Offline Flex

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Distances can be seen on the earth that should not be allowed by the curve. Here are some world record sighting distances that defy the supposed curvature of the earth:

https://beyondrange.wordpress.com/

Plug this data into https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial and you can find that these mountain ranges should be hidden behind the horizon.

The argument I see so often for this is that it is atmospheric refraction. Yet there is an observation that proves this can not be the case. The sun's apparent size in the sky is the same at noon as it is at sunrise/sunset. Since they are the same size, this shows that there is no atmospheric refraction occurring, because if the atmosphere were in fact refracting it would enlarge the sun towards the horizon due to a higher angle of incidence through the supposed spherical atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

Thoughts?`

 

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 632
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2021, 03:21:42 PM »
So, no enlarging of the sun in an image from the website you linked.



Time for my annual eye exam, I guess.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2021, 03:26:18 PM »
So, no enlarging of the sun in an image from the website you linked.



Time for my annual eye exam, I guess.
Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2021, 03:29:06 PM »
Looking at things which are at the limit of vision, or of the optical device in use, will always be held up for dispute.

Why not look at things which are closer and clearer, and apply measurement, geometry and trigonometry to them, to see if you can decide whether or not these are consistent with either flat or not?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 632
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2021, 03:31:46 PM »
Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2021, 03:44:13 PM »
Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.
Oh, you are claiming I am mistaken?

According to this debunking site, you are wrong and I am right.

https://flatearth.ws/sun-apparent-size

Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2021, 03:57:09 PM »
Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.
Oh, you are claiming I am mistaken?

According to this debunking site, you are wrong and I am right.

https://flatearth.ws/sun-apparent-size
It says "practically" constant. I don't know if refraction is a factor which would change the apparent size. It certainly changes the apparent position.
What we don't see is the sun being 3 or 4 times larger in the sky at noon as it is at sunset, which is what would happen if the sun was 3 or 4 times further away as in the FE model.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 632
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2021, 04:01:54 PM »
Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.
Oh, you are claiming I am mistaken?

According to this debunking site, you are wrong and I am right.

https://flatearth.ws/sun-apparent-size

My apologies for confusing the original 'apparent size' due to:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate

as opposed to you're stated 'angular size'. 
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2021, 04:02:55 PM »
Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.
Oh, you are claiming I am mistaken?

According to this debunking site, you are wrong and I am right.

https://flatearth.ws/sun-apparent-size
It says "practically" constant. I don't know if refraction is a factor which would change the apparent size. It certainly changes the apparent position.
What we don't see is the sun being 3 or 4 times larger in the sky at noon as it is at sunset, which is what would happen if the sun was 3 or 4 times further away as in the FE model.
Yeah, and here we go.

Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 632
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2021, 04:21:07 PM »
Yeah, and here we go.

Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.



Start at about minute 21.  Good explanation of how every FEer missuses distance-drop phenomenon.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2021, 04:27:50 PM »
Yeah, and here we go.

Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.



Start at about minute 21.  Good explanation of how every FEer missuses distance-drop phenomenon.
Yeah, cool.

What about these mountains that changed apparent position on the earth?

Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2021, 04:36:16 PM »
Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Can you give an example?

There's no dispute that refraction is a thing. So sure, sometimes results don't match what you'd expect on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere - because that's not what we live on.
I've yet to see a long distance photo which would, say, show from a viewing height of 20 inches above the sea level that it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2021, 04:38:59 PM »
Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Can you give an example?

There's no dispute that refraction is a thing. So sure, sometimes results don't match what you'd expect on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere - because that's not what we live on.
I've yet to see a long distance photo which would, say, show from a viewing height of 20 inches above the sea level that it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away.
Yeah, you are claiming these mountain ranges have changed apparent position on the earth.

Seems like an example to me.

Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2021, 04:52:36 PM »
Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Can you give an example?

There's no dispute that refraction is a thing. So sure, sometimes results don't match what you'd expect on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere - because that's not what we live on.
I've yet to see a long distance photo which would, say, show from a viewing height of 20 inches above the sea level that it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away.
Yeah, you are claiming these mountain ranges have changed apparent position on the earth.

Seems like an example to me.
Are you talking about the photo posted in this thread? I had a look on the website and can't find any information about exactly where the photo was taken from, what the viewer height was. Exactly which direction they were looking at. I don't even know how to start investigating this without any of that information.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2021, 04:58:31 PM »
Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Can you give an example?

There's no dispute that refraction is a thing. So sure, sometimes results don't match what you'd expect on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere - because that's not what we live on.
I've yet to see a long distance photo which would, say, show from a viewing height of 20 inches above the sea level that it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away.
Yeah, you are claiming these mountain ranges have changed apparent position on the earth.

Seems like an example to me.
Are you talking about the photo posted in this thread? I had a look on the website and can't find any information about exactly where the photo was taken from, what the viewer height was. Exactly which direction they were looking at. I don't even know how to start investigating this without any of that information.
Fair enough.


Offline Flex

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2021, 02:07:51 PM »
Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Can you give an example?

There's no dispute that refraction is a thing. So sure, sometimes results don't match what you'd expect on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere - because that's not what we live on.
I've yet to see a long distance photo which would, say, show from a viewing height of 20 inches above the sea level that it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away.
Yeah, you are claiming these mountain ranges have changed apparent position on the earth.

Seems like an example to me.
Are you talking about the photo posted in this thread? I had a look on the website and can't find any information about exactly where the photo was taken from, what the viewer height was. Exactly which direction they were looking at. I don't even know how to start investigating this without any of that information.

If you go to the website it says where the picture is taken from, the distance to the mountain that they are viewing, and the height of the mountain they are viewing. Use google to determine height of the cameraman by searching the height of the mountain they are on.

To save you time, these mountain ranges should not be visible. The only explanation from the round earth perspective is that it is refraction. But if it were in fact refraction we would notice a larger apparent angular size of the sun, but the sun actually remains the same apparent size on the horizon as it is during mid-day... This tells me there is no atmospheric refraction, because otherwise the sun would appear larger.

I'm working on a theory that includes the circumnavigable aspects, while also maintaining the apparent flatness in the 3D

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2021, 02:20:28 PM »
To save you time, these mountain ranges should not be visible. The only explanation from the round earth perspective ...

Or you could focus on things which are clearly visible, which would remove the argument of whether or not they should be visible.

Extend the principles of Rowbottom's experiment 2, but observe objects which are farther than Rowbottom's, but still within clear view.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Experiment_Two

To save you time, this has been done already.

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2021, 02:30:46 PM »
To save you time, these mountain ranges should not be visible.
Can you show your working? I couldn't find anything about the viewer height, it said it was taken from the "Corsica area".
I have no idea how to verify whether the mountains shown in the photograph have been identified correctly.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis