It's a illusion for me ,if we was able to see curvature down here ,we should see lots of it from up there ,and we don't

Do you know that the sea evaporates at a small scale? You put all the evaporation together and with refraction then you get places which should not be where they are. Your evidence isn't substantial

You are making an irrelevant claim, and then making new claim that is not backed up by your previous claim. On what basis is my evidence not substantial? 'Places which should not be where they are' can refer to many things. How does this lead to the light house being partly obscured by the sea?

'Places which should not be where they are' however does make sense if you are referring to objects which we cannot see (behind the curvature) becoming visible, as demonstrated in multiple illustrations if you look it up online.

You're putting a picture and saying it's proof for globe earth and forget to account refraction.

Also if your claim was true you should be able to see world curve a lot when you're on airplane but you don't. Wanna know why? Because what you saw was refraction.

interesting debate people

Okay, so that is the basis for your claim of my evidence not being substantial? This is a loop hole, though. I am already addressing your issues with that. I am asking you to explain how exactly atmospheric refraction causes the sea to obscure the lighthouse.

https://youtu.be/kcfjDsicq6c

Once again, you are using refraction as a know-all-end-all word, and you are not explaining the mechanisms behind it.

@Yabai I'm not here to give you a lecture on atmospheric refraction, you can look up on google.

Okay, fine then. Here is an illustration.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/330220516143267849/630587539438305291/atmospheric-refraction.png

so in short @FatBeat wants to make claims, and not explain how they make sense

How does this explain the lighthouse being hidden behind the ocean?

Yeah, pretty much.

<:lul:484994724118134784>

This phenomenon is actually proof for curvature, if anything. It allows us to see behind the curvature, much further than we would be able to otherwise.

The light that reflects off the lighthouse is deviated by the air density that you live in. After that you get an image which looks like it appears in a place where it shouldn't be.

is the lighthouse that reflective, that it reflects water?

'' Such refraction can also raise or lower, or stretch or shorten, the images of distant objects without involving mirages ''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

My bad, made a typo there

you cant fite me, ill reflect you jk

You're misunderstanding the article here. Nowhere does it say that this phenomenon causes the obstruction of said distant objects by reflective surfaces, such as water.

"Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher above the horizon than they actually are. Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they actually are. "

This is a further explanation in the article. It doesn't match your explanation.

I said the water evaporation is also another factor that can make the image look more dodgy.

"if the earth were a ball, why hasnt it bounced or rolled away?"

🤡

lol

Okay, but you still can't link that to your initial claim that it is caused by atmospheric refraction. Not only that, but your initial claim doesn't match the article you've linked.

Lol

I'm not convinced.

"if the earth were flat, the cats would have knocked everything off of it by now"

What? My initial claim was due to refraction which can make image look like in places where they aren't in and also that the water evaporation was another factor to consider.

<:flatearth:564527756180979724> <:confused:625494374402228244>

'' hurr durr earth is not inside a glass of water '' he forgot about atmospheric refraction and water evaporation by the sea

lol

youre all inside a glass of water that i am drinking, fair thee well travellers

@FatBeat no personal attacks nor remarks like that please

😱 not a glass of water

lol

'make the image look more dodgy' is not a valid way to explain the phenomenon we observe. Also, I just explained to you, really clearly, that your claim doesn't match what is said in the wikipedia article...the article explains how refraction affects objects in the distance. This perfectly explains why the lighthouse is hidden by the water, and is a proof for a spherical earth.

The cats will knock it over lol

lol

lol

I guess this is over then?

lee theres a way to stop cats from knocking things off of surfaces

None

Make cats actually care about their owners

It's not proof of convexity no

get a box for them

I can't, you win. '' Because it's affected by atmospheric refraction and it doesn't look like where it truly is it means that the earth is spherical! ''

You...just missed everything that I've been getting to...

🤦

that light house is very far away

cats will knock it over

atmospheric refraction would have a definite effect on it.

🥛 🐈

lol

Lol

🐖 💨

That is not what my proof is. I was defending the fact that the image I showed demonstrates visible curvature of the earth. You denied that and said it was caused by atmospheric refraction. I explained, that while the lighthouse is affected by atmospheric refraction, atmospheric refraction does not cause the lighthouse on a supposed non-spherical surface to appear the way it does in the picture.

Makes you see curves Nd makes your hair go curly too

As per, exactly what the article you linked implies.

''atmospheric refraction does not cause the lighthouse on a supposed non-spherical surface to appear the way it does in the picture.'' that's litteraly what atmospheric refraction does LOL

You also do understand that the phenomenon we are talking about are on wikipedia because it fits in perfectly with the globe earth theory you distrust, correct?

That might've been a poor choice of words...You get what I'm saying, though. That image is not possible on a flat earth.

yes also you used ''Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher above the horizon than they actually are. Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they actually are'' Did you even read the beggening? The lighthouse is nor astronomical nor celestial

"Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are"

You used that as proof that for globe earth

You're nitpicking now. That is not my main point. When I said it's proof, I meant that atmospheric refraction accounting for objects that should be hidden behind the curve appearing is a valid proof - that's another topic, though.

'' although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they actually are '' sea evaporation

thank you lol

That does indeed make sense.

Except it is in favor of my argument...

Thanks for helping me I guess?

I've gotta brb @Logrian

? light house is further away making it look lower than it is from the land you are seeing

It could go either way, we don't know the time of day or atmospheric conditions when that video was taken. However, it is irrelevant to my original claim.

Question

its right in the day lol

Is this server ironic or unironic?

Unironic

K

The explanation for atmospheric refraction 'assumes' a globe, and that's why it works. Try and find me an article that explains this phenomenon assuming a flat plane. I'll make it quick. There are none, because you would get a completely different image and effect from atmospheric refraction on a flat plane.

cmon lmao, that argument is so easily debunked by atmospherc refraction. look, i will make this simple for you. object far away? water in between that object and you? the object will look ALWAYS look lower than where it is

How many actual flat earthers are here?

This is impossible on a flat surface...you do realize that, right?

how come? i've never see water curve

The lighthouse can appear lower than it actually is because the illustration and explanation assume we are on a sphere...a statement that many flat earthers despise.

which is true because of refraction

im not even a flat earther but you're completly ignoring that

god

Okay

So we are essentially arguing over something we already agree on

oh my god

see, that evidence was not substantial give me something that can't be refuted.

you could've said star trails or coriolis effect but nah

We already agree on the same thing...

a dumb argument which is easily debunked

waves curve

the illustration assumes a spherical earth, which is why it makes sense when we look at the image

If it assumed a flat earth, refraction would act differently.

what illustration are you talking about? the one with the light house?

And the result would not match the image

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/330220516143267849/630587539438305291/atmospheric-refraction.png

this

I was about to lose it because you started agreeing with me and I had no idea what your stance was anymore

You're kidding right? I just told you that the light house was not a celestial object yet you keep using that illustration?

It literally said on wikipedia

''Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher above the horizon than they actually are. Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are''

I'm not referring to the light house specifically here. I'm referring to the way refraction would affect everything we see.

Gotta head off got work tomorrow I'll try and stop by tomorrow night again @Logrian

I moved on from the light house a while back

@Lee Lushy later 👋

Goodnight all

"if the earth were a ball, the cats would have knocked it beneath the couch by now"

@Lee Lushy kk dude, have fun, be well 🙂

I think I was a bit too vague on that

night lee

So you agree that the atmospheric refraction can cause the object which is in between water to appear lower than it is?

**Question Of The Day #208**

Is the Greta Thunberg phenomenon nothing but a money-making scheme set up by her handlers to profit from climate hysteria?

Share your thoughts in the <#484514023698726912> 😃

Yes I 100% do. I disagreed with you because I thought you were saying this happened on a flat earth

Funny how that image was taken in the day.

If it was in the night, I wouldn't be able to defend my argument

I wonder why 🤔 they can easily deceive with the arguments

Damn...

You really threw me off there.

I still have a lot of work to do with my debate skills as well as my knowledge on science and flat earth claims, as you can see.

@Logrian @The Gwench @Citizen Z https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKYNET_(surveillance_program)

Why were you kicked?

*bans @Abe*

that sucks abe

damn thats on a whole other level

The whole reason why this started is because I thought you were making those claims assuming that the earth was flat @FatBeat

My question is, what exactly were you trying to say?

That the argument was weak?

i don't care what the earth is, i will never know what it is. it's just that most arguments can easily be debunked and there's no irrefutable evidence for any model

What about math?

I kind of see where you're coming from now

*bans @Logrian *

i've already seen both sides, a lot of globe earthers misrepresent was flat earth is

irrefutable, specifically

@Yabai what math proves globe earth?

Trigonometry. I don't know exactly how you set it up - better yet, I don't remember how I saw it done, but you can prove that the sun and other starts in the night are not local and in fact extremely far away by measuring how they move in the sky relative to your position on the ground.

for me, irrefutable evidence would be going to space and seeing it for yourself or just flying a balloon beyond the stratosphere which most of them pop. can you elaborate on the math?

just give me a link

to what you saw

I will try, but I'm going to have to look around for a bit to find it again. Give me a minute.

https://youtu.be/epwUTVUwB7A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk

@FatBeat

This is messed up!!! 😮

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-06-woman-at-aoc-townhall-demands-everyone-eat-the-babies.html

He focuses on disproving flat earth for about half of it, but also has the rest of the time dedicated to explaining why the globe earth works

🤢
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-06-you-cant-make-knife-out-of-frozen-human-feces.html

I've already acknowledged star trails which is what the video is about correct? They don't work on flat earth but that doesn't necessarily mean the earth is a globe.

lol who cares about online friends, care about the ones you see irl

oh damn

sorry bruv

He explains exactly why they work on the globe in that video @FatBeat

It is evidence for the globe but it doesn't mean that the earth is 100% for the globe, flat earth also has some evidence.

That's like stopping at water doesn't curve and saying the earth is flat, it's not infallible proof for what the shape is.

Well, I'm not addressing that as a be-all-end-all proof for a globe earth. I'm addressing what you said about it not necessarily being *some* evidence for a globe earth - which it is, and you admit that much.

Yeah, it's pretty good evidence which is why I addressed it with the coriolis effect when I addressed globe evidence.

Would you call it irrefutable evidence?

No

Why?

I wouldn't say the earth is flat because I've never seen water curve, however if I see the whole earth with my eyes I would consider that irrefutable evidence.

Nor would I say the earth is round because of star trails

So, you have clear evidence of one thing, but deny it because you only consider what you can see for yourself as irrefutable evidence?

There's clear evidence for both things, I don't deny both I refuse to accept one of the 2 as the decisive argument that decides which shape the earth is.

@Abe Lover who did you piss off?

Bruv I got muted and I just joined

Can you show clear evidence for the flat earth?

Water never curves and you can't ever see curvature unless some space agency shows you it.

Know your role Spookette

I showed you curvature in images, so that is not true - regardless of why you think it is curved, whether it's an illusion or not. You can see curvature in some conditions.

Thats not curvature, sigh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dS7-I2c1Eg

I responded with refraction. By your logic, that much of a curvature would also mean that you should see earths curvature from the view of an airplane.

here is a video showing water bend using electrostatic.

Sigh, thats not it at all.

I'm talking about water in the ocean, they're not effected by electrostatic charges.

I am not going through that argument again. The fact is, there is visible curvature. Period. If you think that's an optical illusion, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you see it, which is why your statement is invalid.

@Abe Lover what server is this?

How do you ever expect to see water curve around the earth if not for an image from space?

@Yabai even Neil Degrasse Tyson says curvature is not visible. 🙄

Curvature is not visible under normal conditions. However, under some, it 100% is visible.

@Yabai Let's say your argument was real, that would mean you can see a lot of curvature correct? By that logic you should see it from an airplane but you don't. You're committing a false conclusion when you say the earth is too big to see curvature from 40 000 feet but that you can also observe it on earth bend that much.

Your friends don’t sound like friends at all Abe.

It doesn't matter what phenomenon you think explains it, but you can see a curve.

Not with inferred cameras you cannot though?

That is completely besides my point. Irrelevant. I'm not arguing science or observation here @FatBeat

You said that you never see curvature. That's simply not true.

The curvature is attributed to atmospheric refraction, we've already been through this lol. Your argument is easily flawed

If the earth was flat, and you said that you cannot see curvature, as long as my image is not faked, your statement is not true.

@Yabai You're completely ignoring atmospheric refraction once again.

Mate. I am not making that same argument. Understand please.

!mute @Joss

>>ban 591882304213876779

<:vSuccess:390202497827864597> Successfully banned <@591882304213876779>

>>ban 418572922181910530

<:vSuccess:390202497827864597> Successfully banned @Joss

I'm talking about what we see. What do you see in this image? Ignore the whole argument about globe earth and round earth. Ignore explanations for why that image appears the way it does. https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/330220516143267849/630492924056043520/main-qimg-e2edd4ba8d11f3cd766178def3531556.png

Do you see a curve downwards in the distance?

yes, or no.

I elaborate. Ignore the possible explanations for the phenomenon and everything we talked about with refraction and what not. This has nothing to do with it.

Your answer doesn't prove flat or round earth either.

Just, what you see.

@Yabai that image has been messed with. Clearly obvious. What’s wrong with your sense of discernment? 😡

@Yabai Let's ignore atmospheric refraction like you just said. Calculate the distance from that light house and the land that was in between, there would be very noticeable curvature that you should observe. Yet when ever you're on airplane you don't see any curvature because the false curve is attributed to atmospheric refraction. Argument easily debunked even without atmospheric refraction.

god

I am not making an argument

https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=8859Y6RMRMW5

I am asking you a question

please, just answer, what do you see in that image

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/03/18/undeniable-proof-cgi-used-in-new-zealand-shooting/

I see faked curvature

Do the pylons appear to go downwards as they go further into the distance?

I see atmospheric refraction creating a false image of where the bridge should be, the earth doesn't curve that much.

...

Wench got it right.

They see curvature, although they think its faked.

Can I ask you a question

?

It’s so clearly fake. Why use a doctored image,

Do you think the earth curves that hard?

That's my point. You said that you can't see curvature. Wench proved you wrong for me right there.

@Yabai Do you think the earth curves that hard like the picture you just posted

No I didn’t

Nope, and this has nothing to do with what you are saying.

I’m proving you wrong @Yabai