that can be replicated

@Musko who u talking about?

Mark Sargent

When did he prove the globe?

with a electronic ring laser gyroscope, it picked up drift, but that was programmed in, or the aether, either way its irrelevent as mechanical gyroscope dont pick up drift

i personally believe that both theory's have there own experiments that prove them correctly

How do i prove that the earth is flat

How does he know the effects dont account for this

Thank you i can now prove those small brain nibbas that the earth is flat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Kn7Ma1PL4

Theres obviously a ton of refraction going on

not ten miles worth, ooF

keep trying

How many degrees does the light have to bend over that distance? There has to be proof tjat refraction cant do that not just the claim. And to add something this observation does not disprove the globe neither does it confirm flat earth.

of the five refractionary forces which one is it?

Refractionary forces? What do you mean? Its a superior mirage

Nope, as explained in the video, an even if it were its still too far

no one in that video talks about refraction. hes stating things about the geometric horizon. he does not take refraction into account at all

because its a moot point

and why is that?

because its not refraction, do you think we'd would be dumb enough not to know, tsk tsk

well you want it to not be refraction to confirm your model. if you say that there is no refraction at play than i dont know what to say man. just look at the cranes of the oil rig in the distance. you think they are warped like that for real? if you want to claim that this is a globe killer or whatever you need to be able to prove that its not refraction that lets you make this observation but that its a purely geometrical effect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qYZdrbirc

watch this

fkn cranes, that not the horizon, derp!

yes but the distance to the horizon is also affected by refraction

nope, try again, an watch this, it will explain it all to you

just another FE proof

Musko, youre sperging your derp, you dont want to know truth, which is why you just parrot l;ies!

i dont think 5 people who hold the same belief and reject basic science talking about a picture is not very informative nor worthwile, but ofcourse they wont allow people that actually know the explanation on their ''show'' or kick them at the slightest bit of making sense

Rusty, you dont science when you assume first, thats psuedo-science

buyt you keep your balliefs pal!

you can assume something and then prove if it maches your assumption or not

its not a ballief

its observable and measurable

its not a globe, that modal is dead

theyve no evidence