Light gets here in minutes or seconds, the atmospheres density causes it to refract more and more as it gets to us

But the measurements are the sun angles/shadows, and distance

But I believe its the medium it's travelling through that causes it, not light itself

When we ascend we get less displacement

@AstralSentient That's not a measurement, that's an assumption.

Cus less aymosphere

Look at clouds

Figure it out

Why do clouds make a dome around you at ground level, yet they level off flat when we get high?

@AstralSentient
When you observe the sun on the horizon it appears a red/orange color.
When you observe the sun directly above you, it appears a yellow/white color.
It is reasonable to assume the most amount of refraction occurs when you observe the sun closest through the horizon.
The sunlight must go through the thickest amount of air closest to the horizon.
Take a look at Lapse Rate. There is a net change of air temperature of about 6-8 degrees celcius lower per kilometer of altitude gained.
Cold air has a higher refractive index than warm air.
Light will naturally curve upwards in air and the closer the apparent sun is to the horizon the more it curves upwards.
Attempting to apply linear trigonometry to an extremely curved beam of light when the sun is close to the horizon is pointless, it won't work.

Concave human sheeple

😉

I will accept there are valleys and quarreys and sinkholes which have concavity, however 70 percent of Earth is water, water seeks its level and is therefore apparently mostly locally flat.

Water is pushed out to the earth, the same reason clouds make a dome around you at ground level or why rocket trojectories appear to dip right down as they get further away, to the same reason the sun appears to dip down as it gets further away, is why the horizon is also displaced visually

You could determine that by the sun slowing down in angular speed, if it doesn't up in the sky, we don't have to worry about the refractive circumstances, assuming a globe. So, the superglobe option is dead since we can verify circumference by sun angles and distances

Hey, if you cross Antarctica and reach land again, if you were willing to concede globe, might as well consider concave

@AstralSentient No, man. We cannot verify anything with math, alone. Math means assumptions without experimentation.

JUST BECAUSE IT LOOKS FLAT IT DON'T MEAN IT IS,

It isn't with math alone is my point

there is proof earth isnt flat

just look at earth by lil dicky

@AstralSentient Math and sun shadows that you assume to be from a globe. So, yes. Math without experimentation.

Yes, but at least it eliminates the "superglobe" option

Or maybe don't assume either model and look at the raw data.

It doesn't eliminate anything, is my point, my man. We need experimentation. We need to venture. We need to take flight and observations from more than our bedroom windows.

LSC and that Mercury guy absolutely ruined any possibility of me even trying to entertain that concave bullshit.

@🍄The Mad Philosopher🍄 well done you successfully fell for their trap

If all our measurements and data converge on one circumference for the Globe, then we would have an idea on consistency to where a bigger globe is eliminated, as both assume a globe anyways.

You know scripture talks about a deceiver who claims to be God and yet, people think this guy is God?

Come on, man..

People haven't got brains these days, ever heard of reverse psychology? No?

I don't believe he is a god

Ever heard of an antichrist?

I don't follow him

Good

But read between the lines, think for yourself

At least we can find common ground

First.. You need to understand all media is controlled

Until you do, you go nowhere

✡

@Seeker of Truth Another Philosophers stone believer?