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.

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.

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.

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.

Few understand this!

#[0]

I’d say $21,000,000 is a fair valuation per Bitcoin.

Thinking through genuine (sic!) complexity (a.k.a. intellectual proof-of-work) is valuable by definition. What I meant earlier is that (stupid or not) people tend to fall for pseudo-intellectual complexity that often disguises ignorance.

Just a reminder: having more than $250k in a bank account is now a risk on asset.

But, #bitcoin is too risky, eh?

Yep. Thinking through genuine complexity is a definition of intellectual work. It is a proof of work endeavor 😊.

Overcomplicating may be a way to disguise ignorance. But genuine complexity rarely appeals to stupid people.

Die Welt ist mir zu smart, da komme ich mit meinem begrenzten Horizont nicht mit, deshalb halte ich nur Bitcoin.

My parents bank account is currently locked and they’re unable to send out bank transfers!

#bitcoin fixes this!

The formulas might be the same (they are only an approximation after all), but fundamentally ionosphere refraction is different. It literally reflects radio waves from some layer in the sky and sends them back at a specific angle. That could work on earth of any size and shape.

At the end of the day, this formula is only an approximation for a theoretical phenomena and does not by itself prove this phenomena exists in the first place. If optical refraction exists, it should be visibly demonstrable and easily repeatable in any direction be it vertical, horizontal, diagonal. The fact that one can reflect a radio signal from the ionosphere and bounce it back on earth to a large distance does not necessarily prove anything regarding earths size and shape, only that there is something up there in the sky that reflects the radio waves.

Anyone know of a way you can be your own bank?

I think it's a local thing. Europeans are primed to pronounce it as 'plehb' because it's not an English native word and exists in all European languages.