Well ive learned pretty much everything about it

Not disprove, just point out that isn't currently valid based on how it is a reification, like the 7/6R rule of thumb. Note that it isn't the same as snell's law, supposedly, 'isotopic media' is an invalid description for the atmosphere so there is a concept of "atmospheric refraction"
Anyways, the explanation given is that the local surface is flat if you are talking about the laser test

Well yea... Snells law says that through each medium entered by a light wave there is a angle of refraction based on the medium index of refraction x sin(θ{i,r}) and the sin of the angle of the incident ray when entered

well they say that when u watch boats go over the curve that is exactly what it is boats going over the curve. they say its impossible for it to be perspective or refraction or angular resolution. whenever we see a city skyline at the horizon that we shouldnt be able to see becuase its too far its an illusion but the boats is not an illusion thats really whats happenning.

all the mountains and cities u can see too far that appear perfectly displayed for u at the horizon thats an illusion and not real the boats going over the curve is real

supposedly

Well no

Most of it they use high res and high powered zoom and magnification which is able to see many times farther than the human eye

but they do say the boats going over the curve at thte horiszon is proof of the globe but when we see too far and look at a city skyline that shouldnt be there its an illusion and not real

that is what globe people say

no ?

Without using any type of zoom?

However a city skyline is a very large object as compared to a boat which is much smaller and so it much easier to visualize the curve with

Perspective doesn't obstruct objects. That is my problem with it.
Just nonsense as far as I'm concerned

so the boats at the horizon is real but the city that should be under the curve we can see is an illusion i know

It is much easier to see things happen with smaller objects and not large ones because there might be curve but its harder to notice but with a smaller object its much easier to see

lol

smaller object is easier too see ok

doesnt sound right but ok

Its easier to visualize a more miniscule detail on a smaller object vs a large one like a skyline

If its not right may you please prove me wrong

just doesnt sound right its easier to see more detail on a smaller object vs a large one

idk a lot doesnt make sense to me when it comes to the globe

Something so miniscule as that. Becauee its smaller its easier to see how much of it is slowly going over the curve... Vs a large object where it may be difficult to account for the exact height in our brains

A small object such as a boat can show itself going over the curve much easier than a skyline can

but u agree that the boat at the horizon going over the curve is real and the skyline or mountain thats too far and we shouldnt see at all is an illusion and not real

To respond to the second part that is partially true yes

but how can u be sure

idk if i wanna see this debate

its not real

Its the same principle if you look down a long road you appear to see 'water' which isnt there but it appears to be

im tired of debating this honestly

@YahYett r u a fe

No

Hecc no

thanks the lord

everyone here is always a glober

yes cuz we have common sense

Not me 😋

oh noes

but astral u argue on defense of the globe