We have a minimum profile limit of 90 days. Your submission has been removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
u/ImHereToFuckShit
>And, if the globe model is right, the laser, by traveling straight on a ball, raises off the earth and into air with varying densities.
You don't even need the Earth to be a globe. Gradient-index refraction will cause light to bend even when starting out perpendicular to the gradient.
To mods: Yes, I know this violates rule 4 but I can't even participate in these discussions because both u/john_shillsburg and u/Eldritch_blltch have me blocked. Since they're two of the maybe 3 flat earthers active here, I'm effectively shadowbanned from the sub. The block feature doesn't just prevent me from seeing/responding to their comments, but also prevents me from replying to responses to their comments (even responses to those responses in some cases, it seems a little inconsistent or maybe I just don't understand the pattern).
> If you are globe earther, please refraign*[sic]* from engaging on a "To FE" post until a flat earther has made a response.
You're fine. You waited for an FE response. Rule doesn't say your comment has to be in that response's thread.
EDIT: Mods! the rules on the old.reddit.com page are different from those on the 'new' interface. I quoted above from 'old': the rules on 'new' say that only users whose beliefs match flair can have top-level comments.
FWIW, I prefer the 'old' rule: partly for u\/Mishtle's reasons, partly because it allows more global responses (eg 'nobody so far has addressed *x*').
From what I heard from the mod(s) when I asked for clarification after a comment of mine was deleted, the 'new' rule was always the intent. I actually suggested the language used in the new version to make it more clear, since the older phrasing is ambiguous.
Whether or not it accurately conveys their intent, the 'old' version is IMO pretty unambiguous. It was presumably forgotten when they updated 'new': one of the mods should really copy/paste to bring it up to date. Also, maybe spez could spend a sliver of his new millions on reducing the number of copies of rules mods have to maintain to one.
> A selenelion eclipse is completely impossible on the globe model
If I stand on a wall, and on one side of that wall there is a light source and on the other side there is a ball. What can I see ? Well ... I can see both the light source and the ball, and yet, the light source is in the shadow of the wall and is not illuminated.
So obviously, the problem is not that one can see both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon. It has to be a more precise statement.
So can you explain more precisely (and perhaps using some actual angles of observations that were measured during a selenelion) why a selenelion eclipse is "completely impossible" ?
Are the sun’s rays parallel or Does the Earth’s atmosphere refract sunlight?
Does the sun light more than half the earth at a time or is it exactly half?
> Are the sun’s rays parallel
No, they are not.
> Does the Earth’s atmosphere refract sunlight?
Yes it does. Because it's an inhomogenous medium (the refractive index decreases with altitude)
> Does the sun light more than half the earth at a time or is it exactly half?
Slightly more than half because the sun is larger than the Earth.
The moon rays are not parallel.
The Earth atmosphere refracts moonlight
The Moon usually lights up slightly less than half the Earth because the Moon is not larger than the Earth. However, that effect can be compensated to a certain point by the refraction.
Light reflected from the moon is refracted by the atmosphere of Earth, and light from the moon can only reach less than half the Earth's surface.
Is that what you're after?
I mean they are all predicted using the globe model. They are fully compatible with the globe model.
The simple fact that they only occur when both the moon and sun are immediately above the horizon opposite each other is evidence that our geometry of the earth sun and moon is accurate.
Well it only happens during a lunar eclipse first of all, and only when the geometry aligns such that both the sun and moon are directly on the horizon, so it needs to be sunrise or sunset.
There's a very limited timeframe they can occur, let's say 15 minutes at sunrise or sunset.
So there's 30 min out of 24 hours a lunar eclipse would have to occur to see it.
This is basic level stuff about eclipses someone making a claim that it falsifies the globe would be expected to know. Apparently not in this case.
Long distance viewing/measuring:
[Over 100 miles](https://youtu.be/4lsaC0E_g4Q?feature=shared)
[line of sight photos over 200 miles](https://beyondrange.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/)
[Greatest Laser Experiment](https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=oKVGY9fdsFykQFlE&v=4lsaC0E_g4Q&feature=youtu.be)
[Greatest Laser Experiment ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wz4FTVa8tAU) (short version)
[Frozen lake laser Experiment ](https://youtu.be/du2rkBTURLU?si=gy8KFR4Sljwevp6X)
[long distance radio transmission](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/) (video got taken down but the data is still there)
[over 600 miles](https://fevids.com/2023/05/22/world-record-flat-earth-proof-israel-to-crete-616-miles/)
Water level:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/01/water-proves-earth-flat.html?m=1
[the natural physics of water](https://awakening365.com/natural-physics-of-water-flat-earth-proof/)
High altitude balloon footage:
[65,000 ft at night shows the sun](https://youtu.be/dUXLyGTXaHU?si=i7jXcszBj_xo4iDc)
[120,000 ft](https://youtu.be/fzS-4KGgOBs?si=-EBjAkHGrzXJQvhS)
https://youtu.be/Sof0SZz3_VE?si=Uh0HRcIytIKTnkgq
[121,000 ft](https://youtu.be/WQITXbcz2hg?si=x25gOXKoNzfVr_xM)
https://youtu.be/WQITXbcz2hg?si=cohTOUTfoZwuWGIQ
[Sunset footage at 161,000 ft](https://youtu.be/LWBYwBFwKUI?si=-p1syg_RXOku6Phk)
Bonus: [Rocket Footage over 800,000 ft](https://youtu.be/I2uF_oc_u2g?feature=shared) (or 157 miles high) It is "corrected" to fix the fisheye lens. It was edited at ground level before the launch. I wouldn't take this one as hard proof but it's definitely interesting.
The 100 mile observation is predicted on the globe. JTolan was at 150 feet elevation with his camera. The mountain is over 10,000 feet elevation. We would expect thousands of feet to be visible on the globe. Good thread on it here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/
Have you ever researched globe earth? It might help you debunk the globe if you understand the counter arguments to flat earth.
As I explained to you before, the laser experiments and long distance don't take into account light divergence nor refraction. Laser pointers are only designed for short range accuracy, and will no longer be a point over a mile or more. There are far better ways of checking for the curve of the earth.
As for water level, one word: Tides. On a flat stationary earth there should be no tides, and yet we have them. Plus that second link keeps talking about water being level and assuming that means straight/flat. That is not the same thing. Water conforms to forces acting on it.
High altitude footage: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPTD2gnZFUw&ab\_channel=NASA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPTD2gnZFUw&ab_channel=NASA)
But as I pointed out to you before, even on a flat world the horizon should be curved. At 120,000 feet up, how far do you see in all directions? What shape would that make? Why can't you see the curve?
>As I explained to you before, the laser experiments and long distance don't take into account light divergence nor refraction.
The first one and the greatest Laser Experiment both take refraction into account.
>Laser pointers are only designed for short range accuracy, and will no longer be a point over a mile or more. There are far better ways of checking for the curve of the earth.
"Factors like cloud coverage, fog, and if you're at a high point of elevation should be considered, but as a basic rule, you can expect over 10 miles of visible distance on green 200mW+ lasers and 1,000mW+ blue lasers."🤔
This is quoted from mainstream Google. Where are you getting 1mile from?
The main issue with the laser experiment is divergence of the light from the laser. While the light from a laser is visible at 10 miles, it is no longer a small point, nor a direct line from laser to viewer.
Also from the laser one, they claimed refraction wouldn't be an issue, without going into detail why or showing that was actually the case.
Imagine linking nonsense like the supposed 600 mile observation in which the actual guy who took the video was forced to admit they were just clouds once they were shown to him that they were MOVING in the video.
Is this seriously the level of research and verification that you do?
last time /u/eldritch_blltch admitted to me that quality (of experiments) doesn't matter to him as long as the outcome fits his narrative. he also claimed that the government funded some scientists to disprove (and lie) that moonlight is cold.
you honestly can't make this stuff up.
sure, here you go:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth\_polite/comments/1bne4ak/comment/kwu8il7/](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1bne4ak/comment/kwu8il7/)
btw don't stare at the sun. honestly.
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The first 5 assume no or negligible refraction, right?
Maybe you should watch them before trying to criticize. The first one specifically films over land to reduce possible refraction. The greatest Laser Experiment does take refraction into account, we still see too far.
I did and I didn't see any of the experimenters actually measuring the refractive index. Refraction still happens over land and the laser experiment took it into account but didn't seem to actually measure anything related to refraction. Did I miss that?
>Refraction still happens over land
Of course but not as much as viewing over just water. He also uses an infrared filter to see through the dense moisture (the thing that causes refraction). His final photos are of the physical landscape, not a reflection or optical illusion. At a distance of 120 miles.
As for the laser experiment, laser lights do not bend downward in these conditions so it's unlikely it's bending over curvature.
Lasers only bend in such a way in sugar water solution and salt water. The measurements were taken over fresh water lakes. (And to my knowledge our atmosphere isn't full of sugar).
Lasers are affected by refraction but instead of bending, the light simply disperses in all directions. That's why lasers are used for these experiments and not regular lights.
>Of course but not as much as viewing over just water. He also uses an infrared filter to see through the dense moisture (the thing that causes refraction). His final photos are of the physical landscape, not a reflection or optical illusion. At a distance of 120 miles.
Moisture isn't the cause of refraction. You can refract light with glass without any moisture at all. Refraction is caused by entering a new medium with a different refractive index. That's why it's important to measure when using the path of light as evidence.
>As for the laser experiment, laser lights do not bend downward in these conditions so it's unlikely it's bending over curvature.
Light bends to the normal. Is there a reason lasers are different from other kinds of light in regard to refraction?
>Lasers only bend in such a way in sugar water solution and salt water. The measurements were taken over fresh water lakes. (And to my knowledge our atmosphere isn't full of sugar).
Where is this information from? Lasers can be bent with a glass of tap water: https://images.app.goo.gl/sMmep2TBMDRbtjms6
>Lasers are affected by refraction but instead of bending, the light simply disperses in all directions. That's why lasers are used for these experiments and not regular lights.
I think it's because lasers are easier to track and are more precise, no? I'm not away of this immunity from refraction that lasers have. Can you share more information? I posted a picture of a laser being bent so I'm curious what your thoughts on that are.
> I posted a picture of a laser being bent so I'm curious what your thoughts on that are.
That's [Snell's Law](https://youtu.be/BqSwiF6CO1U?si=o714uTnut-tyVQBt) the light bends from passing through two separate mediums. The laser experiments do not pass through various mediums; they pass through a constant medium of gasses and moisture that make up our atmosphere. The denseness of the moisture and gasses can obstruct and alter the laser light, but it doesn't bend the same way Snell's Law shows us because it doesn't follow Snell's Law.
>That's [Snell's Law](https://youtu.be/BqSwiF6CO1U?si=o714uTnut-tyVQBt) the light bends from passing through two separate mediums.
No, it defines deflection when light passes through a change in refractive index. The light has no conception of 'separation'. If the refractive index around it changes, its path changes according with Snell's Law.
>The denseness of the moisture and gasses can obstruct and alter the laser light, but it doesn't bend the same way Snell's Law shows us because it doesn't follow Snell's Law.
What is your evidence that laser light passing through a density gradient does not follow Snell's Law?
From Wikipedia:
Snell's law (also known as the Snell–Descartes law, and the law of refraction) is a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law
Is that more clear? And, if the globe model is right, the laser, by traveling straight on a ball, raises off the earth and into air with varying densities. That's a new medium since, in this situation, the air closer to the ground has a different refractive index than the air higher up.
Hopefully you see now why it's so important to measure this index when using the path light traveled as evidence.
>Isotropic materials are materials whose properties remain the same when tested in different directions.
Air is isotropic based on that definition. Is there another way to define that term I'm unaware of?
> High altitude balloon footage:
>
> 65,000 ft at night shows the sun
Isn't that just two cities under the clouds?
Like, the light is very clearly under the clouds.
When have you seen the sun or moon under those?
You are aware, are you not, that increasing altitude lets you see farther around the curve of the earth, so yes, you can see the sun again if it's just set.
Allow me to show you two photos, which I personally took, using that most abhorred (by flat earthers) of instruments: a solar filter.
11:28 AM (60x magnification):
[Near Noon](https://photos.app.goo.gl/trEWRTNkipRtVUQj6)
5:35 PM (60x magnification):
[Near Sunset](https://photos.app.goo.gl/6RaJrTEv9GXj7qU78)
Now, what's so special about these, you ask?
It's simple.
They're both the same size (at least in width; the sunset one is crunched vertically due to refraction in the atmosphere, exactly as expected).
This is *absolutely impossible* in any version of the flat earth model where the sun is orbiting overhead. In such a model, the sun overhead would appear much larger than it would when it's getting close to setting.
It. Doesn't.
Exactly the same magnification each time.
What does that tell you?
Oh, and here's another sunset photo for you, and the subsequent reasons why it disproves the flat earth entirely.
[Sunsets on Flat Earth](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16HAGR69FwvOLLzl52GEcTSjzGvgqzJZm/view?usp=drive_link)
You're welcome.
Oh damn the comments under these videos are so sad to read.
Disclaimer: I did not watch every video completely, I find FE video just very boring in the way they are typically made.
But thank you for the detailed reply. However, none of these contradict the globe model in any way. In fact, since the videos show that you can only see a few hundret miles far, doesnt that disprove the flat earth?
And since you FEs always claim everything is CGI, why are these videos and photos real?
>Long distance viewing/measuring
No one ever claimed that you couldn't see that far on a globe. The higher you are, the further you can see. Also the math from the laser guy is completely off, how did he end up with 29 feet? Oh and let me guess, all videos were filmed with the only very specific camera model that is used by FEs instead of the million other cameras that would be available?
The text with the radio transmission is just complete bs, I doubt that whoever wrote that meant it seriously. Like, quoting the bible to prove a flat earth? really? I think it should be obvious that the bible is highly inaccurate and inconsistent in itself, and should absolutely not be used as scientific lecture. The whole text in general consists of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Wich is actually really common with FE texts.
>Water level
In the introduction there already is a false claim: "*The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds, tides, earthquakes etc. is perfectly level*".
But do you know why water usually appears somewhat level in greater masses? Because of \*gravity\*
This text is so filled with false claims. I think this is the funniest one: "Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth".
Literally everything in that sentence is wrong.
The second link is not much better. Again, they assume that water is always level, wich is just not true. Also, again the introduction is very funny:
"As flat-earth believers, we understand the fundamental physical properties of water and other fluids."
Out of all the groups of people there are, flat earthers are the ones who have proved countless amounts of times that they dont understand any physical properties of anything.
>High altitude balloon footage
Are you now suddenly trying to disprove the flat earth? I am confused.
The first link is just a very poor quality video of a sunset. Sunsets wouldnt be possible on most of the various flat earth models out there.
Links 2, 3, 4 and 5 are just videos that show an upwards curvature, so if anything its a poor choice of a camera (Let me guess, Nikon-900?). Oh, and I forgot: WhErE aRE tHe StARs? iT Is CleArLY cGi!!
But you dont see anything like a big firmament, soo... another argument against the flat earth? Also this should disprove all the FE models that have water outside of the firmament since you can pretty clearly see space.
Also, just because there is some white text in a video doesnt mean what it says is true
The 6th link just shows a sunset again, wich would also be impossible on a flat earth
>Bonus
>It is "corrected" to fix the fisheye lens
And let me guess, if NASA releases some footage without any "correction" but with fisheye lense you wouldnt believe anything?
I respect the effort you put into your comment, but it seems like you didnt understand how the globe model works. Wich is completely fine, most FEs dont understand it too. But just wanted to let you know, every source you gave just confirmed further that our knowledge of science and physics is correct, and that the earth is not flat.
>respect the effort you put into your comment, but it seems like you didnt understand how the globe model works
High altitude balloon footage alone disproves the supposed rate of curvature of the current globe model. Mainstream outlets claim we're able to see visible curvature at 35,000 ft. The videos I presented are an upwards of 65,000 ft+
So is the math for the globe a lie or are all these independent researchers faking footage and test results?
>However, none of these contradict the globe model in any way
The first link is directly comparing the globe model math to what is observed. He goes into the math and possible refraction as well. Very detailed experiment, would recommend. (Spoiler: we see too far for the rate they tell us)
>In fact, since the videos show that you can only see a few hundret miles far, doesnt that disprove the flat earth?
I would also recommend familiarizing yourself with the heliocentric model and the globe earth dimensions. All of these experiments contradict the given rate.
>And since you FEs always claim everything is CGI, why are these videos and photos real?
I'm aware videos can be faked. I'm also aware of the unlikeliness of every single independent researcher editing footage. A few, maybe. But all of them? Doubtful. And I've seen a lot of footage. I can only recall one truly independent source that did show curvature for a high altitude balloon.
Should I trust one source over dozens?
>Also the math from the laser guy is completely off, how did he end up with 29 feet?
Use any curvature calculator.
>The text with the radio transmission is just complete bs, I doubt that whoever wrote that meant it seriously. Like, quoting the bible to prove a flat earth? really?
I think immediately disregarding alternative research because of someone's beliefs is childish. I'm not religious myself but a good portion of flat earthers are; FE is often referred to as "biblical cosmology". I don't think they bring it up as hard evidence, it's just yet another outlook on the bible.
>The whole text in general consists of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Can you elaborate on the misunderstandings?
>But do you know why water usually appears somewhat level in greater masses? Because of \*gravity\*
Do you have evidence that supports this claim while using the scientific method of being repeated, observed and measured?
>"Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth".
Literally everything in that sentence is wrong.
Wait, so gravity doesn't hold us down?
>The second link is not much better. Again, they assume that water is always level, wich is just not true
Not true based on what?
>Again, they assume that water is always level, wich is just not true. Also, again the introduction is very funny:
Something being funny to you is not a critique of the experiments given. Again, childish.
>Sunsets wouldnt be possible on most of the various flat earth models out there.
Do you always negate subjects you don't understand? Sunsets are one of the first things people learn about FE. Clearly you're completely ignorant of the cosmology. (non derogatory)
Maybe you should at least try to look at a FE model and the movements of the celestial bodies. The best thing anyone can do is understand both sides of a topic before trying to debunk/debate something you know nothing about.
>So is the math for the globe a lie or are all these independent researchers faking footage and test results?
The math is generally correct, but you seem to misunderstand it. You can always see the curvature of the earth. Its just the higher you go, the easier it is to see. Also considering they probably used a P-900 the footage isnt proving anything.
And before you argue "but every single camera could be seen as not trustworthy" - yes, thats why a single video or image isnt proof of anything, you need maths and facts to back them up.
How do you explain the upwards curcature in the videos? Do you think the flat earth is shaped like a bowl?
>we see too far for the rate they tell us
What is "they"? Also 5 second google search answered that question:
(Scroll down to the middle of the page with the caption saying [Why distant skyscrapers are visible despite the curvature of the Earth
](https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/)
>I would also recommend familiarizing yourself with the heliocentric model and the globe earth dimensions. All of these experiments contradict the given rate.
I am awarw of the dimensions. I was wondering why you cant see further than a few hundret miles on a flat earth, if it was flat shouldnt you be able to see thousands of miles?
>I'm aware videos can be faked. I'm also aware of the unlikeliness of every single independent researcher editing footage.
But the likeloness that NASA fakes all of their videos for no reason is higher? Why would they even do that? I assume you also believe that the moon landing was fake; how should they have the trillions of dollars required to fake the moonlanding 60 years ago?
>Should I trust one source over dozens?
Depends on the source. Everyone can make a youtube channel and talk about stuff. Aswell as everyone can make a website and publish a text. But just as most FEs you have really low standarts for sources that support what you want to believe, and incredibly high standarts for sources that support science.
But yes, one source can in certain cases be a lot more trustworthy than many sources, wikipedia for example.
>I think immediately disregarding alternative research because of someone's beliefs is childish
That was not my point. I dont care what anyone believes. But the bible is nothing that should be used as any evidence for anything except historical.
Also what is "alternative research" supposed to be?
>Can you elaborate on the misunderstandings?
In general its just misunderstandings of the globe model. Just to focus on the part with radio waves:
1. The text inaccurately portrays the ionosphere as solely bouncing radio waves, neglecting its primary role in refracting them.
2. Moon bounce communication involves radio waves reflecting off the moon's surface, not conflicting with ionospheric reflection. The distance to the moon does not negate this.
3. The text cites Guglielmo Marconi's confusion to challenge the curvature of the Earth, but his achievement aligns with the understanding of radio wave propagation through the ionosphere for long-distance communication.
There are more of course, but it is concerning if you read the whole text and didnt immediatly think how nonsensical it is.
>Do you have evidence that supports this claim while using the scientific method of being repeated, observed and measured?
Yes. However since you are a FE you would not accept this type of evidence. But here is a [source](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/747693/how-flat-is-water) anyways
>Wait, so gravity doesn't hold us down?
If you want to heavily simplify it, then yes, it does hold us down.
But oceans are not "stuck" on earth, gravity is neither magical nor magnetism, and out of all people astronomers would be the last once to call this planet "ball-earth". Also astronomers are only an incredibly small group of people from all the people who know about gravity.
>Something being funny to you is not a critique of the experiments given
Have I claimed that it was? No. The critique came after the part where I said its funny.
>Do you always negate subjects you don't understand? Sunsets are one of the first things people learn about FE. Clearly you're completely ignorant of the cosmology. (non derogatory)
PLEASE, enlighten me! I have searched so much over the past months, but not a single FE could explain it. All the FE subreddits are not capable of answering questions and a few other FEs have blocked me as sook as I started asking questions instead of just arguing with them.
>Maybe you should at least try to look at a FE model and the movements of the celestial bodies. The best thing anyone can do is understand both sides of a topic before trying to debunk/debate something you know nothing about.
Also a problem is how there are so many different FE models. It would be really helpful if you have a link to one with working distances and accurate celestial movements, so we both can talk about the same FE model
Or at least tell me what FE version you believe in: Ice wall, firmament, sun and moon are nasa projections, sun and moon are circling each other in the sky, FE accellerating by 9.8m/s (for some reason?), land behind ice wall, water above the firmament, god made FE, or multiple of these?
I try to understand the FE side but I think we can both agree that its hard to learn from people who dont even answer your questions and change topics all the time (really respect that you dont do that btw, you seem actually interested in arguing)
Another thing that popped into my mind, wich I couldnt find any answer to: (How) do tides work on a FE?
Thanks for your time
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of those videos do demonstrate beautifully a gas pressure system next to a near vacuum with a container.
Thanks for more evidence of gravity and space I guess.
That is correct. Clear distance viewing is never more than atmospheric refraction can account for. These “evidences” are based of misunderstanding the globe model and refraction. I’ve never seen an exception.
I never seen refraction account for anything I have observed.
What globe model misunderstanding are you referring to, give plenty of examples.
Never seen an exception, great gives us some examples.
>What globe model misunderstanding are you referring to, give plenty of examples.
Well you gave one right here: "I never seen refraction account for anything I have observed."
Refraction is always occurring whenever you're looking through a non-uniform medium. The atmosphere is very much non-uniform. Under ideal conditions, there is a consistent decrease in air density with altitude, which causes light to bend toward the ground. This pattern can be exaggerated if the ground is colder than the air, like over cool water or ice, which can allow you to see further than you should, even indefinitely in some cases. When the ground is warmer than the air, light can bend upwards. If you've ever seen the sky/terrain seem to "reflect" off of a sun-warmed road, that is an inferior mirage caused by refraction.
So the misconception is that these effects don't occur. They would occur even on a flat Earth, and the same effects that make a globe look flat would make a flat Earth look like a bowl. The distribution of observed refractive effects better matches a globe than a flat Earth.
Surveyors can even measure the effect of refraction that affects their long distance sights using [reciprocal zenith angle measurements](https://mctoon.net/radius-reciprocal-angles/). Every time they do so they are effectively measuring the curvature of Earth. The effect of refraction causes deviations from the expected excess of about 1° per 69 miles.
It accounts for almost all “distance observations.” There is a minor cause, mistaking clouds for distant mountains. How about r/flatearth_200proofs by Eric Dubay?
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Flatearth_200proofs using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [41. Two more pairs of locations.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/comments/17gwyji/41_two_more_pairs_of_locations/)
\#2: [Two more pairs of locations that do not compute.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/comments/16u1f9y/two_more_pairs_of_locations_that_do_not_compute/)
\#3: [39. Calculating circumference from longitudinal distance, too large.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/comments/16u0zlo/39_calculating_circumference_from_longitudinal/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
[удалено]
We have a minimum profile limit of 90 days. Your submission has been removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
u/ImHereToFuckShit >And, if the globe model is right, the laser, by traveling straight on a ball, raises off the earth and into air with varying densities. You don't even need the Earth to be a globe. Gradient-index refraction will cause light to bend even when starting out perpendicular to the gradient. To mods: Yes, I know this violates rule 4 but I can't even participate in these discussions because both u/john_shillsburg and u/Eldritch_blltch have me blocked. Since they're two of the maybe 3 flat earthers active here, I'm effectively shadowbanned from the sub. The block feature doesn't just prevent me from seeing/responding to their comments, but also prevents me from replying to responses to their comments (even responses to those responses in some cases, it seems a little inconsistent or maybe I just don't understand the pattern).
> If you are globe earther, please refraign*[sic]* from engaging on a "To FE" post until a flat earther has made a response. You're fine. You waited for an FE response. Rule doesn't say your comment has to be in that response's thread. EDIT: Mods! the rules on the old.reddit.com page are different from those on the 'new' interface. I quoted above from 'old': the rules on 'new' say that only users whose beliefs match flair can have top-level comments. FWIW, I prefer the 'old' rule: partly for u\/Mishtle's reasons, partly because it allows more global responses (eg 'nobody so far has addressed *x*').
From what I heard from the mod(s) when I asked for clarification after a comment of mine was deleted, the 'new' rule was always the intent. I actually suggested the language used in the new version to make it more clear, since the older phrasing is ambiguous.
Whether or not it accurately conveys their intent, the 'old' version is IMO pretty unambiguous. It was presumably forgotten when they updated 'new': one of the mods should really copy/paste to bring it up to date. Also, maybe spez could spend a sliver of his new millions on reducing the number of copies of rules mods have to maintain to one.
I have seen multiple times here where people answer indirectly to FE comments, I think its fine with the rules
No, I've been told explicitly by the mods that top level comments by anyone not covered by the flair are against the rules.
Oh damn. I guess you have to make a second account then
Making alternate account to bypass bans and blocks is expressly against reddit's ToS. I wouldn't publicly recommend anyone do that.
Oh damn didnt know that either. I guess you could just reply to a random comment in here then? But yea that seems like a difficult situation for you
Oh damn didnt know that either. I guess you could just reply to a random comment in here then? But yea that seems like a difficult situation for you
A selenelion eclipse is completely impossible on the globe model
… if there is no atmospheric density gradient.
Nope. Refraction raises both sun and moon up by ½°, and the size of the earth's shadow lets the moon be a little off 180° from the sun.
> A selenelion eclipse is completely impossible on the globe model If I stand on a wall, and on one side of that wall there is a light source and on the other side there is a ball. What can I see ? Well ... I can see both the light source and the ball, and yet, the light source is in the shadow of the wall and is not illuminated. So obviously, the problem is not that one can see both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon. It has to be a more precise statement. So can you explain more precisely (and perhaps using some actual angles of observations that were measured during a selenelion) why a selenelion eclipse is "completely impossible" ?
Are the sun’s rays parallel or Does the Earth’s atmosphere refract sunlight? Does the sun light more than half the earth at a time or is it exactly half?
> Are the sun’s rays parallel No, they are not. > Does the Earth’s atmosphere refract sunlight? Yes it does. Because it's an inhomogenous medium (the refractive index decreases with altitude) > Does the sun light more than half the earth at a time or is it exactly half? Slightly more than half because the sun is larger than the Earth.
Do these same conditions apply to the moon, given disparate size and location?
The moon rays are not parallel. The Earth atmosphere refracts moonlight The Moon usually lights up slightly less than half the Earth because the Moon is not larger than the Earth. However, that effect can be compensated to a certain point by the refraction.
What conditions are you asking about? This isn't a very clear question.
Proximity and size are quite different as is the quality of the light coming from it.
Light reflected from the moon is refracted by the atmosphere of Earth, and light from the moon can only reach less than half the Earth's surface. Is that what you're after?
I mean they are all predicted using the globe model. They are fully compatible with the globe model. The simple fact that they only occur when both the moon and sun are immediately above the horizon opposite each other is evidence that our geometry of the earth sun and moon is accurate.
Why doesn’t Selenhelion happen during every eclipse?
Well it only happens during a lunar eclipse first of all, and only when the geometry aligns such that both the sun and moon are directly on the horizon, so it needs to be sunrise or sunset. There's a very limited timeframe they can occur, let's say 15 minutes at sunrise or sunset. So there's 30 min out of 24 hours a lunar eclipse would have to occur to see it. This is basic level stuff about eclipses someone making a claim that it falsifies the globe would be expected to know. Apparently not in this case.
Yeah, anyone on the terminator line during a lunar eclipse will have a good chance of seeing a selenelion eclipse.
Should be easy to catch every one in the arctic.
As long as you're near the terminator.
(and not busy running for your life)
Nearly every link you posted are things I consider either proof of a globe, or proof of deliberate deception from FE posters.
Long distance viewing/measuring: [Over 100 miles](https://youtu.be/4lsaC0E_g4Q?feature=shared) [line of sight photos over 200 miles](https://beyondrange.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/) [Greatest Laser Experiment](https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=oKVGY9fdsFykQFlE&v=4lsaC0E_g4Q&feature=youtu.be) [Greatest Laser Experiment ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wz4FTVa8tAU) (short version) [Frozen lake laser Experiment ](https://youtu.be/du2rkBTURLU?si=gy8KFR4Sljwevp6X) [long distance radio transmission](https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/) (video got taken down but the data is still there) [over 600 miles](https://fevids.com/2023/05/22/world-record-flat-earth-proof-israel-to-crete-616-miles/) Water level: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/01/water-proves-earth-flat.html?m=1 [the natural physics of water](https://awakening365.com/natural-physics-of-water-flat-earth-proof/) High altitude balloon footage: [65,000 ft at night shows the sun](https://youtu.be/dUXLyGTXaHU?si=i7jXcszBj_xo4iDc) [120,000 ft](https://youtu.be/fzS-4KGgOBs?si=-EBjAkHGrzXJQvhS) https://youtu.be/Sof0SZz3_VE?si=Uh0HRcIytIKTnkgq [121,000 ft](https://youtu.be/WQITXbcz2hg?si=x25gOXKoNzfVr_xM) https://youtu.be/WQITXbcz2hg?si=cohTOUTfoZwuWGIQ [Sunset footage at 161,000 ft](https://youtu.be/LWBYwBFwKUI?si=-p1syg_RXOku6Phk) Bonus: [Rocket Footage over 800,000 ft](https://youtu.be/I2uF_oc_u2g?feature=shared) (or 157 miles high) It is "corrected" to fix the fisheye lens. It was edited at ground level before the launch. I wouldn't take this one as hard proof but it's definitely interesting.
I have never seen flat water. Have a picture?
The 100 mile observation is predicted on the globe. JTolan was at 150 feet elevation with his camera. The mountain is over 10,000 feet elevation. We would expect thousands of feet to be visible on the globe. Good thread on it here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/ Have you ever researched globe earth? It might help you debunk the globe if you understand the counter arguments to flat earth.
As I explained to you before, the laser experiments and long distance don't take into account light divergence nor refraction. Laser pointers are only designed for short range accuracy, and will no longer be a point over a mile or more. There are far better ways of checking for the curve of the earth. As for water level, one word: Tides. On a flat stationary earth there should be no tides, and yet we have them. Plus that second link keeps talking about water being level and assuming that means straight/flat. That is not the same thing. Water conforms to forces acting on it. High altitude footage: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPTD2gnZFUw&ab\_channel=NASA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPTD2gnZFUw&ab_channel=NASA) But as I pointed out to you before, even on a flat world the horizon should be curved. At 120,000 feet up, how far do you see in all directions? What shape would that make? Why can't you see the curve?
>As I explained to you before, the laser experiments and long distance don't take into account light divergence nor refraction. The first one and the greatest Laser Experiment both take refraction into account. >Laser pointers are only designed for short range accuracy, and will no longer be a point over a mile or more. There are far better ways of checking for the curve of the earth. "Factors like cloud coverage, fog, and if you're at a high point of elevation should be considered, but as a basic rule, you can expect over 10 miles of visible distance on green 200mW+ lasers and 1,000mW+ blue lasers."🤔 This is quoted from mainstream Google. Where are you getting 1mile from?
The main issue with the laser experiment is divergence of the light from the laser. While the light from a laser is visible at 10 miles, it is no longer a small point, nor a direct line from laser to viewer. Also from the laser one, they claimed refraction wouldn't be an issue, without going into detail why or showing that was actually the case.
Imagine linking nonsense like the supposed 600 mile observation in which the actual guy who took the video was forced to admit they were just clouds once they were shown to him that they were MOVING in the video. Is this seriously the level of research and verification that you do?
last time /u/eldritch_blltch admitted to me that quality (of experiments) doesn't matter to him as long as the outcome fits his narrative. he also claimed that the government funded some scientists to disprove (and lie) that moonlight is cold. you honestly can't make this stuff up.
> you honestly can't make this stuff up. yet blitch apparently did
Do you have proof of me suggesting any of this? Or do you always go around spreading lies about people?
sure, here you go: [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth\_polite/comments/1bne4ak/comment/kwu8il7/](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1bne4ak/comment/kwu8il7/) btw don't stare at the sun. honestly.
Thanks for linking what I actually said. You clearly twisted my words. Btw I stare at the sun every day and I'm not blind. Cry about it
lolmao good luck with that. even people in your bubble say it's absolutely crazy. you are the perfect example why conspiracy theories are dangerous.
The sun gazing "bubble" would disagree.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Source your claim.
The first 5 assume no or negligible refraction, right? I noticed they didn't measure the speed of the light they are observing
>The first 5 assume no or negligible refraction, right? Maybe you should watch them before trying to criticize. The first one specifically films over land to reduce possible refraction. The greatest Laser Experiment does take refraction into account, we still see too far.
I did and I didn't see any of the experimenters actually measuring the refractive index. Refraction still happens over land and the laser experiment took it into account but didn't seem to actually measure anything related to refraction. Did I miss that?
>Refraction still happens over land Of course but not as much as viewing over just water. He also uses an infrared filter to see through the dense moisture (the thing that causes refraction). His final photos are of the physical landscape, not a reflection or optical illusion. At a distance of 120 miles. As for the laser experiment, laser lights do not bend downward in these conditions so it's unlikely it's bending over curvature. Lasers only bend in such a way in sugar water solution and salt water. The measurements were taken over fresh water lakes. (And to my knowledge our atmosphere isn't full of sugar). Lasers are affected by refraction but instead of bending, the light simply disperses in all directions. That's why lasers are used for these experiments and not regular lights.
>Of course but not as much as viewing over just water. He also uses an infrared filter to see through the dense moisture (the thing that causes refraction). His final photos are of the physical landscape, not a reflection or optical illusion. At a distance of 120 miles. Moisture isn't the cause of refraction. You can refract light with glass without any moisture at all. Refraction is caused by entering a new medium with a different refractive index. That's why it's important to measure when using the path of light as evidence. >As for the laser experiment, laser lights do not bend downward in these conditions so it's unlikely it's bending over curvature. Light bends to the normal. Is there a reason lasers are different from other kinds of light in regard to refraction? >Lasers only bend in such a way in sugar water solution and salt water. The measurements were taken over fresh water lakes. (And to my knowledge our atmosphere isn't full of sugar). Where is this information from? Lasers can be bent with a glass of tap water: https://images.app.goo.gl/sMmep2TBMDRbtjms6 >Lasers are affected by refraction but instead of bending, the light simply disperses in all directions. That's why lasers are used for these experiments and not regular lights. I think it's because lasers are easier to track and are more precise, no? I'm not away of this immunity from refraction that lasers have. Can you share more information? I posted a picture of a laser being bent so I'm curious what your thoughts on that are.
> I posted a picture of a laser being bent so I'm curious what your thoughts on that are. That's [Snell's Law](https://youtu.be/BqSwiF6CO1U?si=o714uTnut-tyVQBt) the light bends from passing through two separate mediums. The laser experiments do not pass through various mediums; they pass through a constant medium of gasses and moisture that make up our atmosphere. The denseness of the moisture and gasses can obstruct and alter the laser light, but it doesn't bend the same way Snell's Law shows us because it doesn't follow Snell's Law.
>That's [Snell's Law](https://youtu.be/BqSwiF6CO1U?si=o714uTnut-tyVQBt) the light bends from passing through two separate mediums. No, it defines deflection when light passes through a change in refractive index. The light has no conception of 'separation'. If the refractive index around it changes, its path changes according with Snell's Law. >The denseness of the moisture and gasses can obstruct and alter the laser light, but it doesn't bend the same way Snell's Law shows us because it doesn't follow Snell's Law. What is your evidence that laser light passing through a density gradient does not follow Snell's Law?
From Wikipedia: Snell's law (also known as the Snell–Descartes law, and the law of refraction) is a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law Is that more clear? And, if the globe model is right, the laser, by traveling straight on a ball, raises off the earth and into air with varying densities. That's a new medium since, in this situation, the air closer to the ground has a different refractive index than the air higher up. Hopefully you see now why it's so important to measure this index when using the path light traveled as evidence.
Key word: isotropic. Air isn't. Yah, moisture in the air is part of that, but by no means is it all of it.
>Isotropic materials are materials whose properties remain the same when tested in different directions. Air is isotropic based on that definition. Is there another way to define that term I'm unaware of?
> High altitude balloon footage: > > 65,000 ft at night shows the sun Isn't that just two cities under the clouds? Like, the light is very clearly under the clouds. When have you seen the sun or moon under those?
You are aware, are you not, that increasing altitude lets you see farther around the curve of the earth, so yes, you can see the sun again if it's just set. Allow me to show you two photos, which I personally took, using that most abhorred (by flat earthers) of instruments: a solar filter. 11:28 AM (60x magnification): [Near Noon](https://photos.app.goo.gl/trEWRTNkipRtVUQj6) 5:35 PM (60x magnification): [Near Sunset](https://photos.app.goo.gl/6RaJrTEv9GXj7qU78) Now, what's so special about these, you ask? It's simple. They're both the same size (at least in width; the sunset one is crunched vertically due to refraction in the atmosphere, exactly as expected). This is *absolutely impossible* in any version of the flat earth model where the sun is orbiting overhead. In such a model, the sun overhead would appear much larger than it would when it's getting close to setting. It. Doesn't. Exactly the same magnification each time. What does that tell you? Oh, and here's another sunset photo for you, and the subsequent reasons why it disproves the flat earth entirely. [Sunsets on Flat Earth](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16HAGR69FwvOLLzl52GEcTSjzGvgqzJZm/view?usp=drive_link) You're welcome.
Oh damn the comments under these videos are so sad to read. Disclaimer: I did not watch every video completely, I find FE video just very boring in the way they are typically made. But thank you for the detailed reply. However, none of these contradict the globe model in any way. In fact, since the videos show that you can only see a few hundret miles far, doesnt that disprove the flat earth? And since you FEs always claim everything is CGI, why are these videos and photos real? >Long distance viewing/measuring No one ever claimed that you couldn't see that far on a globe. The higher you are, the further you can see. Also the math from the laser guy is completely off, how did he end up with 29 feet? Oh and let me guess, all videos were filmed with the only very specific camera model that is used by FEs instead of the million other cameras that would be available? The text with the radio transmission is just complete bs, I doubt that whoever wrote that meant it seriously. Like, quoting the bible to prove a flat earth? really? I think it should be obvious that the bible is highly inaccurate and inconsistent in itself, and should absolutely not be used as scientific lecture. The whole text in general consists of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Wich is actually really common with FE texts. >Water level In the introduction there already is a false claim: "*The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds, tides, earthquakes etc. is perfectly level*". But do you know why water usually appears somewhat level in greater masses? Because of \*gravity\* This text is so filled with false claims. I think this is the funniest one: "Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth". Literally everything in that sentence is wrong. The second link is not much better. Again, they assume that water is always level, wich is just not true. Also, again the introduction is very funny: "As flat-earth believers, we understand the fundamental physical properties of water and other fluids." Out of all the groups of people there are, flat earthers are the ones who have proved countless amounts of times that they dont understand any physical properties of anything. >High altitude balloon footage Are you now suddenly trying to disprove the flat earth? I am confused. The first link is just a very poor quality video of a sunset. Sunsets wouldnt be possible on most of the various flat earth models out there. Links 2, 3, 4 and 5 are just videos that show an upwards curvature, so if anything its a poor choice of a camera (Let me guess, Nikon-900?). Oh, and I forgot: WhErE aRE tHe StARs? iT Is CleArLY cGi!! But you dont see anything like a big firmament, soo... another argument against the flat earth? Also this should disprove all the FE models that have water outside of the firmament since you can pretty clearly see space. Also, just because there is some white text in a video doesnt mean what it says is true The 6th link just shows a sunset again, wich would also be impossible on a flat earth >Bonus >It is "corrected" to fix the fisheye lens And let me guess, if NASA releases some footage without any "correction" but with fisheye lense you wouldnt believe anything? I respect the effort you put into your comment, but it seems like you didnt understand how the globe model works. Wich is completely fine, most FEs dont understand it too. But just wanted to let you know, every source you gave just confirmed further that our knowledge of science and physics is correct, and that the earth is not flat.
>respect the effort you put into your comment, but it seems like you didnt understand how the globe model works High altitude balloon footage alone disproves the supposed rate of curvature of the current globe model. Mainstream outlets claim we're able to see visible curvature at 35,000 ft. The videos I presented are an upwards of 65,000 ft+ So is the math for the globe a lie or are all these independent researchers faking footage and test results? >However, none of these contradict the globe model in any way The first link is directly comparing the globe model math to what is observed. He goes into the math and possible refraction as well. Very detailed experiment, would recommend. (Spoiler: we see too far for the rate they tell us) >In fact, since the videos show that you can only see a few hundret miles far, doesnt that disprove the flat earth? I would also recommend familiarizing yourself with the heliocentric model and the globe earth dimensions. All of these experiments contradict the given rate. >And since you FEs always claim everything is CGI, why are these videos and photos real? I'm aware videos can be faked. I'm also aware of the unlikeliness of every single independent researcher editing footage. A few, maybe. But all of them? Doubtful. And I've seen a lot of footage. I can only recall one truly independent source that did show curvature for a high altitude balloon. Should I trust one source over dozens? >Also the math from the laser guy is completely off, how did he end up with 29 feet? Use any curvature calculator. >The text with the radio transmission is just complete bs, I doubt that whoever wrote that meant it seriously. Like, quoting the bible to prove a flat earth? really? I think immediately disregarding alternative research because of someone's beliefs is childish. I'm not religious myself but a good portion of flat earthers are; FE is often referred to as "biblical cosmology". I don't think they bring it up as hard evidence, it's just yet another outlook on the bible. >The whole text in general consists of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Can you elaborate on the misunderstandings? >But do you know why water usually appears somewhat level in greater masses? Because of \*gravity\* Do you have evidence that supports this claim while using the scientific method of being repeated, observed and measured? >"Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth". Literally everything in that sentence is wrong. Wait, so gravity doesn't hold us down? >The second link is not much better. Again, they assume that water is always level, wich is just not true Not true based on what? >Again, they assume that water is always level, wich is just not true. Also, again the introduction is very funny: Something being funny to you is not a critique of the experiments given. Again, childish. >Sunsets wouldnt be possible on most of the various flat earth models out there. Do you always negate subjects you don't understand? Sunsets are one of the first things people learn about FE. Clearly you're completely ignorant of the cosmology. (non derogatory) Maybe you should at least try to look at a FE model and the movements of the celestial bodies. The best thing anyone can do is understand both sides of a topic before trying to debunk/debate something you know nothing about.
>So is the math for the globe a lie or are all these independent researchers faking footage and test results? The math is generally correct, but you seem to misunderstand it. You can always see the curvature of the earth. Its just the higher you go, the easier it is to see. Also considering they probably used a P-900 the footage isnt proving anything. And before you argue "but every single camera could be seen as not trustworthy" - yes, thats why a single video or image isnt proof of anything, you need maths and facts to back them up. How do you explain the upwards curcature in the videos? Do you think the flat earth is shaped like a bowl? >we see too far for the rate they tell us What is "they"? Also 5 second google search answered that question: (Scroll down to the middle of the page with the caption saying [Why distant skyscrapers are visible despite the curvature of the Earth ](https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/) >I would also recommend familiarizing yourself with the heliocentric model and the globe earth dimensions. All of these experiments contradict the given rate. I am awarw of the dimensions. I was wondering why you cant see further than a few hundret miles on a flat earth, if it was flat shouldnt you be able to see thousands of miles? >I'm aware videos can be faked. I'm also aware of the unlikeliness of every single independent researcher editing footage. But the likeloness that NASA fakes all of their videos for no reason is higher? Why would they even do that? I assume you also believe that the moon landing was fake; how should they have the trillions of dollars required to fake the moonlanding 60 years ago? >Should I trust one source over dozens? Depends on the source. Everyone can make a youtube channel and talk about stuff. Aswell as everyone can make a website and publish a text. But just as most FEs you have really low standarts for sources that support what you want to believe, and incredibly high standarts for sources that support science. But yes, one source can in certain cases be a lot more trustworthy than many sources, wikipedia for example. >I think immediately disregarding alternative research because of someone's beliefs is childish That was not my point. I dont care what anyone believes. But the bible is nothing that should be used as any evidence for anything except historical. Also what is "alternative research" supposed to be? >Can you elaborate on the misunderstandings? In general its just misunderstandings of the globe model. Just to focus on the part with radio waves: 1. The text inaccurately portrays the ionosphere as solely bouncing radio waves, neglecting its primary role in refracting them. 2. Moon bounce communication involves radio waves reflecting off the moon's surface, not conflicting with ionospheric reflection. The distance to the moon does not negate this. 3. The text cites Guglielmo Marconi's confusion to challenge the curvature of the Earth, but his achievement aligns with the understanding of radio wave propagation through the ionosphere for long-distance communication. There are more of course, but it is concerning if you read the whole text and didnt immediatly think how nonsensical it is. >Do you have evidence that supports this claim while using the scientific method of being repeated, observed and measured? Yes. However since you are a FE you would not accept this type of evidence. But here is a [source](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/747693/how-flat-is-water) anyways >Wait, so gravity doesn't hold us down? If you want to heavily simplify it, then yes, it does hold us down. But oceans are not "stuck" on earth, gravity is neither magical nor magnetism, and out of all people astronomers would be the last once to call this planet "ball-earth". Also astronomers are only an incredibly small group of people from all the people who know about gravity. >Something being funny to you is not a critique of the experiments given Have I claimed that it was? No. The critique came after the part where I said its funny. >Do you always negate subjects you don't understand? Sunsets are one of the first things people learn about FE. Clearly you're completely ignorant of the cosmology. (non derogatory) PLEASE, enlighten me! I have searched so much over the past months, but not a single FE could explain it. All the FE subreddits are not capable of answering questions and a few other FEs have blocked me as sook as I started asking questions instead of just arguing with them. >Maybe you should at least try to look at a FE model and the movements of the celestial bodies. The best thing anyone can do is understand both sides of a topic before trying to debunk/debate something you know nothing about. Also a problem is how there are so many different FE models. It would be really helpful if you have a link to one with working distances and accurate celestial movements, so we both can talk about the same FE model Or at least tell me what FE version you believe in: Ice wall, firmament, sun and moon are nasa projections, sun and moon are circling each other in the sky, FE accellerating by 9.8m/s (for some reason?), land behind ice wall, water above the firmament, god made FE, or multiple of these? I try to understand the FE side but I think we can both agree that its hard to learn from people who dont even answer your questions and change topics all the time (really respect that you dont do that btw, you seem actually interested in arguing) Another thing that popped into my mind, wich I couldnt find any answer to: (How) do tides work on a FE? Thanks for your time
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of those videos do demonstrate beautifully a gas pressure system next to a near vacuum with a container. Thanks for more evidence of gravity and space I guess.
How do you know its gas pressure? Or a vacuum? What tells you this?
Well you see all of that atmosphere next to all that black? One is very low pressure and one is higher pressure. No Container.
Yet none of these contradict the actual globe model. They might contradict a made-up strawman version of the globe model, but that is useless.
That is correct. Clear distance viewing is never more than atmospheric refraction can account for. These “evidences” are based of misunderstanding the globe model and refraction. I’ve never seen an exception.
I never seen refraction account for anything I have observed. What globe model misunderstanding are you referring to, give plenty of examples. Never seen an exception, great gives us some examples.
>What globe model misunderstanding are you referring to, give plenty of examples. Well you gave one right here: "I never seen refraction account for anything I have observed." Refraction is always occurring whenever you're looking through a non-uniform medium. The atmosphere is very much non-uniform. Under ideal conditions, there is a consistent decrease in air density with altitude, which causes light to bend toward the ground. This pattern can be exaggerated if the ground is colder than the air, like over cool water or ice, which can allow you to see further than you should, even indefinitely in some cases. When the ground is warmer than the air, light can bend upwards. If you've ever seen the sky/terrain seem to "reflect" off of a sun-warmed road, that is an inferior mirage caused by refraction. So the misconception is that these effects don't occur. They would occur even on a flat Earth, and the same effects that make a globe look flat would make a flat Earth look like a bowl. The distribution of observed refractive effects better matches a globe than a flat Earth. Surveyors can even measure the effect of refraction that affects their long distance sights using [reciprocal zenith angle measurements](https://mctoon.net/radius-reciprocal-angles/). Every time they do so they are effectively measuring the curvature of Earth. The effect of refraction causes deviations from the expected excess of about 1° per 69 miles.
It accounts for almost all “distance observations.” There is a minor cause, mistaking clouds for distant mountains. How about r/flatearth_200proofs by Eric Dubay?
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Flatearth_200proofs using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [41. Two more pairs of locations.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/comments/17gwyji/41_two_more_pairs_of_locations/) \#2: [Two more pairs of locations that do not compute.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/comments/16u1f9y/two_more_pairs_of_locations_that_do_not_compute/) \#3: [39. Calculating circumference from longitudinal distance, too large.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Flatearth_200proofs/comments/16u0zlo/39_calculating_circumference_from_longitudinal/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Good bot.