You have a low standard of "thoroughly". I could regurgitate doctorate level astrophysics. Use your common sense, is it possible anyone is so stupid that they can't understand the basic ideas of heliocentric model. Most retards can draw the solor system.
Now, without putting much reasoning into this, on the surface, it seems anyone to claim the globe theory is wrong is somehow so dense that they can't even function in society, much less graduate. And there you stop, accepting that makes sense.
If anyone took time to listen and respect conversation, then you might learn that people like me (ex-glober) actually know much more than you do about heliocentrism. Try me, the education system is an institutionalized system developed and managed by the government. If you want to trust the government, I'm not gonna be able to help.
Just, before you think you're safely on the right side of this, at least study the flat earth model so you understand the arguments before lazily and gullibility believing flat earth's are stupid.
right, i have also learned that before, its why i didnt take eric dubay seriously and never actually tried to understand flat earth proofs.
but, then someone brought up a good point. What if THAT is the psy op? so people dont consider looking into flat earth. just to be safe, i went ahead and decided to entertain the flat earth proofs and be objective, i figured, it would be easy to prove it wrong and go back to choosing to beleiving the old CIA Psy op you just regurgitated.
First of all, you have to rid yourself of the notion that 8"/mile² has ANYTHING to do with this view.
The observer is plainly NOT at "sea-level"
Do not forget the calculation for the curvature of earth. 8 inches per mile squared is just a algebraic approximation of the trigonometric formula that perfectly expresses the average curve of the earth over any distance. The 8 inch per mile squared approximation is accurate to 1% within 250 miles, which is much father than you can see anyway, so this author is a wrong.
The fact that it is NOT at sea level also is moot, as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans. You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right? Thing about the change in diameter of the ball caused by a few hills. It's negligible.
Do yourself a favour, and don't just believe people, even if they are the majority. Think for yourself.
If you can't walk me through a flat earth proof, you aren't ready for a real conversation. While I can easily run circles on any solor system, earth science institutionalized "scyence"
Also, if you are like most people, you will react with anger, and insult me. It's programming. Try to keep your wits even though you believe flat earth is too stupid for your time.
Refraction doesn't work as this author described. Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is. But it's not going to clearly reproduce an image of the tower by bouncing light photons off of the ionosphere. You really have to think through what they are expecting you to swollow
"as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans"
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
"You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right?"
You have a big eye ball compared to the ball. If your eyeball was the size of a grain of dirt, placing another grain of dirt beside it would block your view. You would be seeing a wall, i.e. 90% "curvature".
But your eyeball is nothing compared to the distances you're observing here, so your comparison is stupid.
The author is just explaining why his calculations are slightly off because he doesn't know the elevation height. Which does matter. You ever been on a mountain with telescope?
"Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is."
Yes, but that doesn't work in your favor. For in reducing the horizon, you elevate the object sitting behind it.
Refraction is literally the only thing that allows us to sneak past a "corner", so to speak. The "corner" is that mountain of water.
More refraction? Sun sets later.
Less refraction? Sun sets earlier.
Likewise, refraction would enable us to see the base of CN Tower better, not worse.
And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.
And as you've thoroughly demonstrated the education system has failed.
You have a low standard of "thoroughly". I could regurgitate doctorate level astrophysics. Use your common sense, is it possible anyone is so stupid that they can't understand the basic ideas of heliocentric model. Most retards can draw the solor system.
Now, without putting much reasoning into this, on the surface, it seems anyone to claim the globe theory is wrong is somehow so dense that they can't even function in society, much less graduate. And there you stop, accepting that makes sense.
If anyone took time to listen and respect conversation, then you might learn that people like me (ex-glober) actually know much more than you do about heliocentrism. Try me, the education system is an institutionalized system developed and managed by the government. If you want to trust the government, I'm not gonna be able to help.
Just, before you think you're safely on the right side of this, at least study the flat earth model so you understand the arguments before lazily and gullibility believing flat earth's are stupid.
Flat Earth was a psyop by the CIA put on 4xhan to capture idiots such as yourself, it's a mid wit net.
right, i have also learned that before, its why i didnt take eric dubay seriously and never actually tried to understand flat earth proofs.
but, then someone brought up a good point. What if THAT is the psy op? so people dont consider looking into flat earth. just to be safe, i went ahead and decided to entertain the flat earth proofs and be objective, i figured, it would be easy to prove it wrong and go back to choosing to beleiving the old CIA Psy op you just regurgitated.
whats a killer logical argument that debunks ball earth and proves flat earth?
u/#crazy
Stop suffering.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/toronto-cn-tower-from-olcott-ny.html?m=1
You are a bit gullible i see. Meh Refraction.
Here, let me help.
Do not forget the calculation for the curvature of earth. 8 inches per mile squared is just a algebraic approximation of the trigonometric formula that perfectly expresses the average curve of the earth over any distance. The 8 inch per mile squared approximation is accurate to 1% within 250 miles, which is much father than you can see anyway, so this author is a wrong.
The fact that it is NOT at sea level also is moot, as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans. You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right? Thing about the change in diameter of the ball caused by a few hills. It's negligible.
Do yourself a favour, and don't just believe people, even if they are the majority. Think for yourself.
If you can't walk me through a flat earth proof, you aren't ready for a real conversation. While I can easily run circles on any solor system, earth science institutionalized "scyence"
Also, if you are like most people, you will react with anger, and insult me. It's programming. Try to keep your wits even though you believe flat earth is too stupid for your time.
Refraction doesn't work as this author described. Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is. But it's not going to clearly reproduce an image of the tower by bouncing light photons off of the ionosphere. You really have to think through what they are expecting you to swollow
"as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans"
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
"You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right?"
You have a big eye ball compared to the ball. If your eyeball was the size of a grain of dirt, placing another grain of dirt beside it would block your view. You would be seeing a wall, i.e. 90% "curvature".
But your eyeball is nothing compared to the distances you're observing here, so your comparison is stupid.
The author is just explaining why his calculations are slightly off because he doesn't know the elevation height. Which does matter. You ever been on a mountain with telescope?
"Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is."
Yes, but that doesn't work in your favor. For in reducing the horizon, you elevate the object sitting behind it.
Refraction is literally the only thing that allows us to sneak past a "corner", so to speak. The "corner" is that mountain of water.
More refraction? Sun sets later. Less refraction? Sun sets earlier.
Likewise, refraction would enable us to see the base of CN Tower better, not worse.
And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.