The Big-Bang Story

Evidence

Gooberry said:

The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists. 

<snip for room>

Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to es

Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.

 

I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!

In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high: 

Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.

6/6 Debunked

 

5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.

https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/grand-canyon-ii_9653874_9736784/photos/1966419/

I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.

The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.

 7/7 Debunked

I think @Gooberry is right @Erfisflat,  you can see right here as the telephone poles disappear over the curvature of the earth.



Or, the electric company just ran out of money and were forced to make smaller and smaller poles as they went on?

Gooberry

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists. 

<snip for room>

Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to es

Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.

 

I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!

In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high: 

Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.

6/6 Debunked

 

5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.

https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/grand-canyon-ii_9653874_9736784/photos/1966419/

I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.

The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.

 7/7 Debunked

I think @Gooberry is right @Erfisflat,  you can see right here as the telephone poles disappear over the curvature of the earth.



Or, the electric company just ran out of money and were forced to make smaller and smaller poles as they went on?

Present an absurd argument as if it’s mine, then mocking the absurd claim: is what is also called a straw man.

Given how biblical you seems to be, it’s surprising that you’re breaking the 8th commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour.

Erfisflat

"You’re not going to write a rebuttal. We both know that. I don’t think you’d even know where to begin, scientifically."

oh, don't worry, it's on the way, and instead of "rough guesstimates" and "this looks a little like that", you can expect some sourced measurements. And you just keep calling me a "...pseudoscientist"

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"You’re not going to write a rebuttal. We both know that. I don’t think you’d even know where to begin, scientifically."

oh, don't worry, it's on the way, and instead of "rough guesstimates" and "this looks a little like that", you can expect some sourced measurements. And you just keep calling me a "...pseudoscientist"

“5.) You will object to the analysis or methods I’m using, without explaining how or why they are wrong, or showing that they are inaccurate enough to produce answers of 60ft of curvature when there is apparently none.”

Heh. Looks like you’re going for #5!

someone234

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

someone234

@Gooberry When you look 'down at earth' but are not above clouds which will distort everything, you see that the only justification it's curved is that there's an edge of vision. If the sky is a screen of some kind it could EASILY make this illusion meaning it has part of its programmign to distort distance.

The ground, however, doesn't lie. in no way whatsoever is the slightest 'curving' seen BETWEEN THE EDGE OF WHAT YOU CAN SEE and where you are vertically above.



In no way whatsoever IN BETWEEN where it "falls off" do you see ANYTHING like a slope of any kind, not even up-and-then-down, no nothing of the sort.


You do not see even the tiniest angle of that. I will admit though, visual proof of flat earth is the least convincing of all the proofs. the reason is due to the 'edge of eyesight' being a mysterious illusion of the sky-screen and this can't be proven.

someone234

@Gooberry
untouched land, real curvature should be seen, no buildings to distort... complete flatness observed.

Gooberry

I asked you to calculate what you should see.

If you can’t objectively calculate what we should see, then you have no scientific basis for claiming we don’t see it.

someone234

@Gooberry okay:

1) you should see curving at the end (the skyline/horizon should curve like a sad smiley face's lips) this is the easiest would-be curvature to always see is flat.

2) you should see the disproportionately compared to a flat view, the buildings appear to get closer together as they begin to curve down by a degree that is not gradual to the distance but more so due to the sloping together. What I mean is, it should appear to go 'in' and be disproportionate in how close things seem the further they are as opposed to if things were flat and they get perfectly close in a "really long triangle" formation.

someone234

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists. 

<snip for room>

Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to es

Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.

 

I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!

In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high: 

Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.

6/6 Debunked

 

5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.

https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/grand-canyon-ii_9653874_9736784/photos/1966419/

I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.

The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.

 7/7 Debunked

I think @Gooberry is right @Erfisflat,  you can see right here as the telephone poles disappear over the curvature of the earth.



Or, the electric company just ran out of money and were forced to make smaller and smaller poles as they went on?

Present an absurd argument as if it’s mine, then mocking the absurd claim: is what is also called a straw man.

Given how biblical you seems to be, it’s surprising that you’re breaking the 8th commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour.

@Evidence land dips into valleys at the base of mountains. Uneven land doesn't prove curvature on the scale of a global sphere.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

@Gooberry okay:

1) you should see curving at the end (the skyline/horizon should curve like a sad smiley face's lips) this is the easiest would-be curvature to always see is flat.

2) you should see the disproportionately compared to a flat view, the buildings appear to get closer together as they begin to curve down by a degree that is not gradual to the distance but more so due to the sloping together. What I mean is, it should appear to go 'in' and be disproportionate in how close things seem the further they are as opposed to if things were flat and they get perfectly close in a "really long triangle" formation.

I asked you to calculate what you would see? Have you bothered to use geometry to determine what the curvature would look like if viewed from the location?

What you’re doing, is Pseudoscience: you are asserting what you should see, without any factual or geometric basis. And then claiming you don’t see it.

Or let’s try this:

In an image taken of a flat sea, from a height of 6 feet, with a camera with a 30 degree field of view, producing a 2000 pixel wide image of the horizon: how many pixels lower should the edges be than the Center, and what method would you use to correct for lense distortion.

The number of pixels will be somewhere between lots, and 0. So please calculate where it, so you can at least determine it’s not 0.

Erfisflat

Quotes from the first two points from @Gooberry last argument:

"appears around 60ish"
"It appears to be"
"...Almost exactly the right amount of curvature"
"...around 15 feet around the corner of the island: It looks like..."
"appear to be on the water line"
"the bottom looks around 50% larger than the bottom"

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Quotes from the first two points from @Gooberry last argument:

"appears around 60ish"
"It appears to be"
"...Almost exactly the right amount of curvature"
"...around 15 feet around the corner of the island: It looks like..."
"appear to be on the water line"
"the bottom looks around 50% larger than the bottom"

1.) calculate what you should see (60 feet removed off the bottom of the object) 

2.) determine whether you see it.

You appear to be confused; my entire post is analyzing the image, and using references to determine whether the curvature calculated and claimed is present or not. - step 2

The whole point, is that people like you: who are unable to perform honest calculations - step 1: often simply blurting out or asserting what things should look like, especially curvature images: and then claim you don’t see what you assert.

Alternatively; as you have done with this video you make basic calculations on what you should see, and make no measurements or analysis to show that you can see it; simply asserting that you see no curvature, when there obviously is.

If you don’t understand the difference between understanding what you should see, and how to determine what you can see it: you really need to go back and do some remedial grade 1 science.



As a result: What you’re doing is a dishonest strawman; as you are intentionally misrepresenting what I’m doing (pretending as if my analysis here is arguing what we should see, rather than analyif what we can see), and then appearing to attack the result by accusing me of not holding myself to the same level: so, as your attack only makes sense because of that misrepresentation: your argument is a straw man.

(you see, that’s how you claim someone is making a straw man!)

someone234

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry okay:

1) you should see curving at the end (the skyline/horizon should curve like a sad smiley face's lips) this is the easiest would-be curvature to always see is flat.

2) you should see the disproportionately compared to a flat view, the buildings appear to get closer together as they begin to curve down by a degree that is not gradual to the distance but more so due to the sloping together. What I mean is, it should appear to go 'in' and be disproportionate in how close things seem the further they are as opposed to if things were flat and they get perfectly close in a "really long triangle" formation.

I asked you to calculate what you would see? Have you bothered to use geometry to determine what the curvature would look like if viewed from the location?

What you’re doing, is Pseudoscience: you are asserting what you should see, without any factual or geometric basis. And then claiming you don’t see it.

Or let’s try this:

In an image taken of a flat sea, from a height of 6 feet, with a camera with a 30 degree field of view, producing a 2000 pixel wide image of the horizon: how many pixels lower should the edges be than the Center, and what method would you use to correct for lense distortion.

The number of pixels will be somewhere between lots, and 0. So please calculate where it, so you can at least determine it’s not 0.

???????? I stated very obvious visual science. Visual science is used even to test eyes, it's called optometry.

Gooberry

someone234 said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry okay:

1) you should see curving at the end (the skyline/horizon should curve like a sad smiley face's lips) this is the easiest would-be curvature to always see is flat.

2) you should see the disproportionately compared to a flat view, the buildings appear to get closer together as they begin to curve down by a degree that is not gradual to the distance but more so due to the sloping together. What I mean is, it should appear to go 'in' and be disproportionate in how close things seem the further they are as opposed to if things were flat and they get perfectly close in a "really long triangle" formation.

I asked you to calculate what you would see? Have you bothered to use geometry to determine what the curvature would look like if viewed from the location?

What you’re doing, is Pseudoscience: you are asserting what you should see, without any factual or geometric basis. And then claiming you don’t see it.

Or let’s try this:

In an image taken of a flat sea, from a height of 6 feet, with a camera with a 30 degree field of view, producing a 2000 pixel wide image of the horizon: how many pixels lower should the edges be than the Center, and what method would you use to correct for lense distortion.

The number of pixels will be somewhere between lots, and 0. So please calculate where it, so you can at least determine it’s not 0.

???????? I stated very obvious visual science. Visual science is used even to test eyes, it's called optometry.

What is your eyes field of vision? What portion of this allows you to discern curvature at edges of vision?
What is your eyes minimum discernible angular size.
What relevant optical illusions of your brain could effect what you see, and how do you correct for them?
What is the angular size of the horizon drop of the ocean viewed at 6ft? Is it discernible by the human eye?

Gooberry

someone234 said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry okay:

1) you should see curving at the end (the skyline/horizon should curve like a sad smiley face's lips) this is the easiest would-be curvature to always see is flat.

2) you should see the disproportionately compared to a flat view, the buildings appear to get closer together as they begin to curve down by a degree that is not gradual to the distance but more so due to the sloping together. What I mean is, it should appear to go 'in' and be disproportionate in how close things seem the further they are as opposed to if things were flat and they get perfectly close in a "really long triangle" formation.

I asked you to calculate what you would see? Have you bothered to use geometry to determine what the curvature would look like if viewed from the location?

What you’re doing, is Pseudoscience: you are asserting what you should see, without any factual or geometric basis. And then claiming you don’t see it.

Or let’s try this:

In an image taken of a flat sea, from a height of 6 feet, with a camera with a 30 degree field of view, producing a 2000 pixel wide image of the horizon: how many pixels lower should the edges be than the Center, and what method would you use to correct for lense distortion.

The number of pixels will be somewhere between lots, and 0. So please calculate where it, so you can at least determine it’s not 0.

???????? I stated very obvious visual science. Visual science is used even to test eyes, it's called optometry.

What is your eyes field of vision? What portion of this allows you to discern curvature at edges of vision?
What is your eyes minimum discernible angular size.
What relevant optical illusions of your brain could effect what you see, and how do you correct for them?
What is the angular size of the horizon drop of the ocean viewed at 6ft? Is it discernible by the human eye?

someone234

@Gooberry Tell to me something. What exactly is at the center of the north pole that they hide from us?

Erfisflat

"1.) calculate what you should see (60 feet removed off the bottom of the object) 

2.) determine whether you see it."

Which is exactly what I have done, repeatedly. What you did was make rough guesstimates and assertions about what you think you saw. I'm halfway through the rebuttal, you've actually made it really easy for me, as much of your argument was incomplete. In the meantime, most everything you've tried to rebut was based around "refraction", and your only supporting evidence is someone shining a laser through sugar water, while you are skeptical of the experiments where I use line of sight with basic water. Does this not seem intellectually dishonest to you? Why not? Are you claiming that this is because refraction too?




Record holder for longest distance photographed:

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic deFinestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"1.) calculate what you should see (60 feet removed off the bottom of the object) 

2.) determine whether you see it."

Which is exactly what I have done, repeatedly. What you did was make rough guesstimates and assertions about what you think you saw. I'm halfway through the rebuttal, you've actually made it really easy for me, as much of your argument was incomplete. In the meantime, most everything you've tried to rebut was based around "refraction", and your supporting evidence is someone shining a laser through sugar water, while you are skeptical of the experiments where I use line of sight with basic water. Does this not seem intellectually dishonest to you? Why not? Are you claiming that this is because refraction too?




Record holder for longest distance photographed:

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic deFinestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial

1.) Calculate what you should see:

At a height of 9000 feet the air is thin, and not humid, having a very low refractive index.

At a lower height, the air is much thicker, and more humid, having a much higher refractive index.

If the earth is a ball: there will be incident light from the top of the mountain travelling to the horizon; in so doing, this light will be refracting downwards as the light is passing from a lower refractive index to a higher refractive index.

This is as per snells law.

In you’re calculations, I saw no attempt to calculate what the effects of refraction should be.

How about you try and calculate it:

Google the refractive index of air at 12,000 feet, and at, say, 800 feet; use this to calculate the angular ratio.

Then using geometry, you can estimate the incident angle on the high refractive index layer, and multiple by the angular ratio and then use this calculate an adjusted angular height of the mountain based on the new angle.



If you don’t do that; you have neither accounted for refraction, nor calculated what you should see.

Evidence

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Gooberry

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

someone234

@Gooberry The big bang debate is on both sides. If it happened it happened who cares the question is here right now what the Earth is and I tell you tha@Erfisflat is a pioneer of the future (you will say 'more like backwards thinking stuck in the past').

You are wrong. The theory was extremely convenient, the controlling people didn't think of the globe theory and underestimate how convenient the entire idea could be in convincing us that we are worthless blobs in giant space who have no reason to bother venturing to either pole's true centre and should let those that can travel to space do all the questioning for us. Once they realised the potential for it and that if they didn't make the story extremely believable that some of us would begin to try to 'break out' of the Antarctic edge to whatever is out there or 'explore' the mysteries of the north Pole's mysterious kingdom/queendom, they realised they had to control science itself so that we 'find' what convinces us to stay out and that those 'findings' will only be questioned by very introverted, socially awkward thinkers who most won't trust or believe anyway as they won't be good with social media or people skills.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

"1.) calculate what you should see (60 feet removed off the bottom of the object) 

2.) determine whether you see it."

Which is exactly what I have done, repeatedly. What you did was make rough guesstimates and assertions about what you think you saw. I'm halfway through the rebuttal, you've actually made it really easy for me, as much of your argument was incomplete. In the meantime, most everything you've tried to rebut was based around "refraction", and your supporting evidence is someone shining a laser through sugar water, while you are skeptical of the experiments where I use line of sight with basic water. Does this not seem intellectually dishonest to you? Why not? Are you claiming that this is because refraction too?




Record holder for longest distance photographed:

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic deFinestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial

1.) Calculate what you should see:

At a height of 9000 feet the air is thin, and not humid, having a very low refractive index.

At a lower height, the air is much thicker, and more humid, having a much higher refractive index.

If the earth is a ball: there will be incident light from the top of the mountain travelling to the horizon; in so doing, this light will be refracting downwards as the light is passing from a lower refractive index to a higher refractive index.

This is as per snells law.

In you’re calculations, I saw no attempt to calculate what the effects of refraction should be.

How about you try and calculate it:

Google the refractive index of air at 12,000 feet, and at, say, 800 feet; use this to calculate the angular ratio.

Then using geometry, you can estimate the incident angle on the high refractive index layer, and multiple by the angular ratio and then use this calculate an adjusted angular height of the mountain based on the new angle.



If you don’t do that; you have neither accounted for refraction, nor calculated what you should see.

This would be assuming the conclusion. You're assuming that the light from the mountains is first descending down into the lower atmosphere, where refraction most readily occurs, then is bounced back up. You can imply that this is what happens, and that the direction the light is bent is agreeable with your theory, but this is a meager attempt to make your theory unfalsifiable, with no supporting evidence. The very definition of pseudoscience. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

It's pretty plain english, if you don't have a plausible reply, it's ok to say so.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

"1.) calculate what you should see (60 feet removed off the bottom of the object) 

2.) determine whether you see it."

Which is exactly what I have done, repeatedly. What you did was make rough guesstimates and assertions about what you think you saw. I'm halfway through the rebuttal, you've actually made it really easy for me, as much of your argument was incomplete. In the meantime, most everything you've tried to rebut was based around "refraction", and your supporting evidence is someone shining a laser through sugar water, while you are skeptical of the experiments where I use line of sight with basic water. Does this not seem intellectually dishonest to you? Why not? Are you claiming that this is because refraction too?




Record holder for longest distance photographed:

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic deFinestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial

1.) Calculate what you should see:

At a height of 9000 feet the air is thin, and not humid, having a very low refractive index.

At a lower height, the air is much thicker, and more humid, having a much higher refractive index.

If the earth is a ball: there will be incident light from the top of the mountain travelling to the horizon; in so doing, this light will be refracting downwards as the light is passing from a lower refractive index to a higher refractive index.

This is as per snells law.

In you’re calculations, I saw no attempt to calculate what the effects of refraction should be.

How about you try and calculate it:

Google the refractive index of air at 12,000 feet, and at, say, 800 feet; use this to calculate the angular ratio.

Then using geometry, you can estimate the incident angle on the high refractive index layer, and multiple by the angular ratio and then use this calculate an adjusted angular height of the mountain based on the new angle.



If you don’t do that; you have neither accounted for refraction, nor calculated what you should see.

This would be assuming the conclusion. You're assuming that the light from the mountains is first descending down into the lower atmosphere, where refraction most readily occurs, then is bounced back up. You can imply that this is what happens, and that the direction the light is bent is agreeable with your theory, but this is a meager attempt to make your theory unfalsifiable, with no supporting evidence. The very definition of pseudoscience. 

I’m sorry, but calculating what An observation would look like if the earth was a sphere; is not “assuming your conclusion”. It’s basic, basic science: like the first thing you have to do when analyzing things scientifically.

When working out whether the world looks like if it was a sphere, it’s pretty dishonest to automatically reject any adjustment that has to exist if the earth is a sphere like you seem to be doing.

i mean cmon; do to even science?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

"1.) calculate what you should see (60 feet removed off the bottom of the object) 

2.) determine whether you see it."

Which is exactly what I have done, repeatedly. What you did was make rough guesstimates and assertions about what you think you saw. I'm halfway through the rebuttal, you've actually made it really easy for me, as much of your argument was incomplete. In the meantime, most everything you've tried to rebut was based around "refraction", and your supporting evidence is someone shining a laser through sugar water, while you are skeptical of the experiments where I use line of sight with basic water. Does this not seem intellectually dishonest to you? Why not? Are you claiming that this is because refraction too?




Record holder for longest distance photographed:

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic deFinestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial

1.) Calculate what you should see:

At a height of 9000 feet the air is thin, and not humid, having a very low refractive index.

At a lower height, the air is much thicker, and more humid, having a much higher refractive index.

If the earth is a ball: there will be incident light from the top of the mountain travelling to the horizon; in so doing, this light will be refracting downwards as the light is passing from a lower refractive index to a higher refractive index.

This is as per snells law.

In you’re calculations, I saw no attempt to calculate what the effects of refraction should be.

How about you try and calculate it:

Google the refractive index of air at 12,000 feet, and at, say, 800 feet; use this to calculate the angular ratio.

Then using geometry, you can estimate the incident angle on the high refractive index layer, and multiple by the angular ratio and then use this calculate an adjusted angular height of the mountain based on the new angle.



If you don’t do that; you have neither accounted for refraction, nor calculated what you should see.

This would be assuming the conclusion. You're assuming that the light from the mountains is first descending down into the lower atmosphere, where refraction most readily occurs, then is bounced back up. You can imply that this is what happens, and that the direction the light is bent is agreeable with your theory, but this is a meager attempt to make your theory unfalsifiable, with no supporting evidence. The very definition of pseudoscience. 

I’m sorry, but calculating what An observation would look like if the earth was a sphere; is not “assuming your conclusion”. It’s basic, basic science: like the first thing you have to do when analyzing things scientifically.

When working out whether the world looks like if it was a sphere, it’s pretty dishonest to automatically reject any adjustment that has to exist if the earth is a sphere like you seem to be doing.

i mean cmon; do to even science?

I mean, the ball earth theory is not to questioned in your opinion. Your suggestion that I:

1. calculate how much curvature should be seen.

And then 

2. determine whether you see it.

has been done, it is NOT seen, now you have some unevidenced conjecture that depends entirely on the earth being a ball to assert as an excuse. You can assert that I am not "scientific" while repeating pseudoscientific claims to support your position, but this is dogmatic, and uses authority instead of evidence.

Evidence

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

Yes, pointing out pseudoscientific techniques used to justify the Big Bang story.

Q. Regarding what you just posted above, ..  Is refraction dependable? In other words, you have calculations of refraction effects at different heights, is that always the same? Because I Googled:

Why does the moon vary in sizes when it rises?

The Moon illusion is an optical illusion which causes the Moon to appear larger near the horizon than it does higher up in the sky. It has been known since ancient times and recorded by various cultures. The explanation of this illusion is still debated.

Still debated? In the words of SNL Church Lady; "Isn't that special?"

NASA can position a satellite with a big telescope on it in the vacuum of space, take some long exposure pictures, (you know, long exposure to collect all the light possible, where you have to be real steady or it becomes a blur) of "galaxies millions and billions of light years away", .. al the while dodging micro meteors that can go right through the lens of either Hubble or Kepler, and do calculations off of these pictures with accuracy within, .. umm, .. within decimals that I who have worked with some really sophisticated and accurate inspection machines have never even heard of, and we did 0.00005 of an inch. But NASA can't figure out why the moon sometimes looks twice, or even three times as big when it rises?

Read through your Big-Bang briefs again, .. down to the quantum state of the photon, the splitting of the atom, .. where they talk about and calculate light waves and gravitational waves, measure the intensity of black holes, collect sun-dust and tell the MK-ultra'd public how the sun was created, yet we get this: "The explanation of this illusion is still debated" answer.

See, this is what puzzles me @Gooberry how can they get such accurate information of the vacuum of space, yet be satisfied with an answer like that of things they can physically check with all the instruments we have right here?

So no wonder you don't want to answer my simple questions on the Big Bang story, because you see that I'm on to you (I mean, on to the pseudoscience of the BB, .. nothing personal).

Again: You have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into? You said you want to start from the beginning, correct?

Also, you didn't answer how light that's coming off of stars (or whatever galaxies) can vary in its waves, when Einstein said that; "Light Travels at a Constant"! .. and that's coming or going away from an observer!?
This would be like gluing four yardsticks on a ball and throwing it. The yardstick represents the "light at a constant". In other words, those light waves will be the same coming at you, or going away from you, there should be NO "Doppler effect" on the light waves. Well, not according to Einstein's rules anyways!

Erfisflat

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Erfisflat

Also saying that shining a laser through sugared water is enough evidence to back that theory and that we should disregard any evidence to the contrary is intellectually dishonest and a hasty generalization fallacy.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

It's pretty plain english, if you don't have a plausible reply, it's ok to say so.

Do I have a plausible reply to his accusations that I have doctored or manipulated images to make it appear as if there is curvature? Of course: my plausible reply, is that I didn’t: and you’re a .

this is a science debate, I shouldn’t have to deal with unsubstantiated assertions, meaningless claims, loaded  questions and inconsequential rants.

Evidence

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

It's pretty plain english, if you don't have a plausible reply, it's ok to say so.

Do I have a plausible reply to his accusations that I have doctored or manipulated images to make it appear as if there is curvature? Of course: my plausible reply, is that I didn’t: and you’re a .

this is a science debate, I shouldn’t have to deal with unsubstantiated assertions, meaningless claims, loaded  questions and inconsequential rants.

@Gooberry Is this your response to me too on my BB-questions?

Erfisflat

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

It's pretty plain english, if you don't have a plausible reply, it's ok to say so.

Do I have a plausible reply to his accusations that I have doctored or manipulated images to make it appear as if there is curvature? Of course: my plausible reply, is that I didn’t: and you’re a .

this is a science debate, I shouldn’t have to deal with unsubstantiated assertions, meaningless claims, loaded  questions and inconsequential rants.

@Gooberry Is this your response to me too on my BB-questions?

It's pretty sad, asserting that anyone that disagrees with you is a . 

Erfisflat

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

It's pretty plain english, if you don't have a plausible reply, it's ok to say so.

Do I have a plausible reply to his accusations that I have doctored or manipulated images to make it appear as if there is curvature? Of course: my plausible reply, is that I didn’t: and you’re a .

this is a science debate, I shouldn’t have to deal with unsubstantiated assertions, meaningless claims, loaded  questions and inconsequential rants.

@Gooberry Is this your response to me too on my BB-questions?

I don't think he even read your post. His reply was irrelevant completely. He thinks you accused him of manipulating the images, which he did, but he dodged the relevant parts.

Evidence

someone234 said:

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists. 

<snip for room>

Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to es

Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.

 

I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!

In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high: 

Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.

6/6 Debunked

 

5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.

https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/grand-canyon-ii_9653874_9736784/photos/1966419/

I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.

The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.

 7/7 Debunked

I think @Gooberry is right @Erfisflat,  you can see right here as the telephone poles disappear over the curvature of the earth.



Or, the electric company just ran out of money and were forced to make smaller and smaller poles as they went on?

Present an absurd argument as if it’s mine, then mocking the absurd claim: is what is also called a straw man.

Given how biblical you seems to be, it’s surprising that you’re breaking the 8th commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour.

@Evidence land dips into valleys at the base of mountains. Uneven land doesn't prove curvature on the scale of a global sphere.

That's why we stick looking over water, .. because it's level.
I was just pointing out how we could twist natural observation to justify any pseudoscientific theory.
Like let's say I take the measurement of the pole, and it's 30 foot high. Then I take the last pole, cut it and paste it to measure the height of the mountain in the background there. See what I mean?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Unfortunately for you, angry denials and intentionally discounting evidence that doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t win novel prizes, or get papers published.

last time I checked; I provided a pretty systematic scientific validation of refraction, how it works, how it would effect measurements, etc.

as far as I recall; you’re response was to tell me how wrong I am repeatedly until I baited you into a response where you went and systematically refuted your own position multiple times.

in addition, I also provided a systematic dismantling of your use of refraction.

But hey! Perhaps if you ignore every argument made against you, and all the science that refutes you for long enough; people may forget it exists!


Im just going to refer you back to my prior posts: I systematically demolished your claims, and provided evidence of refraction working exactly the way I say it does: i demonstrates that you, and flat earthers in the video are either dishonest or incompetent.

in addition I’ve explained how you can perform calculations to adjust the amount of curvature seen at distance,

what I’m doing is called science: I’m being pretty systematic.

If I were you, I wouldn’t talk about unfalsifiability: you’re entire position is a series of unprovable excuses as to why every peice of evidence shows the earth is a sphere. There’s no curvature in images, except when there is curvature: then the photo is fake. Chicago isn’t a mirage, except for all of the obvious mirage effects, and inversion: which are completely unrelated. Images at distance don’t show no curvature, except when they do, in which case it’s down to refraction, which also magically happens to explain sunsets, objects appearing over the horizon, the position of the sun and moon being completely wrong for a flat earth; and you provide evidence, mathematical or scientific explanations for none of them. Any technology that relies on satellites are faked, propagated by shills. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good of luck with convincing people that your position is unfalsifiable! 

Now; given that I have systematically refuted flat earth hundreds of times; and had nothing but denials: I’m just going to repeatedly hit you with actual science that i have already posted, as to be frank: you don’t appear to have any ability to angrily shout at how wrong everyone is.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Unfortunately for you, angry denials and intentionally discounting evidence that doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t win novel prizes, or get papers published.

last time I checked; I provided a pretty systematic scientific validation of refraction, how it works, how it would effect measurements, etc.

as far as I recall; you’re response was to tell me how wrong I am repeatedly until I baited you into a response where you went and systematically refuted your own position multiple times.

in addition, I also provided a systematic dismantling of your use of refraction.

But hey! Perhaps if you ignore every argument made against you, and all the science that refutes you for long enough; people may forget it exists!


Im just going to refer you back to my prior posts: I systematically demolished your claims, and provided evidence of refraction working exactly the way I say it does: i demonstrates that you, and flat earthers in the video are either dishonest or incompetent.

in addition I’ve explained how you can perform calculations to adjust the amount of curvature seen at distance,

what I’m doing is called science: I’m being pretty systematic.

If I were you, I wouldn’t talk about unfalsifiability: you’re entire position is a series of unprovable excuses as to why every peice of evidence shows the earth is a sphere. There’s no curvature in images, except when there is curvature: then the photo is fake. Chicago isn’t a mirage, except for all of the obvious mirage effects, and inversion: which are completely unrelated. Images at distance don’t show no curvature, except when they do, in which case it’s down to refraction, which also magically happens to explain sunsets, objects appearing over the horizon, the position of the sun and moon being completely wrong for a flat earth; and you provide evidence, mathematical or scientific explanations for none of them. Any technology that relies on satellites are faked, propagated by shills. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good of luck with convincing people that your position is unfalsifiable! 

Now; given that I have systematically refuted flat earth hundreds of times; and had nothing but denials: I’m just going to repeatedly hit you with actual science that i have already posted, as to be frank: you don’t appear to have any ability to angrily shout at how wrong everyone is.

You keep assuming that I "angrily shout". Why is this? My opinion is that when someone repeatedly calls someone else "" or the like, that these are angry words from someone that cannot support their position with conclusive evidence, such as yourself. My opinion is that you are the angry one.

You have asserted that "refraction" causes the earth to appear flat, but because it is a ball, this is an illusion. I pointed out that this is an obvious fallacy if you have no supporting evidence that suggests it to be the case. You point to a laser through sugar water, without the faintest explanation for how this is relevant and proclaim that you've won the argument and that you and your science book are not to be questioned. Quite literally anyone can view an object at eye level through any water and deduce that the object always appears lower, but this scientific evidence should be ignored, simply because it completely refutes your position.

Now you can continue to assert that you've "completely demolished" my position all you want, it doesn't bother me, I'll still sleep well tonight, you most assuredly haven't angered me.

Quick question: What do you do for a living? Do you get paid to be here all day and argue with me or is this a hobby for you?

someone234

@Erfisflat
Making them our enemy is exactly what encourages them to fight. We need to come to common ground. Gooberry is asking for proof so we must start to move away from images where no 'exact measurement' can be made from our screen itself.

@Gooberry
tell me this, if water fills whatever it falls into (hint; it does) how can water even fill a round earth so smoothly? It should not even be possible to appear flat as the land it, the land must be clearly more curved than the water.

Evidence

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

It's pretty plain english, if you don't have a plausible reply, it's ok to say so.

Do I have a plausible reply to his accusations that I have doctored or manipulated images to make it appear as if there is curvature? Of course: my plausible reply, is that I didn’t: and you’re a .

this is a science debate, I shouldn’t have to deal with unsubstantiated assertions, meaningless claims, loaded  questions and inconsequential rants.

I did not accuse you of manipulating the images, @Gooberry what I said was that we can use photos in many ways, to represent many different ideas, like I explained with distance.

The Big-Bang story relies on a very few real-world observations that are actually science, then twist it, or manipulate the observations to justify the Big-Banged universe, ..  supported by Einstein's Relativity, then we have the Evolution story, and so on, built on false assumptions.

I mean I don't know you, I take you as an intelligent fellow debater, I wish I knew you guys in person, and visa versa, because my intention is NOT to belittle YOU, but reveal the truth behind Religious ideas that have absolutely no basis, no foundation, .. and even dangerous! Religions always tend to commit crimes against humanity, and what's going on today cannot be ignored.
I mean come on, you and your family live on this same earth, do you honestly believe (like Marshal Applewhite and his Heavens Gate Cult) that when you die you will become "one with the universe", that somehow those different Mother Nature goddesses will pass you on to some imaginary cosmological fairy bliss?

I can, and have debunked the BB-story, evolution story and also Einstein's Relativity, .. which I believe was made up by Einstein by the request of Nazi minded globe Earthers in Germany to have something that most people can't understand, that can be claimed as science and math, which can be used as evidence of space and a globe-earth being part of the cosmos. Thus eliminating the need for a Creator.
No God to eat at your conscience, nothing is impossible to achieve (which is what God said when He seen the building of the Tower of Babel. I don't think this was about man reaching Heaven, but about man spending his life trying to be God by going against God, .. which is really going against ones self. A futile and worthless endeavor. 

From reading clips of Einstein's remarks, and others remarks about him, his history, I truly believe this went down something like this:
The Germans were building a lot of animosity against the Jews in Europe (understandable on many levels), so they said: "Look Jew, we will throw you back working as a technical expert (third class) at the Bern Patent Office, .. unless you do us a favor!? If you make our globe earth and space convincing enough, we will make you immortal. Don't worry we will take care of the rest!

So he invented a workable universe, which we call space, where planets could somehow exist without crashing into each other, .. and of course, the rest of the German scientists backed him up, adding more to his , till we have this complete imaginary sci-fi universe, with lots and lots of cool sci-fi worlds, which like the DC and Marvel comics we fell in love with.

But we have to grow up, we can't let some crazy religion destroy science, and by that destroy all life, .. all  living organisms on earth, which is exactly the plan whether any Sci-Fientist admits it or not!?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Unfortunately for you, angry denials and intentionally discounting evidence that doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t win novel prizes, or get papers published.

last time I checked; I provided a pretty systematic scientific validation of refraction, how it works, how it would effect measurements, etc.

as far as I recall; you’re response was to tell me how wrong I am repeatedly until I baited you into a response where you went and systematically refuted your own position multiple times.

in addition, I also provided a systematic dismantling of your use of refraction.

But hey! Perhaps if you ignore every argument made against you, and all the science that refutes you for long enough; people may forget it exists!


Im just going to refer you back to my prior posts: I systematically demolished your claims, and provided evidence of refraction working exactly the way I say it does: i demonstrates that you, and flat earthers in the video are either dishonest or incompetent.

in addition I’ve explained how you can perform calculations to adjust the amount of curvature seen at distance,

what I’m doing is called science: I’m being pretty systematic.

If I were you, I wouldn’t talk about unfalsifiability: you’re entire position is a series of unprovable excuses as to why every peice of evidence shows the earth is a sphere. There’s no curvature in images, except when there is curvature: then the photo is fake. Chicago isn’t a mirage, except for all of the obvious mirage effects, and inversion: which are completely unrelated. Images at distance don’t show no curvature, except when they do, in which case it’s down to refraction, which also magically happens to explain sunsets, objects appearing over the horizon, the position of the sun and moon being completely wrong for a flat earth; and you provide evidence, mathematical or scientific explanations for none of them. Any technology that relies on satellites are faked, propagated by shills. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good of luck with convincing people that your position is unfalsifiable! 

Now; given that I have systematically refuted flat earth hundreds of times; and had nothing but denials: I’m just going to repeatedly hit you with actual science that i have already posted, as to be frank: you don’t appear to have any ability to angrily shout at how wrong everyone is.

You keep assuming that I "angrily shout". Why is this? My opinion is that when someone repeatedly calls someone else "" or the like, that these are angry words from someone that cannot support their position with conclusive evidence, such as yourself. My opinion is that you are the angry one.

You have asserted that "refraction" causes the earth to appear flat, but because it is a ball, this is an illusion. I pointed out that this is an obvious fallacy if you have no supporting evidence that suggests it to be the case. You point to a laser through sugar water, without the faintest explanation for how this is relevant and proclaim that you've won the argument and that you and your science book are not to be questioned. Quite literally anyone can view an object at eye level through any water and deduce that the object always appears lower, but this scientific evidence should be ignored, simply because it completely refutes your position.

Now you can continue to assert that you've "completely demolished" my position all you want, it doesn't bother me, I'll still sleep well tonight, you most assuredly haven't angered me.

Quick question: What do you do for a living? Do you get paid to be here all day and argue with me or is this a hobby for you?

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refractive index of air, based on temperature, pressure and humidity.

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Ciddor.asp

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refraction caused by light traveling from one refractive index to another:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/snells.php

Snells law is part of the established laws of physics. This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards. 

If the refractive indexes are reversed, the angle of refraction is higher than the angle of incidence; the light is bent upwards.

So obviously in your example, an object appears lower in the water when viewed from higher up, and until the angle of incidence becomes 0 (If the image is level), as such it’s is easily explained by snells law.

The unsupported assertion that objects only appear lower in the atmosphere is just that: snells law refutes this claim easily: if one observer sees objects appearing lower, than the reverse would be true when an object is viewed from another location: you can check that out using equations. 

As you can see, at higher altitudes, with low pressure and temperature (60kpa, -14 degrees vs standard temperature and pressure, you’re looking at a differential of 1.00018 vs 1.00029 refractive index: in the case where light transitions through this boundary at a very shallow angle: for example, because it’s travelling several miles: the refraction is greatest.

If light hits, this layer at, say an angle of incidence of around 1 degree, because the light is travelling nearly horizontally: it would refract downward by around 0.33 degrees more, as the air transitions out of this layer, it would be bent again as it comes out of that layer into the lower refractive index layer: as the subsequent observer is lower, this wouldn’t be as pronounced; but even at a shade more than 1/3 as much again, refraction of 0.5 degrees in total would allow the light to bend around an addition 0.5 degrees of curvature, this would effectively reduce the viewed curvature by around 35-40 miles: more than enough to make the top of the mountain visible.

The refractive effects are calculable, and when you use the science to do those calculations, most (if not all of the examples) you’ve cited become easily explainable.

They are almost all tall objects in specific weather conditions, or in scenarios where refraction is a known factor. In almost all cases with light needing to bend over tiny fractions of a degree, being viewed from a distance only a few percent greater than the required amount.

There’s never any observations of, say, the CN Tower being visible 276 miles away. Every single example provided fits the same pattern.

This is the science, a systematic explanation based on the laws of physics; they explain your observations and refute your assertions rather nicely.

This refraction effect is actually supported by the video’s you posted (I explained why), the image of a laser through water shows the downward effect of snells law, and other examples are all explainable by these law of physics.

So, this is a systematic explanation of the observations; all tied together with basic demonstrable laws of physics, and when calculated show that everything I’m claim is likely based on the conditions. Given that these are also the scientifically accepted explanations of observations such as looming, stooping, inferior and superior mirages: my case is remarkably strong.

Thus Far, you haven’t explained how your process works, tied it to any laws of physics, provide any calculations or offered up any methods of being able to demonstrate your process at work.

Your claims that objects “only appear lower”, is refuted by multiple experiments and observations: including the laser in water experiment, examples of looking and superior mirages where objects appear higher: and have been systematically refuted scientifically above; and systematically demonstrated as not being able to explain both sunset, the size of the sun and its position the way you claim, or for more than two observers. 

Despite these multiple refutations, you have not bothered to mount a scientific defence of this nonsense by explaining:

How your mechanics works, how it can account for all the observations you say it can, over a cherry picked single observation; how looking through a glass of water is analogous to every single location in the atmosphere, every day; and you have provided no testable method to show it’s happening in the atmosphere, or how it could be falsified.

Your reply, contained no argument or science: it’s really just like most of your other posts: an attempt to loudly profess how everyone else is wrong.

This post contains a pretty systematic justification for my position.

If you had a scientific bone in your body, and our position is correct, you would do the following:

1.) check my maths and show what calculation was wrong and why; and explain that is wrong by enough that my claims are not possible.

2.) check whether I am using snells law correctly, and if not you would point out the error and correct me.

3.) perform your own calculations of a given event that you feel is impossible to be down to refraction, and show how it’s not possible.

4.) make snells law calculations to demonstrate how your claims are even physically possible for more than one event, for a single observer.

You will not do that, however, as you can’t. Instead you will simply blurt out one or more of the following claims:

1.) You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.

2.) You will dismiss this systematic proof as “but muh refraction”, as if saying enough somehow refutes the proof above, or makes your claims science.

3.) You will claim I’m not basing my claims of observation; even though snells law is an established rigorously validated law of physics, and I’m using that.

4.) You will imply the laws of physics are wrong based on a glass of water, offering no proof, evidence or even an explanation.

5.) You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Unfortunately for you, angry denials and intentionally discounting evidence that doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t win novel prizes, or get papers published.

last time I checked; I provided a pretty systematic scientific validation of refraction, how it works, how it would effect measurements, etc.

as far as I recall; you’re response was to tell me how wrong I am repeatedly until I baited you into a response where you went and systematically refuted your own position multiple times.

in addition, I also provided a systematic dismantling of your use of refraction.

But hey! Perhaps if you ignore every argument made against you, and all the science that refutes you for long enough; people may forget it exists!


Im just going to refer you back to my prior posts: I systematically demolished your claims, and provided evidence of refraction working exactly the way I say it does: i demonstrates that you, and flat earthers in the video are either dishonest or incompetent.

in addition I’ve explained how you can perform calculations to adjust the amount of curvature seen at distance,

what I’m doing is called science: I’m being pretty systematic.

If I were you, I wouldn’t talk about unfalsifiability: you’re entire position is a series of unprovable excuses as to why every peice of evidence shows the earth is a sphere. There’s no curvature in images, except when there is curvature: then the photo is fake. Chicago isn’t a mirage, except for all of the obvious mirage effects, and inversion: which are completely unrelated. Images at distance don’t show no curvature, except when they do, in which case it’s down to refraction, which also magically happens to explain sunsets, objects appearing over the horizon, the position of the sun and moon being completely wrong for a flat earth; and you provide evidence, mathematical or scientific explanations for none of them. Any technology that relies on satellites are faked, propagated by shills. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good of luck with convincing people that your position is unfalsifiable! 

Now; given that I have systematically refuted flat earth hundreds of times; and had nothing but denials: I’m just going to repeatedly hit you with actual science that i have already posted, as to be frank: you don’t appear to have any ability to angrily shout at how wrong everyone is.

You keep assuming that I "angrily shout". Why is this? My opinion is that when someone repeatedly calls someone else "" or the like, that these are angry words from someone that cannot support their position with conclusive evidence, such as yourself. My opinion is that you are the angry one.

You have asserted that "refraction" causes the earth to appear flat, but because it is a ball, this is an illusion. I pointed out that this is an obvious fallacy if you have no supporting evidence that suggests it to be the case. You point to a laser through sugar water, without the faintest explanation for how this is relevant and proclaim that you've won the argument and that you and your science book are not to be questioned. Quite literally anyone can view an object at eye level through any water and deduce that the object always appears lower, but this scientific evidence should be ignored, simply because it completely refutes your position.

Now you can continue to assert that you've "completely demolished" my position all you want, it doesn't bother me, I'll still sleep well tonight, you most assuredly haven't angered me.

Quick question: What do you do for a living? Do you get paid to be here all day and argue with me or is this a hobby for you?

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refractive index of air, based on temperature, pressure and humidity.

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Ciddor.asp

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refraction caused by light traveling from one refractive index to another:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/snells.php

Snells law is part of the established laws of physics. This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards. 

If the refractive indexes are reversed, the angle of refraction is higher than the angle of incidence; the light is bent upwards.

So obviously in your example, an object appears lower in the water when viewed from higher up, and until the angle of incidence becomes 0 (If the image is level), as such it’s is easily explained by snells law.

The unsupported assertion that objects only appear lower in the atmosphere is just that: snells law refutes this claim easily: if one observer sees objects appearing lower, than the reverse would be true when an object is viewed from another location: you can check that out using equations. 

As you can see, at higher altitudes, with low pressure and temperature (60kpa, -14 degrees vs standard temperature and pressure, you’re looking at a differential of 1.00018 vs 1.00029 refractive index: in the case where light transitions through this boundary at a very shallow angle: for example, because it’s travelling several miles: the refraction is greatest.

If light hits, this layer at, say an angle of incidence of around 1 degree, because the light is travelling nearly horizontally: it would refract downward by around 0.33 degrees more, as the air transitions out of this layer, it would be bent again as it comes out of that layer into the lower refractive index layer: as the subsequent observer is lower, this wouldn’t be as pronounced; but even at a shade more than 1/3 as much again, refraction of 0.5 degrees in total would allow the light to bend around an addition 0.5 degrees of curvature, this would effectively reduce the viewed curvature by around 35-40 miles: more than enough to make the top of the mountain visible.

The refractive effects are calculable, and when you use the science to do those calculations, most (if not all of the examples) you’ve cited become easily explainable.

They are almost all tall objects in specific weather conditions, or in scenarios where refraction is a known factor. In almost all cases with light needing to bend over tiny fractions of a degree, being viewed from a distance only a few percent greater than the required amount.

There’s never any observations of, say, the CN Tower being visible 276 miles away. Every single example provided fits the same pattern.

This is the science, a systematic explanation based on the laws of physics; they explain your observations and refute your assertions rather nicely.

This refraction effect is actually supported by the video’s you posted (I explained why), the image of a laser through water shows the downward effect of snells law, and other examples are all explainable by these law of physics.

So, this is a systematic explanation of the observations; all tied together with basic demonstrable laws of physics, and when calculated show that everything I’m claim is likely based on the conditions. Given that these are also the scientifically accepted explanations of observations such as looming, stooping, inferior and superior mirages: my case is remarkably strong.

Thus Far, you haven’t explained how your process works, tied it to any laws of physics, provide any calculations or offered up any methods of being able to demonstrate your process at work.

Your claims that objects “only appear lower”, is refuted by multiple experiments and observations: including the laser in water experiment, examples of looking and superior mirages where objects appear higher: and have been systematically refuted scientifically above; and systematically demonstrated as not being able to explain both sunset, the size of the sun and its position the way you claim, or for more than two observers. 

Despite these multiple refutations, you have not bothered to mount a scientific defence of this nonsense by explaining:

How your mechanics works, how it can account for all the observations you say it can, over a cherry picked single observation; how looking through a glass of water is analogous to every single location in the atmosphere, every day; and you have provided no testable method to show it’s happening in the atmosphere, or how it could be falsified.

Your reply, contained no argument or science: it’s really just like most of your other posts: an attempt to loudly profess how everyone else is wrong.

This post contains a pretty systematic justification for my position.

If you had a scientific bone in your body, and our position is correct, you would do the following:

1.) check my maths and show what calculation was wrong and why; and explain that is wrong by enough that my claims are not possible.

2.) check whether I am using snells law correctly, and if not you would point out the error and correct me.

3.) perform your own calculations of a given event that you feel is impossible to be down to refraction, and show how it’s not possible.

4.) make snells law calculations to demonstrate how your claims are even physically possible for more than one event, for a single observer.

You will not do that, however, as you can’t. Instead you will simply blurt out one or more of the following claims:

1.) You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.

2.) You will dismiss this systematic proof as “but muh refraction”, as if saying enough somehow refutes the proof above, or makes your claims science.

3.) You will claim I’m not basing my claims of observation; even though snells law is an established rigorously validated law of physics, and I’m using that.

4.) You will imply the laws of physics are wrong based on a glass of water, offering no proof, evidence or even an explanation.

5.) You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.

Your assumptions about me are about as asinine as your understanding of Snell s law. In the last few years, I've studied the claims from the law and in no instance have I read the statement that you assert is claimed:

"This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards."

Instead, the line is bent towards the normal when travelling from a lower refractive index to a higher one and away from the normal when travelling from a higher refractive index to a lower one, as stated by the actual law, not your own invented law, where the light is bent downwards. The normal is an imaginary line that intercepts the boundary of a change in medium, at a 90° angle to that boundary. Where this established boundary is, decides the direction that the light is bent.



So, despite your assertions, the light can be bent either way, depending on the relationship between the normal and the angle the light enters the boundary. So my questions to you, how have you calculated either of these variables? Are you assuming that the boundary is convex? 

https://www.britannica.com/science/Snells-law

Gooberry

lat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Unfortunately for you, angry denials and intentionally discounting evidence that doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t win novel prizes, or get papers published.

last time I checked; I provided a pretty systematic scientific validation of refraction, how it works, how it would effect measurements, etc.

as far as I recall; you’re response was to tell me how wrong I am repeatedly until I baited you into a response where you went and systematically refuted your own position multiple times.

in addition, I also provided a systematic dismantling of your use of refraction.

But hey! Perhaps if you ignore every argument made against you, and all the science that refutes you for long enough; people may forget it exists!


Im just going to refer you back to my prior posts: I systematically demolished your claims, and provided evidence of refraction working exactly the way I say it does: i demonstrates that you, and flat earthers in the video are either dishonest or incompetent.

in addition I’ve explained how you can perform calculations to adjust the amount of curvature seen at distance,

what I’m doing is called science: I’m being pretty systematic.

If I were you, I wouldn’t talk about unfalsifiability: you’re entire position is a series of unprovable excuses as to why every peice of evidence shows the earth is a sphere. There’s no curvature in images, except when there is curvature: then the photo is fake. Chicago isn’t a mirage, except for all of the obvious mirage effects, and inversion: which are completely unrelated. Images at distance don’t show no curvature, except when they do, in which case it’s down to refraction, which also magically happens to explain sunsets, objects appearing over the horizon, the position of the sun and moon being completely wrong for a flat earth; and you provide evidence, mathematical or scientific explanations for none of them. Any technology that relies on satellites are faked, propagated by shills. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good of luck with convincing people that your position is unfalsifiable! 

Now; given that I have systematically refuted flat earth hundreds of times; and had nothing but denials: I’m just going to repeatedly hit you with actual science that i have already posted, as to be frank: you don’t appear to have any ability to angrily shout at how wrong everyone is.

You keep assuming that I "angrily shout". Why is this? My opinion is that when someone repeatedly calls someone else "" or the like, that these are angry words from someone that cannot support their position with conclusive evidence, such as yourself. My opinion is that you are the angry one.

You have asserted that "refraction" causes the earth to appear flat, but because it is a ball, this is an illusion. I pointed out that this is an obvious fallacy if you have no supporting evidence that suggests it to be the case. You point to a laser through sugar water, without the faintest explanation for how this is relevant and proclaim that you've won the argument and that you and your science book are not to be questioned. Quite literally anyone can view an object at eye level through any water and deduce that the object always appears lower, but this scientific evidence should be ignored, simply because it completely refutes your position.

Now you can continue to assert that you've "completely demolished" my position all you want, it doesn't bother me, I'll still sleep well tonight, you most assuredly haven't angered me.

Quick question: What do you do for a living? Do you get paid to be here all day and argue with me or is this a hobby for you?

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refractive index of air, based on temperature, pressure and humidity.

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Ciddor.asp

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refraction caused by light traveling from one refractive index to another:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/snells.php

Snells law is part of the established laws of physics. This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards. 

If the refractive indexes are reversed, the angle of refraction is higher than the angle of incidence; the light is bent upwards.

So obviously in your example, an object appears lower in the water when viewed from higher up, and until the angle of incidence becomes 0 (If the image is level), as such it’s is easily explained by snells law.

The unsupported assertion that objects only appear lower in the atmosphere is just that: snells law refutes this claim easily: if one observer sees objects appearing lower, than the reverse would be true when an object is viewed from another location: you can check that out using equations. 

As you can see, at higher altitudes, with low pressure and temperature (60kpa, -14 degrees vs standard temperature and pressure, you’re looking at a differential of 1.00018 vs 1.00029 refractive index: in the case where light transitions through this boundary at a very shallow angle: for example, because it’s travelling several miles: the refraction is greatest.

If light hits, this layer at, say an angle of incidence of around 1 degree, because the light is travelling nearly horizontally: it would refract downward by around 0.33 degrees more, as the air transitions out of this layer, it would be bent again as it comes out of that layer into the lower refractive index layer: as the subsequent observer is lower, this wouldn’t be as pronounced; but even at a shade more than 1/3 as much again, refraction of 0.5 degrees in total would allow the light to bend around an addition 0.5 degrees of curvature, this would effectively reduce the viewed curvature by around 35-40 miles: more than enough to make the top of the mountain visible.

The refractive effects are calculable, and when you use the science to do those calculations, most (if not all of the examples) you’ve cited become easily explainable.

They are almost all tall objects in specific weather conditions, or in scenarios where refraction is a known factor. In almost all cases with light needing to bend over tiny fractions of a degree, being viewed from a distance only a few percent greater than the required amount.

There’s never any observations of, say, the CN Tower being visible 276 miles away. Every single example provided fits the same pattern.

This is the science, a systematic explanation based on the laws of physics; they explain your observations and refute your assertions rather nicely.

This refraction effect is actually supported by the video’s you posted (I explained why), the image of a laser through water shows the downward effect of snells law, and other examples are all explainable by these law of physics.

So, this is a systematic explanation of the observations; all tied together with basic demonstrable laws of physics, and when calculated show that everything I’m claim is likely based on the conditions. Given that these are also the scientifically accepted explanations of observations such as looming, stooping, inferior and superior mirages: my case is remarkably strong.

Thus Far, you haven’t explained how your process works, tied it to any laws of physics, provide any calculations or offered up any methods of being able to demonstrate your process at work.

Your claims that objects “only appear lower”, is refuted by multiple experiments and observations: including the laser in water experiment, examples of looking and superior mirages where objects appear higher: and have been systematically refuted scientifically above; and systematically demonstrated as not being able to explain both sunset, the size of the sun and its position the way you claim, or for more than two observers. 

Despite these multiple refutations, you have not bothered to mount a scientific defence of this nonsense by explaining:

How your mechanics works, how it can account for all the observations you say it can, over a cherry picked single observation; how looking through a glass of water is analogous to every single location in the atmosphere, every day; and you have provided no testable method to show it’s happening in the atmosphere, or how it could be falsified.

Your reply, contained no argument or science: it’s really just like most of your other posts: an attempt to loudly profess how everyone else is wrong.

This post contains a pretty systematic justification for my position.

If you had a scientific bone in your body, and our position is correct, you would do the following:

1.) check my maths and show what calculation was wrong and why; and explain that is wrong by enough that my claims are not possible.

2.) check whether I am using snells law correctly, and if not you would point out the error and correct me.

3.) perform your own calculations of a given event that you feel is impossible to be down to refraction, and show how it’s not possible.

4.) make snells law calculations to demonstrate how your claims are even physically possible for more than one event, for a single observer.

You will not do that, however, as you can’t. Instead you will simply blurt out one or more of the following claims:

1.) You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.

2.) You will dismiss this systematic proof as “but muh refraction”, as if saying enough somehow refutes the proof above, or makes your claims science.

3.) You will claim I’m not basing my claims of observation; even though snells law is an established rigorously validated law of physics, and I’m using that.

4.) You will imply the laws of physics are wrong based on a glass of water, offering no proof, evidence or even an explanation.

5.) You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.

Your assumptions about me are about as asinine as your understanding of Snell s law. In the last few years, I've studied the claims from the law and in no instance have I read the statement that you assert is claimed:

"This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards."

Instead, the line is bent towards the normal when travelling from a lower refractive index to a higher one and away from the normal when travelling from a higher refractive index to a lower one, as stated by the actual law, not your own invented law, where the light is bent downwards. The normal is an imaginary line that intercepts the boundary of a change in medium, at a 90° angle to that boundary. Where this established boundary is, decides the direction that the light is bent.
O


So, despite your assertions, the light can be bent either way, depending on the relationship between the normal and the angle the light enters the boundary. So my questions to you, how have you calculated either of these variables? Are you assuming that the boundary is convex? 

https://www.britannica.com/science/Snells-law

What you just did, is effectively re-explain how snells works, pretty much identically to how I explained how it works. Nothing in your descriptions seems at odds with anything I’ve described.

You haven’t really related anything in your post to anything I’ve said, nor explained how my explanations or maths are wrong according to snells law.

In the case you describe, far from being completely opposite to what I’ve described; it’s effectively the same thing: you’re just using an example that is the exact same thing as I’m explained rotated 90 degrees;



The above is literally how I’ve explained how snells works: when theta is further from normal, say near 90 degrees, the second angle is bent downwards “towards normal”....

Youre literally explaining exactly what I explained; just without realizing that in different scenarios and situations, the orientation maybe different.



You’ve ignored probably 95% of my argument; you haven’t really made any attempt to explain how I’m wrong, nor have you bothered to actually use snells law to show that what I’ve said is wrong.

”You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.”

”You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.“


So how about you stop telling me how wrong I am, and how I’ve understood snells law incorrectly and do the following:

Use snells law, correctly, to perform the calculations: to get a different answer: explain how you got the different answer.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

lat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Unfortunately for you, angry denials and intentionally discounting evidence that doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t win novel prizes, or get papers published.

last time I checked; I provided a pretty systematic scientific validation of refraction, how it works, how it would effect measurements, etc.

as far as I recall; you’re response was to tell me how wrong I am repeatedly until I baited you into a response where you went and systematically refuted your own position multiple times.

in addition, I also provided a systematic dismantling of your use of refraction.

But hey! Perhaps if you ignore every argument made against you, and all the science that refutes you for long enough; people may forget it exists!


Im just going to refer you back to my prior posts: I systematically demolished your claims, and provided evidence of refraction working exactly the way I say it does: i demonstrates that you, and flat earthers in the video are either dishonest or incompetent.

in addition I’ve explained how you can perform calculations to adjust the amount of curvature seen at distance,

what I’m doing is called science: I’m being pretty systematic.

If I were you, I wouldn’t talk about unfalsifiability: you’re entire position is a series of unprovable excuses as to why every peice of evidence shows the earth is a sphere. There’s no curvature in images, except when there is curvature: then the photo is fake. Chicago isn’t a mirage, except for all of the obvious mirage effects, and inversion: which are completely unrelated. Images at distance don’t show no curvature, except when they do, in which case it’s down to refraction, which also magically happens to explain sunsets, objects appearing over the horizon, the position of the sun and moon being completely wrong for a flat earth; and you provide evidence, mathematical or scientific explanations for none of them. Any technology that relies on satellites are faked, propagated by shills. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good of luck with convincing people that your position is unfalsifiable! 

Now; given that I have systematically refuted flat earth hundreds of times; and had nothing but denials: I’m just going to repeatedly hit you with actual science that i have already posted, as to be frank: you don’t appear to have any ability to angrily shout at how wrong everyone is.

You keep assuming that I "angrily shout". Why is this? My opinion is that when someone repeatedly calls someone else "" or the like, that these are angry words from someone that cannot support their position with conclusive evidence, such as yourself. My opinion is that you are the angry one.

You have asserted that "refraction" causes the earth to appear flat, but because it is a ball, this is an illusion. I pointed out that this is an obvious fallacy if you have no supporting evidence that suggests it to be the case. You point to a laser through sugar water, without the faintest explanation for how this is relevant and proclaim that you've won the argument and that you and your science book are not to be questioned. Quite literally anyone can view an object at eye level through any water and deduce that the object always appears lower, but this scientific evidence should be ignored, simply because it completely refutes your position.

Now you can continue to assert that you've "completely demolished" my position all you want, it doesn't bother me, I'll still sleep well tonight, you most assuredly haven't angered me.

Quick question: What do you do for a living? Do you get paid to be here all day and argue with me or is this a hobby for you?

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refractive index of air, based on temperature, pressure and humidity.

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Ciddor.asp

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refraction caused by light traveling from one refractive index to another:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/snells.php

Snells law is part of the established laws of physics. This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards. 

If the refractive indexes are reversed, the angle of refraction is higher than the angle of incidence; the light is bent upwards.

So obviously in your example, an object appears lower in the water when viewed from higher up, and until the angle of incidence becomes 0 (If the image is level), as such it’s is easily explained by snells law.

The unsupported assertion that objects only appear lower in the atmosphere is just that: snells law refutes this claim easily: if one observer sees objects appearing lower, than the reverse would be true when an object is viewed from another location: you can check that out using equations. 

As you can see, at higher altitudes, with low pressure and temperature (60kpa, -14 degrees vs standard temperature and pressure, you’re looking at a differential of 1.00018 vs 1.00029 refractive index: in the case where light transitions through this boundary at a very shallow angle: for example, because it’s travelling several miles: the refraction is greatest.

If light hits, this layer at, say an angle of incidence of around 1 degree, because the light is travelling nearly horizontally: it would refract downward by around 0.33 degrees more, as the air transitions out of this layer, it would be bent again as it comes out of that layer into the lower refractive index layer: as the subsequent observer is lower, this wouldn’t be as pronounced; but even at a shade more than 1/3 as much again, refraction of 0.5 degrees in total would allow the light to bend around an addition 0.5 degrees of curvature, this would effectively reduce the viewed curvature by around 35-40 miles: more than enough to make the top of the mountain visible.

The refractive effects are calculable, and when you use the science to do those calculations, most (if not all of the examples) you’ve cited become easily explainable.

They are almost all tall objects in specific weather conditions, or in scenarios where refraction is a known factor. In almost all cases with light needing to bend over tiny fractions of a degree, being viewed from a distance only a few percent greater than the required amount.

There’s never any observations of, say, the CN Tower being visible 276 miles away. Every single example provided fits the same pattern.

This is the science, a systematic explanation based on the laws of physics; they explain your observations and refute your assertions rather nicely.

This refraction effect is actually supported by the video’s you posted (I explained why), the image of a laser through water shows the downward effect of snells law, and other examples are all explainable by these law of physics.

So, this is a systematic explanation of the observations; all tied together with basic demonstrable laws of physics, and when calculated show that everything I’m claim is likely based on the conditions. Given that these are also the scientifically accepted explanations of observations such as looming, stooping, inferior and superior mirages: my case is remarkably strong.

Thus Far, you haven’t explained how your process works, tied it to any laws of physics, provide any calculations or offered up any methods of being able to demonstrate your process at work.

Your claims that objects “only appear lower”, is refuted by multiple experiments and observations: including the laser in water experiment, examples of looking and superior mirages where objects appear higher: and have been systematically refuted scientifically above; and systematically demonstrated as not being able to explain both sunset, the size of the sun and its position the way you claim, or for more than two observers. 

Despite these multiple refutations, you have not bothered to mount a scientific defence of this nonsense by explaining:

How your mechanics works, how it can account for all the observations you say it can, over a cherry picked single observation; how looking through a glass of water is analogous to every single location in the atmosphere, every day; and you have provided no testable method to show it’s happening in the atmosphere, or how it could be falsified.

Your reply, contained no argument or science: it’s really just like most of your other posts: an attempt to loudly profess how everyone else is wrong.

This post contains a pretty systematic justification for my position.

If you had a scientific bone in your body, and our position is correct, you would do the following:

1.) check my maths and show what calculation was wrong and why; and explain that is wrong by enough that my claims are not possible.

2.) check whether I am using snells law correctly, and if not you would point out the error and correct me.

3.) perform your own calculations of a given event that you feel is impossible to be down to refraction, and show how it’s not possible.

4.) make snells law calculations to demonstrate how your claims are even physically possible for more than one event, for a single observer.

You will not do that, however, as you can’t. Instead you will simply blurt out one or more of the following claims:

1.) You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.

2.) You will dismiss this systematic proof as “but muh refraction”, as if saying enough somehow refutes the proof above, or makes your claims science.

3.) You will claim I’m not basing my claims of observation; even though snells law is an established rigorously validated law of physics, and I’m using that.

4.) You will imply the laws of physics are wrong based on a glass of water, offering no proof, evidence or even an explanation.

5.) You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.

Your assumptions about me are about as asinine as your understanding of Snell s law. In the last few years, I've studied the claims from the law and in no instance have I read the statement that you assert is claimed:

"This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards."

Instead, the line is bent towards the normal when travelling from a lower refractive index to a higher one and away from the normal when travelling from a higher refractive index to a lower one, as stated by the actual law, not your own invented law, where the light is bent downwards. The normal is an imaginary line that intercepts the boundary of a change in medium, at a 90° angle to that boundary. Where this established boundary is, decides the direction that the light is bent.
O


So, despite your assertions, the light can be bent either way, depending on the relationship between the normal and the angle the light enters the boundary. So my questions to you, how have you calculated either of these variables? Are you assuming that the boundary is convex? 

https://www.britannica.com/science/Snells-law

What you just did, is effectively re-explain how snells works, pretty much identically to how I explained how it works. Nothing in your descriptions seems at odds with anything I’ve described.

You haven’t really related anything in your post to anything I’ve said, nor explained how my explanations or maths are wrong according to snells law.

In the case you describe, far from being completely opposite to what I’ve described; it’s effectively the same thing: you’re just using an example that is the exact same thing as I’m explained rotated 90 degrees;



The above is literally how I’ve explained how snells works: when theta is further from normal, say near 90 degrees, the second angle is bent downwards “towards normal”....

Youre literally explaining exactly what I explained; just without realizing that in different scenarios and situations, the orientation maybe different.



You’ve ignored probably 95% of my argument; you haven’t really made any attempt to explain how I’m wrong, nor have you bothered to actually use snells law to show that what I’ve said is wrong.

”You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.”

”You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.“


So how about you stop telling me how wrong I am, and how I’ve understood snells law incorrectly and do the following:

Use snells law, correctly, to perform the calculations: to get a different answer: explain how you got the different answer.

I've explicitly explained "why" i disagree with your position, and I've corrected the definition of snells law. You lied and claimed that snells law states the light is bent downwards, which somehow causes objects to appear higher.

I'm actually trying to determine your position. In order for you to use snells law correctly, you should define the boundary, the "normal", and the angle which the light hits the boundary, all variables in this equation. This was explained in detail in my last post. These are variables which conclusively define which direction and how much the light is bent. This, I presume, is your model of how refraction is working, so that objects will appear higher than their actual position.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but, aside from the comically curved body of water, these are fairly average conditions over water and the image shows the object's apparent position is above the eye's level, which isn't an average observation. Why aren't objects in the distance higher above the horizon consistently?

Now, you can go on asserting that snells law is applicable, and that it supports the round earth theory, but you've ignored the very basic questions that I've asked, so I'll ask again, so that we can settle this indifference.

Where exactly is this boundary? In your diagram:


The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet? 

When we recognize the possibility that over some distance, which varies with density, an accumulation of water in the air forms a "boundary" in which refraction occurs, then we can apply the image that I provided.



What is obvious though, is that the ray is travelling down in the denser medium, until it hits the boundary, that you all but ignore, but must be present for refraction to occur, as the law plainly states. 

If i had to pick from the choices that you demand I make, "if I had a scientific bone in my body", I'd say I went with option 2. "check whether I am using snells law correctly, and if not you would point out the error and correct me."

I've pointed out the error, and of course you've ignored it.

Erfisflat

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Evidence said:

Gooberry said:

someone234 said:

@Gooberry Why can the curvature only be seen at the edge of eyesight? Not in between even remotely (when looking from above).

I don’t think any of the things you said are true; but it’s hard to confirm as I don’t fully understand what youre trying to say.

Start with the scientific basics:

Calculate what you should see in a given scenario, make a measurement in that scenario, and compare what you see with what you calculate.

Don’t fall down the pseudoscientists hole, and calculate what you should see, then wildly misinterpret the scenario and the measurement, don’t bother checking what you actually see them loudly asserting that you don’t see it

Yes, like measure a cranes actual size, then compare that to the picture of two cranes at different distances, and you can manipulate this into your curvature. This is just like using earths air's Doppler Effect on sound, to calculate for Redshift of stars. This is what Erfisflat and me call Pseudoscience.

Anyways, you have avoided answering my first question on the Big Bang story, .. let me refresh your memory; "there was a flash of light, then sudden inflation." Now what was it that made the "flash of light", and what did it "suddenly inflate (Big Bang) into?

Do you even understand what you’re saying?

It's pretty plain english, if you don't have a plausible reply, it's ok to say so.

Do I have a plausible reply to his accusations that I have doctored or manipulated images to make it appear as if there is curvature? Of course: my plausible reply, is that I didn’t: and you’re a .

this is a science debate, I shouldn’t have to deal with unsubstantiated assertions, meaningless claims, loaded  questions and inconsequential rants.

@Gooberry Is this your response to me too on my BB-questions?

I think he's going to leave you hanging man.

Nope

Erfisflat

"The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet?" 
The air gets less dense the higher you go. Cold air is denser then warm air as well. The boundary is no that obvious. It often fallows the curve of the earth as air density often does and sense density of air changes continuously not suddenly there is not one boundary but a lot of boundary . 

"When we recognize the possibility that over some distance, which varies with density, an accumulation of water in the air forms a "boundary" in which refraction occurs, then we can apply the image that I provided."
Are you taking about marriage. Normally density difference like that you describer is created by temperature difference. That situation is not that common.

Erfisflat

"The air gets less dense the higher you go. Cold air is denser then warm air as well. The boundary is no that obvious. It often fallows the curve of the earth as air density often does and sense density of air changes continuously not suddenly there is not one boundary but a lot of boundary . "

Yes but dry air is more dense than moist air. There is not enough air between say, your face and your hand to cause refraction, similar to a single pane of glass. Like being a few feet above the water looking down to the surface.


Add some distance though, and you can add water, or panes of glass to the equation and you will get a boundary. A "wall" of water, if you will. The boundary is the point where the water has accumulated enough, with distance, to start bending the light. Of course, the wall won't be level, because, as you said, the air gets less dense the higher you go. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

aid:

Erfisflat said:

Saying that "refraction" explains every test for curvature that provides negative results is an attempt to make the ball unfalsifiable. 

Unfortunately for you, angry denials and intentionally discounting evidence that doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t win novel prizes, or get papers published.

last time I checked; I provided a pretty systematic scientific validation of refraction, how it works, how it would effect measurements, etc.

as far as I recall; you’re response was to tell me how wrong I am repeatedly until I baited you into a response where you went and systematically refuted your own position multiple times.

in addition, I also provided a systematic dismantling of your use of refraction.

But hey! Perhaps if you ignore every argument made against you, and all the science that refutes you for long enough; people may forget it exists!


Im just going to refer you back to my prior posts: I systematically demolished your claims, and provided evidence of refraction working exactly the way I say it does: i demonstrates that you, and flat earthers in the video are either dishonest or incompetent.

in addition I’ve explained how you can perform calculations to adjust the amount of curvature seen at distance,

what I’m doing is called science: I’m being pretty systematic.

If I were you, I wouldn’t talk about unfalsifiability: you’re entire position is a series of unprovable excuses as to why every peice of evidence shows the earth is a sphere. There’s no curvature in images, except when there is curvature: then the photo is fake. Chicago isn’t a mirage, except for all of the obvious mirage effects, and inversion: which are completely unrelated. Images at distance don’t show no curvature, except when they do, in which case it’s down to refraction, which also magically happens to explain sunsets, objects appearing over the horizon, the position of the sun and moon being completely wrong for a flat earth; and you provide evidence, mathematical or scientific explanations for none of them. Any technology that relies on satellites are faked, propagated by shills. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Good of luck with convincing people that your position is unfalsifiable! 

Now; given that I have systematically refuted flat earth hundreds of times; and had nothing but denials: I’m just going to repeatedly hit you with actual science that i have already posted, as to be frank: you don’t appear to have any ability to angrily shout at how wrong everyone is.

You keep assuming that I "angrily shout". Why is this? My opinion is that when someone repeatedly calls someone else "" or the like, that these are angry words from someone that cannot support their position with conclusive evidence, such as yourself. My opinion is that you are the angry one.

You have asserted that "refraction" causes the earth to appear flat, but because it is a ball, this is an illusion. I pointed out that this is an obvious fallacy if you have no supporting evidence that suggests it to be the case. You point to a laser through sugar water, without the faintest explanation for how this is relevant and proclaim that you've won the argument and that you and your science book are not to be questioned. Quite literally anyone can view an object at eye level through any water and deduce that the object always appears lower, but this scientific evidence should be ignored, simply because it completely refutes your position.

Now you can continue to assert that you've "completely demolished" my position all you want, it doesn't bother me, I'll still sleep well tonight, you most assuredly haven't angered me.

Quick question: What do you do for a living? Do you get paid to be here all day and argue with me or is this a hobby for you?

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refractive index of air, based on temperature, pressure and humidity.

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Ciddor.asp

Here is a tool that allows you to calculate the refraction caused by light traveling from one refractive index to another:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/snells.php

Snells law is part of the established laws of physics. This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards. 

If the refractive indexes are reversed, the angle of refraction is higher than the angle of incidence; the light is bent upwards.

So obviously in your example, an object appears lower in the water when viewed from higher up, and until the angle of incidence becomes 0 (If the image is level), as such it’s is easily explained by snells law.

The unsupported assertion that objects only appear lower in the atmosphere is just that: snells law refutes this claim easily: if one observer sees objects appearing lower, than the reverse would be true when an object is viewed from another location: you can check that out using equations. 

As you can see, at higher altitudes, with low pressure and temperature (60kpa, -14 degrees vs standard temperature and pressure, you’re looking at a differential of 1.00018 vs 1.00029 refractive index: in the case where light transitions through this boundary at a very shallow angle: for example, because it’s travelling several miles: the refraction is greatest.

If light hits, this layer at, say an angle of incidence of around 1 degree, because the light is travelling nearly horizontally: it would refract downward by around 0.33 degrees more, as the air transitions out of this layer, it would be bent again as it comes out of that layer into the lower refractive index layer: as the subsequent observer is lower, this wouldn’t be as pronounced; but even at a shade more than 1/3 as much again, refraction of 0.5 degrees in total would allow the light to bend around an addition 0.5 degrees of curvature, this would effectively reduce the viewed curvature by around 35-40 miles: more than enough to make the top of the mountain visible.

The refractive effects are calculable, and when you use the science to do those calculations, most (if not all of the examples) you’ve cited become easily explainable.

They are almost all tall objects in specific weather conditions, or in scenarios where refraction is a known factor. In almost all cases with light needing to bend over tiny fractions of a degree, being viewed from a distance only a few percent greater than the required amount.

There’s never any observations of, say, the CN Tower being visible 276 miles away. Every single example provided fits the same pattern.

This is the science, a systematic explanation based on the laws of physics; they explain your observations and refute your assertions rather nicely.

This refraction effect is actually supported by the video’s you posted (I explained why), the image of a laser through water shows the downward effect of snells law, and other examples are all explainable by these law of physics.

So, this is a systematic explanation of the observations; all tied together with basic demonstrable laws of physics, and when calculated show that everything I’m claim is likely based on the conditions. Given that these are also the scientifically accepted explanations of observations such as looming, stooping, inferior and superior mirages: my case is remarkably strong.

Thus Far, you haven’t explained how your process works, tied it to any laws of physics, provide any calculations or offered up any methods of being able to demonstrate your process at work.

Your claims that objects “only appear lower”, is refuted by multiple experiments and observations: including the laser in water experiment, examples of looking and superior mirages where objects appear higher: and have been systematically refuted scientifically above; and systematically demonstrated as not being able to explain both sunset, the size of the sun and its position the way you claim, or for more than two observers. 

Despite these multiple refutations, you have not bothered to mount a scientific defence of this nonsense by explaining:

How your mechanics works, how it can account for all the observations you say it can, over a cherry picked single observation; how looking through a glass of water is analogous to every single location in the atmosphere, every day; and you have provided no testable method to show it’s happening in the atmosphere, or how it could be falsified.

Your reply, contained no argument or science: it’s really just like most of your other posts: an attempt to loudly profess how everyone else is wrong.

This post contains a pretty systematic justification for my position.

If you had a scientific bone in your body, and our position is correct, you would do the following:

1.) check my maths and show what calculation was wrong and why; and explain that is wrong by enough that my claims are not possible.

2.) check whether I am using snells law correctly, and if not you would point out the error and correct me.

3.) perform your own calculations of a given event that you feel is impossible to be down to refraction, and show how it’s not possible.

4.) make snells law calculations to demonstrate how your claims are even physically possible for more than one event, for a single observer.

You will not do that, however, as you can’t. Instead you will simply blurt out one or more of the following claims:

1.) You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.

2.) You will dismiss this systematic proof as “but muh refraction”, as if saying enough somehow refutes the proof above, or makes your claims science.

3.) You will claim I’m not basing my claims of observation; even though snells law is an established rigorously validated law of physics, and I’m using that.

4.) You will imply the laws of physics are wrong based on a glass of water, offering no proof, evidence or even an explanation.

5.) You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.

Your assumptions about me are about as asinine as your understanding of Snell s law. In the last few years, I've studied the claims from the law and in no instance have I read the statement that you assert is claimed:

"This law says, that if light goes from a higher refractive index to a lower one bends by definition the angle of refraction is smaller than the angle of incidence: the light is bent downwards."

Instead, the line is bent towards the normal when travelling from a lower refractive index to a higher one and away from the normal when travelling from a higher refractive index to a lower one, as stated by the actual law, not your own invented law, where the light is bent downwards. The normal is an imaginary line that intercepts the boundary of a change in medium, at a 90° angle to that boundary. Where this established boundary is, decides the direction that the light is bent.
O


So, despite your assertions, the light can be bent either way, depending on the relationship between the normal and the angle the light enters the boundary. So my questions to you, how have you calculated either of these variables? Are you assuming that the boundary is convex? 

https://www.britannica.com/science/Snells-law

What you just did, is effectively re-explain how snells works, pretty much identically to how I explained how it works. Nothing in your descriptions seems at odds with anything I’ve described.

You haven’t really related anything in your post to anything I’ve said, nor explained how my explanations or maths are wrong according to snells law.

In the case you describe, far from being completely opposite to what I’ve described; it’s effectively the same thing: you’re just using an example that is the exact same thing as I’m explained rotated 90 degrees;



The above is literally how I’ve explained how snells works: when theta is further from normal, say near 90 degrees, the second angle is bent downwards “towards normal”....

Youre literally explaining exactly what I explained; just without realizing that in different scenarios and situations, the orientation maybe different.



You’ve ignored probably 95% of my argument; you haven’t really made any attempt to explain how I’m wrong, nor have you bothered to actually use snells law to show that what I’ve said is wrong.

”You will claim my maths is wrong, but won’t say why.”

”You will tell me that this systematic proof is merely “assertion”, and will offer no evidence or argument as to why.“


So how about you stop telling me how wrong I am, and how I’ve understood snells law incorrectly and do the following:

Use snells law, correctly, to perform the calculations: to get a different answer: explain how you got the different answer.

I've explicitly explained "why" i disagree with your position, and I've corrected the definition of snells law. You lied and claimed that snells law states the light is bent downwards, which somehow causes objects to appear higher.

I'm actually trying to determine your position. In order for you to use snells law correctly, you should define the boundary, the "normal", and the angle which the light hits the boundary, all variables in this equation. This was explained in detail in my last post. These are variables which conclusively define which direction and how much the light is bent. This, I presume, is your model of how refraction is working, so that objects will appear higher than their actual position.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but, aside from the comically curved body of water, these are fairly average conditions over water and the image shows the object's apparent position is above the eye's level, which isn't an average observation. Why aren't objects in the distance higher above the horizon consistently?

Now, you can go on asserting that snells law is applicable, and that it supports the round earth theory, but you've ignored the very basic questions that I've asked, so I'll ask again, so that we can settle this indifference.

Where exactly is this boundary? In your diagram:


The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet? 

When we recognize the possibility that over some distance, which varies with density, an accumulation of water in the air forms a "boundary" in which refraction occurs, then we can apply the image that I provided.



What is obvious though, is that the ray is travelling down in the denser medium, until it hits the boundary, that you all but ignore, but must be present for refraction to occur, as the law plainly states. 

If i had to pick from the choices that you demand I make, "if I had a scientific bone in my body", I'd say I went with option 2. "check whether I am using snells law correctly, and if not you would point out the error and correct me."

I've pointed out the error, and of course you've ignored it.

1.) you explained why you disagreeing with me: by explaining that snells law works exactly the way I said. I don’t know what else to say: you’re litwrally telling me snells law exactly the way I say it does: your image showed exactly what I said happened in the way I said it. You just had an image that was 90 degrees rotated and use it to argue that I’m wrong. Your position doesn’t even make sense, which I guess is why you seem to have dropped this argument and replaced it with different arguments.



2.) snells happens when there’s is a change in refactive index: if you want to nonsensically assert it only happens when there is some physical or large boundary: that refutes your own argument on refraction; and the earth cannot be flat. So we should be done, right? You can’t just arbitrarily assert refraction in air can’t happen; and then repeatedly argue that refraction in air can happen.


Now, we know this argument is wrong; because of what you said is correct, it would make mirages and terrestrial refraction that we actually see impossible. Given that mirages occur in air, and work as per snells: we can conclude that your boundary’s argument is Objectively nonsense.

3.)  The image is explaining how light bends through refraction. If the observer is in the higher refractive index layer; objects appear higher. Claiming that my examples, that explicitly state what an observer in a specific place would see, wouldn’t show this because the observer is not where the example says he is: is just incoherent lunacy. It’s a poor argument even for you.


4.) why don’t objects appear higher than over the horizon?  Why would you expect them too? Because you say so? I see no maths, I see no applied science: just yet more claims backed up with nothing.

Refraction of objects below the horizon is based on angle of the light, and the change in refractive index: if you don’t understand how snells law is limited in how much refraction can occur if the change in refractive index is very small; you don’t understand snells law.

5.) There are some scenarios, where what you claim happens in the atmosphere actually happens: inferior mirages are a good example. Unfortunately: that’s Only one configuration: it is just to say that because one can happen; no others can happen, or must’ve all happen in the same way: it’s just incoherent.

Not only is it logically , it’s also obviously refuted by evidence: of what you out said is true, superior mirages and looming would not be possible, as they require light being bent downwards: opposite of your claims. Even worse, it’s also refuted by any observer that decides focus walk from the low to high refractive index layer: anyone who’s did that would suddenly find they observe exactly what I’ve said they would: as they would be viewing in the configuration I have been explaining.

6.) Im still waiting for rebuttals on everything else. Why are you diverting in this side track when I’ve already proven the earth is a sphere.

Nope

Erfisflat
"There is not enough air between say, your face and your hand to cause refraction, similar to a single pane of glass. Like being a few feet above the water looking down to the surface."
The earth is curved.

Erfisflat

"The earth is curved."



Well put, I concede. Water is flat.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"The earth is curved."



Well put, I concede. Water is flat.

One day, you’re going to make an argument without grotesquely misrepresenting someone’s position: today is not that day.