Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Proves The Curvature Of The Earth

Quote from: Amnzero on August 26, 2017, 01:58:15 PM

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. 

I guess that depends on what you consider "vastly" in any case it can also be cooler, but do you have any data showing the "vast" changes in temperature at sea level, and the optical effect this has?

Quote from: Amnzero on August 26, 2017, 01:58:15 PM

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. 

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? 

Perspective?  How do you explain a downward perspective at surface level?  I can photograph a long fence on a flat surface and we surely won't see it dipping down into the dust.  It will shrink but it won't curve.

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,

This reply does not tackle my actual point.

The only way light can gradually curve due to refraction is if it is traveling through amedium with refractive index varying as function of distance.

For your reply that refraction is the cause of the curvature in the video to stand up you would need to show a situation where the atmosphere could behave in this way.

Can you provide any data to support this claim?

Ha!     

Quote from: Amnzero on August 26, 2017, 01:58:15 PM

Can you provide any data to support this claim?

Ha!     

Is that really so funny?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 27, 2017, 03:44:28 AM

Quote from: Amnzero on August 26, 2017, 01:58:15 PM

Can you provide any data to support this claim?

Ha!     

Is that really so funny?

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. 

well I guess that is just me giving them the benefit of the doubt. They said they have an overwhelming amount of evidence that FE works.

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.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 02:47:34 AM

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

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.

Quote from: NAZA on August 28, 2017, 03:14:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 02:47:34 AM

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

So once again you avoid answering the question about your claims.  Predictions about you Flatters  sure do come true.

From your link in your attempt to avoid:

And, to calculate refraction accurately, we need to know the distribution of temperature and pressure in the atmosphere accurately. That's the hardest part (i.e., the meteorological part) of the problem.

In other words sunsets can vary slightly because conditions change.  Up to a whopping minute! A fraction of the sun's apparent diamater in the wrong direction and it takes meteorologists to PREDICT this.

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.

So your proof that the earth is flat depends on the curvature of the earth.

Do you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot?

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?

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?

That foot is really hurting isn't it?

Care to address my above post or are you just gonna whine like a little bitch?

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.

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.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 04:34:16 AM

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. 

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 28, 2017, 04:49:31 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 04:34:16 AM

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. 

Just saying it is false because it doesn't match your claim is not proving it false.
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"?

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 04:51:53 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 28, 2017, 04:49:31 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 04:34:16 AM

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. 

Just saying it is false because it doesn't match your claim is not proving it false.
Your shtick is getting old.  Dodge some more though, it seems to be your only trick.

It is not false just because I say it is false.  Did you even read the link where college professors say it is false?  Are you smarter than these professors?

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.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 04:34:16 AM

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"?

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.

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

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.

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.

Spreading the truth and educating the ignorant is not trolling. 

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, 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.

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!

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 04:34:16 AM

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, 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!

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. 

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.

Actually Einstein  it disproves your model if you bother reading it, thanks for the link. 

Some advice for you:

It's far better to remain quiet and have people assume that you are a moron than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You do your cause more harm than good.  You should leave the debating to those with better skills and are smarter than you, like papa legba.