Search results

Then we never see the real thing of anything, David. See my previous post. Stupidity We know how refraction works and I've asked you over and over again about why we can't see cities from 50 miles away on a regular basis and you ignore the point! YOU IGNORE THE POINT! "It isn't the issue." If...

Of course it is! The fact that it's bounced off a piece of glass doesn't change it's source, just the path it took to get to your eye. That is not relevant to whether what you are seeing is that actual city, which it is! What else would it be? Is it a pretend city? Are we imagining it? If the...

More than one layer of atmosphere! :bang:

We DO NOT get two different effects from the same atmospheric condition! How many times do I have to answer the same objection? Do you know what a temperature inversion is? Let me just tell you. Normally warm air masses want to rise and cold air masses want to sink. A temperature inversion...

Interesting. That is not what I expected you to say. Being a weather related phenomenon, I expected it to be quite predictable. They know the air temperature, humidity and pressure pretty well so it must be the water temperature that they don't have sufficient data on to make the prediction...

Because I'm bored to death with this treadmill discussion about refraction, I'm going to jump to a different treadmill discussion... Dave, You occasionally reject arguments on the basis that they presuppose that the Earth is round. I wonder if you've given any consideration to how a round...

Is the weather man able to predict in advance when it is likely to happen? If so, is he also able to say how strong the effect will be (i.e. how much of the skyline you'll be able to see)?

I was sort of ignoring this point just because I understand what he's getting at but I'm glad someone mentioned it. It is important to point out as many flaws in the Flat Earth thinking process as possible. In actual fact, we are seeing the real city or ship or whatever. The light has bounced...

How often does it happen that you can see Chicago from across the lake?

The image above is not displaying refraction but rather reflection and would result in an upside down image of the ship as in the picture below... If the image is due to refraction, it will be upright... (There is actually some of both refraction and reflection occurring in that last...

David, So just how is this discussion about refraction arguing for a flat Earth anyway? As I've said, no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts...

No, we aren't told that by anyone other than flat earthers wanting to have something to argue against. No, not both. That's complete asinine stupidity. No other response is warranted. What are you seeing? A make believe city? What else would you be seeing? Just because the light is refracted...

One single more syllable from you along these lines will land you permanently on my ignore list. Not only have I spent an ungodly number of hours presenting argument after argument that YOU ignored completely but you've totally lost any right to talk to me about "doing better"! You can kiss me...

Irrelevant and already answered. If the image isn't inverted, it isn't a reflection but rather a refraction of the light. NO ONE BUT FLAT EARTHERS PROPOSE REFLECTIVE MIRAGES AS AN EXPLANATION FOR WAY WE SEE CITY SKY LIKES (OR ANY OTHER UPRIGHT IMAGE) FROM 50 MILES AWAY!!!!! It's a trick...

As has been told to you countless times, it isn't about reflection it's about refraction. This entire argument is literal stupidity that you're repeating, the source of which almost certainly knew it was a lie when he wrote it Terrestrial Refraction...

I just deleted a whole response to this post. Suffice it to say that, no, it's not OK. Intellectual dishonesty is no more OK than any other sort of dishonesty. So, what's next? Which aspect of this debate do you want to repeat now? Go ahead, if that's what you find so enjoyable, pick...

Rush to a conclusion? We've been beating this dead horse for a year!

None of this makes any sense. Who ever said anything about more than one atmospheric condition existing in one place at the same time. That's stupid. You're rebutting an argument that has never been made. There certainly can be more than one atmospheric condition existing between two places...

No lunatic ever thinks he's a lunatic so... Besides, like I said, there isn't one single good argument for a flat Earth. Not only that, but it has been fundamentally falsified! Yet you remain unpersuaded and unpersuadable. Clete

Actually, on my way to work, after having posted that really fast post, it occurred to me that I may have been less than clear about what I meant. Light travels basically in a straight line through whatever it is that its traveling through. It refracts whenever it encounters something with a...