Science is open to question. But the way you question is by either documenting a flaw or by proposing a better hypothesis.
What you are doing is saying I doubt it, without having done any of the work necessary.
Which is very clear from you not knowing Maxwell equations and not knowing why you can measure earth from above the atmosphere.
Please learn the basics and if you then still doubt it, please ask your questions. It’s impossible to teach you several years of college courses via Nostr.
Wait, so one is not allowed to simply question the existence of evidence of a supposed phenomena happening in the real world? This is what you call science?
Once again, the burden of proof is on whoever claims that some phenomena does exist. It is definitely not me, the person who questions it, that should provide evidence of it's non-existence. I don’t have to do anything to be able to point out the clear lack of proper evidence.
The fact stays the same - there is not a single properly documented piece of evidence that suggests that terrestrial refraction has anything to do with real life. Stating that it can visually lift objects to the tune of many kilometers up in the air is a very bold claim with zero actual backing. Only simulations, approximations and suppositions that without exception lack all the needed relevant real world measurements 🤷♂️
You are allowed to do what you wish for.
The issue here is that you try to doubt the phenomenon that is described by the current science, with evidence that is in line with it.
Which is because you don’t have basic know of the current theory.
The burden on proof for debunking a well documented and understood theory is on the Person debunking it. Especially since you never can proof a theory, you can only falsify.
It wouldn’t be the first time if this “phenomenon that is described by the current science” with supposed evidence turns out to be an unfounded misconception. In my book light does not visually bring up objects from 5km under the physical horizon, unless I see properly documented scientific evidence of it occurring in real life. I will continue to look for evidence myself, but if you manage to find it please do share.
But that’s the issue. You are proposing that the current theory is false, but you cannot explain why the looks the way it does.
Just look at the heights and distances noted next to the mountains.
I am just stating that there is no properly documented evidence for the "current theory". I don't need to provide any explanation to be able to point that out.
But you received several examples of properly documented evidence 🤷
Heck even the photo you yourself posted is evidence.
You are just throwing shade at a theory you didn’t even bother to explore.
That is not true. The video you sent me is in no way, shape or form a properly documented evidence. The other study you sent me objectively lacks all the necessary measurements to use it as proper evidence.
The original photo is definitely not an evidence by itself. If it came with all the needed measurements it would be, but it does not. If anything, it proves the non-existence of a physical horizon.
I try to be as objective as possible, and if I see actual evidence I will surely change my opinion on the subject. So far I have seen none.
Sorry, that’s not objectivity. If you look at the heights of the mountains in your photo, you’d see that they are not supporting a “lack of horizon”.
What you call objective is in fact subjective. You have an opinion and disregard all the evidence, while at the same time you don’t even try to understand the current theory.
A theory is falsified by evidence, it can never be proven positively. So with your approach you will be able to go on forever disregarding any evidence as not good enough.
If you ever want to live up to your handle, I suggest you start here https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/mirage
Higher mountains can appear lower because of a such well documented and easily verifiable phenomena as perspective. Objects appear smaller the further away they are situated. The fact that we can see a mountain as far away as 443km on the original photo suggests that there is no 5km tall obstruction created by the supposed physical horizon.
Your claim is - air layers of different temperature, pressure, humidity bend light around the supposed Earth’s curvature. To provide proper evidence of it, one needs to visually showcase it and include measurements of air layers through which the light passes. All the documents you sent me objectively lack the needed air layers measurements. That is not debatable. It is you yourself who has a strongly held belief and disregards the fact that there seems to be no real world evidence proving your belief correct.
In my book, any theory that cannot be proven to exist in the real world is just a wet dream of whoever came up with it. People are free to believe in fairies, unicorns and whatever they wish, but I will not consider them to have anything in common with real life unless I see properly documented evidence.
Thank you for the link and your continued desire to help me look into things, I truly appreciate it. However, this link as well provides exclusively theoretical suppositions and completely lacks all the relevant air layers measurements needed to prove refraction can visually bring objects up in the air to the tunes of many kilometres.
Well, this is a point where we can start.
Your claim is that perspective is the explanation.
Which can easily be falsified, by your own picture.
Perspective in a straight makes everything appear smaller the further it is away. The photo does show something very different.
The photo provides evidence that is in line with the current theory, but contradicts your hypothesis.
The point where we started is me showcasing the fact that it is geometrically impossible to see 443km away according to the earths official size and dimensions. I only mentioned perspective, as you claimed that the original photo somehow does not show the lack of 5km tall obstruction in the form of the physical horizon (which it clearly does).
This is a completely separate discussion, but if the picture does not show mountains to appear smaller the farther away they are, please make a coherent argument that suggests otherwise.
The photo clearly does not provide any evidence for “light bending round curvature and bringing objects up from under the physical horizon by the tunes of many kilometres”. That is impossible to conclude from a single picture without any other crucial measurements needed to support such an extraordinary claim.
One of the things I find interesting is how our trust in what we see has changed with the advent of the technological means to alter perception. No one would have questioned the authenticity of that photo taken by Ansel Adams in his time. We would have marveled at the wondrous circumstances that made such a photo possible.
I don't think anyone is questioning the authenticity of the original photo taken by Mark Bret Guma? Only the official theory that claims that light bending around the curvature is able to visually bring objects up from under the horizon by the tunes of many kilometers. I don't think most people can even imagine what it means for an object to be below the horizon by 5km. And consequently how unbelievable the official explanation is, especially that it is just an unproven theory without properly documented evidence.
