There is no evidence to support terrestrial refraction over a curved Earth. Only example to show refraction over an object was done with liquid butane;
*snip* Only problem with this experiment, our atmosphere if not filled with liquid butane.
“Terrestrial refraction” ? (WTF is that?)
Refraction is physics. It's a very solid model, built from natural laws, of how waves propagates when the phase velocity changes due to changes in the medium.
It's general. It applies to all forms of waves in all kinds of mediums. Butane is not a special case.
There are limitless amounts of evidence for, always, and none contrary. In every observation and every application where the conditions apply.
Have you noted that on every beach everywhere in the world, the waves always moves towards the beach? Refraction!
Have you noted that you can see? Refraction!
Have you noticed that the Nikon P-900 camera above works? Refraction!
Have you noted that when military fires a radar guided missile or radar controlled cannon against an aircraft or missiles, they often actually hit? The radar systems correct for refraction and if there wasn't any in the real atmosphere they would ALWAYS miss, every single time. Refraction!
Then we have the example of the Rogers Center video you linked above. Refraction!
The video is fine, despite my early misgivings. Only thing wrong with it is the presumption that Rogers Center should have been obscured. That info is false and relies on an invalid reference. Mike West's calculator is not correct. Not in this case. Note that it uses the approximative concept of equivalent radius to estimate refraction, and that it uses the fixed approximation of 7/6*R. This approximation is only a rough thumb rule. And that thumb rule is explicitly NOT applicable if the observer is close to the ground level! And, again, it is explicitly NOT applicable OVER WATER! That's the only problem. False presumption. The density gradient is much greater over cold water and close to the water. Thus refraction close to the ground and over water is strong enough to make Rogers Center visible.
...And it works exactly the same way as in your Butane video. Yet more evidence.
That was a nice sermon, but got any scientific evidence for we of little faith?
That was a nice sermon, but got any scientific evidence for we of little faith?
Evidence is abundant. Natural science is radically different from religion. Maybe you need to make a journey. You can start by contemplating the concept of "know" and "knowledge". Consider what is the essential characteristics of the knowledge of things you "know".
Report back to me here when you think you have figured it out, and we'll take the next step.
Sufficiently understood and mastered Magic is indistinguishable from Technology. Those who can't, don't know how hard it is. Clark is the only reason people know who A'ja is. Clark forces me to watch a cancerous league. WNBA take in the cash and knock out Clark. Clark bursts viewer records and WNBA burst Clark's eardrum. WNBA bend their knees and bust Clark's knee. WNBA close their eyes and poke Clark's eye.
That was a nice sermon, but got any scientific evidence for we of little faith?
Evidence is abundant. Natural science is radically different from religion. Maybe you need to make a journey. You can start by contemplating the concept of "know" and "knowledge". Consider what is the essential characteristics of the knowledge of things you "know".
Report back to me here when you think you have figured it out, and we'll take the next step.
Have yet to find evidence for it, only evidence against;
3 min clip 9000 feet mountain over 175 miles that should be buried over 3000 feet of Earth curvature (12000 total). Normally not visible without the sun getting near and behind it. So you mean to tell me the sun cant shine through something that's not there?
Post by Qui-Gon GlenN7 on Aug 18, 2018 0:14:31 GMT
As much as I love discussion of Epistemology, I wish we could keep it to hard science here.
Also, Sinful, you have told me previously that you have your own evidence for why Flat Earth is a false theory. Instead of endlessly playing Devil's Advocate, why don't you share the evidence that was compelling for you with us. Or has something changed, and you fear you may spin off the platter at any moment?
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
As much as I love discussion of Epistemology, I wish we could keep it to hard science here.
Also, Sinful, you have told me previously that you have your own evidence for why Flat Earth is a false theory. Instead of endlessly playing Devil's Advocate, why don't you share the evidence that was compelling for you with us. Or has something changed, and you fear you may spin off the platter at any moment?
Mouse won't like if this derails into too much flat Earth talk. As is it's interesting to point out a few tidbits mainstream science can't explain about the heliocentric model.
Evidence is abundant. Natural science is radically different from religion. Maybe you need to make a journey. You can start by contemplating the concept of "know" and "knowledge". Consider what is the essential characteristics of the knowledge of things you "know".
Report back to me here when you think you have figured it out, and we'll take the next step.
Have yet to find evidence for it, only evidence against;
3 min clip 9000 feet mountain over 175 miles that should be buried over 3000 feet of Earth curvature (12000 total). Normally not visible without the sun getting near and behind it. So you mean to tell me the sun cant shine through something that's not there?
- Pathetic!
Refraction again. Entirely consistent with both refraction and a spinning spherical Earth. This is what it should look like! You may also note that the Sun becomes flattened into an ellipse. You may also notice that the mountain is never visible as anything other than a silhouette against the setting sun. You may also note (if you time it) that the sun seems to slow down, as it sets. All of these things are expected and necessary consequences of refraction and a spherical Earth. Not only the mountain, but the entire sun is below the horizon. As the light from the sun reaches us, bent around the Earth by refraction, so is the silhouette of blocked light.
...And stop this diversion. Answer my question. Consider what characterizes everything you know and tell me.
Sufficiently understood and mastered Magic is indistinguishable from Technology. Those who can't, don't know how hard it is. Clark is the only reason people know who A'ja is. Clark forces me to watch a cancerous league. WNBA take in the cash and knock out Clark. Clark bursts viewer records and WNBA burst Clark's eardrum. WNBA bend their knees and bust Clark's knee. WNBA close their eyes and poke Clark's eye.
Have yet to find evidence for it, only evidence against;
3 min clip 9000 feet mountain over 175 miles that should be buried over 3000 feet of Earth curvature (12000 total). Normally not visible without the sun getting near and behind it. So you mean to tell me the sun cant shine through something that's not there?
- Pathetic!
Refraction again. Entirely consistent with both refraction and a spinning spherical Earth. This is what it should look like! You may also note that the Sun becomes flattened into an ellipse. You may also notice that the mountain is never visible as anything other than a silhouette against the setting sun. You may also note (if you time it) that the sun seems to slow down, as it sets. All of these things are expected and necessary consequences of refraction and a spherical Earth. Not only the mountain, but the entire sun is below the horizon. As the light from the sun reaches us, bent around the Earth by refraction, so is the silhouette of blocked light.
...And stop this diversion. Answer my question. Consider what characterizes everything you know and tell me.
If there's no observable/repeatable evidence, then it's a faith based assumption. Not fact and definitely not science.
Pretty bizarre the world is observably flat and how that's turned around with 'it only looks flat by this magical assumption that everything refracts into view over the curve.' Ever hear of occam's razor?
Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
The question was why would there be a silhouette of a mountain range in front of the sun if that mountain range is not supposed to be really there? (ie. refracted over the supposed curve of the Earth)
And with infrared technology we can see more then silhouettes of distant mountain ranges;
Diversion? Fail to see how, the subject is still trying figure out how refraction bends everything into sight to make the world look flat. I'm sharing and backing what I know, still waiting and searching for observable repeatable evidence to support the contrary.
PS - if this subject is rubbing you the wrong way, it's not my intention, so we can drop it. Believe I've shared enough of my arguments for others to make up their own mind.
Refraction again. Entirely consistent with both refraction and a spinning spherical Earth. This is what it should look like! You may also note that the Sun becomes flattened into an ellipse. You may also notice that the mountain is never visible as anything other than a silhouette against the setting sun. You may also note (if you time it) that the sun seems to slow down, as it sets. All of these things are expected and necessary consequences of refraction and a spherical Earth. Not only the mountain, but the entire sun is below the horizon. As the light from the sun reaches us, bent around the Earth by refraction, so is the silhouette of blocked light.
...And stop this diversion. Answer my question. Consider what characterizes everything you know and tell me.
If there's no observable/repeatable evidence, then it's a faith based assumption. Not fact and definitely not science.
Pretty bizarre the world is observably flat and how that's turned around with 'it only looks flat by this magical assumption that everything refracts into view over the curve.' Ever hear of occam's razor?
Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
The question was why would there be a silhouette of a mountain range in front of the sun if that mountain range is not supposed to be really there? (ie. refracted over the supposed curve of the Earth)
And with infrared technology we can see more then silhouettes of distant mountain ranges;
Diversion? Fail to see how, the subject is still trying figure out how refraction bends everything into sight to make the world look flat. I'm sharing and backing what I know, still waiting and searching for observable repeatable evidence to support the contrary.
PS - if this subject is rubbing you the wrong way, it's not my intention, so we can drop it. Believe I've shared enough of my arguments for others to make up their own mind.
(It is of course repeatable and observable, you're just blabbering nonsense if you deny that)
And no, the subject is not how refraction bends waves. (That is well understood and not just "repeatable" but also predictable, btw, and used in engineering of common stuff that actually works). I changed the subject, as I've already explained your video.
The subject now is why you purport to not understand it and continue to contrive denials. (My conviction is that you're some kind of troll, but that doesn't really matter). So I'm going down into the cellar: Again, contemplate "know" and "knowledge". Consider what characterizes everything you know and tell me.
Sufficiently understood and mastered Magic is indistinguishable from Technology. Those who can't, don't know how hard it is. Clark is the only reason people know who A'ja is. Clark forces me to watch a cancerous league. WNBA take in the cash and knock out Clark. Clark bursts viewer records and WNBA burst Clark's eardrum. WNBA bend their knees and bust Clark's knee. WNBA close their eyes and poke Clark's eye.
If there's no observable/repeatable evidence, then it's a faith based assumption. Not fact and definitely not science.
Pretty bizarre the world is observably flat and how that's turned around with 'it only looks flat by this magical assumption that everything refracts into view over the curve.' Ever hear of occam's razor?
The question was why would there be a silhouette of a mountain range in front of the sun if that mountain range is not supposed to be really there? (ie. refracted over the supposed curve of the Earth)
And with infrared technology we can see more then silhouettes of distant mountain ranges;
Diversion? Fail to see how, the subject is still trying figure out how refraction bends everything into sight to make the world look flat. I'm sharing and backing what I know, still waiting and searching for observable repeatable evidence to support the contrary.
PS - if this subject is rubbing you the wrong way, it's not my intention, so we can drop it. Believe I've shared enough of my arguments for others to make up their own mind.
(It is of course repeatable and observable, you're just blabbering nonsense if you deny that)
And no, the subject is not how refraction bends waves. (That is well understood and not just "repeatable" but also predictable, btw, and used in engineering of common stuff that actually works). I changed the subject, as I've already explained your video.
The subject now is why you purport to not understand it and continue to contrive denials. (My conviction is that you're some kind of troll, but that doesn't really matter). So I'm going down into the cellar: Again, contemplate "know" and "knowledge". Consider what characterizes everything you know and tell me.
You've already done a good deal of showing yourself. Wonderful examples of refraction.
Occam's Razor is a thumb rule tool, not any kind of law. Yet you're misappropriating it. You have to explain why a physical law, which applies everywhere, every time, suddenly should be mysteriously absent. You have to explain why the sun slows down as it sets. You have to explain why the sun flattens. You have to explain why the apparent distance to the horizon changes with different atmospheric conditions... And so on. All while accepting without question the fact that you can see, that the camera can “see”, etc.
It's pointless for me to make an argument if you always jumble everything with meaningless babble. So no, I'm not playing that game. We have to go down into the cellar. Again: Tell me about “knowing”. Tell me what and why, and what characterizes everything you “know”.
Sufficiently understood and mastered Magic is indistinguishable from Technology. Those who can't, don't know how hard it is. Clark is the only reason people know who A'ja is. Clark forces me to watch a cancerous league. WNBA take in the cash and knock out Clark. Clark bursts viewer records and WNBA burst Clark's eardrum. WNBA bend their knees and bust Clark's knee. WNBA close their eyes and poke Clark's eye.
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
You've already done a good deal of showing yourself. Wonderful examples of refraction.
Occam's Razor is a thumb rule tool, not any kind of law. Yet you're misappropriating it. You have to explain why a physical law, which applies everywhere, every time, suddenly should be mysteriously absent. You have to explain why the sun slows down as it sets. You have to explain why the sun flattens. You have to explain why the apparent distance to the horizon changes with different atmospheric conditions... And so on. All while accepting without question the fact that you can see, that the camera can “see”, etc.
It's pointless for me to make an argument if you always jumble everything with meaningless babble. So no, I'm not playing that game. We have to go down into the cellar. Again: Tell me about “knowing”. Tell me what and why, and what characterizes everything you “know”.
So more assumptions is better to less or none?
This is not a flat Earth debate, no need to derail into how things work on a flat Earth. It's a refraction assumption debate VS no assumption. I don't assume anything, I see it because it's there. You have to assume this complex song and dance to justify your assumption of a 3,959 mile Earth radius sphere.
Haven't jumbled anything, just waiting on that evidence. Why deflect with what I know, you a party pooper? I like my song and dance too...
You've already done a good deal of showing yourself. Wonderful examples of refraction.
Occam's Razor is a thumb rule tool, not any kind of law. Yet you're misappropriating it. You have to explain why a physical law, which applies everywhere, every time, suddenly should be mysteriously absent. You have to explain why the sun slows down as it sets. You have to explain why the sun flattens. You have to explain why the apparent distance to the horizon changes with different atmospheric conditions... And so on. All while accepting without question the fact that you can see, that the camera can “see”, etc.
It's pointless for me to make an argument if you always jumble everything with meaningless babble. So no, I'm not playing that game. We have to go down into the cellar. Again: Tell me about “knowing”. Tell me what and why, and what characterizes everything you “know”.
So more assumptions is better to less or none?
This is not a flat Earth debate, no need to derail into how things work on a flat Earth. It's a refraction assumption debate VS no assumption. I don't assume anything, I see it because it's there. You have to assume this complex song and dance to justify your assumption of a 3,959 mile Earth radius sphere.
Haven't jumbled anything, just waiting on that evidence. Why deflect with what I know, you a party pooper? I like my song and dance too...
Where do you draw the line between know and "assume"? Seems to me you have to assume some movements in various directions take you home? Is that how you do it? I know, and I can tell you why. (Forcing you to understand is obviously a different matter).
Evidence is abundant. I already told you. And evidence is not "more assumptions". You don't understand Occam's Razor.
But more interesting now, and perhaps necessary, is to clarify what you think "evidence" is? And what role you imagine it plays? Care to explain your thoughts on that matter?
Sufficiently understood and mastered Magic is indistinguishable from Technology. Those who can't, don't know how hard it is. Clark is the only reason people know who A'ja is. Clark forces me to watch a cancerous league. WNBA take in the cash and knock out Clark. Clark bursts viewer records and WNBA burst Clark's eardrum. WNBA bend their knees and bust Clark's knee. WNBA close their eyes and poke Clark's eye.
But more interesting now, and perhaps necessary, is to clarify what you think "evidence" is? And what role you imagine it plays? Care to explain your thoughts on that matter?
Let me ask you this, if today everyday people cannot find any curvature measurement, what chance did those in the pre-light bulb days stand?