[Tom]

(also placed on the other forum)

In a dictionary (webster) you can read:

Terrestrial refraction, the change in the apparent altitude of a distant point on or near the earth's surface, as the top of a mountain, arising from the passage of light from it to the eye through atmospheric strata of varying density.

Is there proof/research that terrestrial refraction can also make objects below the surface visible?


In Wikipedia:

Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they really are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they really are.


So in the afternoon, in nice weather conditions, terrestrial refraction is zero or less.

There are some studies about the exact coefficient during several weather conditions.
I looked into it, but find it difficult to understand.

Could you please let us know if you have more information about the coefficient in different circumstances. In other words how high could an (hidden) object (image) rise in the sky?

Proof or a source would be nice.


Could someone also please comment on the following articles regarding experiments:

https://spatial.curtin.edu.au/models/Hirt2010_JGR_D21102_refraction_authorversion.pdf

http://qap2.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC078i015p02679/pdf

https://ia700600.us.archive.org/32/items/philtrans06678242/06678242.pdf

[Tom Bishop]

The problem the "refraction did it" explanation the Globularists have for flat earth observations is that refraction would need to project the object a precise distance into the sky, no higher and no lower, accounting for the distance to that object under a globe, to trick the observer into believing that the earth is flat when it is, in fact, round.

[Tom]

The problem the "refraction did it" explanation the Globularists have for flat earth observations is that refraction would need to project the object a precise distance into the sky, no higher and no lower, accounting for the distance to that object under a globe, to trick the observer into believing that the earth is flat when it is, in fact, round.

Always the exact same 'distortion'.

Would the refraction argument compare with:

when I am standing on the downward slope of a large hill I should see what is on the other downward slope on the other side of the hill because of terrestrial refraction.

[markjo]

The problem the "refraction did it" explanation the Globularists have for flat earth observations is that refraction would need to project the object a precise distance into the sky, no higher and no lower, accounting for the distance to that object under a globe, to trick the observer into believing that the earth is flat when it is, in fact, round.

No, it wouldn't.  In fact, it demonstrably doesn't.  This is why we have superior, inferior, fata morgana, etc. type mirages.

You see Tom, you're the one that expects us to believe that water convexity experiments provide the exact same results every time, under all environments conditions without the need for any sort of documentation other that someone's word that they saw it.  RET says that various refractive phenomena will occur under different conditions.  The ones that result in seeing things that should be over the horizon are the notable ones and wind up getting all the attention and have been researched and documented.  The ones that don't are quite unremarkable and are generally ignored.

[Tom]

The problem the "refraction did it" explanation the Globularists have for flat earth observations is that refraction would need to project the object a precise distance into the sky, no higher and no lower, accounting for the distance to that object under a globe, to trick the observer into believing that the earth is flat when it is, in fact, round.

No, it wouldn't.  In fact, it demonstrably doesn't.  This is why we have superior, inferior, fata morgana, etc. type mirages.

You see Tom, you're the one that expects us to believe that water convexity experiments provide the exact same results every time, under all environments conditions without the need for any sort of documentation other that someone's word that they saw it.  RET says that various refractive phenomena will occur under different conditions.  The ones that result in seeing things that should be over the horizon are the notable ones and wind up getting all the attention and have been researched and documented.  The ones that don't are quite unremarkable and are generally ignored.

I am not expecting you to believe anything. Just asking some questions.

And how about the land?
In 2 different countries (2000 miles apart and different weather patrons) you are watching long distances.
With a spotting scope you see on 50 consecutive days with different terrestrial refraction every day in the morning and in the afternoon the bottom of a building you should not be able to see because of the curvature of the earth.

Would that convince you? If not why not?

When I am standing on the (slowly) downward slope of a large hill I should see what is on the other downward slope on the other side of the hill because of terrestrial refraction. Especially when we are talking long distance, you can not see the top of the hill with bare eye, you can see it with a magnifying device and you are doing it on a day when there is a lot of terrestrial refraction. Do you agree I will see a (part of a) house behind the top because of terrestrial refraction?

Ot does terrestrial refraction only work on a flat surface (no hills)?

[sandokhan]

Terrestrial refraction is just the first step in properly defending FET...

Here are the terrestrial refraction, looming and ducting phenomena applied to Lake Michigan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1591587#msg1591587

[Rayzor]

Terrestrial refraction is just the first step in properly defending FET...

Here are the terrestrial refraction, looming and ducting phenomena applied to Lake Michigan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1591587#msg1591587

Interesting.   

It's worth knowing that long distance measurements over water are always going to be suspect,  a vertical air temperature gradient of just 0.11 degrees per meter is sufficient to bend light so that it will follow the curvature of the earth.  And you ALWAYS get water temperatures different to air temperature close to the water, so the closer to the water the more likely the effect.

http://web.archive.org/web/20131717135100/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html#looming

Just to be pedantic,  it's incorrect to call it a mirage unless the image is inverted.   

If you wish to prove the shape of the earth using long distance observations over water, then you need to be well above the water surface, and have some control measurements in place, when Wallace and later Oldham debunked the Bedford level experiments of Rowbotham,  they had boats positioned along the canal with fixed height poles, so there was an independent line of sight established to correct for refraction.    Surveyors routinely use C+R  ( curvature and refraction ) corrections when doing geodetic surveys.