[/quote]
Gulliver was demanding photographs from us of the water convexity experiment and offered a $250,000 reward. He also demanded science teachers there for verification, video of set up, etc. Dogplatter and I were in the process of taking him up on the offer but he reneged.
That was years ago. I don't even live in the area we were discussing anymore. Today there are plenty of water convexity experiments on YouTube. And Lady Bount did photographic evidence. Go off and explore.
If you want us to travel, order equipment, and perfom any specific experiment, with video of setups and photographs of results, how about funding our efforts?
No one is saying that refraction effects do not happen. That is far from saying that there is a permanent Flat Earth refraction effect which occurs along the surface of the Bedford canal. A permanent density or range of warm air which creates a perfect flat earth effect when viewed? And adjusts itself to suspend the object in the air to the height it needs to be, no higher and no lower, according to the distance looked across? An extremely ridiculous supposition.
Stop trying to theorize strings of increasingly absurd coincidences. You are only embarrassing yourself.
[/quote]
Any more embarrassing or ridiculous than making out that there is a magic phenomena that magnifies the sun so that it Exactly stays the same size all day, even though the distance is varying by thousands of miles? Or the fact that “waves” make the sun slowly disappear over th horizon?
You are arguing that refraction does not exist, and yet in different chapters of EnaG it says that it should be discounted and does not exist when the object are in the same medium such as air (Exp 9) , yet in others (tangential horizon) argues that refraction will cause the effect seen.
No wonder the FEers are confused and dont know which explanation to use, other than refraction must occur if it supports FE, yet is some sore of Magic mirage to be ridiculed if it does not support the FE!