Looks like the astronomers used the ‘maximum distance method’

Whilst assuming a spherical Earth, whilst assuming a radius of Earth

What's the assumed value of "R" in their model again?

R as being....?

Radius? Distance?

Earth's Radius yes please

Uhm... isn’t it 6000 miles ish?

Oops that’s KM

3963 miles

6,371 kilometers yes?

Yes

It says on Google 6378km but ya know

And is the radius of Earth used in ALL astronomical model calculations?

If they’re using trigonometry, I’d assume so. Since stellar parallax only works for objects less than 300 LY away though, they would t use it for V616 Mon, I believe.

Do you agree that if Earth were a sphere, trigonometry would be correct?

I’m no expert, I don’t know haha

i.e. d0 is the distance between the elevations and the lowest point of the observation, tree, tower, hill, mountain? d1 us the distance to the bulge and d2 is the distance from the bulge to the cutoff point?

h1 is the cut off point

h0 is the observer height?

R is Earth's Radius

Agreed?

Sure

What’s the point

Can you explain to me then how this mountain is visible then pleaes?

Ahh I’ve seen this one before

But why change the subject from stellar parallax, if I may ask?

How can a 3,800 meter tall mountain be visible if the minimum cut off is 5,064 meters?

@Timebomb Because all astronomical calculations use an assumed Spherical Earth with an assumed Radius of 6,371 or in your case 6,378km

Why does the line go BELOW the curve?

https://www.metabunk.org/explained-443-km-distance-mountains-visible.t8980/

@Timebomb If the Radius, which by the way has never been measured....
Is in error....
How can any of the astronomical models calculations possibly be correct?

It looks like the consensus here is that he misses out on something called hidden refraction

Do you know who the owner of metabunk is?

He's this guy, his name is Mick West

The very first response of the thread answers the question nicely

Uhh... so what?

We asked him about snells law, he DELETED the thread

Are all of the answers made by government shills?

Lol

Or real people?

That point is so irrelevant

I personally meticulously went through his code, guess what he told me

Who cares who made the site

He told me that his refracted curve calculation relies on a "surveyors rule of thumb 7/6 times R"

Ok... is that a problem?

Well yes it is because he's asserting light curves down around the surface of the Earth, but we observe light curving up into the sky

Light curves around a gravitational body yes

No it doesn't, we found peer reviewed scientific journals that clearly show light curves up

Here's one such publicaiton

Here is another

```"It is obvious that the effect of temperature variation is decisive over the
other atmospheric factors on refraction, to the following proportions: Tempera
ture to humidity to carbon dioxide content to air preEsure = 100 : 6 : 2 : 1 "

INVESTIGATION OF REFRACTION
IN THE LOW ATMOSPHERE
By
K. HORV_,.TH
Department of Survey. Technical university. Budapest
(Received Alay 29, 1969)
Presented by Ass. Prof. Dr. F. SAHKOZY```

Meanwhile the paper that Mick West cited already assumed spherical symmetry

@Timebomb

Interesting!

https://youtu.be/VPlCnbOhBRg

But we don’t need to know those things to know we use Earth’s orbit to do things.

@Timebomb But how can your calculations POSSIBLY be correct if your unmeasured Radius and assumed sphericity are in error or cannot be scientifically proven?

Earth is a frisbee

Did you ever respond to the dude with the surveyor description thing?

@Timebomb also Mick West, the owner of Metabunk, the poster of that thread ADMITTED on camera R was an assumed unprovable value
https://youtu.be/tLYcqOyU9ZA

Maybe shoot him an email?

So to plug the assumed sphericity they have an assumed radius, when long distance photography shatters this assumption, another assumption is put in place, refraction bending around the sphere to make the Earth appear flat, then when light is shown with lasers shot dozens of kilometers away curves up......... there's no answer

And adding to that, metabunk’s curve calc can’t be the only curve Calc on the internet, right?

So unless you can explain to me how light curves up then down again you don't really have a leg to stand on

sure this one
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

It's open source too!

bung in hte numbers, 2,800 eye height, target distance 443,000 meters

It's mathematically impossible with the standard globe earth model

If it was possible I would still be a glober

You should seriously bring these concerns to a mathematician

Or an astrophysicist or something

You seem to really know your stuff

Because I don’t lol

I have and they have buried us, ignored us, banned us from the international astronomical union, banned us from nasa, banned us from roskosmos, we've been labelled a "dangerous cult" by physics professors.

Have you ever considered sitting down with a local university professor or something and talking about this? I’m serious, not teasing.

They've sent in actors to pretend to be flat earth and make what we've worked out seem rediculous

They have sent in trolls to character assassinate us

They have kicked us from our own server

Because until you’ve gotten this published, peer reviewed, and accepted, I don’t know how to believe your work.

Server? Which server?

If you knew what me, @Rigg5 @✧Mike Flatbird (Mike Blackbird)✧ @A Search for Roche's Rifle @Citizen Z @L.O.X @wobblyboost all saw and witnessed in the years of telling people what we've just told you, your skin would crawl from the scale of deception that really goes on and the lengths these people will go to bury the truth.

24/7 Flat Earth

formerly ODD 24/7 before it got taken over

I was banned from that too lol as I’ve said

Were you banned too?

And if so why?

nice

Yeet