atmospheric refraction would have a definite effect on it.

🥛 🐈

lol

Lol

🐖 💨

That is not what my proof is. I was defending the fact that the image I showed demonstrates visible curvature of the earth. You denied that and said it was caused by atmospheric refraction. I explained, that while the lighthouse is affected by atmospheric refraction, atmospheric refraction does not cause the lighthouse on a supposed non-spherical surface to appear the way it does in the picture.

Makes you see curves Nd makes your hair go curly too

As per, exactly what the article you linked implies.

''atmospheric refraction does not cause the lighthouse on a supposed non-spherical surface to appear the way it does in the picture.'' that's litteraly what atmospheric refraction does LOL

You also do understand that the phenomenon we are talking about are on wikipedia because it fits in perfectly with the globe earth theory you distrust, correct?

That might've been a poor choice of words...You get what I'm saying, though. That image is not possible on a flat earth.

yes also you used ''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, 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'' Did you even read the beggening? The lighthouse is nor astronomical nor celestial

"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