Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Proves The Curvature Of The Earth

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.

Not only that, but you do not anything even approaching a method which would enable you the predict when it would set!

What a hilarious "model" for the earth, all you have is "the earth looks flat so it is" then you cannot explain any other observations with any accuracy!
If you disagree show me what your flat earth can explain better than the Globe!

In another thread,
     poor Silicon is struggling to dream up magic fudge factors to explain the sun's height when the observed angles fit the Globe perfectly!
Once again, it's a sight to see. Still, it's all good entertainment!

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.   

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 05:19:18 AM

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!!

Quote from: JackBlack on August 28, 2017, 03:06:45 PM

No one can predict anything exactly.

Thanks.  I will refer to this quote often.   

You get any further finding evidence that the atmosphere has a refractive property that would lead to a gradual curving of light? Or is this new topic the right shade of grey to hide behind?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 28, 2017, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 05:19:18 AM

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!!

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.

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

Quote from: JackBlack on August 28, 2017, 03:06:45 PM

No one can predict anything exactly.

Thanks.  I will refer to this quote often.   

Hypocrite.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 28, 2017, 03:06:45 PM

No one can predict anything exactly.

Thanks.  I will refer to this quote often.   

And by "refer to" I take it you mean blatantly misrepresent; pretending it has a completely different meaning?

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.

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

Nope, still wrong.
≈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.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 03:09:41 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 28, 2017, 03:06:45 PM

No one can predict anything exactly.

Thanks.  I will refer to this quote often.   

And by "refer to" I take it you mean blatantly misrepresent; pretending it has a completely different meaning?

You are a stalker. 

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 28, 2017, 07:13:48 PM

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.

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 29, 2017, 01:57:27 AM

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.

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

Nope, still wrong.
≈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?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 29, 2017, 04:21:37 AM

And by "refer to" I take it you mean blatantly misrepresent; pretending it has a completely different meaning?

You are a stalker.

I think JackBlack has your measure. But, who is the 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.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 28, 2017, 07:13:48 PM

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.

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 29, 2017, 01:57:27 AM

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.

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

Nope, still wrong.
≈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.

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.

I said they were "accurate to within" an approximate value...followed by "Pretty danged accurate."  I stand by both those statements.

And Yes.  I do know what ≈ means.  I used it because the predicted and actual times may have rounding I don't know about. 

Since I never said my numbers were exact the rest of you critique is irrelevant.  However, the actual difference in the predicted and actual latitude is 1.2 arc seconds.  Since 1 arc second averages about 101.27 feet or 30.87 meters (varies depending on source) the accurate delta is 121.52 feet or 37.04 meters.  At 2.76 arc seconds of longitude gives us a delta of 279.51 feet or 85.2 meters.  And yes, I realize those numbers are not exact either.  They are accurate given the data provided rounded to a reasonable number of significant digits.  I still think the predicted vs. actual path is pretty danged accurate.

Mike

Quote from: inquisitive on August 29, 2017, 04:55:53 AM

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 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.

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):

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 28, 2017, 07:13:48 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 28, 2017, 03:06:45 PM

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

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.

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.

Notice how you said he is exactly right?

And what were his claims? That eclipses have been predicted exactly.

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?

My bad for using your numbers as if they were to all known precision.

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.
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.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 29, 2017, 10:02:54 AM

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.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 29, 2017, 10:02:54 AM

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?

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.
I would tell my boss that I will depart at 3. I might also make some comment about it not being exact.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 29, 2017, 01:40:52 PM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 29, 2017, 10:02:54 AM

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?

That Jroa's bitching about the HC model not being able to predict things like sunrise and sunset exactly is just pathetic bitching because nothing can be predicted exactly. The RE model predicts it to a great deal of accuracy, unlike the FE models that have massive errors of over 20 degrees at times.

And that people trying to claim the HC model predicts things exactly is not helping, as it doesn't, it is just vastly superior and more accurate than the FE models.

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.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 29, 2017, 10:02:54 AM

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"?

Quote from: zork on August 29, 2017, 03:25:21 PM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 29, 2017, 10:02:54 AM

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

As a result you will usually find that the elevation of the sun at sunrise or sun set is usually given as -0.8°.
On the equator at the equinox that adds about about 6 minutes to the length of the day, but at each pole it results in 24 hour daylight for about 3 days each side of the equinox.

A part of the reason that the Sun sets at a negative angle is that our height (even standing on the beach toe-deep) causes the point of tangency of the sunlight to be a few miles away. This is very slight. The Sun is about 1/2 a degree wide, so the "bottom" edge of the Sun has to be that far below the horizon to get the top edge down. Finally, refraction bends light down a bit (making the Sun look a tiny bit higher than it is thereby delaying sunset a few minutes).

If you're not too concerned about an exact measurement* and just wanted to know if it's zero degrees or 20, then zero will do.

* friendly nod to JackBlack. Funny--there doesn't seem to be half the FE action that was here six months ago. Now we RE just pick at the minutia because there aren't any FE folks left to debate. I guess that's a good sign. By the way, I get your point about "exact." I will strive to be more exact with my word choose.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on August 28, 2017, 05:07:36 AM

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?

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 05:13:53 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on August 28, 2017, 05:07:36 AM

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.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on August 30, 2017, 01:39:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2017, 05:13:53 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on August 28, 2017, 05:07:36 AM

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?

 

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?

In his defense making up new laws of nature to fit an ancient religious belief can't be easy so it's understandable he'd be a bit confused.

Neil has been dumb for many years.