"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