The earth is ball shaped

Erfisflat

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

What is this garbage?

"I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions."

And you don't give a care about producing any evidence from NASA, to support your claims for you? 

Did you just wipe your mouth with the word "muted?"

I think you did, because you dine heavily on your ideology don't you mr earth is flat scientist? 

How does it feel to be using this website to try to feed the rest of the participants from your ideology menu? 

Meal one) NASA is a ?

Meal two) the mainstream media is a ? 

Meal three) you can't provide any evidence to the contrary?

Meal four) But you're happy to educate the website on this : "The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph."

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you are stating that there is 740 feet of drop in about only half a mile as you say 740 feet of drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

So which is it? Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims; that there is simultaneously 8 inches of drop in a mile of the earth's curvature and over 1000 feet of drop in a mile of the Earth's curvature? Even without you supporting your claims with properly I can see two massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of mathematical understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

And let’s add plane elevators to the long list of things you don’t understand.

When a plane takes off, it climbs. When it reaches altitude the pilot lowers the nose until they stop climbing. They then adjust the elevator trim to maintain a fixed level.

If they didn’t adjust for the curvature of the earth, they’d still be climbing: and they’d arrest the climb by pushing the nose down a fraction then adjust the elevator trim.

This is literally the stupidest argument you’ve made so far.

With the exception of atmospheric plasma tubes to explain why the sun moon and stars are
never In the right place for a flat earth.


While we’re on the topic of mathematical proof. I’m still waiting for you to provide mathematical proof of your refraction....

Of course, I know you’ve made up your refraction: so you will keep ignoring this, but just to make sure that everyone else sees the moment I continued to ask you for actual science: you stopped responding!

Gooberry

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you state that there is 740 feet of drop in about half a mile as you say 740 drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims? Even without you a really supporting your claims with maths I can see a massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

You know, I always seem to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt that their information isn’t grossly inaccurate, and I often don’t double check maths of others unless there’s a glaring error I notice.

Erf never ceases to make a fool of my trusting nature on that count. I should really check everything he says because quite frankly he ends up showing his own ignorance and inaccuracy whenever we do.

Good catch!

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;
Cherry picking?

you linked to a debate about the Las Vegas shooting, and you and your flat earth cronies said it was an inside job  

Nathaniel_B

Erfisflat said:

Not very convincing.
https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

The earth being flat is not convincing either. If Earth was flat, ships would have fallen off into space already

TTKDB

@Erfisflat; 

The scene depicted in the picture, with a (dome) over a flat earth.

I'm guessing that you have some legitimate evidence to it's existence? 

Zombieguy1987

@Nathaniel_B, Erfisflat is going to say "But, muh ice wall!" to disprove the bullcrap

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

And let’s add plane elevators to the long list of things you don’t understand.

When a plane takes off, it climbs. When it reaches altitude the pilot lowers the nose until they stop climbing. They then adjust the elevator trim to maintain a fixed level.

If they didn’t adjust for the curvature of the earth, they’d still be climbing: and they’d arrest the climb by pushing the nose down a fraction then adjust the elevator trim.

This is literally the stupidest argument you’ve made so far.

With the exception of atmospheric plasma tubes to explain why the sun moon and stars are
never In the right place for a flat earth.


While we’re on the topic of mathematical proof. I’m still waiting for you to provide mathematical proof of your refraction....

Of course, I know you’ve made up your refraction: so you will keep ignoring this, but just to make sure that everyone else sees the moment I continued to ask you for actual science: you stopped responding!

Wrong, my model of refraction is supported by any and all experimentation that can be regarded as relevant, including Snell's Law. This has been recognized just 6 months ago, and you refuse to acknowledge this, instead your pseudocientific side wishes me to explaining it to you with my calculator.

Erfisflat

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat; 

The scene depicted in the picture, with a (dome) over a flat earth.

I'm guessing that you have some legitimate evidence to it's existence? 

I do. I could link the arguments, but you will likely ignore it and ask me for evidence again.

Erfisflat

Nathaniel_B said:

Erfisflat said:

Not very convincing.
https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

The earth being flat is not convincing either. If Earth was flat, ships would have fallen off into space already

You don't have any idea about the flat Earth theory do you. 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you state that there is 740 feet of drop in about half a mile as you say 740 drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims? Even without you a really supporting your claims with maths I can see a massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

You know, I always seem to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt that their information isn’t grossly inaccurate, and I often don’t double check maths of others unless there’s a glaring error I notice.

Erf never ceases to make a fool of my trusting nature on that count. I should really check everything he says because quite frankly he ends up showing his own ignorance and inaccuracy whenever we do.

Good catch!

Unless there's a "glaring error" huh? So, 740 feet is not a glaring error? You likely came to the same answer I did when you checked my maths. Which was (2,000^2)x8/60/60. It was an error, I admit. 

Ampersand

@Erfisflat now seems to be selectively ignoring responding to arguments he doesn't like as he hasn't responded to my last two.

Based on ErfisFlat's own previous statements about what he thinks counts as conceding, he has now conceded. Guess we can close the thread.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

You don't have any idea about the flat Earth theory do you. 

Thanks for posting confirmation that's how you think the earth should be lit if it's flat, therefore helping prove the earth is round because the amount of earth getting sunlight throughout the year in no way matches that model (but does match the spherical earth model perfectly!) as per the earlier argument you failed to rebutt.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Nathaniel_B said:

Erfisflat said:

Not very convincing.
https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

The earth being flat is not convincing either. If Earth was flat, ships would have fallen off into space already

You don't have any idea about the flat Earth theory do you. 

And you’ve just refuted flat earth.

The sun can be observed not to be in the same place as your model predicts, either vertically or horizontally for almost observers, there shouldn't be any darkness anywhere. Sunset and sunrise are impossible in your model, and apparently your model shows that there should be a solar eclipse somewhere on the planet at almost all times, and the eclipses that do occur should vary significantly in sun/moonsize. in addition, the sun shouldn’t have a constant angular speed which we observe, nor should the moon. The moon and sun should substantially change sizes as they move throughout the sky: the entire disk would collapse due to gravity, the stars should all rotate the same way for everyone, winter in the South Pole should vastly colder than winter in the north due to average distance from the sun of each point.

So thank you for demonstrating that almost every possible observation of the world is completely divergent
from what you should observe on a relatively flat plane.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you state that there is 740 feet of drop in about half a mile as you say 740 drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims? Even without you a really supporting your claims with maths I can see a massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

You know, I always seem to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt that their information isn’t grossly inaccurate, and I often don’t double check maths of others unless there’s a glaring error I notice.

Erf never ceases to make a fool of my trusting nature on that count. I should really check everything he says because quite frankly he ends up showing his own ignorance and inaccuracy whenever we do.

Good catch!

Unless there's a "glaring error" huh? So, 740 feet is not a glaring error? You likely came to the same answer I did when you checked my maths. Which was (2,000^2)x8/60/60. It was an error, I admit. 

I didn’t run the calculations, I was lamenting that I should, as are shows a proclivity for major errors.

By glaring to me, I mean intuitively wrong. Like the fan of 90 being 0.3. But you’re right, I probably shout have spotted him being wrong by 3 orders of magnitude: that’s probably one of his records.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you state that there is 740 feet of drop in about half a mile as you say 740 drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims? Even without you a really supporting your claims with maths I can see a massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

You know, I always seem to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt that their information isn’t grossly inaccurate, and I often don’t double check maths of others unless there’s a glaring error I notice.

Erf never ceases to make a fool of my trusting nature on that count. I should really check everything he says because quite frankly he ends up showing his own ignorance and inaccuracy whenever we do.

Good catch!

Unless there's a "glaring error" huh? So, 740 feet is not a glaring error? You likely came to the same answer I did when you checked my maths. Which was (2,000^2)x8/60/60. It was an error, I admit. 

You make them a lot, and repeatedly.

I mean, in this thread You were wrong by a factor of 2000. And you admitted that after demanding we explain why there was 60 feet of missing curvature in an image - a google search revealed that there was in fact just that.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to provide any sort of mathematical proof as to the insane, unprovable nonsense about refraction you keep asserting with no evidence.

Go.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said: is

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you state that there is 740 feet of drop in about half a mile as you say 740 drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims? Even without you a really supporting your claims with maths I can see a massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

You know, I always seem to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt that their information isn’t grossly inaccurate, and I often don’t double check maths of others unless there’s a glaring error I notice.

Erf never ceases to make a fool of my trusting nature on that count. I should really check everything he says because quite frankly he ends up showing his own ignorance and inaccuracy whenever we do.

Good catch!

Unless there's a "glaring error" huh? So, 740 feet is not a glaring error? You likely came to the same answer I did when you checked my maths. Which was (2,000^2)x8/60/60. It was an error, I admit. 

You make them a lot, and repeatedly.

I mean, in this thread You were wrong by a factor of 2000. And you admitted that after demanding we explain why there was 60 feet of missing curvature in an image - a google search revealed that there was in fact just that.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to provide any sort of mathematical proof as to the insane, unprovable nonsense about refraction you keep asserting with no evidence.

Go.

The evidence has been shown to you repeatedly, and with the atmosphere, there are dozens of known axioms and some unknowns that would contribute to the equation for such, including but not limited to: temperature and humidity that would make even discussing the mathematics behind the refraction impossible. Asserting that I should come up with such an equation is pseudocientific, due to your willing ignorance and intellectual dishonesty of the experiments that I've given. It's also an argument from ignorance. Your repeated attempts to ignore evidence, and the conversation that you left is an obvious sign that you've basically conceded every point this far and your left with this fallacy. Once again:

"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

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Nathaniel_B said:

Erfisflat said:

Not very convincing.
https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

The earth being flat is not convincing either. If Earth was flat, ships would have fallen off into space already

You don't have any idea about the flat Earth theory do you. 

And you’ve just refuted flat earth.

The sun can be observed not to be in the same place as your model predicts, either vertically or horizontally for almost observers, there shouldn't be any darkness anywhere. Sunset and sunrise are impossible in your model, and apparently your model shows that there should be a solar eclipse somewhere on the planet at almost all times, and the eclipses that do occur should vary significantly in sun/moonsize. in addition, the sun shouldn’t have a constant angular speed which we observe, nor should the moon. The moon and sun should substantially change sizes as they move throughout the sky: the entire disk would collapse due to gravity, the stars should all rotate the same way for everyone, winter in the South Pole should vastly colder than winter in the north due to average distance from the sun of each point.

So thank you for demonstrating that almost every possible observation of the world is completely divergent
from what you should observe on a relatively flat plane.

Thanks for that Gish gallop of points you have already seen the rebuttal to.

Erfisflat

@Gooberry

You've followed me around for three years denying this or that, claiming it was impossible for sunsets, or sundials wouldn't work in this model or that. You then suddenly disappeared for six months, and are now back.

My only guess is that you are insecure of your belief system. This has far past the point of entertaining discussion, as you have seem most of my arguments, so it couldn't be that. This is probably the reason most are reading this, but you seem to be obsessed with me. If I'm so blatantly wrong, you would have long ago called me a troll and let me be. You surely wouldn't have followed me from DDO. You rarely talk about anything else, and usually responses and to any of my posts withing minutes, even if I'm not conversing with you, which is borderline harrassment. 

If this is not the reason you are back, why is it?

Don't give me that "I'm here to Dave the world" either.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Nathaniel_B said:

Erfisflat said:

Not very convincing.
https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-the-stone-fallacy/

The earth being flat is not convincing either. If Earth was flat, ships would have fallen off into space already

You don't have any idea about the flat Earth theory do you. 

And you’ve just refuted flat earth.

The sun can be observed not to be in the same place as your model predicts, either vertically or horizontally for almost observers, there shouldn't be any darkness anywhere. Sunset and sunrise are impossible in your model, and apparently your model shows that there should be a solar eclipse somewhere on the planet at almost all times, and the eclipses that do occur should vary significantly in sun/moonsize. in addition, the sun shouldn’t have a constant angular speed which we observe, nor should the moon. The moon and sun should substantially change sizes as they move throughout the sky: the entire disk would collapse due to gravity, the stars should all rotate the same way for everyone, winter in the South Pole should vastly colder than winter in the north due to average distance from the sun of each point.

So thank you for demonstrating that almost every possible observation of the world is completely divergent
from what you should observe on a relatively flat plane.

Thanks for that Gish gallop of points you have already seen the rebuttal to.

No. There’s been no rebuttal of any type or form of any kind. Most of your arguments are merely dissmisals, changes of subject, replying selectively, and the other nonesenss.

Now, unfortunately you can’t refute any of the individual points. ANd they are only presented all together because - quite frankly - every observation made of the earth refutes flat earth.

You may not like the fact that every observation refutes your position, but simply calling the weight of observation that doesnt agree with flat earth a “Gish Gallup”, is the same sort of rhetorical non-rebuttal you make to ignore evidence.

and, after a dozen posts: I’m still waiting for you to post your proof of refraction.

are you not posting it because you’re not capable of doing the maths?

or are you not posting it because you’ve done all the calculations systematicallay, proven it can occur, and don’t want to share evidence? Despite being willing to post hilariously false nonsense about SR71s?

Erfisflat

"No. There’s been no rebuttal of any type or form of any kind. Most of your arguments are merely (dismissals), changes of subject, replying selectively, and the other (nonesense)."

Yes, I can link them all.

"Now, unfortunately you can’t refute any of the individual points. ANd they are only presented all together because - quite frankly - every observation made of the earth refutes flat earth."

Really now? Observations like flat horizons? Mirror images on water? Dozens of simple experiments that show exactly how a flat earth is possible that you now ignore?



What about observations like an apparent lack of motion? You here attacking me like this is an irrational undermining of the two to three years of discussion we've had, and is intellectually dishonest.

"You may not like the fact that every observation refutes your position, but simply calling the weight of observation that doesnt agree with flat earth a “Gish Gallup”, is the same sort of rhetorical non-rebuttal you make to ignore evidence."

Every observation does not match what we should see on a globe. 

"and, after a dozen posts: I’m still waiting for you to post your proof of refraction."

I've posted link after link, and you simply deny. It's entertaining what you do for your belief system.

"are you not posting it because you’re not capable of doing the maths?"

I explained this in the last post, and we did have this conversation, that you conceded six months ago.

"or are you not posting it because you’ve done all the calculations systematicallay, proven it can occur, and don’t want to share evidence? Despite being willing to post hilariously false nonsense about SR71s?"

The miscalculation was unintentional, but when you consider the drop, and that planes never fly with the nose down, in actuality, planes fly slightly nose up, just to maintain altitude, the argument is still valid. Changing the word second to minute fixes it.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said: is

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you state that there is 740 feet of drop in about half a mile as you say 740 drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims? Even without you a really supporting your claims with maths I can see a massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

You know, I always seem to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt that their information isn’t grossly inaccurate, and I often don’t double check maths of others unless there’s a glaring error I notice.

Erf never ceases to make a fool of my trusting nature on that count. I should really check everything he says because quite frankly he ends up showing his own ignorance and inaccuracy whenever we do.

Good catch!

Unless there's a "glaring error" huh? So, 740 feet is not a glaring error? You likely came to the same answer I did when you checked my maths. Which was (2,000^2)x8/60/60. It was an error, I admit. 

You make them a lot, and repeatedly.

I mean, in this thread You were wrong by a factor of 2000. And you admitted that after demanding we explain why there was 60 feet of missing curvature in an image - a google search revealed that there was in fact just that.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to provide any sort of mathematical proof as to the insane, unprovable nonsense about refraction you keep asserting with no evidence.

Go.

The evidence has been shown to you repeatedly, and with the atmosphere, there are dozens of known axioms and some unknowns that would contribute to the equation for such, including but not limited to: temperature and humidity that would make even discussing the mathematics behind the refraction impossible. Asserting that I should come up with such an equation is pseudocientific, due to your willing ignorance and intellectual dishonesty of the experiments that I've given. It's also an argument from ignorance. Your repeated attempts to ignore evidence, and the conversation that you left is an obvious sign that you've basically conceded every point this far and your left with this fallacy. Once again:

"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. "

You’ve not once posted any evidence of refraction of any kind that I’m aware of.

You have posted a video of a glass of water: and asserted that this is evidence. This is not evidence - it’s not even an experiment - as no attempt is ever made to prove the atmosphere works like a glass of water. At best it’s a model - and just because I can show you a video where I cast an eclipse shadow on the moon with my hand is no evidence that hands cause eclipses.

Now, you also say that you’ve talked multiple axioms, but quite frankly, you have simply repeated a number of objextively false statements on this matter: 

- refraction requires a chance of medium (it doesn't
- air refracts like water when it’s humid (it doesn’t)
- refraction makes objects only look lower (again false)

youve said so many falsehoods with regards to refraction, I’m embarrassed for you. I’ve told you about them, pointed
them out for you: and asked you to correct them: only to be met with subject changing, selective quotes, deliberate denial without evidence and this sort of pretense that you’ve already answered the question.

you haven’t, and by all your response you have showed you barely have any understanding of refraction at all: leave alone the capacity to scientifically prove it works the way you sayZ

So given that, I’ve asked you to show me some basic calculations of refraction to see if you even understand basic science.

you can’t do that.

ive asked you to use the laws of refraction to prove it can work the way you say.

you won’t do that.

I’ve asked you multiple questions about conditions required, and asked you to prove the conditions workZ

you won’t do that either.


now I’ve gone about 20 posts asking you for proof: to actually show that your insane claims are true.

amd guess what. You can’t do that either. You seem to want to, again, selectively respond, ignore key points, pretend as if you’ve already said stuff which you haven’t.


You've already admitted to two major errors in this thread alone: you claimed that SR-71 would need to account for 740fest per second of curvature - instead of 4 inches per second....you claimed that a video showed absolutely 0 curvature - when in fact around 60 feet - the amount you said should be seen on a sphere - was found.


Refraction is just another example of your pseudoscientific and intellectual laziness.

You won’t show your proof - because you have none. You are making your argument up with no evidence, and you know the moment you actually attempt to show you’re working and give any sort of detail, you will be shot to pieces.

So you’re going to continue to dodge as you do here:


I ask again:

Prove it. 

You claim refraction in air can make the sun look like it’s setting? Show your working. Do the maths. Do the science. Prove me wrong.

go.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry

You've followed me around for three years denying this or that, claiming it was impossible for sunsets, or sundials wouldn't work in this model or that. You then suddenly disappeared for six months, and are now back.

My only guess is that you are insecure of your belief system. This has far past the point of entertaining discussion, as you have seem most of my arguments, so it couldn't be that. This is probably the reason most are reading this, but you seem to be obsessed with me. If I'm so blatantly wrong, you would have long ago called me a troll and let me be. You surely wouldn't have followed me from DDO. You rarely talk about anything else, and usually responses and to any of my posts withing minutes, even if I'm not conversing with you, which is borderline harrassment. 

If this is not the reason you are back, why is it?

Don't give me that "I'm here to Dave the world" either.

At this point it’s partially bordem and a morbid fascination about how consistently wrong can someone be - day in and day out - before admitting their insane and unscientific lunacy is wrong. As some of the science is fun, spending a few hours here and there proving you incontrovertibly wrong and the seeing you trying to wriggle out of it is somewhat entertaining when i don’t have much on (and that tends to be more over winter )

But don’t worry - I try and make everything a logical response to your claims: so unfortunately just because I chose to refute you a lot, consistently and persistently is more of a testament to this being a debate site - and you being wrong, then any form of harassment.

And remember - I have offered twice now to delete my account if you could show basic information that you kept claiming was true, and failed both times.


Ill do it again:

I will never talk to you again, at any point ever - and you can screen shot this post and share it with admins - who should ban me if I talk to you, if you do this:


Show me the conditions that would make the sun appear to set on a flat earth, prove the maths works, and the conditions are plausible.

TTKDB

@Erfisflat:

The Earth is planet shaped.

The rest of the planets in our solar system are planet shaped as well.

Are you going to challenge the other planets as well with your earth is flat mindset? 

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said: is

Gooberry said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

, noe you're going to verbally pimp off of me and copy my commentary to you to use it for yourself?

You're  not a scientist, your a commentary copy cat.

("I'm calling out your lack of factual facts to support your non earth is flat commentary.")

And I'm calling you out on your lack of factual facts to support your spinning earth responses.

"Your opinion and attitude don't count."

And your denial doesn't count.

Your way of thinking needs help.

Where's your evidence that NASA is lying to you?

Where's the same evidence for the  your claims that the mainstream media is lying? 

Oh wait, or are you lying about NASA and the mainstream media? 

That's the truth isn't it, your lack of evidence shows that you're lying about it's non existence? 

Please, where's your evidence? 

Since you seem to be incapable of following links and reading before you start denying something that I've clearly done, and repeatedly ask for evidence, I'll spoon feed you one piece. If you can address it, and not ignore it as you have in the past, we can continue. If not, you will be muted, as you apparently are not interested in honest discussions.

The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. They fly flat, and level.

This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model of the earth.

Lol.

Your maths is non-existent. Maths involves actual calculations, not just making claims involving numbers and saying they are true because "maths".

In fact you're not even consistent with you own past claims. Here you state that there is 740 feet of drop in about half a mile as you say 740 drop in a second and (2000mph/60)/60=0.5555 miles a second. Previously you have stated there is 8 inches of drop per mile: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/15608/#Comment_15608

Care to explain your contradictory and mutually exclusive claims? Even without you a really supporting your claims with maths I can see a massive obvious error based on poor spatial reasoning and lack of understanding on your part, but can you see what you've done wrong?

You know, I always seem to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt that their information isn’t grossly inaccurate, and I often don’t double check maths of others unless there’s a glaring error I notice.

Erf never ceases to make a fool of my trusting nature on that count. I should really check everything he says because quite frankly he ends up showing his own ignorance and inaccuracy whenever we do.

Good catch!

Unless there's a "glaring error" huh? So, 740 feet is not a glaring error? You likely came to the same answer I did when you checked my maths. Which was (2,000^2)x8/60/60. It was an error, I admit. 

You make them a lot, and repeatedly.

I mean, in this thread You were wrong by a factor of 2000. And you admitted that after demanding we explain why there was 60 feet of missing curvature in an image - a google search revealed that there was in fact just that.

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to provide any sort of mathematical proof as to the insane, unprovable nonsense about refraction you keep asserting with no evidence.

Go.

The evidence has been shown to you repeatedly, and with the atmosphere, there are dozens of known axioms and some unknowns that would contribute to the equation for such, including but not limited to: temperature and humidity that would make even discussing the mathematics behind the refraction impossible. Asserting that I should come up with such an equation is pseudocientific, due to your willing ignorance and intellectual dishonesty of the experiments that I've given. It's also an argument from ignorance. Your repeated attempts to ignore evidence, and the conversation that you left is an obvious sign that you've basically conceded every point this far and your left with this fallacy. Once again:

"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. "

You’ve not once posted any evidence of refraction of any kind that I’m aware of.

You have posted a video of a glass of water: and asserted that this is evidence. This is not evidence - it’s not even an experiment - as no attempt is ever made to prove the atmosphere works like a glass of water. At best it’s a model - and just because I can show you a video where I cast an eclipse shadow on the moon with my hand is no evidence that hands cause eclipses.

Now, you also say that you’ve talked multiple axioms, but quite frankly, you have simply repeated a number of objextively false statements on this matter: 

- refraction requires a chance of medium (it doesn't
- air refracts like water when it’s humid (it doesn’t)
- refraction makes objects only look lower (again false)

youve said so many falsehoods with regards to refraction, I’m embarrassed for you. I’ve told you about them, pointed
them out for you: and asked you to correct them: only to be met with subject changing, selective quotes, deliberate denial without evidence and this sort of pretense that you’ve already answered the question.

you haven’t, and by all your response you have showed you barely have any understanding of refraction at all: leave alone the capacity to scientifically prove it works the way you sayZ

So given that, I’ve asked you to show me some basic calculations of refraction to see if you even understand basic science.

you can’t do that.

ive asked you to use the laws of refraction to prove it can work the way you say.

you won’t do that.

I’ve asked you multiple questions about conditions required, and asked you to prove the conditions workZ

you won’t do that either.


now I’ve gone about 20 posts asking you for proof: to actually show that your insane claims are true.

amd guess what. You can’t do that either. You seem to want to, again, selectively respond, ignore key points, pretend as if you’ve already said stuff which you haven’t.


You've already admitted to two major errors in this thread alone: you claimed that SR-71 would need to account for 740fest per second of curvature - instead of 4 inches per second....you claimed that a video showed absolutely 0 curvature - when in fact around 60 feet - the amount you said should be seen on a sphere - was found.


Refraction is just another example of your pseudoscientific and intellectual laziness.

You won’t show your proof - because you have none. You are making your argument up with no evidence, and you know the moment you actually attempt to show you’re working and give any sort of detail, you will be shot to pieces.

So you’re going to continue to dodge as you do here:


I ask again:

Prove it. 

You claim refraction in air can make the sun look like it’s setting? Show your working. Do the maths. Do the science. Prove me wrong.

go.

“You’ve not once posted any evidence of refraction of any kind that I’m aware of.”

Even in my last post to you, there are a few. Basically any observation or experiment that supports my position, you ignore and demand that I show you evidence. This endless loop is old, and I’ve pointed it out repeatedly. Maybe you don't see it because you read up to the point where your face turns red and you blurt out fallacies while ignoring the other half of my posts.

“You have posted a video of a glass of water: and asserted that this is evidence. This is not evidence - it’s not even an experiment - as no attempt is ever made to prove the atmosphere works like a glass of water.”

Yes, it is far more evidence than you have provided. In the years we have conversed, you have cited maybe one experiment as supporting evidence. Scientific evidence is defined as:

scientific evidence
Results when a theory or hypothesis is tested objectively by other individuals such as in an experiment or in a controlled environment.

This makes you a pseudoscientist at best.

If you want to say that there is no refraction in the atmosphere, that's fine, but then you’d need to go back and explain why we can see most of Chicago from across lake Michigan, or Toronto from across lake Ontario, both experiments (evidence) that point to a flat earth. If you want to support the idea that the sun actually sets before it appears to, which suggests that refraction happens in the opposite way, then we would need to test it, to see which is supported by the evidence. This is what I'm doing as opposed to what you are doing:

http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/bare-assertion-fallacy

The fact that you repeatedly ignore my requests for evidence or experimentations which show anything adversely should tell you something.

“At best it’s a model - and just because I can show you a video where I cast an eclipse shadow on the moon with my hand is no evidence that hands cause eclipses.”

That is where you are ignorant. Such an experiment would give an evidence that your hand could cause an eclipse. It may not be a lunar eclipse, but it is a scalable experiment which serves as evidence for how an eclipse works on a grander scale.

 For instance, in no way can we reproduce this impossibility in your model on any scale, including your hand:

https://youtu.be/QUkjb4bbjpc

You will likely assert, without evidence, that this is due to refraction, just as you have on distances being sighted which are impossible on the earth's measurements. That is how we are different. That is what makes you a pseudoscientist. I actually support arguments with evidence, and you simply deny, and make bare assertions. This is followed by your constant bellittling, calling me a , and other rhetorical attacks and other illogical reasonings.

“Now, you also say that you’ve talked multiple axioms, but quite frankly, you have simply repeated a number of (objectively) false statements on this matter:

- refraction requires a (change) of medium (it doesn't”

Another bare assertion, the change of medium is the boundary referred to in Snell’s Law of refraction. You know, the one you conceded to, and are now avoiding? Are you now denying basic laws of physics? You probably won't even answer now, you’ll just continue to deny and request evidence.

Snell's Law

Snell's law is 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.

“- air refracts like water when it’s humid (it doesn’t)”

I actually never specifically stated this. So it is likely a strawman, but your assertion in parenthesis is nothing more than that. If we cannot test refraction from the air in the atmosphere with water, how else would you propose we test it? Is your claim that water does not refract light?  Why would air refract light in a different direction? These are questions I have asked and you ignore. As requested before, if you have a better proposition for an experiment that you feel would yield opposing results, the table is open, I await your evidence.

Even children understand that there is an abundance of water in the air and even globe proponents use glasses of water to demonstrate how various aspects of sunsets work.

https://youtu.be/4Kf_ULtmxuQ

So, instead of denying that we can use water, explain how it is SO different so that we get even the opposite effect from refraction, so that the light bends the opposite way. You can't.

“- refraction makes objects only look lower (again false)”

Something else I probably never said, or it was taken out of context. Clarification: In a situation like looking across a lake or other body of water, the light will bend in a way that causes objects to appear lower. This can be proved by simply scaling the experiment down in a number of ways. You can’t do that, because you are a pseudoscientist, if you would you would see that this is true.

“(you've) said so many falsehoods with regards to refraction, I’m embarrassed for you. I’ve told you about them, pointed
them out for you: and asked you to correct them: only to be met with subject changing, selective quotes, deliberate denial without evidence and this sort of pretense that you’ve already answered the question.”

When?

You actually misstated Snell's law:

"(Snell's) 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." - Goober

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.

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.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1670/the-big-bang-story/p6

(First post)

Now you are avoiding that conversation like the plague, hoping I maybe forgot it, so you can assert that I am a , and ignorant. Where it was you who was ignorant, and I who pointed it out and corrected you. If you were honest, you would link it.

“you haven’t, and by all your response you have showed you barely have any understanding of refraction at all: leave alone the capacity to scientifically prove it works the way you (say)”

On the contrary, you’ve asserted that Snell’s law causes light to bend downwards, but this is a lie. An invention of yours to win an argument. You would actually change what basic laws of physics say to soothe your insecurities, and it's sad. I’ve proved with evidence that light refracts this way and you just deny it. 

“So given that, I’ve asked you to show me some basic calculations of refraction to see if you even understand basic science.”

We’ve already been through this. From our discussion 6 months ago:

"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 (referring to the mountain). 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"

This is what happened with your laser through sugar water. The laser was inverted as it hit the boundary of densities, and came out the other side. We can't tell it was inverted because of the laser beam's nature. 

What is even more interesting, is that IF that boundary was curved, the reflection would be elongated.

“you can’t do that.

ive asked you to use the laws of refraction to prove it can work the way you say.

you won’t do that.”

I have. Here is the quote.

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".-Erfisflat

“I’ve asked you multiple questions about conditions required, and asked you to prove the conditions (work)(.)

(You) won’t do that either.”

Another lie, I know it was some time ago, but here are the quotes.

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(from your perspective). 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. -Erfisflat

And here.

I've explicitly explained "why" i disagree with your position, and I've corrected the definition of snell's law. You lied and claimed that snell's 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 snell's 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 snell's 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

You asserted that:

"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”.... -Goober

Then ignored the fact that this would necessarily cause a total internal reflection, or mirage. 

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/geometric-optics/reflection-refraction/v/total-internal-reflection

It's sad that I have to school you on this twice.

“now I’ve gone about 20 posts asking you for proof: to actually show that your insane claims are true.”

And you will likely continue doing so. It’s called the ostrich effect. It’s an effect from cognitive bias. You also like to gaslight, kick the stone, and ad hominem.

“(and) guess what. You can’t do that either. You seem to want to, again, selectively respond, ignore key points, pretend as if you’ve already said stuff which you haven’t.”

I just quoted to you what was said. You will likely continue to bury your head in the sand for security.

“You've already admitted to two major errors in this thread alone: you claimed that SR-71 would need to account for 740fest per second of curvature - instead of 4 inches per second....you claimed that a video showed absolutely 0 curvature - when in fact around 60 feet - the amount you said should be seen on a sphere - was found.”

I have not claimed the video showed zero curvature in this thread, another intentional lie. If I did, quote it.

You can't because it's not here.

“Refraction is just another example of your pseudoscientific and intellectual laziness.”

Refraction is a scientifically proven law. What's pseudoscientific is your assertion about how it works, which grossly warps the definition to your wish, and your repeated dodges of requests for any evidence proves this.

“You won’t show your proof - because you have none. You are making your argument up with no evidence, and you know the moment you actually attempt to show you’re working and give any sort of detail, you will be shot to pieces.”

Again, I have shown, with experimentation, which is by definition scientific evidence, how refraction works in the circumstances. You? Nothing but assertions, which isn't evidence.

“So you’re going to continue to dodge as you do here:


I ask again:

Prove it.

You claim refraction in air can make the sun look like it’s setting? Show your working. Do the maths. Do the science. Prove me wrong.

go.”

It's not like you will acknowledge it, you've managed to openly deny any evidence that contradicts your position so far. You ignore debate methods, where each point is discussed in detail, which leaves you to cherry pick your rebuttals and everyone sees this. Nonetheless, here are several experiments that show, with various refracting tools, how the sun, and boats, and Mobile can appear below the horizon, as well as some more detailed explanations and observations.

https://youtu.be/OgbkyqGFPSA

https://youtu.be/hUEfh6_dlKE

https://youtu.be/HFGWk5fHQ_E

Since you seem to be constipated in the brain, and bent on rehashing your old tired arguments, maybe this will catch you back up to where we were when you fell off the edge of the earth for six months. Oh, and stop cherrypicking my arguments. This took up a lot of my day, and you ignoring the majority of my post will likely get called out again for cherry picking. 

Erfisflat

TTKDB said:

@Erfisflat:

The Earth is planet shaped.

The rest of the planets in our solar system are planet shaped as well.

Are you going to challenge the other planets as well with your earth is flat mindset? 

Why would you assume a likeness or comparison between the ground beneath your feet and lights in the sky?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry

You've followed me around for three years denying this or that, claiming it was impossible for sunsets, or sundials wouldn't work in this model or that. You then suddenly disappeared for six months, and are now back.

My only guess is that you are insecure of your belief system. This has far past the point of entertaining discussion, as you have seem most of my arguments, so it couldn't be that. This is probably the reason most are reading this, but you seem to be obsessed with me. If I'm so blatantly wrong, you would have long ago called me a troll and let me be. You surely wouldn't have followed me from DDO. You rarely talk about anything else, and usually responses and to any of my posts withing minutes, even if I'm not conversing with you, which is borderline harrassment. 

If this is not the reason you are back, why is it?

Don't give me that "I'm here to Dave the world" either.

At this point it’s partially bordem and a morbid fascination about how consistently wrong can someone be - day in and day out - before admitting their insane and unscientific lunacy is wrong. As some of the science is fun, spending a few hours here and there proving you incontrovertibly wrong and the seeing you trying to wriggle out of it is somewhat entertaining when i don’t have much on (and that tends to be more over winter )

But don’t worry - I try and make everything a logical response to your claims: so unfortunately just because I chose to refute you a lot, consistently and persistently is more of a testament to this being a debate site - and you being wrong, then any form of harassment.

And remember - I have offered twice now to delete my account if you could show basic information that you kept claiming was true, and failed both times.


Ill do it again:

I will never talk to you again, at any point ever - and you can screen shot this post and share it with admins - who should ban me if I talk to you, if you do this:


Show me the conditions that would make the sun appear to set on a flat earth, prove the maths works, and the conditions are plausible.

No need, just address each of my points, and instead of throwing out bare assertions, provide some sort of evidence for your claims. Until you got back you see what I was dealing with. It's refreshing to see some level of competency on this site, even if you are intellectually dishonest and full of hot air.

Gooberry

@erfisflat ;

I see you still refuse to actually provide mathematical proof of any kind, as I have,  and will continue to show this is because you can’t: and your position is bunk.

Consider this part 1: on the theme of evidence, what is evidence and how to apply facts.

You don’t understand what evidence is: you frequently confuse anecdotes and correlation with evidence.

As your position is wrong, you have to make these sorts of glaring logical errors to dress up your pseudoscience as if it’s valid.

So let’s mop a few of your “evidence” claims from your reply.

Evidence is only evidence when it supports one position over another. Showing an example of something that would still be true even if your position was wrong is not evidence.

For example: 

• if there is a coffee stain on the carpet, this is not evidence joe spilt coffee. As if joe did not spill the coffee, the coffee stain would still be there. “Evidence”, in this case would be related to access. If it was Joes house, and no one visited - this is a fact that would be unlikely to be true in the case of someone other than joe spilling the coffee. And thus would be evidence.

This is the primary error you make a lot.

• light can bend downward, it is true. Examples and instances of light bending downward are not evidence of your position as these would be true even if you were wrong.

An experiment, in addition is only really an experiment if it sets out to show isolate a variable in the claim or explanation you’re making - then sets out to prove it.

Unfortunately, this is how science works. If my hand can cast a shadow on a fake moon - no matter what spin you want to give it - this is not evidence that the eclipse we see in the sky is caused by my hand.  It is also not an experiment into the eclipse in the sky in any form

If you make no attempt at all to link the “experiment” to what you’re trying to claim: it’s not an experiment into that claim, and it’s nonsense to claim it is.

In the same way - a glass of water showing a sunset - is not evidence that sunset can be produced in air - at every point in the world - in all atmospheric conditions - every day.

The fact that you think it is, is frankly absurd.

So given this: let’s look at your claim, and what would be evidence for it:

Claim: sunsets can be produced by some form of atmospheric refraction.

• is it possible? Show, using snells that light can bend the way claimed in atmospheric conditions (no calculations have been provided - you have not shown it’s possible)
• Does it occur: if such refraction happened, what additional effects would it have? Have you determined those conditions also occur? (This would be an experiment - you haven’t done that either)

So far, your “evidence” appears to be one or more of the following:

• explanations of how your refraction works without or without diagrams. This is not evidence.
• Pointing to some aspect of refraction that works a particular way in one condition and saying it confirms your position - is not evidence.
• Examples of non atmospheric conditions, in limited fixed scenarios allegedly producing similar effects (they don’t really as I covered previously) - these are not evidence either.
• Saying that because objects are cut off, it’s evidence of refraction. - is not evidence. - the very thing your trying to explain cannot be evidence of the thing you’re using to explain it - by definition this is circular reasoning.

Broadly speaking, that’s all you have provided so far, and while you may not me saying it isn’t evidence: is not evidence.

Now: compare and contrast to my examples: you’ve posted maybe half a dozen examples of images that we shouldn’t see on a spherical earth. Some of them (Ascension Island - for example), you’ve got the maths wrong and the object would indeed be visible.

So the evidence: 

1.) is it possible: 

I have used snells law of refraction and approximated conditions to show in two examples (Chicago ages ago), and your more recent example that light could be bent in the way expected, and could make the mountain appear to be higher due to refraction - appearing 34 miles closer. - this evidence to show it is possible

2.) If it was refraction - what other effects you’d see. 

As I’ve pointed out: 1) it would be dependent on conditions - in other conditions it would not be visible, videos would show changing effects, visual distortions, changes etc. As I’ve pointed out previously - both these points are true.

So to summarize for clarity (no need to post this entire post)

• A fact that is likely to be true, even if your claim is false - is not evidence.
• An experiment is only a valid experiment if you can demonstrate the condition of the experiment are applicable (you don’t)
• Pointing to the examples you’re trying to explain as evidence of your explanation is circular reasoning.
• You really only have combinations of the above that you dress up as if evidence: but really they lend almost no support to your position in a scientific sense.

To show your position is scientifically valid you must:

• Apply the laws of physics to determine your position is physically possible (which you repeatedly have refused to do for almost an entire year now)
• Provide a clear set of implications of your explanation based upon the applications of the laws of physics, then detect them in the images and atmosphere.

Conversely, as part of previous posts: I have done both those things.

• I have applied the laws of refraction to demonstrate the principles and show that if the laws of physics work the way they do, this would be a possible observation.
• I have demonstrated that the effects in videos and images of such examples match exactly what would be expected of these were transient atmospheric effects.

Note: to point out how deliberately deceptive you are, we had a debate on Chicago:

• you said the atmosphere only made objects appear lower. I gave examples of objects appearing higher.
• You said that if Chicago was a mirage there would be inversion: I specifically pointed to a point in the video were there was inversion in the image of Chicago.
• You said that if Chicago were a mirage, we would Chicago appearing up from out of the horizon - I provided you an image of Chicago appearing out of the horizon.
• You said Chicago appearing up from behind the horizon was due to “swells”, I showed out that swells that covered Chicago and were not visible within the foreground would have to be larger than the largest waves ever recorded on the lake.
• You said that Chicago couldn’t be a mirage as it lasted all day: I demonstrated using reference timings that at most the image was an hour tops.

Given that every claim you made about Chicago, turned out to be false: it seems pretty self evident that you will not accept the alternative point of view no matter how many facts are given to you.

Given this a big part of your argument is:

• I provide no evidence (this is false - see examples).
• I assert things (this is false - ser examples),
• You provide evidence and argument (this is false - see examples)

Your position appears to be wholly dishonest.

What you are doing, is throwing out a number of inaccurate assertions, errors and non evidence and dressing them up as evidence as described above.

I have provided you a very concise explanation of how to scientifically demonstrate your position for a year now - and you have been evading, dodging and using this same pseudoscientific rhetoric I outlined above ever since.

Hence: I have continued to ask point 1 in the above repeatedly - only to have you avoid answering repeatedly.

This is obviously because you cannot provide any proof that your position is valid.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

So let’s talk about refraction, specifically atmospheric refraction as part 2.

Let’s start off with some basics.

How do we prove light bends as it passes through the atmosphere?

So, let me repeat an argument I believe I’ve made to you at multiple times now: yet you seem to imply I have never made - and that I’m sure you will have ignored by the next page too.

1.) is the effect plausible and possible?

• high altitude balloons, and rocket tests show the air pressure gets lower and lower and lower as you get higher.
• We know that thin air has a lower RI than dense air.
• We know that this bends light.
• We know that this effect is most pronounced when light is incident horizontally (when the suns rays are parallel to the the thin/thick air layers - ie sunset and sunrise.
• We know that travelling from low to high refractive index will bend light downwards (even your diagram shows that), and would make an object appear higher.

As a result, we know that if the laws of physics are true, and the observation about air pressure are correct - then the sun would appear marginally higher than it actually was at sunrise and sunset.

Now - as this is based on a physical law, and conditional data - this is the default position you must take in order to be scientific. If you don’t assume this is the case, you have to assume that either what we know about air is wrong, or the laws of physics are wrong: this is an example of you using pseudoscientific rhetoric to dress up the fact your providing no evidence concerning broad positive claims.

If you want to say that isn’t what’s happening, then either the data we have is wrong, or the laws of refraction are wrong - and for that you need evidence rather than this rather obtuse changing of the burden of proof where you get to change the laws of physics and provide no proof.

Fortunately, as I’ve previously pointed out, to test my conclusion all you need is a celestial frame of reference where the refractive effects at the horizon can be compared to higher in the sky. We have those - they’re called Stars.

Stars can be shown to have the expected amount of distortion at the horizon compared to when they were higher in the sky: effectively providing clear evidence that this refraction is going. You should see it in a quick google search, or observe it for yourself.

So: despite this being the inescapable conclusion due to the laws of physics, and measured observations of the atmosphere, and despite the stars conforming to the expected pattern of refraction : you still reject it out of hand as it implicitly confirms a spherical earth.

So that effectively confirms celestial refraction as described by the rest of science.

You have denied this, despite a denial being against both observations and the laws of physics: and have provided no evidence to back up this conclusion.

Despite this:

• you have repeatedly said I’ve provided no evidence (the above is evidence and I’ve repeatedly described it - multiple times)
• You have said I’ve just asserted it (the above is a walk through of the justification)

Gooberry

@erfisflat ;

Part 3: Now let’s talk about regular refraction. - one more to go.

Refraction is covered by snells law. That is the “laws of physics” with respect to the refraction.

There are no other laws of refraction other than snells law applicable to the change of angle based upon a change of refractive index.

In you’re previous reply, you claimed snells law doesn’t apply, and yet you’ve used the laws of refraction.

This makes no sense: in fact, if snells law doesn’t apply, there are no laws of refraction you can apply to solve the problem. 

You claim to be applying the laws of refraction that aren’t snells? Which? How? There are none.

This effectively confirms you’re just pulling this nonsense out of your a**, and have no basis in physics.

This is pseudoscience: with a sneaky rhetorical flourish, you have dismissed actual physics, and pretend that the remaining non-existent physics - agrees with you.

That is not science, obviously.

Now: you keep falling foul of this “medium” thing. It’s because your focusing on phrasing and not the science. Snells normally talks about “mediums”, as it normally applies to changes between air and glass and air and water.

If there is a change in refractive index, light bends due to snells: the formulation of snells is based upon the angle of incidence and refractive index.

You claim this is just an assertion.

I can’t figure out how to tell you this basic scientific premise of the law you claim to understand any simpler. But let me try.

A medium can affect light by scattering it, absorbing it, or slowing it down.

A material that does the first, will show only fuzz (like frosted glass), the second will not be transparent, the third will allow it to pass through.

When the light goes from one region where it is not scattered, and not absorbed, into another where it is not scattered or absorbed, the only interaction those materials have with the light, is to speed it up or slow it down.

If you review the mechanism by which snells law works, when light speeds up travelling over the barrier, it will be bent away from normal: and vice versa: akin to a racing car entering a sand trap.

Now, let’s ignore you’re lawyering by fixating on the broad terminology used, you’ve ignored the mechanism by which snells operates. You doesn’t seem to describe the mechanism by which snells works or applies: if you did, it would be clear that you’re making things up.

Why should snells law apply to changes in speed due to light moving from air to air - but not to changes of speed within air, or water?

Snells law has no other properties other than speed in the medium. (That’s what refractive index is - a relative measure of speed) 

Snells law bends light based on change of speed: that applies to whether the change in speed is within air, or within water, or from water to air.

If light isn’t scattered or absorbed, the only way it’s changed is by the speed: this means that when light moves from one refractive index to another: there is no other relevant physical effect the media has on the light that could affect its path.

IE: change in speed is the only relevant term in snells, and the only relevant condition that could change the path of the light as it moves through.

In reality, warm air and cold air would be considered a change of medium, or any scenario where the refractive index changes.

In addition: this singular point fundamentally contradicts your experimental evidence: as you are essentially saying that light passing from water air doesn’t follow the same rules as from the air to the air that you’re trying to compare it to. 

You are trying to argue this both ways, by trying to distance these parts of your argument.

So summarizing this:

• The formulation of snells is based on a change of speed. “Medium” is not part of the equation, nor factored in.
• The technical description of snells involves the impact of changes in speed, not the change In physical composition of the medium. 
• There is no physical difference between light changing speed within a medium and between mediums: as all that is changed is the speed, and there is no other effect a transparent medium would have on that light.
• Your argument invalidates your own experiments by making your experiment non-applicable.
• By saying snells does not apply, you’re asserting the laws of refraction do not apply to certain kinds of refraction. You neither explain why this is, nor explain what laws replace it in the conditions you cite.
• You have rejected the laws of physics, without evidence: then claim some unknown, unspecific, unwritten laws of refraction still apply - and without evidence - you assert they work the way you say. This is the implication of your claims here - and yet another example of how you’re using crafted word play and rhetoric to supplant tester and well defined physical laws whilst dodging your burden of proof - pseudoscience.

So with all this in mind, it should be fairly clear that snells apply to changes within a medium and between mediums: as the only changes in the way light is effected is its speed in both cases: there is no other effect of the change in a transparent medium.

Given that I have provided detail - again - of why this is the case, and feel free to confirm everything I’m saying against whatever definition of snells you are using: it’s now up to you to provide your burden of proof:

• if snells doesn’t apply, what does.
• As there are no other laws of refraction - what are you basing your conclusion on?
• What physical effect does a change of transparent medium have on light that is different than within the medium.

Erfisflat

"I see you still refuse to actually provide mathematical proof of any kind, as I have,  and will continue to show this is because you can’t: and your position is bunk."

I see you're doing exactly as I predicted, ignoring the majority of  Imy post, and saying it isn't there. don't imagine where you will link this alleged "proof" you've made, as I have. I suppose we can just take your word for it.

"Consider this part 1: on the theme of evidence, what is evidence and how to apply facts.

You don’t understand what evidence is: you frequently confuse anecdotes and correlation with evidence."

I defined scientific evidence, and pointed out you blatant lack of it, and will continue to do so.

"As your position is wrong, you have to make these sorts of glaring logical errors to dress up your pseudoscience as if it’s valid."

Again, something you will not do is explain why I am wrong. We can all just take your assertions at face value, and you know everything there is to know about everything. No evidence needed, right?

"So let’s mop a few of your “evidence” claims from your reply."

Wish I could say the same, but so far, you've given none.

"Evidence is only evidence when it supports one position over another. Showing an example of something that would still be true even if your position was wrong is not evidence."

You pull that one out of your a$$? Making definitions up again, as usual.

"For example: 

• if there is a coffee stain on the carpet, this is not evidence joe spilt coffee. As if joe did not spill the coffee, the coffee stain would still be there. “Evidence”, in this case would be related to access. If it was Joes house, and no one visited - this is a fact that would be unlikely to be true in the case of someone other than joe spilling the coffee. And thus would be evidence."

Maybe we should from hereon refer to evidence, as though it should be obvious in a scientific debate, as scientific evidence, which I have defined.

"This is the primary error you make a lot."

Which is that?

• light can bend downward, it is true. Examples and instances of light bending downward are not evidence of your position as these would be true even if you were wrong.

An experiment, in addition is only really an experiment if it sets out to show isolate a variable in the claim or explanation you’re making - then sets out to prove it."

Right, for instance testing to see if water is curved in many experiments, we find that there is no curve.

The experiments are numerous, and are multiplying.

"Unfortunately, this is how science works. If my hand can cast a shadow on a fake moon - no matter what spin you want to give it - this is not evidence that the eclipse we see in the sky is caused by my hand.  It is also not an experiment into the eclipse in the sky in any form"

Wait, what? You seem to be addressing the eclipse argument above, but you've largely ignored my response.

"If you make no attempt at all to link the “experiment” to what you’re trying to claim: it’s not an experiment into that claim, and it’s nonsense to claim it is."

If you fail to see where I pointed out the link, or it's obviousness, that the sun can appear to set on a flat earth, this is cherry picking, ignoring my arguments, then asserting I am wrong.

"In the same way - a glass of water showing a sunset - is not evidence that sunset can be produced in air - at every point in the world - in all atmospheric conditions - every day."

And you're now moving the goalposts.

"The fact that you think it is, is frankly absurd."

Why is that? To show that there are refractive elements abundant in the atmosphere, and to show how refraction can cause sunsets with supporting scientific evidence, is not absurd. It's just how the scientific method works I know you're not used to it. That is an appeal to the stone. 

On the contrary, in your model, and without scientific evidence, the sun is refracted enough so that it actually sets before it apparently does.

https://pt.slideshare.net/mobile/subhasreemukherjee391/new-microsoft-office-power-point-presentation-45088389/4

It is my position that instead, refraction causes the sun to be lowered, and magnified. This has been evidenced, and you refuse to address it. Instead you claim the experiments are not valid, without contradictory evidence or even an inkling of explanation as to why.

"So given this: let’s look at your claim, and what would be evidence for it:

Claim: sunsets can be produced by some form of atmospheric refraction.

• is it possible? Show, using snells that light can bend the way claimed in atmospheric conditions (no calculations have been provided - you have not shown it’s possible)"

So, showing you how it is possible with scientific evidence is not your bag, I get it. This is pseudoscience, and sets off massive alarm bells, for me anyway. What is intellectually dishonest is that you would accept the above globe proponent claim without being shown, using snells, that light can been the way claimed in atmospheric conditions (no calculation have been provided no one has shown it's possible, nor even scientific evidence, such as the experiments in my last post.

• "Does it occur: if such refraction happened, what additional effects would it have? Have you determined those conditions also occur? (This would be an experiment - you haven’t done that either)"

Magnification is a key effect, and this was proven with simple experimentation. We could also use this point against the above mention globe proponent argument. We know that water causes a magnification, so why don't we see a magnification of the sun at sunset on the beach?

At about ten minutes, we see a sunrise/set where the sun appears to shrink, where the footage is from above cloud level, reducing the effects of refraction from low altitudes. This agrees with my position.

"So far, your “evidence” appears to be one or more of the following:

• explanations of how your refraction works without or without diagrams. This is not evidence."

Again, you ignore the simple experimentation. Noted. You even put lies in bulletin points to try and get the gullible here to accept it!

• "Pointing to some aspect of refraction that works a particular way in one condition and saying it confirms your position - is not evidence."

It does, and you ignoring such, and your failure to provide anything that contradicts it confirms my position.

• "Examples of non atmospheric conditions, in limited fixed scenarios allegedly producing similar effects (they don’t really as I covered previously) - these are not evidence either."

Actually, yes, experiments are the foundation of science. This is how you prove something, by using the scientific method, and no, you haven't covered anything, aside from the usual nuh-uh assertions.

• "Saying that because objects are cut off, it’s evidence of refraction. - is not evidence. - the very thing your trying to explain cannot be evidence of the thing you’re using to explain it - by definition this is circular reasoning."

I'm not just saying, I'm showing. This is how the scientific method works, using experimentation in a controlled environment scaled down to a practical level. It's not circular reasoning, it's science .

"Broadly speaking, that’s all you have provided so far, and while you may not me saying it isn’t evidence: is not evidence."

Again, the definition of scientific evidence, since you seem to have missed it:

Results when a theory or hypothesis is tested objectively by other individuals such as in an experiment or in a controlled environment.

Whereas I have provided multiple, and you have provided none. 

"Now: compare and contrast to my examples: you’ve posted maybe half a dozen examples of images that we shouldn’t see on a spherical earth. Some of them (Ascension Island - for example), you’ve got the maths wrong and the object would indeed be visible."

I do not recollect that argument, and you neither cite or link it, nor do you go into any detail, so I'm gonna push the button.

"So the evidence:"

Yours? Where?

"1.) is it possible: 

I have used snells law of refraction and approximated conditions to show in two examples (Chicago ages ago), and your more recent example that light could be bent in the way expected, and could make the mountain appear to be higher due to refraction - appearing 34 miles closer. - this evidence to show it is possible"

When? Where? You asserting that snells law agrees with you is not evidence. See above definition of scientific evidence.

"2.) If it was refraction - what other effects you’d see."

You're just repeating yourself now. No wonder your post are so long and boring, and lacking, of evidence. See above magnification argument. You probably won't, similar to the selenelions argument, you seem to ignore any arguments that are harmful to your belief system.

"As I’ve pointed out: 1) it would be dependent on conditions - in other conditions it would not be visible, videos would show changing effects, visual distortions, changes etc. As I’ve pointed out previously - both these points are true."

Not necessarily, but are you suggesting that sunsets don't show "changing effects" and "visual distortions"? Magnification is another key distortion, and is pointed out here:

Nonetheless, refraction is a key point in the sunset arguments on a globe earth, so whatever "changing effects" and "visual distortions" is present would be present on either model, and this argument is bunk.

"So to summarize for clarity (no need to post this entire post)"

No, we wouldn't want to miss anything or cherry pick, would we...

• "A fact that is likely to be true, even if your claim is false - is not evidence."

How vague, what "fact"? 

• "An experiment is only a valid experiment if you can demonstrate the condition of the experiment are applicable (you don’t)"

I have, and I'm not afraid to do it again:

There is an abundance of water in the air, especially over bodies of water, from condensation and evaporation. This water has little effect over short distances, but over several miles, the water starts to accumulate, starting at a varying distance from the observer in any direction, less so as the angle is increased from eye level, and at higher altitudes. This creates a "bubble" in the shape of a dome around the observer. When an object is seen outside of this bubble, it is subject to the effects of refraction, and the apparent position if an object will not match it's actual position. Combining this water into a glass and using line of sight can identify which direction these effect will bend the light. This is where the "testing" part comes in, where you and I separate. You prefer to simply accept what your science book say about the matters and I prefer to test it. Anyone here can fill a glass with water and see that an object will appear lower than it's actual position. If you have something more convincing to offer, we'd love to see it, as scientists. Until then, it's pseudoscience and can be easily dismissed for lack of scientific evidence.

• "Pointing to the examples you’re trying to explain as evidence of your explanation is circular reasoning."

Repeating yourself again... See above refutation to your false claim of circular reasoning.

• "You really only have combinations of the above that you dress up as if evidence: but really they lend almost no support to your position in a scientific sense."

Once again, they are what we have, no evidence is given to the contrary, and no explanation is given as to why they are invalid.

"To show your position is scientifically valid you must:

• "Apply the laws of physics to determine your position is physically possible (which you repeatedly have refused to do for almost an entire year now)"

Yet I've linked the arguments what, 3 times now, in the last few day? Snells law. Get there.

• "Provide a clear set of implications of your explanation based upon the applications of the laws of physics, then detect them in the images and atmosphere."

See above "bubble" explanation.

"Conversely, as part of previous posts: I have done both those things."

• "I have applied the laws of refraction to demonstrate the principles and show that if the laws of physics work the way they do, this would be a possible observation."

Link it.

• "I have demonstrated that the effects in videos and images of such examples match exactly what would be expected of these were transient atmospheric effects."

Link it.

"Note: to point out how deliberately deceptive you are, we had a debate on Chicago:

• you said the atmosphere only made objects appear lower. I gave examples of objects appearing higher."

No, the objects at the time were in their actual place, or close to it. This is circular reasoning with no supporting evidence. That is the key difference, supporting evidence. You can assert that the objects appear higher, but since you have no way of telling where their actual positions were, you were merely making an assumption, namely the conclusion.

• "You said that if Chicago was a mirage there would be inversion: I specifically pointed to a point in the video were there was inversion in the image of Chicago."

Where is the inversion?

http://investigate-nasa.com/2015/11/12/earth-curve-calculator/

• "You said that if Chicago were a mirage, we would Chicago appearing up from out of the horizon - I provided you an image of Chicago appearing out of the horizon."

Due to a relaxation of atmospheric refraction. You cannot say that the image was raised without having assumed it was lowered in the first place.

• "You said Chicago appearing up from behind the horizon was due to “swells”, I showed out that swells that covered Chicago and were not visible within the foreground would have to be larger than the largest waves ever recorded on the lake."

You are ignoring basic laws of perspective. See here for an explanation for duemmies.



"You said that Chicago couldn’t be a mirage as it lasted all day: I demonstrated using reference timings that at most the image was an hour tops."

Irrelevant. You are now claiming that, as you initially have, that the Chicago skyline was a mirage. This goes against the very definition of mirage.

"Given that every claim you made about Chicago, turned out to be false: it seems pretty self evident that you will not accept the alternative point of view no matter how many facts are given to you."

Likewise, as I just pointed out.

"Given this a big part of your argument is:

• I provide no evidence (this is false - see examples).

Examples? You mean your assertions and assumptions listed above? This is your evidence?

• "I assert things (this is false - ser examples),"

Thanks for proving my point.

• "You provide evidence and argument (this is false - see examples)"

Lmao, you're delusional if you think I have not provided an argument or evidence and you have. (See definition of scientific evidence)

"Your position appears to be wholly dishonest."

"What you are doing, is throwing out a number of inaccurate assertions, errors and non evidence and dressing them up as evidence as described above."

What you are doing is throwing out a number of lies about what you think I have done, and what you claim to have done without any backing. These assertions make up the majority of your posts.

"I have provided you a very concise explanation of how to scientifically demonstrate your position for a year now - and you have been evading, dodging and using this same pseudoscientific rhetoric I outlined above ever since."

"Hence: I have continued to ask point 1 in the above repeatedly - only to have you avoid answering repeatedly."

Nonsense, it was explained to you multiple times, twice on this very page, and I backed it up with scientific evidence.

"This is obviously because you cannot provide any proof that your position is valid."

The Ostrich Effect occurs when we look away from that which disturbs us and fasten onto something else that is less likely to trigger our anxiety. (ie. "but, but, muh calculator!" "Look, it's the sun!")  We have a moment that triggers us—our anger, guilt, competitiveness, resentment, sadness. We do not feel safe enough to openly acknowledge this, to ourselves, much less to others.

Pointing out specifically that you have no evidence for your aguments, you:

1. continue to deny evidence with no explanation

2. you've dropped several arguments

3. claimed several things you or I have said with not a single source ponting to such in your entire argument

4. Continue to cherry pick.

@goober

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Right, for instance testing to see if water is curved in many experiments, we find that there is no curve.

The experiments are numerous, and are multiplying.

This appears to be the only bit of your post that isn't you going "nuh-uh, I'm right because I say so" like a child.

Instead it's a video of a man going "Yuh-huh, I'm right because I say so" like a child.

He shows results which match what would be expected in a spherical earth. The kicker - he says that can't be the case because there is no atmospheric refraction. His proof that there is no atmospheric refraction? Nothing. He just says so and expects you to believe him with no evidence, even while everything on the screen is visibly shifting and distorting from atmospheric refraction.

Also as has been explained to you previously, Snell's law doesn't apply to atmospheric refraction. As you yourself stated (obviously C+ping without understanding: "Snell's law is 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".

Isotropic means uniform in all directions. You can consider the air isotropic in short scale experiments (e.g. looking into a bond that's a few feed in front of you) because any change in the consistency of the air will be completely negligible. When you're talking about hundreds or thousands of miles of air and rising up through the air to higher elevations where the air is less dense - that air has different properties (,ike different density) and thus cannot be considered isotropic. You wasted like half your previous post going on about a law that doesn't apply in these circumstances.

Erfisflat

Another assertion, where you act as though you are staying laws, which is quazi-scientific:

"We know that travelling from low to high refractive index will bend light downwards (even your diagram shows that), and would make an object appear higher"

Nowhere is this sourced, and the diagram is shown with the boundary line, or change in RI is under foot, below the line of site. I'm just going to copy and paste the actual definition of snells law, which defines how light is refracted to this "things we know".

"Snell's law is 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."

Compare this to your statement:
"We know that travelling from low to high refractive index will bend light downwards"

And we see the blatantly wrong indifference.

Light is bent according to the defined boundary, the normal, and the angle of incidence. Stop making sh!t up, pseudoscientist. For anyone genuinely interested in Snell's law, and how refraction works can do even a simple Google search and see how you are lying.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Part 4: So let’s talk about terrestrial refraction in general in a bit more depth.

Refraction is dependent on two things on the earth: conditions - and geometry.

One day the road will show an inferior mirage, only to disappear as the angle change, others it won’t.

Conditions in a desert are very different from conditions in Antarctica, and refraction effects will often be noticeably different. Superior mirages happen much more often, in Antarctic than in the desert for example.

The science of refraction - despite you trying to change - it is well known. We know the conditions that produce inferior mirages (an image of an object is below the real object), and superior mirages (the image is above the real object).

Which occurs at what time depends on whether light bends up or down - which is dependent on conditions - which can and do change from day to day and hour to hour.

IE: Refraction at Sunset in summer over a lake is going to produce something different than sunrise in winter over land.

Unless the refractive conditions are broadly constant retraction is going to be different.

This variability is not an issue: as is no observations that are requires to be systematically explained by refraction that aren’t based on systematic properties: ie there are no repetitive measurements you can make that rely on refraction that aren’t based on conditions that can be shown to be repetitive

IE: refraction of the sun, is mainly based on the difference between the refractive index of space (or super low pressure air above 100,000 feet if you don’t believe in space), while there is some minor fluctuations, that won’t change a great deal, and it isn’t required to be the same at all times

Terrestrial refraction - the type you often need to account for when making curvature measurements - and for which you refuse to account for, is also condition based. It depends on temperature, and conditions. You’ll see it some days but not others depending on what you’re doing.

It so happens you’ll see it most days, as it’s based on more general physics, but it’s not guaranteed.

The science is fairly straight forward. You have a long level surface on a curved sphere: let’s say a canal.

Let’s start with basic geometry:

You have an object at one end, and an observer on a ladder at the other just high enough to see the object at the other end.

The object emits light in all direction, some light is emitted towards the observer is just enough above the surface that it clears the curvature of the earth and hits the observes eyes.

Let’s say the observer climbs down the ladder, the light from the object travelling at an angle that would go to the observer hits the curvature in the middle - the observer cannot see the object behind the bump in the surface. 

Now, that’s without any refraction.

With refraction it depends on the conditions. What is generally the case is that refractive index decreases with height due to temperature, density, and humidity. While there are localized changes there is a density related change with even a small change in height (feel free to google it).

This produces a decreasing gradient of refractive index that is horizontal.

So the observer is at the bottom of the ladder, as the light that comes from the object that is heading to the top of the ladder comes closer to the ground - it’s travelling almost horizontally and entering layers of air that are slightly denser. 

Remember the car hitting the gravel trap: the car is turned in the direction of the first wheel to hit the trap: in this case it would be bent downwards.

The light - therefore - is bent downwards

So it hits a point lower than the top of the ladder:

We have just bent the object around the curvature of the earth by a few feet.

This is how basic terrestrial refraction works.

Now, it pretty always works the same way because - barring some localized atmospheric changes, such as warm air rising from tarmac, etc; the density and humidity of air decreases even with small changes of altitude - meaning higher layers almost invariably have lower refractive indexes - and thus bend light downwards in this scenario.

This is based on the laws of physics (snells law), and measurements of air over a surface - google lapse-rate if you’re interested.

Remember the one-two punch: is it possible? What is the observed evidence.

I’ve only used physics to prove the first. What about the Second?

Let’s do the science: what would we see?

• Due to snells the refraction will be greatest the closest to horizontal the light enters the higher density region, and how much of a change there is. This means light from the top of a tall pylon will not be as refracted as light from the bottom of that same pylon. It traverses fewer layers, and doesn’t intersect the highest density layer to make it to an observer.
• Consequent to this: Light hitting moving close to the curvature bends more than light moving higher  - as it’s moving through lower layers, so the refraction is greater at longer distances.

As a result, this means objects at a distance will be distorted due to refraction more at the bottom than at the top. There will be compression at the bottom and less at the top. For objects in a line, the top of the objects will follow the curvature of the earth, whereas the bottom of the objects may appear to be straighter, and less curved.

Note: this is exactly what we see. 

Almost every image of lake pontecharin shows this effect, the images of Cranes in your example show basic compression, as does the highly zoomed image of the USS Alabama.

This demonstrates the physics of why short distances seem less curved: unless you have a higher point of reference.

When you say “we need to account for refraction”, you will not provide any detail of how:

Above, I have given you a testable and repeatable explanation of refraction, how to detect it and how to account for it.

You largely ignore this whenever I bring it up. I wonder why!

As for things like Chicago - I have already separately covered those - but these do work in much the same way - but are much more dependent on conditions as they require a very specific type of atmospheric layer called an inversion:  air travels through this boundary almost horizontally and is bent down.

Sometimes it inverts the image (see upside down Chicago), sometimes it does not. But most of the time it’s not there at all. One of the biggest lies you tell us the deliberate omission of the fact that the Sightings are rare and do not occur every day - as if dependent on very specific environmental conditions to be seen!

I will also point out - as a matter of hilarity - despite your claim otherwise - it’s a pretty common site to see objects floating higher than they should. It’s so common we give them names: superior mirages - Fata Morgana and looming.

Finally, let’s spell out something important here. This analysis is based on the application of snells law, based upon refraction conditions and geometry: the diagrams to support it are easily googled if they haven’t already been shared by your post.

It’s also identical to every piece of decent science on the subject.

I have explained the conditions and the science that make it possible, and showed how you can determine it is occurring by looking at images: at least two of which you provided.

Given that, I’ve met my burden of proof, by showing the physics that makes it possible, and showing proof that it occurs the way I say.

Somehow you keep saying that objectively demonstrating a principle scientifically is “asserting things”, for some bizarre reason.

So given that my analysis is based on:

conditions that you have not challenged - I find no links that demonstrate or conclude the density conditions are any different than I’ve suggested.

Plugging those conditions into snells law: horizontal boundary, light hitting the boundary near horizontal as it comes close to the earth, lower RI above, higher below: light bends downwards as a result - you haven’t plugged those same conditions into snells law and shown a different answer.

Confirming against images - so far none of your posts analyze the images to show the refraction is not the same as required.

As a result, you have thus far presented no argument against this fairly detailed and evidentially supported refraction - based on the known laws of physics known conditions.

What you have done is:

• Assert snells law doesn’t work like snells law (see part 2)
• Assert that I have provided no argument or evidence: my analysis above is pretty detailed and is not the first time I’ve done it. 
• Provide “evidence” of some unrelated conditions to “prove” this example doesn’t work the way I say (see part 1)

At no point have you show my conditions are no correct, or used snells to show light would not bend this way. You have also made no attempt to attack my interpretation of the images.

In general, your argument is disjoint and largely makes no sense: it’s as if you’re just throwing whatever you can at the wall and seeing what sticks.

So, as I have said repeatedly: I have presented my conditions and how I have used snells to demonstrate what happens. That is my burden of proof, met repeatedly.

Now it’s your turn: I have plugged the conditions into the laws of refraction to show what happens is as I say, then referenced this against actual images.

So: to prove me wrong, you have to:

• show the conditions cannot be as I say.
• Show my interpretation of images is wholly wrong
• Show how I’ve plugged stuff into snells incorrectly.

So far you haven’t done any of those: as stated you have largely danced around the points I’m raising, using a combination of the already stated errors, or simply say if that snells doesn’t work like it does.

Again, a cloak of rhetoric to hide you shifting the burden of proof and obscure the fact you have no valid argument against this position.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Right, for instance testing to see if water is curved in many experiments, we find that there is no curve.

The experiments are numerous, and are multiplying.

This appears to be the only bit of your post that isn't you going "nuh-uh, I'm right because I say so" like a child.

Instead it's a video of a man going "Yuh-huh, I'm right because I say so" like a child.

He shows results which match what would be expected in a spherical earth. The kicker - he says that can't be the case because there is no atmospheric refraction. His proof that there is no atmospheric refraction? Nothing. He just says so and expects you to believe him with no evidence, even while everything on the screen is visibly shifting and distorting from atmospheric refraction.

Also as has been explained to you previously, Snell's law doesn't apply to atmospheric refraction. As you yourself stated (obviously C+ping without understanding: "Snell's law is 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".

Isotropic means uniform in all directions. You can consider the air isotropic in short scale experiments (e.g. looking into a bond that's a few feed in front of you) because any change in the consistency of the air will be completely negligible. When you're talking about hundreds or thousands of miles of air and rising up through the air to higher elevations where the air is less dense - that air has different properties (,ike different density) and thus cannot be considered isotropic. You wasted like half your previous post going on about a law that doesn't apply in these circumstances.

As I explained, it is the accumulation of this water that causes the refraction. We calculate refraction via the law of refraction, Snell's law.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Part 5: “You’re just making sh*t up now”

So to validate a spherical earth: we can make a number of measurements that you would only expect to make on a spherical earth.

• objects fall over the horizon - including the sun
• The sun and moon travel at constant angular velocity.

You’ve explained both based with refraction. You have not ever explained how it works.

As stated: you’ve pretended as if snells doesn’t work the way it does: said snells doesn’t apply and therefore another laws of physics applies - without saying which.

Worse, you don’t know where the sun is.

Without knowing where the sun is: you don’t know how much refraction is required as you don’t know the angle of incidence.

Any claims that refraction can produce the effect: are unsupported.

What conditions make objects appear behind the horizon? What changes in refractive index are there?

For what reason do you believe these conditions exist all around the globe at all time.

We don’t know, the awesome scientist that you are - refuses to provide any details.

Why does the sun always set? Why isn’t it delayed by hours on warm days,

And advanced by hours on cold days? Or vice versa?

We don’t know: you won’t provide any details or explanations.

Why do objects still move across the horizon when we see superior mirages and we know light is being bent downwards.

Snells law produced the minimum amount of refraction when perpendicular to the boundary - the greatest difference between flat earth speed of the sun - and spherical earth speed of the sun - is when the sun is right above our heads - and refraction is minimal.

You spend your time asserting refraction causes particular effects, you’ve never show any examples, or any details of how you can tell from any given image that refraction occurs.

All you are able to provide is highly generic hand waving descriptions: applying snells law shows something different. 

You don’t provide enough details to validate anything you say, and your position is largely “objects appear higher”, providing no details on how snells produces that or why.

You can’t explain even the most basic mathematical or physical basis for your insane assertions, and in this post there are least half a dozen reasons to believe refraction can’t possibly account for anything you say it can.

You are forced to rely on petulant denials, incorrect assertions and rhetoric. As you have done here.

You refuse to engage scientifically on the science because - as I have explained - you have gotten almost every fact wrong when you do.

So as a result of this:

• I have shown snells always applies
• I have show you don’t understand what evidence is.
• I have shown the science of how refraction works the way I say it does.
• I have shown refraction cannot work the way you say it does
• I have shown that refraction cannot explain why you say it does.

Now. You won’t engage in the science, all I will get is petulant denials and the same sort of hand waving.

You can’t prove anything you say, you can’t show any detail: and this is the reason why you repeatedly refuse to answer any detailed questions

You’re making sh*t up, and everyone can see it. 

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Right, for instance testing to see if water is curved in many experiments, we find that there is no curve.

The experiments are numerous, and are multiplying.

This appears to be the only bit of your post that isn't you going "nuh-uh, I'm right because I say so" like a child.

Instead it's a video of a man going "Yuh-huh, I'm right because I say so" like a child.

He shows results which match what would be expected in a spherical earth. The kicker - he says that can't be the case because there is no atmospheric refraction. His proof that there is no atmospheric refraction? Nothing. He just says so and expects you to believe him with no evidence, even while everything on the screen is visibly shifting and distorting from atmospheric refraction.

Also as has been explained to you previously, Snell's law doesn't apply to atmospheric refraction. As you yourself stated (obviously C+ping without understanding: "Snell's law is 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".

Isotropic means uniform in all directions. You can consider the air isotropic in short scale experiments (e.g. looking into a bond that's a few feed in front of you) because any change in the consistency of the air will be completely negligible. When you're talking about hundreds or thousands of miles of air and rising up through the air to higher elevations where the air is less dense - that air has different properties (,ike different density) and thus cannot be considered isotropic. You wasted like half your previous post going on about a law that doesn't apply in these circumstances.

As I explained, it is the accumulation of this water that causes the refraction. We calculate refraction via the law of refraction, Snell's law.

Irrelevant as Snell's law does not say that is applies to anistropic mediums - it says it applies to isotropic mediums. By your own definition that you have provided and accepted - you are using it wrong. Hundreds of miles of air of constantly differing density, temperature and humidity is neither isotropic nor close enough to isotropic that we can ignore it as in the case of someone looking at a fish in a pond a few metres away - especially when the refraction in the anistropic medium is the very thing we are trying to measure.

Either:

1) You are wrong to use Snell's Law this way

2) Snell's law itself is wrong

3) Air doesn't change in temperature, density, humidity or any other factor relevant to refraction.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“1. continue to deny evidence with no explanation”

I’ve provided fairly detailed explanations of why I deny your “evidence is evidence”.

My entire first reply (part 1) is dedicated to explaining why most of your evidence can be rejected.

So please, I know it’s hard - but don’t be a petulant .

“2. you've dropped several arguments”

As I hadn’t finished yet when you posted, at least give me a chance to respond before you hurl accusation. 

The broad thrust of all your disparate - sometime unrelated - and often inconsistent if not contradictory answers is covered over the previous three posts -

Where I have demonstrated the scientific approach that shows you are wrong.

As I pointed out in my last post - you have not provided any conditions, examples or scenarios where you describe how snells produces the effect you say - I can’t drop what you haven’t given.

As you’re not making any scientific points: and I’ve referenced most of the ones you’ve made - I can’t really “drop” them - I can’t scientifically disprove them directly if they’re not scientific - I’ve provided scientific argument that what you say doesn’t happen - now i get to watch you flail around with no detail, no numbers as no conditions.

“3. claimed several things you or I have said with not a single source ponting to such in your entire argument”

I’m on mobile: mobile support on this site is retarded, so it’s next to impossible to link anything. 

Now, everything I’ve said is easily Googleable - and I’ve made sure to spell out terms where necessary.

As you’re a petulant denialiast, you’re going to deny everything -  all the time. whether I source everything last little detail or not: so I’ve opted to wait to see what you object to.

And I will.

“4. Continue to cherry pick.”

He asserts with no reference or example

I’ve destroyed your position. Your refraction is impossible - and I have used conditions to demonstrate the refraction that actually happens - does happen.

I don’t need to cherry pick. You’re wrong. Your continual inability to provide detail

Shows that.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“Again, something you will not do is explain why I am wrong.”

All I do is explain why you’re wrong. I provide post after post of detailed explanations referencing the actual science. 5 detailed posts in this thread alone that explain why you’re wrong - in exquisite detail

This quote is such a shocking and obvious lie: it’s almost hilarious.

Erfisflat

@goober, you're great at vaguely referencing non-existing material.

@Ampersand, so your butt in position is that Snell's Law doesn't apply to this refraction. Is it also that there is no refraction in the atmosphere, or that we can't measure it. By your logic, we can't define the refractive index or use the law on water, simply because it is not uniform in all directions. It has varying levels of density due to temperature, salinity, and depth, agreed?

Erfisflat

@goober, example, tell us more about these "plane elevators" that I know nothing about.

  

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

@Ampersand, so your butt in position is that Snell's Law doesn't apply to this refraction. Is it also that there is no refraction in the atmosphere, or that we can't measure it. By your logic, we can't define the refractive index or use the law on water, simply because it is not uniform in all directions. It has varying levels of density due to temperature, salinity, and depth, agreed?

No.

My position is Snell's law doesn't apply to atmospheric refraction because it only applies to the boundaries of isotropic medium, as per the agreed definition, not a gradient of changes across an anisotropic medium. Yes?

My position is there not that "there is no refraction in the atmosphere, or that we can't measure it". I have no idea where you got that from. Light does refract in the atmosphere but as doesn't happen at the boundary of two isotropic mediums we wouldn't use Snells Law to calculate it as it isn't a valid application of the law. I'm not sure why you would think I was claiming this but to help you understand if you're having issues; just because the Pythagoras theorem doesn't apply to triangles without a right angle does not mean triangles without a right angle don't exist or can't be measured. Likewise Snell's law not being applicable to atmospheric refraction doesn't mean that atmospheric refraction can't exist or that it can't be measured.

As for your statement that "By your logic, we can't define the refractive index or use the law on water, simply because it is not uniform in all directions. It has varying levels of density due to temperature, salinity, and depth, agreed?" you obviously didn't read or didn't understand my response. As already explained by me but apparently not understood by you: "You can consider the air isotropic in short scale experiments (e.g. looking into a bond that's a few feed in front of you) because any change in the consistency of the air will be completely negligible." To put it another way Snell's Law can be applied when the level is anisotropy is low enough that it wouldn't effect your results in any significant way e.g. even in a small glass room temperature water it of course won't be completely perfectly the same temperature down to a single unit of Planck temperature but such differences will be inperceivable to the naked eye so the water can be treated as isotropic in those circumstances. However "Hundreds of miles of air of constantly differing density, temperature and humidity is neither isotropic nor close enough to isotropic that we can ignore it as in the case of someone looking at a fish in a pond a few metres away - especially when the refraction in the anistropic medium is the very thing we are trying to measure."

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

@Ampersand, so your butt in position is that Snell's Law doesn't apply to this refraction. Is it also that there is no refraction in the atmosphere, or that we can't measure it. By your logic, we can't define the refractive index or use the law on water, simply because it is not uniform in all directions. It has varying levels of density due to temperature, salinity, and depth, agreed?

No.

My position is Snell's law doesn't apply to atmospheric refraction because it only applies to the boundaries of isotropic medium, as per the agreed definition, not a gradient of changes across an anisotropic medium. Yes?

My position is there not that "there is no refraction in the atmosphere, or that we can't measure it". I have no idea where you got that from. Light does refract in the atmosphere but as doesn't happen at the boundary of two isotropic mediums we wouldn't use Snells Law to calculate it as it isn't a valid application of the law. I'm not sure why you would think I was claiming this but to help you understand if you're having issues; just because the Pythagoras theorem doesn't apply to triangles without a right angle does not mean triangles without a right angle don't exist or can't be measured. Likewise Snell's law not being applicable to atmospheric refraction doesn't mean that atmospheric refraction can't exist or that it can't be measured.

As for your statement that "By your logic, we can't define the refractive index or use the law on water, simply because it is not uniform in all directions. It has varying levels of density due to temperature, salinity, and depth, agreed?" you obviously didn't read or didn't understand my response. As already explained by me but apparently not understood by you: "You can consider the air isotropic in short scale experiments (e.g. looking into a bond that's a few feed in front of you) because any change in the consistency of the air will be completely negligible." To put it another way Snell's Law can be applied when the level is anisotropy is low enough that it wouldn't effect your results in any significant way e.g. even in a small glass room temperature water it of course won't be completely perfectly the same temperature down to a single unit of Planck temperature but such differences will be inperceivable to the naked eye so the water can be treated as isotropic in those circumstances. However "Hundreds of miles of air of constantly differing density, temperature and humidity is neither isotropic nor close enough to isotropic that we can ignore it as in the case of someone looking at a fish in a pond a few metres away - especially when the refraction in the anistropic medium is the very thing we are trying to measure."

The analogy seems incorrect. Using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle would be more like trying to use a thermometer to measure the distance between two points. It just isn't possible. However difficult it would be to obtain the level of humidity or density in the air by calculating the many axioms, it is still possible. 

It's funny because a simple Google search brings up quite a few peer reviews for doing just that, except that this was done assuming a spherical earth, and would be completely different than in my "bubble" explanation listed above. I would cite them, but for obvious reasons, I don't feel it is necessary due to the above explanation and the simplicity of the search engine, aside from feeding the troll(s).

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“As I explained, it is the accumulation of this water that causes the refraction. We calculate refraction via the law of refraction, Snell's law.”

When I say that you provide no evidence, or explanation or mathematics: this throwaway quote is pretty much what I mean.

This is completely central portion of you’re position - and you have offered nothing to indicate it’s true.

You say accumulate causes refraction, and you calculate refraction via snells law....

You don’t explain how you go from “accumulation of water” to “refractive index”, nor how you calculate the amount of refraction - which requires you to specify where the boundary is - which you don’t. You also won’t say where the sun actually is either, so you don’t know the angle of incidence either.

So while what you said “sounds” scientific: you’re basically saying water changes the refractive index in a way that you won’t explain - to change light from the sun coming from an unknown angle to refract by an un-calculated amount across a boundary you won’t describe.

Literally you refuse to explain any input parameter to the equation, yet assert it works.

Pseudoscience: by the definition in your signature.

You will, again angrily protest: saying that you’ve already proven it, so why should you calculate it, you don’t need to calculate it anyway, and you already calculated it at some unknown point and refuse to do it again, and generally continue to do everything but provide the basic calculations. Because - as we all know - you cant.

Every time you make the same unsupported nonsense, I go through and explain in detail: again and again and again. Yet it seems you spend 95% of every post telling us how you’ve already proven x/y/z.

Whats worse: even though this is central to your position, once it’s refuted you’ll pretend like it’s irrelevant. That it didn’t matter anyway.

You keep being proven wrong: you keep making demands that we show x or y: we show x or y and it “doesn’t count”, or “doesn’t matter any way”.

You can’t be proven wrong - because no level of proof or evidence could be sufficient to make you change your mind. 

This is all pseudoscientific nonsense.

So let’s refute it anyway!

Snells law is:

N1 * sin ( angle 1) = N2 * Sin (angle 2).

If the refractive index of the medium does not change - N1 = N2 ; and So angle 1 = angle 2. And there can be no refraction. By definition.

“Accumulated water in the air” is called “humidity”, and humid air as a fixed refractive index - much closer to Air than water. As a result whether you’re looking through 10mm or 100km of humid air, there won’t be any additional refraction due to the “accumulated water” as per snells law - which does not include any distance component.

Now in most cases changes in humidity over meaningful distances can either be positive, negative or relatively unchanged - and even the difference between 100% humidity and 0 is not actually that large:

https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/wavelength/documentation.asp

1.000267394 vs 1.000271800 at 20 degrees c - 100% vs 0% humidity: or N1/N2 - 1.0000044. That’s not going to generate more than a tiny fraction of a degree refraction:

Plug it in for yourself!

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/snells-law

So humidity is unlikely to produce the effect you want. It appears you seem to believe - falsely - that water in the atmosphere acts like actual liquid water with a high refractive index.

The technical term for this, is called “making sh*t up.

So, this, together with your nonsense claims about snells not applying (which refuted your own argument), and your reliance on some unknown laws of physics to cover the gap: it’s self evident you don’t know how snells works.

In addition, as I said: to explain the observations you absurdly claim it can, the effect must be systematic. There is little variation in sunset and sunrise across the globe - meaning the conditions have to be similar or equivalent across the globe.

The water content in the atmosphere is so variable as to make this claim absurd. The Sahara at sunrise can be freezing with no moisture - at sunset boiling with no moisture. The south US can be boiling with high moisture - the uk can be freezing with high moisture.

The idea that sunset will be within a minute or so of when it should be based on the sun being very far away and the earth is a sphere is, despite all these

Disparate conditions. as you know regarded.

Now as an aside. My claims of Chicago are mainly here:

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-city-of-Chicago-being-visible-from-the-opposite-shore-proves-the-earth-is-not-a-sphere./1/

My information about how snells and refraction works can be found here:

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

Specifically take a look at “explanation”, which dovetails with everything I said.

Everything I said about atmospheric refraction is validated by information

And sources here:

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

Information about looming stopping and mirages that works the way I’ve explained can be found here:

https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/courses/atsc113/sailing/met_concepts/10-met-local-conditions/10f-optical-phenomena/

In addition there is also a great scientific description of looking, sourced that also explains it the same way, and indicates the same things:

https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#looming

All the information and diagrams about how light is bent, how it changes in the

Atmosphere in both of these sources is exactly how I described - and are consistent between all of them s

My description of levelling - and how refraction can make the earth look a little

Flatter is supported both by the images in the video you posted - as I explained: in addition to pylons over Lake pontecharin, but also detailed in surveying and associated science links that are neatly summarized here: 

https://www.metabunk.org/curvature-and-refraction-in-surveying-and-leveling-through-history-old-books-etc.t8856/

Now, you won’t accept any of those sources: and you will reject them for a variety of reasons - which is in part why I am reluctant to source every 3rd grade science fact for you. This is yet more rhetoric on your part to make your position sound stronger, by feigning interest in sources

Erfisflat

Wow, finally some sort of supporting evidence and sources! Turning a leaf I see.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Wow, finally some sort of supporting evidence and sources! Turning a leaf I see.

As shown: you’re a pseudoscientist.

I’ve demonstrated you use science sounding words that completely fall apart when analyzed.

This science is pretty remedial - anyone with basic maths skills and understanding of science know that what I’m saying is completely in line with established science.

You are rejecting accepted science: and I’m posting these  so you cannot act like a petulant denialiast - and simply spend the next ten pages doing nothing ignoring everything and asserting over and over again that I have not sourced a claim that shows up in a 10 year olds science text book.

You’re argument is just smoke and mirrors - these 6 posts are all validated by science, and backed up by the evidence that is linked, cited and referenced within these links. (...As if you didn’t already know that)

As an example - you won’t address any of the key points:

• You don’t know where the sun is
• You can’t use anything you’ve said to calculate anything
• That snells works without a change of medium and that you use a law of physics that doesn’t exist to prove your position
• That conditions can’t be constant enough to produce sunset every day all around the globe.
• That actually assessing conditions and refraction parameters and applying snells disproves your claims about sunset and sunrise.

Instead you will dance around them - by line by line quoting and missing the big picture, using throwaway claims with no explanation to refute a page of detail. You will find thousands of examples of objects appearing lower in various refractive conditions - without showing how the example is applicable to the air - or without explaining how one observation proves that it works that way at all times around the globe especially when we know that’s not the case. Then claim these are “evidence”.

You will dismiss 3rd grade science as “unproven”, dismiss scientifically supported links as “invalid”, you will denounce a thorough and detailed explanation as “an assertion”.

You will pretend as if you’ve already provided evidence - you will claim that me writing a detailed post destroying you’re argument as a whole from multiple angles using big picture science  is “dropping points”, because I won’t go through you’re thousand images and specify the reason they are all invalid (even though it will be for one of the reasons cited).

You will spend hours and hours replying, and name calling, and posting images and links that show very little.

All you have to do is this:

State the conditions that produce sunset on a flat earth - temperature/humidity/boundary/sun angle - apply snells to show that light bends the way you say it does in those conditions.

Literally that’s all you have to do to shut me up.

Why is it you write thousands upon thousands of words making wild claims about refraction when you can spend 2 paragraphs and do the maths!

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

The analogy seems incorrect. Using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle would be more like trying to use a thermometer to measure the distance between two points. It just isn't possible. However difficult it would be to obtain the level of humidity or density in the air by calculating the many axioms, it is still possible. 

You don't seem to have understood the analogy.

If you are trying to use the Pythagoras Therom to account for non-right angled triangles it won't work because the Pythagoras therom is very specific about the type of triangles it works with but:

a) It is still the same types of units (distance and angles) you are after, not completely different units like time or temperature.

b) The actual method of calculating the details of a non-right angled has some connection to the actual method for calculating the details of a right-angled triangle (the law of cosines)

Likewise if you are trying to use Snell's Law to account for refraction across a non-istotropic medium it won't work because Snell's Law is very specific about the type of medium it works with but:

a) Is is still the same types of unit (distance and angles) you are after, not completely different units like time or temperature.

b) The actual method of calculating the details of refraction across a single anistropic medium has some connection to the actual method for calculating the details of refraction at the boundary of two isotropic medium.

It's funny because a simple Google search brings up quite a few peer reviews for doing just that, except that this was done assuming a spherical earth, and would be completely different than in my "bubble" explanation listed above. I would cite them, but for obvious reasons, I don't feel it is necessary due to the above explanation and the simplicity of the search engine, aside from feeding the troll(s).

So you think because you gave an objectively wrong explanation you don't have to give a correct explanation?

Again, as I've stated several times but you seem too to understand - you can calculate the refraction in the atmosphere but you don't use Snell's law in the same way you don't use the Pythagoras theorom to calculate a non-right angled triangle. If you disagree, please provide actual proof rather than saying that you think you've found imaginary proof. Seeing as you've failed and had to concede to me on a wide array of subjects in this topic alone and don't think Ben seem to understand very basic stuff, let just say that aside from every debater having an onus to support their own arguments I wouldn't trust you to wipe your own at this point without smearing all over yourself.

Take https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/13945/00-0322.pdf?sequence=1 for example, a peer reviewed paper on refraction calculation in the atmosphere. You'll note it doesn't use Snell's Law or even reference it once.

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

Also although you have conceded your maths is wrong you still haven't worked out how and why you were wrong. Give up?