction.  Ever heard of it?

Would that be related to atmoplanic lensing?

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!

Yes.  You are learning.

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, 

Quote from: Edge_Loop on August 26, 2017, 05:33:52 AM

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.

Quote from: jroa on August 26, 2017, 05:40:35 AM

Quote from: Edge_Loop on August 26, 2017, 05:33:52 AM

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?

Quote from: Amnzero on August 26, 2017, 06:42:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 26, 2017, 05:40:35 AM

Quote from: Edge_Loop on August 26, 2017, 05:33:52 AM

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?

Quote from: jroa on August 26, 2017, 06:45:12 AM

Quote from: Amnzero on August 26, 2017, 06:42:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 26, 2017, 05:40:35 AM

Quote from: Edge_Loop on August 26, 2017, 05:33:52 AM

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?

Light changes direction because of changes in the density of the medium it is traveling through.  However, even if the shape of the medium were the determining factor, as you seem to claim, then why could a flat Earth not have a curved atmoplane?

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.