The Big-Bang Story

Erfisflat

1.This point is just a repeat of your last post. This is becoming a pattern from you as before, when a point is made, you ignore the point and simply repeat yourself.

 I thoroughly explained exactly how you were using snells law wrong, specifically by making the witless assumption that there is a boundary that we're looking through below our feet. This would be ok were we seeing a fish under water, but we aren't. 


In this case, the object is seen higher. The light is travelling from a dense medium to a less dense medium, causing the light's path to deviate away from the normal, as per snells law. In the situation where we are looking out at eye's level, to a more dense medium (a "box" of water) the object will appear lower. This can and has been demonstrated repeatedly.

2. I've actually NEVER claimed that refraction can't happen in the atmosphere, arbitrarily or not, and claiming that a boundary is "nonsensically" needed is contradictory to the very law that you, up until now, are claiming is what happens in the atmosphere, or why objects can be seen when it is geometrically impossible. Now that I've pointed out the correct definition and proper use of Snell's law, you appear to be backpeddling, and have changed your position to the very vague "atmospheric refraction" claim, which you've now asserted that without practical evidence supports your position, which apparently goes against the laws of physics you've claimed to defend up to this point. It is clear your are not in search of truth, but are now bouncing around to whatever ad hoc excuse appears to support the testicle shaped earth that you love so much. 

You go on to ignorantly assert that mirages, which are from thermal inversions that cause image inversions prove your point, but are completely irrelevant as there are no image inversions in the images I presented. 

3. I'm not exactly sure what image you're referring to here, but if a person is standing in a denser medium looking at an object in a less dense medium, the refraction would cause the light to bend away from the normal, as per Snell's law, not automatically higher, as you simply assert without evidence. This is irrelevant as in the circumstances shown here, no one is in a dense medium looking out into a less dense medium, the situation is reversed.

4. If refraction caused objects to appear higher than they actually are, as you implied, objects that aren't supposed to be hidden by the curvature should, out of necessity appear above the horizon, consistently.

Part two is just yet another ad hominem attack where you assert that I don't understand Snell's law, despite my correcting you on both the very definition of the law, and schooling you on it's proper implications. Once again, @gooberry's definition of Snell's law: 
"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."

Actual definition of Snell's law:
a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.

You can further imply that these are one in the same, but it is clear to any rational mind, that they are not. You can further imply that my explanation of the law "exactly" or earlier, "almost exactly" matches your definition, but of course, this would be another false statement. 

5. More false implications that mirages are even remotely relevant, as explained before, it is clear that mirages occur, and which direction the light is travelling. The separation is that when we see an upright image of something we shouldn't see, due to the curvature, it is because of refraction. This position, so far, is without evidence, is unsupported by the laws of physics and snells law, as I have explained, and has been proved to be invented, or misconstrued, using known laws of physics, specifically Snell's law.

Part two is another ad hominem attack, followed by incoherent assertions.

6. My counterargument rests partly on this "side track", so it is entirely crucial that this matter be put to rest.  

Once again, as per snells law, in order to refract light, the light must pass through a boundary. Where do you calculate this boundary in your maths?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

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.

one day, you'll be able to formulate an argument without lying and baselessly asserting your own invented "facts": today is not that day.

someone234

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

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.

one day, you'll be able to formulate an argument without lying and baselessly asserting your own invented "facts": today is not that day.

He is a victim not a perpetrator, saying he invented them is incorrect.

Erfisflat

someone234 said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

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.

one day, you'll be able to formulate an argument without lying and baselessly asserting your own invented "facts": today is not that day.

He is a victim not a perpetrator, saying he invented them is incorrect.

Not really, he was caught red handed inventing his own laws of physics, as I've explained above.

Nope

Erfisflat
You are still not taking in to account that the earth in the common model is curved.

Gooberry

1.) You keep repeating the idea that you’re proving me wrong: your explanation of snells is identical to mine. You’re simply conveniently describing scenarios that are not the same as mine.

1.a) if I was wrong, you could prove me wrong in 2 seconds by drawing a diagram of what I’m describinf, then doing the maths. You won’t do that.

You keep describing different scenarios that work differently due to reversing of refractive indexes, or different angles. These all work exactly as I’m describing snells to work: but are different scenarios and configurations

It’s hilarious that you’re describing how light refracts in almost every other configuration: except the one I’ve been describing.

1.b) you got close to refuting your position with the fish example! 

If youre where here the fish and looking at where the person is, the light follows the same path, and would make the person appear higher.

Exactly as I said...


2.) I’ve been constantly describing how refraction works; and is shown to work, and experimental evidence shows it to work, and how observations show it work.

You claim it doesn’t work like it actually does work because in my examples there is no boundary: in no cases, including yours, is there actually any boundary.

So yes; your argument is basically that refraction can’t happen in the air in the way I claim: and thus can’t happen (as all refraction happens in effectively the way I said).

3.) yes: exactly? That’s what I’m saying: choosing different terminology, an pretending that it’s showing something different is either dishonest or simply incompetent.

In every day atmospheric configuration: when light comes from a low density medium to a higher one, light bends towards normal: as in my configuration, normal is a vertical line, so light bending towards normal: as shown in all your examples: means objects would appear higher.

4.) why on earth should objects always appear above the horizon consistently? It will happen in the right conditions, only when there is a significant deviation in refractive index. This is part of my whole point: and why you’re refraction can’t work (you rely on it being consistent: I don’t get why you keep pretending as in making your own flawed argument)

There’ May always be some tiny amounts of refraction: and there is: but it won’t appreciably love objects over and above what I’ve already explained.

5.) If refraction happens; you should be able to see upright objects above the horizon: that’s kinda my whole argument. You can’t assert that doesn’t happen here without assuming your own conclusion.

you continue to assert that light will always be bent in an upwards direction. Superior mirages, and looming refute this. One has inversion the other doesn’t. Both demonstrably bend light downwards whether you want to accept it or not.

How Mirages work is not irrelevant: they directly refute your claims of how refraction works. This may explain why you have simply dismissed this argument out of hand.

6.) Your argument doesn’t rest on this side track. 

You said there was no curvature seen. My argument demonstrates that the right amount of curvature is seen in all cases.

Refraction was just a bonus point; because I can objectively show in the video refraction working in exactly the way I say it does.

if you want to agree with me that there does appear to be 60 feet of curvature in the images; feel free, but to do so you are calling yourself a .

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat
You are still not taking in to account that the earth in the common model is curved.

You mean, I'm not ignorantly assuming the earth is a sphere? Correct.

Nope

Erfisflat No I mean if you wan't to disprove the common model without factoring in the earths curvature in considering how the atmosphere bends light and then claiming it proves the earth is flat.

Erfisflat

1&2. This is essentially the purpose of a debate, except in this case, you are lying about what laws of physics state, and I am correcting you. You can't honestly claim that I'm just repeating that you're wrong. If I'm not describing a scenario that is like yours, please, by all means, explain a likely scenario where and object, when viewed at eye level, will appear higher and more specifically reappear from out of sight with refraction, because I have yet to see this from you. I've seen refraction cause objects to appear lower, magnified, AND disappear. These are all agreeable with the flat earth.

So far you have a wide array of assertions that misinterpret Snell's law, and a side view of a laser being shone through sugar water. So far I have shown multiple examples of objects, when viewed through water, with an explanation as to why this is the most accurate representation of viewing objects over large distances, due to water vapor and other matter in the air, appear lower, as well as the bottoms disappearing, and you respond  with a rhetorical "nuh-uh, but muh science book". 

Once more, on multiple occasions, we can plainly demonstrate how refraction works, and this fully explains why observations occur like sunsets, ships over horizons, lake Pontchartrain, etc. and we don't have to assume that over some immeasurable distance, that any body of water curves against all common sense.







"if I was wrong, you could prove me wrong in (two) seconds by drawing a diagram of what I’m (describing), then doing the maths. You won’t do that."

I'm not entirely sure what you're describing. This is the issue. I've explained that you must define the axioms involved in order to properly calculate how we can apply Snell's law, and properly ascertain the correct direction that light should be bent in your model, which is so far, undefined...

Claiming that I must draw a diagram to prove you wrong is shifting the burden. I've shown everyone a mountain that should not be seen in the current model and you have asserted that it is due to refraction. This burden of proof lies on you. If there is no defined boundary, there is no normal for the light to bend towards or away, then we cannot apply Snell's law, and your position is unfalsifiable, or a purely unevidenced assertion.

3." In every day atmospheric configuration: when light comes from a low density medium to a higher one, light bends towards normal: as in my configuration, normal is a vertical line, so light bending towards normal: as shown in all your examples: means objects would appear higher."

If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away, at eye level. This is illogical, to say the least. It's clear to any logical, unbiased thinker that if you are looking away at the eye level, that the boundary is vertical and the normal is horizontal, as in my model. It is also clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and are just "winging it".

4. "(There)(may) always be some tiny amounts of refraction, and there is, but it won’t appreciably (lower) objects over and above what I’ve already explained."

Because... You've "explained" this, I'm supposed to assume it correct?!? Right... Seems dogmatic that I assume your word is correct over both logic (there is always an appreciable amount of refractive elements in the air) and observations (shown above).

5. Once again, since we aren't seeing objects like mountains and city skylines floating in the sky consistently, and more consistently, the bottoms of objects are cut off, and if we can see that refraction happens consistently over large distances, we can say that refraction consistently lowers objects. The fact that we can't always see objects at 250 miles away proves that, aside from visibility issues, objects are more commonly lowered, as experimental evidence shows.

6. I'll agree that there does appear to be an apparent drop, nowhere near the allotted 60 feet worth, but this is again due to the refractive properties of air, which grow with distance. Over smaller distances, this refraction can be all but eliminated. 

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat No I mean if you wan't to disprove the common model without factoring in the earths curvature in considering how the atmosphere bends light and then claiming it proves the earth is flat.

I'm doing this by creating a model, with a well defined boundary, normal and incidence angle, applying those axioms to practical experiments, and showing exactly what we see. If I could somehow curve the water, and the atmosphere, we could explore those options, but as we both well know, this is impossible in reality, and exists only in pseudoscientific world.

Nope

Erfisflat said:

Nope said:

Erfisflat No I mean if you wan't to disprove the common model without factoring in the earths curvature in considering how the atmosphere bends light and then claiming it proves the earth is flat.

I'm doing this by creating a model, with a well defined boundary, normal and incidence angle,  applying those axioms to practical experiments, showing exactly what we see. If I could somehow curve the water, and the atmosphere, we could explore those options, but as we both well know, this is impossible in reality, and exists only in pseudoscientific world.

It is important to note that the atmosphere does not have well defined boundary so are you just trying to prove snell's law? What do you mean it is impossible for water and the atmosphere to be curved?

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat said:

Nope said:

Erfisflat No I mean if you wan't to disprove the common model without factoring in the earths curvature in considering how the atmosphere bends light and then claiming it proves the earth is flat.

I'm doing this by creating a model, with a well defined boundary, normal and incidence angle,  applying those axioms to practical experiments, showing exactly what we see. If I could somehow curve the water, and the atmosphere, we could explore those options, but as we both well know, this is impossible in reality, and exists only in pseudoscientific world.

It is important to note that the atmosphere does not have well defined boundary so are you just trying to prove snell's law? What do you mean it is impossible for water and the atmosphere to be curved?

The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary, where a dense medium crosses a less dense one. As your model assumes, this boundary seems to be horizontal, and curved, along the imaginatively curved earth, or water, and the light's path will not cross any boundary. If it does, the defined angles and normal will cause what is referred to as a "total internal reflection" to occur, and the image will be inverted, or miraged, as these describe a critical angle to the boundary.

https://www.britannica.com/science/total-internal-reflection

Nope

"the light's path will not cross any boundary"
If the light does not come down toward the ground it will pass the boundary. If light travels horizontally to the earth because the earth is curved it will cross the boundary.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

"the light's path will not cross any boundary"
If the light does not come down toward the ground it will pass the boundary. If light travels horizontally to the earth because the earth is curved it will cross the boundary.

2 things:

Is this not a pure assumption?

As I stated before, when we make this assumption, the incidence angle will be "critical", or better, and total internal reflection will occur. This is known to happen with mirages, but there must be an inversion in these assumptions.

Erfisflat

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

Erfisflat

@nope I've included some reading because I know you can't view demonstrations on YouTube.

EmeryPearson

How can the Big Bang Theory be anything but a Theory? It's advanced past a Hypothesis already, and is used and recognized in science.

It's theory as it fits the criteria of a theory, and is used as such.

Evidence

EmeryPearson said:

How can the Big Bang Theory be anything but a Theory? It's advanced past a Hypothesis already, and is used and recognized in science.

It's theory as it fits the criteria of a theory, and is used as such.

@EmeryPearson @Nope @Gooberry and my friend @Erfisflat (you should get a kick out of this!?)

BB A Theory? .. based on what scientific principles?

* The BB-story assumes that the earth is a sphere, which after some observation we know it's not,

* it assumes that there is a space out there where our stars are, which is filled and expanding by a vacuum, .. this is a physical impossibility, but hey, prove me wrong?

* It assumes that the stars which we can all see, are planets spinning and twirling around suns, when all we see with our own telescopes are stars, twinkling, stars of different shapes and sizes nor has anyone ever went into this supposedly vacuum of space, especially taking space walks, where the only video we have of a NASA astronaut in the billion dollar NASA Vacuum chamber, passed out almost immediately after the air was sucked out.

* Any good computer model of this planetary system in a vacuum in weightlessness shows they would all crash into each other within minutes.

* Exposing the spherical earth as NASA describes it to a total vacuum would suck all the air out in minutes and freeze every drop of water, kill all life and send us floating into the abyss of NASA cold dark vacuum in minutes.

* The redshift relies on the idea of "light traveling away from us, changing the light waves shorter and longer depending on if it's coming towards us or going away from us, when in fact Einstein specifically stated that "light travels at a constant" and is relative to the source its emanating from. So this would be like gluing yardsticks all over a ball sticking at 90 degrees out, then shooting those yardsticks away from the ball, the light, as the yardsticks would travel exactly as it came off the ball.
In other words, a one second beam of light would be 186,282 miles long. This 186,282 mile long light would travel at C (dependent on what medium it traveled through) but in a vacuum would be like a flying yardstick, so the waves in the 186,282 mile long light would not stretch or shrink, and even if it took 11 billion years to get to us, we would see it exactly as it left the source. NO Redshift, blueshift of any kind, only bulshift.

* But most of all, according to Hafele and Keating, time dilates when things are moving (another bulshift), which means that the entire NASA universe, every planet, every star and every alien including the apes on earth would be experiencing time dilation, and since anything traveling near or at the speed of light time would stop, and since one objects cause this effect on other objects which multiplies, time in the universe would have stopped, and never start up again unless everything froze in its place.
Matter of fact, upon the Big Bang sudden expansion of vacuum which traveled faster than light, time would have gone backwards!

SO

* according to Einstein and the NASA planetary universe that is being expanded by a vacuum/gravity mix the universe is NOT 14 billion years old, but it could be billions of years before we even come into existence. I estimate we should be about 65 billion BC-BB  (Before Creation of the Big Bang) story.

* But that's not all, .. because if you factor in the two other relativistic effects like length contraction and weight/mass gain, the universe would be a tiny cold mass of infinite weight, trillions of years before its existence, in a point in space billions of years before space could even exist, that is if a vacuum could ever expand and create space, ..

Only snake tongue NASA could imagine an expanding vacuum sprinkled with Pixy dust that gives off a redshift, and human apes living on a planet called Never-Never Land with Tatooine as one of it's moons.

So, .. anyone care to dispute my above scientific observations on the imaginary Big-Bang NASA space and defend that it's a theory?

EmeryPearson

@Evidence

"* The BB-story assumes that the earth is a sphere, which after some observation we know it's not,"

This is a Straw Man, the Big Bang Theory doesn't dictate the shape of planets.

"* it assumes that there is a space out there where our stars are, which is filled and expanding by a vacuum, .. this is a physical impossibility, but hey, prove me wrong?

This is an Argument from incredulity. Simply because something is difficult to understand, doesn't render it impossible.

"* It assumes that the stars which we can all see, are planets spinning and twirling around suns, when all we see with our own telescopes are stars, twinkling, stars of different shapes and sizes nor has anyone ever went into this supposedly vacuum of space, especially taking space walks, where the only video we have of a NASA astronaut in the billion dollar NASA Vacuum chamber, passed out almost immediately after the air was sucked out."

This is incorrect, the Big Bang theory doesn't dictate what stars are. I can confirm for you however, stars are not planets.

"nor has anyone ever went into this supposedly vacuum of space, especially taking space walks, where the only video we have of a NASA astronaut in the billion dollar NASA Vacuum chamber, passed out almost immediately after the air was sucked out"

This is an opinion, opinion doesn't impact fact.

"* Any good computer model of this planetary system in a vacuum in weightlessness shows they would all crash into each other within minutes."

Another opinion.

"* Exposing the spherical earth as NASA describes it to a total vacuum would suck all the air out in minutes and freeze every drop of water, kill all life and send us floating into the abyss of NASA cold dark vacuum in minutes."

Another opinion. 

"* The redshift relies on the idea of "light traveling away from us, changing the light waves shorter and longer depending on if it's coming towards us or going away from us, when in fact Einstein specifically stated that "light travels at a constant" and is relative to the source its emanating from. So this would be like gluing yardsticks all over a ball sticking at 90 degrees out, then shooting those yardsticks away from the ball, the light, as the yardsticks would travel exactly as it came off the ball.
In other words, a one second beam of light would be 186,282 miles long. This 186,282 mile long light would travel at C (dependent on what medium it traveled through) but in a vacuum would be like a flying yardstick, so the waves in the 186,282 mile long light would not stretch or shrink, and even if it took 11 billion years to get to us, we would see it exactly as it left the source. NO Redshift, blueshift of any kind, only bulshift."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of light. Light also travels in waves. Relative motion causes Red/Green shift. It's an example of the Doppler Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

The Doppler effect exists without changing the constant of the speed of light.

"* But most of all, according to Hafele and Keating, time dilates when things are moving (another bulshift), which means that the entire NASA universe, every planet, every star and every alien including the apes on earth would be experiencing time dilation, and since anything traveling near or at the speed of light time would stop, and since one objects cause this effect on other objects which multiplies, time in the universe would have stopped, and never start up again unless everything froze in its place.
Matter of fact, upon the Big Bang sudden expansion of vacuum which traveled faster than light, time would have gone backwards!"

This is an opinion as well, the universe is expanding at about  67 kilometers per second. Not the speed of light.


But Ultimately, this is irrelevant. The only way the BB theory would be disqualified as a theory, is if there was a more accurate one to replace it. 

Erfisflat

"This is a Straw Man, the Big Bang Theory doesn't dictate the shape of planets."

He didn't say the theory dictates the shape of the earth, he said it assumes it. Two very different words. If the earth is instead an immovable plane, the big bang theory is just a fairy tale, agreed?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

It does not assume it either. Semantics. 

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

It does not assume it either. Semantics. 

Semantics? How is this semantics? Semantics is a quibble over the meaning of a word. @evidence specifically said "assumes" and you in turn, use a completely different word: "dictate". So instead of just saying "semantics", maybe you should look up the word (s) and instead of building your own strawman, try to understand the difference between a theory assuming a premise, and a theory dictating a result.

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

Still Semantics. As it's untrue either way.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

Still Semantics. As it's untrue either way.

As you've ignored my response to your "nuh-uh", I'll ask again. " If the earth is instead an immovable plane, the big bang theory is just a fairy tale, agreed?" Or are you thinking along the lines of a flat, immobile earth is still possible to stem from a big bang? If the big bang doesn't assume a ball shaped earth, this is the only conclusion I can draw from your statements.

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

This is a Straw Man. Provide evidence that the Big Bang makes assumptions on planet formation.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

This is a Straw Man. Provide evidence that the Big Bang makes assumptions on planet formation.

Are you serious right now? This is basic space physics. 
 
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/planets-round/en/

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

That doesn't reference to the Big Bang Theory.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

That doesn't reference to the Big Bang Theory.

So your position is that the big bang theory allows for a flat earth?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

Yes, but the overall field which envelopes both the Big Bang and Planet formation does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

Yes, but the overall field which envelopes both the Big Bang and Planet formation does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

You know you're going have to ellaborate on this, right?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

I'll need a little more detail than that. What do you need explained for you?

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

I'll need a little more detail than that. What do you need explained for you?

The one sentence you stated. Ellaborate, please. What "overall field" that envelopes (but does not include) the big bang theory. 

Erfisflat

@EmeryPearson, I'm curious, why are you flagging everything you disagree with as irrelevant?

Evidence

Gooberry said:

1.) You keep repeating the idea that you’re proving me wrong: your explanation of snells is identical to mine. You’re simply conveniently describing scenarios that are not the same as mine.

1.a) if I was wrong, you could prove me wrong in 2 seconds by drawing a diagram of what I’m describinf, then doing the maths. You won’t do that.

You keep describing different scenarios that work differently due to reversing of refractive indexes, or different angles. These all work exactly as I’m describing snells to work: but are different scenarios and configurations

It’s hilarious that you’re describing how light refracts in almost every other configuration: except the one I’ve been describing.

1.b) you got close to refuting your position with the fish example! 

If youre where here the fish and looking at where the person is, the light follows the same path, and would make the person appear higher.

Exactly as I said...


2.) I’ve been constantly describing how refraction works; and is shown to work, and experimental evidence shows it to work, and how observations show it work.

You claim it doesn’t work like it actually does work because in my examples there is no boundary: in no cases, including yours, is there actually any boundary.

So yes; your argument is basically that refraction can’t happen in the air in the way I claim: and thus can’t happen (as all refraction happens in effectively the way I said).

3.) yes: exactly? That’s what I’m saying: choosing different terminology, an pretending that it’s showing something different is either dishonest or simply incompetent.

In every day atmospheric configuration: when light comes from a low density medium to a higher one, light bends towards normal: as in my configuration, normal is a vertical line, so light bending towards normal: as shown in all your examples: means objects would appear higher.

4.) why on earth should objects always appear above the horizon consistently? It will happen in the right conditions, only when there is a significant deviation in refractive index. This is part of my whole point: and why you’re refraction can’t work (you rely on it being consistent: I don’t get why you keep pretending as in making your own flawed argument)

There’ May always be some tiny amounts of refraction: and there is: but it won’t appreciably love objects over and above what I’ve already explained.

5.) If refraction happens; you should be able to see upright objects above the horizon: that’s kinda my whole argument. You can’t assert that doesn’t happen here without assuming your own conclusion.

you continue to assert that light will always be bent in an upwards direction. Superior mirages, and looming refute this. One has inversion the other doesn’t. Both demonstrably bend light downwards whether you want to accept it or not.

How Mirages work is not irrelevant: they directly refute your claims of how refraction works. This may explain why you have simply dismissed this argument out of hand.

6.) Your argument doesn’t rest on this side track. 

You said there was no curvature seen. My argument demonstrates that the right amount of curvature is seen in all cases.

Refraction was just a bonus point; because I can objectively show in the video refraction working in exactly the way I say it does.

if you want to agree with me that there does appear to be 60 feet of curvature in the images; feel free, but to do so you are calling yourself a .

@Gooberry , @Erfisflat Europe is awake, first a scientific/engineering investigation into the curvature, then they realize that "gravity" is a hoax. It's an uphill battle for now because these guys came in with an indoctrinated Globetard view of earth, but with baby steps, once they get to the top, .. it's going to be a downhill roll like it is for us Flat Earthers.

 

Evidence

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

Yes, but the overall field which envelopes both the Big Bang and Planet formation does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

@EmeryPearson @Erfisflat .. I kind of feel sorry for Globetard's, like seeing someone drowning, trying to grab onto anything nearby that they could get their hands on!
Yet here we extend a shepherds crook, but no, they refuse. So we throw them a ring buoy, don't want that either, .. so I guess we'll just have to let them drown, .. Globetard-head first, .. sink like an axe. 

Truly sad.

Judaism

@Evidence
@Erfisflat

If you're suggesting that the Big Bang never happened you're an .

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

@Evidence
@Erfisflat

If you're suggesting that the Big Bang never happened you're an .

This is an ad hominem fallacy, of course, but an believes everything he is told. Have you seen any evidence for the everything out of nothing explosion? Didn't think so. I suppose since you believe nothing created everything, that nothing is your god? 

Evidence

@Judaism said: If you're suggesting that the Big Bang never happened you're an . 

We've seen a lot of Big Bangs happened,



.. but not one that created anything like our heavens where those beautiful stars are, or Earth where all the wonders of life exists. But hey, maybe you can prove us wrong? Show us how you can create an expanding vacuum, filled with gravitational waves and a small Spacetime Fabric by creating little bang-bangs blowing up firecrackers?

Remember, you have to do this in "nothing", .. we wouldn't want you to cheat borrowing from Gods creation like the wizards at 666CERN-LHC where they are trying to create a universe using Gods particles, and not in nothing, but in Gods already done and thriving earth.

That's like trying to make a car by smashing parts off an existing car together, and yet, .. they get billions of dollars in funding!? Go figure??

Judaism

@Erfisflat

You can just wiki it, or call up your science teacher, if he' still alive.

Judaism

@Evidence ;

You can just wiki it, or call up your science teacher, if he' still alive.

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

@Erfisflat

You can just wiki it, or call up your science teacher, if he' still alive.

whats that? Maybe youre talking to evidence. But why come to a science debate and say "ask your teacher"? Maybe you've conceded the point,  and are left with " but,  but,  muh science teacher says"?

Evidence

Judaism said:

@Evidence ;

You can just wiki it, or call up your science teacher, if he' still alive.

@Judaism They didn't teach science really, just shown us a mechanical globe with the moon spinning around it as we turned the handle. And our teacher didn't know why the moon shown only one side of it at all times, when the rest of the planets like Tatooine get multiple spinning moons, and I think it's two suns too!?
And in my past 62 years I never seen one globe look like Cosmologist Tyson  describes:

Judaism

@Evidence

Oh well, it's too bad you kept your head down in class then. Did you attend collage? Likely not. Tatooine's a bunch of fiction, but go ahead and use it as an argument each time, guys like me and Neil deGrasse Tyson will just keep laughing away. 

Either learn science or stop. 

Erfisflat

Judaism said:

@Evidence

Oh well, it's too bad you kept your head down in class then. Did you attend collage? Likely not. Tatooine's a bunch of fiction, but go ahead and use it as an argument each time, guys like me and Neil deGrasse Tyson will just keep laughing away. 

Either learn science or stop. 

Says the guy that brings holy books as their main argument to a science debate... Still waiting on a valid reason to believe I'm on a spinning ball.

Evidence

Judaism said:

@Evidence

Oh well, it's too bad you kept your head down in class then. Did you attend collage? Likely not. Tatooine's a bunch of fiction, but go ahead and use it as an argument each time, guys like me and Neil deGrasse Tyson will just keep laughing away. 

Either learn science or stop. 

Guys like you and eat-deGrasse Tyson? Now he can laugh watching Globetard's like you, (which included us Flat Earthers until we woke up from this nightmare), falling for every trick that even as sixth graders should have figured out. But here we are with all the info, with all the evidence and you're still spinning and floating in a vacuum on a pear.
Here, let us show you just how deep down the rabbit hole they took you:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/earth-sized-tatooine-planets-could-be-habitable

Yep, .. soon, like Captain Marshal Applewhite and his team of 40 space cadets, you too will have a chance to "go where no man has ever gone before", habitable Tatooine planets with two suns.

Mr_Bombastic

@Evidence ;

Space and time did not exist before the big bang. Correct?

That being the case, where and when did the big bang occur? Think about it

Mr_Bombastic

@Evidence

The math breaks down before they can work their way back to the moment of the big bang.
I believe it does so because the laws of mathematics did not even exist until after the big bang occurred. Same with the Physical Constants that shape our universe. Ever ask yourself where the immaterial forces that shape our very reality come from? How something immaterial can affect the material? There may have been a big bang. But what caused it? I believe it was God,  and no one can prove me wrong. Have a nice day

Erfisflat

Mr_Bombastic said:

@Evidence

The math breaks down before they can work their way back to the moment of the big bang.
I believe it does so because the laws of mathematics did not even exist until after the big bang occurred. Same with the Physical Constants that shape our universe. Ever ask yourself where the immaterial forces that shape our very reality come from? How something immaterial can affect the material? There may have been a big bang. But what caused it? I believe it was God,  and no one can prove me wrong. Have a nice day

I have.

Good luck with this gem @evidence.

Evidence

Mr_Bombastic said:

@Evidence ;

Space and time did not exist before the big bang. Correct?

That being the case, where and when did the big bang occur? Think about it

See, that there is the Big Question which I've been asking for many years of Big-Bangers, especially the "where?" Now Lawrence Krauss, creater of the Origins Project here at ASU does have some physicists from CERN to come and visit and "shoot-the-sht" about the Big-Bang with (which is most likely costing us tax payers $10,000 a minute), but never a direct answer as to what medium their universe is expanding in?

Oh wait, he did say once in a lecture that: "That's a question, since there is nothing outside the universe!" .. lol. He forgot all about the multiverses

They have a very precise idea how big their universe was a few seconds into its creation; the size of an orange, peach, tennis ball, lemon, .. etc. and the time it happened (over the years its been assumed anywhere from 8 to 14 billion Carl Sagan years ago) but no one can tell me "where" their universe was sitting, or twirling, or orbiting or whatever IN?

We went over what space is, right? space can be anything, even a rock. Like I said, there could be two gold nuggets at a space of two inches apart in a rock.
 so until they tell us what medium the universe was the size of an orange after the Big-bang, they have no theory, .. nothing even to build on or call science. So we are left with what we all see with our own eyes and telescopes; stars, millions of them that are circling above us, in the second heaven. (see arguments made by @Erfisflat for further information on the stars and our Flat Earth)

Mr_Bombastic said:

@Evidence

The math breaks down before they can work their way back to the moment of the big bang.
I believe it does so because the laws of mathematics did not even exist until after the big bang occurred. Same with the Physical Constants that shape our universe. Ever ask yourself where the immaterial forces that shape our very reality come from? How something immaterial can affect the material? There may have been a big bang. But what caused it? I believe it was God,  and no one can prove me wrong. Have a nice day

Why oh why must you have Satan's Big-Bang universe? Can't you see that the Big-Bang was invented by Satan to take away the praise and wonder that belongs to God alone? There was no Big-Bang, nothing can go "Big Bang" in a vacuum, and before the expanding vacuum, there was what? They say there was "nothing", and I know exactly what the "nothing" is, the word itself defines it: a no-thing, and I can tell you there is no way anything could explode, or suddenly inflate in 'nothing'.

Mr_Bombastic - Ever ask yourself where the immaterial forces that shape our very reality come from? How something immaterial can affect the material?

There is no immaterial or material, it's all the same thing. Even your BB-story tells you that, like the redshift-gas that created your universe, what do you think your planets derived from?
Yes, I used to go through many sleepless nights thinking about those question, asking God to reveal it to me, and praise be to God, through His son Jesus Christ He did. And the answer was right there in front of me all along, so all I needed was to have my eyes opened. It is right here in front of you as you read the "words" I typed. And from what I can tell from all the evidence presented before us, TPTB know this also, and keep hinting it to us especially in movies, since, well, we're not supposed to take movies seriously. "They Live" know how God created all things, which is why they came up with this Big-Bang and Evolution fairytales.

So here it is again:

Reality is creation. There is no 'thing' that wasn't meticulously, and wonderfully made. Things just don't pop into existence by no will or plan of anyone as those grave robbing, skull and bones worshipping Satanists want you to believe.
First, you must understand that God Himself is Not part of creation, God Is Infinite Spirit, a conscious Mind. Not a being, but the Ground of being!
Creation is made up of rules and laws, actually that IS what creation is, .. just like when you read my letter here, once you understand the laws of the English language in this case, you see the letters on the screen and know what I'm talking about, right!?

But the words are just for our mind, for we are parts of God in physical bodies, which makes us apart from God, individual, with free will.
Your, mine, our minds are from God, it is 'who' we are, and it is what He breathed into Adam once (since God is Infinite, that's all is needed , one breath, for no matter how many millions, billions or trillions of people will come from Adam)
So our mind uses our eyes that are hooked up to our brain to read the words, and following the rules of language, we see what the other is writing, but without knowing the laws in language, it makes no sense.
Same with speech, in this case we "hear" what the other is saying.
Hopefully you can start understanding, or visualizing our reality here, that for us the mind (which is invisible spirit just as God is), it is all just electronic signals that we observe coming off our control center, 'our brain'.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Now look, .. when God said:
Genesis 1:3 “Let there be light”; and there was light.
.. 6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

Now we might say: "Ah, that's crazy, how could God just say it and it appears?" But it's not as simple as that, because just as we have to learn the rules and laws of the language we speak before we can make any sense of what is being said or written, God already created, organized the rules and laws in His language before He was able to create all this wonders.
Just as we can't just babble words like for instance: "ugvefgjubgyhmj iuthtl" and expect to make any sense out of it, God done a lot of work figuring, organizing, setting up rules and laws in His language before He speaks something into existence. Similar to what we do in creating game worlds in our computer, only Gods is, well infinitely more complex.

I really pray that makes a little more sense to you now, .. that this brings a little more light on Gods creation, who God is and who we are?

Any questions? because this should at least reveal the tip of that giant iceberg this is all part of. The rest, .. well we just have to dive deeper and deeper for it. The good part is that we don't have to hold our breath to go deeper, .. actually we can take nice deep breaths, praying/communicating with our Creator as we go deeper and deeper seeking and searching for our identity which Satan and his minions have really messed up.