re: Nice try, NASA

yep that’s me. What do you think refraction is?

alright I’m done here. One day you’ll tell me what you think refraction is and how your definition is at all consistent with how mainstream physics defines the term, and on that day we can pick up this conversation.

quote:

---

Are you retarded. You're taking both sides

Ok you're right, light bends.

So

How can the Greek experiment be valid if light bends?

---

I'm talking both sides?! Your claim is that the sun is always overhead a flat surface, yet somehow half the world can't see it.

So yet again, you are tossing aside all the evidence that we know how light bends in order to fit FE. From basic observation of mirages and putting a stick in the water, to eyeglasses and the camera lens used to film your "evidence" of a flat earth.

quote:

---

If light bends, sun rays are not parallel

---

One has nothing to do with the other.

Gotta give it to this troll. He's still here while all the others have abandoned the thread.

It does, because light bends due to variable atmospheric conditions. It doesn't bend each ray in exactly the same curve to remain parallel.

The experiment assumes light comes straight from the sun in adjacent parallels rays. Why else would it be significant that it hits the bottom of a well on one spot and not the other? If we know that light can bend, converge and diverge, (which we do) we know that doesn't matter. There could be any number of reasons it doesn't hit a well.

And it's not an experiment. It's a story written from ancient history we have no clue if true or not. Like Jonah and the Whale. And this is NASA's argument

quote:

---

If light bends, sun rays are not parallel and the Greek experiment is bunk. I don't know how you can't understand that.

---

Let's see how far you're willing to twist things.

We know that there is a margin of error in every measurement. If you take any error whatsoever to mean that an experiment is "bunk", then logically we can't know anything ever. There are zero experiments that are valid. Is this your claim?

We know that light bends as it enters the atmosphere, but we also know that it's a small amount, otherwise the sun would appear noticeably and measurably different depending on where you are on the earth. Do you disagree?

We can also repeat the shadow experiment using three locations instead of just two. And, of course, we have repeated this at many thousands of locations. Do you know why using only two latitudes means we have to assume the earth is a sphere in order to calculate its size, but using three or more latitudes means we can confirm that it is indeed a sphere?

quote:

---

We can also repeat the shadow experiment using three locations instead of just two. And, of course, we have repeated this at many thousands of locations.

---

You can do it with a flashlight in your bathroom. Is your bathroom a globe?

The simple explanation is a flat surface with a nearby light source. Spinning round earth is a non sequitur. It's the opposite of proof


The real reason NASA uses the godawful apocryphal story from ancient history is to give the impression that "everyone has known the earth is round since the Greeks" that's what she says, that's been the new narrative. But the old narrative was everyone in the middle ages thought it was flat, and Columbus sailed to prove them wrong. But that was just totally made up too. It turns out flat earth was taught in American schools (in Connecticut, not Alabama) in the 20th century. It was the widespread belief well into the 19th century. Why all the lies taught to generations of children?

quote:

---

You can do it with a flashlight in your bathroom. Is your bathroom a globe?

---

No, and the shadows in this case will scale linearly.

quote:

---

The simple explanation is a flat surface with a nearby light source.

---

So what you don't get is this simple explanation fails the most basic test. Shadow length does not scale linearly with latitude. Instead, they scale precisely as they would on a globe.

quote:

---

Or as they would through a dome
Either one is a possibility.

---

Ok, let's get back to your bringing up Occam's razor. Shadows, the motion of the stars, day and night, the seasons, literally everything is explained simply by a globe earth. On the other hand, FE requires a dome to explain shadows, impossible projections to explain the motion of stars, wild sunlight bending to explain day and night, unexplainable motion of the sun to explain seasons, and on and on. This is all due to the fact that it's impossible to map a 3d object perfectly in two dimensions. Everything gets more and more complicated, and the results conflict with each other.

quote:

---

A proposed explanation is not proof. Do you understand that?

---

Yes, do you?

This is really, really dumb. That guy actually thinks the Japanese had to fly that far across the Earth? The dumb frick should know all the bombers had to do was turn the corner and Pearl Harbor was right there!