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.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
