Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Proves The Curvature Of The Earth

Neil has been dumb for many years.

Looks like you're still trying to derail threads!
Guess you're just doing your assigned task. Do you get paid much for it.

This site appears to be 99% globe earthers.

Not 99%, it's just easier to argue for reality than against it.

This site appears to be 99% globe earthers.

Of course it is. And Jora, John Davis, Jrowe etc are among their number. There are only two current posters who believe the earth is flat (as opposed to saying the earth is flat to laugh at people getting angry at them.)

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.

Quote from: SpaceCadet on September 25, 2017, 06:08:17 AM

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.

And I forgot to add, belief in a flat earth is exactly that - belief. Has nothing to do with if it's true or not.

This site appears to be 99% globe earthers.

Just like the rest of the world.

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.

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.
But perhaps a more important issue is that the concrete supports appear to sink into the water.

Quote from: SpaceCadet on September 25, 2017, 06:08:17 AM

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.

FE'ers say they aren't in line. But then say nothing to the fact you get the same effect on both sides.

And for sure they could be different heights, but the point at which they meet the water curves, so their height is unimportant.

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.       

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.     

Yes, the timeline of FE is much longer, yet RET, with its much shorter timeline, is capable of explaining so much.

Yes, RE believers would propose this causeway anomaly as an issue if FE garabge was the accepted theory.

Remember, this is effectively what happened in the past.
FE was simply assumed with no rational basis.
People found problems with that and raised questions based upon these problems.
This led to people realising Earth was round.

So yes, case closed, Earth is not flat.

And no, FE being around for longer does not mean all REers should be referred to as believers.
RE, being a model which matches reality, which is widely accepted makes the REers normal.
As such, it is the FEers that are special and should have a special title.

What causeway anomaly?  I've been there a few times, there is nothing about it that lines up with FE notions.

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.     

What a load of drivel, I see the master of deflection and avoidance has returned.

You have nothing to say on the topic but can't get yourself to leave a thread that so clearly indicates the existence of gravity on a globe earth.

Ironically FE'ers own mantra of 'water always finds its level' is the nail in the coffin for FE here, seeing as the only way you could have water sit on a giant curve is if the curve is part of a massive globe in a universe where gravity exists.

'Case closed'.

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.

FE is victorious in this debate.  Proven by many who responded to the claims of the victors.   

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.

FE is victorious in this debate.  Proven by many who responded to the claims of the victors.   

Erm, no, no FE is far from victorious.

You really do just talk out of your ass, don't you?

Look around the Internet. Since its blip in popularity the majority of people left that actually believe in FE clearly have low brain function, the ones that don't appear to just have a huge grudge against society.

If you identify with a bunch of low IQ hicks/evangelical crack pots and drug addled stoners then you just carry on with your drivel.

Now, will you at ANY point be addressing the topic of this thread?

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.

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 12, 2017, 04:56:47 PM

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.

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 11, 2017, 02:33:27 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 12, 2017, 04:56:47 PM

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.

That's not the inversion I linked to.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 12, 2017, 04:56:47 PM

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.
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.

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 11, 2017, 02:33:27 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 12, 2017, 04:56:47 PM

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.
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.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 12, 2017, 02:31:13 AM

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 11, 2017, 02:33:27 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 12, 2017, 04:56:47 PM

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.
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.
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.

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 12, 2017, 02:42:30 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 12, 2017, 02:31:13 AM

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 11, 2017, 02:33:27 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 12, 2017, 04:56:47 PM

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.
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.
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.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.

Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.

No, not really strange ways.
Also, it only bends space-time, not light. Light merely follows the curvature of space-time.

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 12, 2017, 03:25:16 AM

Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.

No, not really strange ways.
Also, it only bends space-time, not light. Light merely follows the curvature of space-time.

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.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 12, 2017, 04:27:48 AM

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 12, 2017, 03:25:16 AM

Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.

No, not really strange ways.
Also, it only bends space-time, not light. Light merely follows the curvature of space-time.

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.

But light does not travel the shortest path in reality, it follows the curvature of space.
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.

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 12, 2017, 04:34:18 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 12, 2017, 04:27:48 AM

Quote from: AFanOfTruth on October 12, 2017, 03:25:16 AM

Einstein's GR also bends space and light in strage ways.
Does it mean it's magic? No. Just a theory, like the FE.

No, not really strange ways.
Also, it only bends space-time, not light. Light merely follows the curvature of space-time.

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.

But light does not travel the shortest path in reality, it follows the curvature of space.
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"?