Replying to Avatar Sovereign Being

Ahem

nostr:nevent1qqsyplp8cpthv2wphfqvh2gwtrut2ua24p3y9dsc7ausfec5c8aphrcpz4mhxue69uhhwmm59enkjunfdehjummjvuhsygpme3tr9f882z2n5gqklxg6mr9wkxxww5mmste9ugkqh5aeqq7chqpsgqqqqqqsafju0t

Avatar
wymike 5mo ago

If the earth was flat, with a telescope you would be able to see the whole mountain (mentioned in the experiment you referenced) and everything in between not just the top of the mountain.

Likewise from the west cost of the American continent you would be able to see the ice wall.

It seems to me that either of these would be easy enough experiments to perform if you wanted to prove that the earth was flat.

Why do ships disappear over the horizon if the earth is flat?

How could the people who walked across Antarctica do it in the time it took if Antarctica was a ring around the edge?

Why is there 24hr sun as ‘discovered’ by the flat earthers who went to Antarctica.

Every country on earth that has sent astronauts to the ISS must be working together to conspiring against us.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Sovereign Being 5mo ago

Funny how you said the math is never presented, then instead of addressing the observation directly, you start pointing to other examples and making misdirection claims instead of addressing the fact that the observations don't match the claimed rate of curvature.

Avatar
wymike 5mo ago

Without the having the actual spread sheet this is about the best that I can respond.

Bennett's formula calculates refraction for light from distant celestial bodies (e.g., stars, the Sun) entering the atmosphere at high altitudes.

Terrestrial theodolite measurements (e.g., sighting distant peaks) require a different refraction coefficient due to localized atmospheric effects near Earth's surface, such as temperature gradients and pressure variations

Avatar
wymike 5mo ago

Can you justify the use of Bennett’s formula considering it was not designed for this use case?

Avatar
Sovereign Being 5mo ago

The difference with or without a correction for refraction is basically negligible. At most you are looking at 7-10% that can be attributed to refraction, which cannot fulfil the requirements for explaining the discrepancies in the results, because it is too large.

That's the last pillar of the defence for long distance observations, and refraction isn't enough. You can observe silhouettes of maintains over even longer distances which cannot be attributed to refraction at all.

Avatar
Ike 5mo ago

"Likewise from the west cost of the American continent you would be able to see the ice wall."

How exactly would this be possible? Specifically?

Avatar
wymike 5mo ago

Light travels in straight lines. We can see whatever is in our line of sight. If the earth is flat and there is nothing between us and the ice wall we should be able to see it from great distances

Avatar
Ike 5mo ago

Ridiculous claim - the air at sea level is the least "transparent". Some day you can see a mountain 100 kms away, some day you cannot. The notion we would be able to see forever is either a lazy or bad faith argument. It is observably false.