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?