Search results

I was sort of ignoring this point just because I understand what he's getting at but I'm glad someone mentioned it. It is important to point out as many flaws in the Flat Earth thinking process as possible. In actual fact, we are seeing the real city or ship or whatever. The light has bounced...

How often does it happen that you can see Chicago from across the lake?

The image above is not displaying refraction but rather reflection and would result in an upside down image of the ship as in the picture below... If the image is due to refraction, it will be upright... (There is actually some of both refraction and reflection occurring in that last...

David, So just how is this discussion about refraction arguing for a flat Earth anyway? As I've said, no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts...

No, we aren't told that by anyone other than flat earthers wanting to have something to argue against. No, not both. That's complete asinine stupidity. No other response is warranted. What are you seeing? A make believe city? What else would you be seeing? Just because the light is refracted...

One single more syllable from you along these lines will land you permanently on my ignore list. Not only have I spent an ungodly number of hours presenting argument after argument that YOU ignored completely but you've totally lost any right to talk to me about "doing better"! You can kiss me...

Irrelevant and already answered. If the image isn't inverted, it isn't a reflection but rather a refraction of the light. NO ONE BUT FLAT EARTHERS PROPOSE REFLECTIVE MIRAGES AS AN EXPLANATION FOR WAY WE SEE CITY SKY LIKES (OR ANY OTHER UPRIGHT IMAGE) FROM 50 MILES AWAY!!!!! It's a trick...

As has been told to you countless times, it isn't about reflection it's about refraction. This entire argument is literal stupidity that you're repeating, the source of which almost certainly knew it was a lie when he wrote it Terrestrial Refraction...

I just deleted a whole response to this post. Suffice it to say that, no, it's not OK. Intellectual dishonesty is no more OK than any other sort of dishonesty. So, what's next? Which aspect of this debate do you want to repeat now? Go ahead, if that's what you find so enjoyable, pick...

Rush to a conclusion? We've been beating this dead horse for a year!

None of this makes any sense. Who ever said anything about more than one atmospheric condition existing in one place at the same time. That's stupid. You're rebutting an argument that has never been made. There certainly can be more than one atmospheric condition existing between two places...

No lunatic ever thinks he's a lunatic so... Besides, like I said, there isn't one single good argument for a flat Earth. Not only that, but it has been fundamentally falsified! Yet you remain unpersuaded and unpersuadable. Clete

Actually, on my way to work, after having posted that really fast post, it occurred to me that I may have been less than clear about what I meant. Light travels basically in a straight line through whatever it is that its traveling through. It refracts whenever it encounters something with a...

This misses the point, Dave. The refractive index of water is the refractive index of water, whether you're in it or not. The transition from water to air and vice versa exaggerates the effect but that doesn't mean that light isn't refracted just because you're in the water with the fish. It is...

Broken clocks Yeah, except there's no comparison between the two! It's equivalent to comparing the arguments for the existence of DNA (something you have no way of confirming first hand) and the existence of Sasquatch. People who try to convince others that Sasquatch exists are lunatics...

David, Do some real research of your own. Go HERE and HERE and experiment with it. Plug in whatever numbers you want and see if you can make a flat Earth work. Hint: Don't make the mistake of only doing calculations from the surface of a flat earth. Do calculation as though the 90° angle is...

The Pythagorean Theorem has only to do with right triangles. That is, triangles with a 90° angle in it. It basic means that since you know that one angle is 90° then all you need to know is either the length of two sides or the length of one side and the angle of one of the other two corners and...

I appreciate that, Dave. I really do. I like you as well. That's the only reason I keep pressing this. Are you sure you understand it? Because the argument isn't for a globed Earth. It does not prove that the Earth is round, it proves that the Earth cannot be flat. Do you understand the...

What? You have to study the Pythagorean Theorem? You didn't go to high school? You can't pull up and read a Wikipedia article? What's their to study? I spelled it all out for you! If this angle is X and that side is Y then there's exactly one possible value for every other aspect of a right...

I knew you were going to say something stupid like this. You're hopeless. I doubt it. With no more intelligence and discernment than you've shown in this thread, I don't believe you for a minute. Do me a favor, unless and until you drop this flat earth stupidity, don't take my side on this...