02 Feb 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou live in your mind only. The real world rumbles by in spite of your paranoia. You also ignore the fact in 1947 there was a US navy circumnavigation of Antarctica and what did you say? Well look what Admiral Byrd said, so frigging what, they went all the way round Antarctica and there are modern expiditions of circumnavigations happened at least 3 times and another coming up in a few months. So of course in your addled mind, they must also be in on the vast international conspiracy. Good luck with that. The real world knows much better.
Literally every challenge that's been put forward to you has been ignored, and in response, you've contributed wall after wall of gibberish text.
It's almost as though you're afraid to simply face the facts.
But a self-described master of all disciplines such as yourself could really never be afraid of facts, right?
02 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseSee?
You live in your mind only. The real world rumbles by in spite of your paranoia. You also ignore the fact in 1947 there was a US navy circumnavigation of Antarctica and what did you say? Well look what Admiral Byrd said, so frigging what, they went all the way round Antarctica and there are modern expiditions of circumnavigations happened at least 3 times a ...[text shortened]... in on the vast international conspiracy. Good luck with that. The real world knows much better.
You did it again.
02 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseYou're wrong and you're right.
You really think in your addled mind you actually won an argument. Amazing, not too much though, it is your MO.
Wrong:
I haven't won the argument, because no argument has been offered to my claims.
Right:
That I am, that I am.
Case in point.
Let's set aside the facts about NASA for the time being.
You're far too invested to see anyone touch your pet with the long, firm, probing fingers of truth.
So we'll leave it be.
Explain how it is possible to see--- every day, under all circumstances, despite temperature fluctuations, regardless of time of day, no matter the source of light or lack thereof--- it is possible to see the entirety of objects well in the distance which mathematically ought to be far below the horizon.
We've already eliminated refraction of light as the cause, so using your vast storehouse of knowledge, explain how such a phenomenon is at all possible.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNobody eliminated refraction because that's what it is if you see stuff below the actual horizon it is atmospheric refraction. Period. If you were on the moon or other airless world, you would never see beyond the horizon as I have said before. You have to do better than that. Did you also miss the part that a flat world would have way different effects on things like the sun, which was proven by Newton that a say, thousand mile flat plain with air would make the air refractive to where the sun would never look round near the horizon, it would be squashed like a sausage. You need to come forward from the 17th century, they already knew that back then. You don't know jack about refraction, you are an expert in your own mind and nothing else.
You're wrong and you're right.
Wrong:
I haven't won the argument, because no argument has been offered to my claims.
Right:
That I am, that I am.
Case in point.
Let's set aside the facts about NASA for the time being.
You're far too invested to see anyone touch your pet with the long, firm, probing fingers of truth.
So we'll leave it be.
Expla ...[text shortened]... e, so using your vast storehouse of knowledge, explain how such a phenomenon is at all possible.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseRefraction of light can only occur under certain conditions.
Nobody eliminated refraction because that's what it is if you see stuff below the actual horizon it is atmospheric refraction. Period. If you were on the moon or other airless world, you would never see beyond the horizon as I have said before. You have to do better than that. Did you also miss the part that a flat world would have way different effects on ...[text shortened]... then. You don't know jack about refraction, you are an expert in your own mind and nothing else.
What are those conditions?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTry this, traitor: WITHOUT AIR THERE IS NO REFRACTION. EVER. You HAVE to have air and moisture and pressure differences and temperature gradients to have refraction of various levels of optical refractivity but with no air, NEVER REFRACTION. So prove me wrong with your massive Phd paper on the subject. Even if the temps are equal from say 1 foot high to 10,000 feet high there will still be refraction because of a pesky little detail called pressure differential. Or do you deny there is a pressure difference between 1 foot altitude and 10,000 feet, 2 miles altitude. That was the point of Newton's analysis. If there was a vast flat plain, thousands of miles extant, the air over that region close to the ground would encounter one set of refraction rules, but at two miles up, the pressure difference would be amplified by a vast horizontal distance and so EVERY sunset and sunrise would result in a massive difference between the apparent shape of the sun till it was overhead and viewed as a sphere. Near the horizon the optical properties of just the vast horizontal distance of flatland would alter the path of light going through it resulting in the sun near the horizon as being shaped more like a sausage and not so spherical. No other argument needed. By itself, that argument spells doom for the flatassers.
Oops!
Your ignorance is showing!
Try again.
That was Newton, one of the smartest scientists who ever lived. In your vast scientific knowledge and obvious Phd you must have to make pronouncements, let's see your refutation.
Oh wait, I get it. Newton was in on the vast antiflatness conspiracy too. Why didn't I think of that.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseProve you wrong?
Try this, traitor: WITHOUT AIR THERE IS NO REFRACTION. EVER. You HAVE to have air and moisture and pressure differences and temperature gradients to have refraction of various levels of optical refractivity but with no air, NEVER REFRACTION. So prove me wrong with your massive Phd paper on the subject. Even if the temps are equal from say 1 foot high to 10, ...[text shortened]... it, I get it. Newton was in on the vast antiflatness conspiracy too. Why didn't I think of that.
Why, you just did it yourself.
"Air" is not required for refraction of light.
You really should crack a book or do a topics before you go off one-quarter cocked.
In this situation which I describe, the salient and relevant aspects would be the temperature gradient and moisture in the air.
However, both of these are negated with the reality that those distant objects are visible at all times of the day and throughout all four seasons, dependent only on visibility, i.e., clouds, fog, rain.
When visibility is otherwise unimpeded, the objects are clearly visible without distortion and in the same place--- all the time.
Why is that significant?
Because if visibility was a result of refraction of light, the objects could only be seen under specific conditions related to light source, temperature and moisture in the air.
That they are visible all the time, that they are in the same position and that they are consistently proportionate to their distance from my viewpoint all indicate that the ability to see them eliminates refraction of light as the cause.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLike I said, you are good at deflection. We are talking about visible effects on Earth, not some optical thing in glass. No air, no refractions. Period.
Prove you wrong?
Why, you just did it yourself.
"Air" is not required for refraction of light.
You really should crack a book or do a topics before you go off one-quarter cocked.
In this situation which I describe, the salient and relevant aspects would be the temperature gradient and moisture in the air.
However, both of these are negated with the ...[text shortened]... viewpoint all indicate that the ability to see them eliminates refraction of light as the cause.
Take a look at photo's of the moon, closeup of mountains, ZERO light gets into the valley on the dark side because there is no air to deflect, refract, diffuse or any other effect.
A mountain peak on the moon is a total block of light and nothing goes down, except for small bits of the tip which may have diffraction effects but that is a direct optical effect, similar to the original pinhole camera which can focus light through a small opening. The sharper the tip of the mountain the less light gets to the valley. If it was a razor blade, there would still be a tiny bit of diffraction but not enough to for someone to see over the horizon.
Nice deflection. So when you want to talk about other forms of optics, just tell me, don't bring up side issues.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseYou were saying something about how the visibility was something besides indication the world is not curved.
Like I said, you are good at deflection. We are talking about visible effects on Earth, not some optical thing in glass. No air, no refractions. Period.
Take a look at photo's of the moon, closeup of mountains, ZERO light gets into the valley on the dark side because there is no air to deflect, refract, diffuse or any other effect.
A mountain peak on t ...[text shortened]... So when you want to talk about other forms of optics, just tell me, don't bring up side issues.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOnly in your twisted mind. A, Earth is a globe. B, Earth is a globe. I gather you didn't either read or understand Newton's analysis of visual effects of a flat planet. Think about it.
You were saying something about how the visibility was something besides indication the world is not curved.
Earth, 7 mile or so horizon. So only 7 or so miles of atmosphere to refract light coming from above the horizon. Now that is air that has a pressure gradient, and probably temperature gradients and maybe moisture gradients also. All adds up to refraction but not much.
Now thing of a thousand mile long flat place with our STP atmosphere. The gradient will be amplified by the difference in length. So the atmospheric bending of light going through 1000 miles of flat would be about 150 times the bending of light on Earth's well known 7 odd mile horizon for 6 footers.
That means you will ALWAYS have a squashed looking sun when it is sunrise and sunset.
Originally posted by sonhouseGently, gently, sonhaus: you're nearly there.
Only in your twisted mind. A, Earth is a globe. B, Earth is a globe. I gather you didn't either read or understand Newton's analysis of visual effects of a flat planet. Think about it.
Earth, 7 mile or so horizon. So only 7 or so miles of atmosphere to refract light coming from above the horizon. Now that is air that has a pressure gradient, and probably ...[text shortened]... ooters.
That means you will ALWAYS have a squashed looking sun when it is sunrise and sunset.
Get to the point about the visibility of distant objects which mathematically should not be seen, which has nothing to do with refraction of light.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAfter that--- which you will not escape with your pet belief entact--- we can discuss that pesky problem NASA encountered when the "accidentally" recorded over the 14,000 reels of telemetry recordings of the lunar landings.
Gently, gently, sonhaus: you're nearly there.
Get to the point about the visibility of distant objects which mathematically should not be seen, which has nothing to do with refraction of light.
Only the most significant scientific accomplishment of the modern era, and yet the reels are gone!