Well I’m familiar with refraction on hot air over the desert or roads, for example, that can cause mirages. So it makes sense to me that it could also happen upside down. Wikipedia lays it out pretty well, so based on that I’m sure you can find more concrete examples or papers.
Discussion
Sure, although inferior mirages are somewhat different from looming in that they create an additional image that looks like it reflects from the ground. Which is different from the light supposedly bending around the earths curvature.
I have been looking through all of the references on Wiki about looming, and in many cases they are just small articles from very old newspapers and journals and don’t contain even images. Newer photos are always shown without any other measurements like temperature, pressure and humidity. So all of this is purely theoretical.
The thing is that this phenomenon has been well understood for over a century. Nobody actively researching. Just like no mathematician is working on proving 2+2=4
Well, in my book it is just a theory unless I see actual documented evidence. Wouldn’t be the first scientific dogma turned out as a misconception in case if there is none.
There are countless documents and as I said, any cb radio operator can demonstrate it to you.
Also, you are turning the burden of evidence around. One can never proof a theory, you can only falsify it.
You are simply claiming that the photo above somehow violates the theories (on which all our technologies are built), without ever explaining exactly how .
Let’s be more specific. If you know of any proper document that contains all the relevant data points, please do share, I would highly appreciate that. What exactly any cb radio operator can demonstrate to me?
I don’t believe I am turning the burden of evidence. If someone comes up with a theory regarding anything, the burden of proof is on them. This is completely logical as it is not possible to prove a general non-existence of anything, only its existence.
I am claiming that using official earth’s size and dimensions the photo in the original post is not possible geometrically. And that the official explanation of why it is possible nevertheless is just a theory which I haven’t seen any proper evidence for. Technologies can fundamentally work even if the theory is a misconception. As I mentioned before, in many cases earth curvature variables are anyway simplified away from the formulas on which many technologies are built. So the existence of such technologies does not prove anything directly by itself.
Nope. The Maxwell equations predict exactly that light gets refracted by boundaries between mediums.
So from these equations the picture is absolutely what’s expected.
Your proposing that the mountain should not be visible. For which you must either proof that various air density and humidity zones do not cause refraction (I.e. the distance visible should be a straight line) or that the formulas are flawed.
P.S. the reason that it’s easier to demonstrate with radio than with light is, because the wavelengths are so much longer, so you can easier demonstrate it in air.
Found this video for you with a demonstration in water, but with light https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0
I think you meant Snell’s Law which is used to describe light passing through a boundary between two isotropic (homogeneous) media, such as water, glass or air. And as you can see it is not relevant in our case, as in the original photo the light passes solely through a single media which is air with supposedly different refraction indexes at different layers.
I am stating the fact that using simple geometry it is not possible to see as far away as 443km according to official earth’s size and dimensions, as any object would be under the physical horizon by more than *5* kilometres. This is not my personal proposal, it is a geometrical fact. If someone claims that it is possible nevertheless due to the layers of air through which the light passes being of different temperature, pressure and humidity and subsequently having different refraction indexes - the burden of proof is on them. They literally need to provide photographic evidence coupled with all the other relevant data points. There is no other way to objectively prove this theory otherwise. I don’t understand how this is even debatable.
Thank you for sharing the video. Is this the best documented “evidence” for terrestrial refraction that’s out there? I have a lot of problems with it, mainly that it shows light going through air, glass and water (with sugar in it) at the same time, this is 3 completely different media. How is this supposed to be the evidence of how the light acts between the boundaries of supposedly different layers of air? I am not even going to go into how this experiment is done unprofessionally, all kinds of variables were straight up changed in the midst of it. If you have any other proper scientific evidence (preferably that is not documented by some amateur conspiracy debunkoor), I would appreciate if you could share it with all of us.
This video simply demonstrates how it works, single medium water, with sugar for various density zones.
Would be a bit hard to show the effect with air, because the aquarium would need to be so large.
He even has a simulation where you can check the formulas.
And the propagation of electrical waves is described by the Maxwell equations.
Sorry to say, but if you don’t know what Maxwells equations are, I don’t think you know the basics to even try and debunk the current theories.
In this video experiment light passes through air first, then through the glass wall of the aquarium and finally through the water with dissolved sugar. I don’t see how light acting a certain way passing through air + glass + sugary water is an evidence of how it acts when passing solely through the air.
Definitely, I suspect a properly organized experiment proving the light terrestrial refraction theory will require more effort than an amateur weekend project. That’s why I’m fine with any documented evidence of this phenomena occurring in nature that includes all the relevant data points like air temperature, pressure, humidity and relative placement of the air layers. If you manage to find any, please let me know.
The thing with terrestrial refraction and namely looming is that it only exists in theory and simulations like that guy created. But I never saw it properly documented in real life at any scale, neither as an experiment, nor as a full scale natural phenomena. I don’t try to debunk it. I try to find real evidence for its existence and so far have failed to do so.
But the bending of the light happens on a single medium🤷
How about this?
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Refraction+Measurements
But in general, it’s really strange that you even have these doubts and ask for evidence.
Supposedly you are the guy that looked into it, but clearly you haven’t.
The theory applies to all electromagnetic waves and all media.
But for some reason, you think light and air should be different, even though all observances are in line with the equations… the equations which you haven’t even bothered to look into.
Basically you are trying to claim that the equations are suspect, the measurements of earth are sus, but you cannot even yourself calculate an example that the image violates.
You simply say „mountain shouldn’t be visible“ when that’s not at all what the current theories suggest.
In fact if the mountain was NOT visible at least some of the time, that would invalidate the science.
Thank you, this link is much better.
How is it strange that I have doubts over a theory and want to see properly documented evidence for its existence in the real world? I always thought that this is what science should be about - not believing anything, unless it can be objectively proven in the real life.
So *on paper* this theory applies to all electromagnetic waves. However, in the link you provided the author claims that “the measurement of positions in space using Differential GPS enables us to measure the radius of the earth and earth's curvature without optical detours”. So does refraction affect all electromagnetic waves including radio waves used by GPS, or does it not? Seems like you and the author of the linked study are of different opinions on this subject. Anyway, I am interested in the supposed optical phenomena which is why I am only considering evidence regarding light waves.
For some reason, I do believe that light traveling through air is different from light traveling though water and glass (and especially through all of the above media combined at the same time)… Indeed, why would I believe that (if you exclude the fact that it is completely logical)?
I have looked through all of the equations that you mentioned and beyond, almost none of them have anything to do directly with the supposed terrestrial refraction. In many of them earth’s curvature is simplified away and calculations are made either with earth considered being flat or light rays considered being straight. And most of these equations are admittedly just approximations of a purely theoretical phenomena.
Regarding the study you linked, the author created a straw man of how refraction supposedly should act on a flat earth, and then disproved it using his purely theoretical simulations like it actually means something. Moreover, this study lacks all the necessary data points to objectively prove the existence of terrestrial refraction. Namely the temperature, pressure and humidity of air layers captured on video (and their relative placement) are completely absent. If you manage to find another study that does include them, please do share. I genuinely try my best to look into things, and am always open to changing my opinion on any given subject, but only if proper evidence presents itself. So far there is no properly documented evidence for me to believe light bends many kilometres up from below the earth’s supposed physical horizon.
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.