That means, in this case, that light travels more or less straight. Atmospheric refraction adds experimental uncertainty to the result, but repeated observations have shown the results are fairly consistent, so this is not a large uncertainty.

Fairly consistent with what?  If I repeatedly measure a piece of wood with a faulty 11inch ruler (which I think is 12inch), I will repeatedly get the wrong result...and not realize it.  How is this experiment double-checked in any way? 


Atmospheric refraction = uncertainty.  Uhh...you think?  Again, if you can't use this measurement tool through water, (light doesn't travel straight in water) you can't use it in the atmosphere because golly... isn't the atmosphere MADE OF WATER?  Yes. 

Assumptions, uncertainties, etc.  Sounds like a whole ball of circular reasoning.

Other people doing the same experiment with different equipment or circuмstances.

Other experiments using different methods getting the same results.

It's still not verifiable science because, as you admitted:

1.  The "assumption" here is that the geometric abstraction is sufficiently close to reality.
2.  That light travels the same in low atmosphere as it does at a) high altitudes and b) in space

Those are HUGE assumptions and make any conclusions suspect.

The main atmospheric components are Nitrogen and Oxygen. Water vapor is a small percent.

There's a difference between low atmosphere and high atmosphere.  Also, how does one measure light in the vacuum of space?  I don't believe there's such a vacuum but you do.  And to suggest that space can be measured the same as the atmosphere is nonsense.  How do you shine a light which travels through 2 different mediums (atmosphere, vacuum) and think you could adequately measure this? 

You're assuming the world is set up so anything we observe could be wrong?

You're essentially arguing we can't know anything.

No, i'm assuming the world is setup to observe those things ON EARTH alone.  We can't know those things "in the heavens" because a) they don't work the same way as things on earth, b) too many assumptions involved, c) most assumptions start from a heliocentric view, d) I don't think God wants us to know all these things because it inflates our pride.

It's still not verifiable science because, as you admitted:
1.  The "assumption" here is that the geometric abstraction is sufficiently close to reality.
2.  That light travels the same in low atmosphere as it does at a) high altitudes and b) in space
Those are HUGE assumptions and make any conclusions suspect.

OK, you're hypothesizing that light travels significantly differently in the "low atmosphere" vs "high altitudes" and "space".

How could we test that hypothesis?

We could do the same observation under varying circuмstances - from mountains, or where the atmosphere is thinner or thicker, or cold nights, hot nights, near oceans, away from oceans.

Over several hundred years of these observations, we have not seen any significant differences in results. What we have seen is better tech reducing the uncertainties.

Have you made any observations that support your hypothesis? If you have any supporting data, please let me know.

OK, you're hypothesizing that light travels significantly differently in the "low atmosphere" vs "high altitudes" and "space".

How could it not travel differently?  We see that headlights from a car are better or worse, just in simple weather variations (rain, sleet, heavy fog, etc).  This we can SEE, yet we don't even know what high altitude is like (and by this, i'm talking about miles above where planes fly).  You assume that modern science "knows" about super-high altitude or even space vacuum and that's ridiculous.  How do you do tests on high-altitude or space when we can't replicate it in a lab?  How do you replicate something you can't even explain, except using assumptions of "small uncertainties".


Further, how does one measure the distance of things in space (moon/sun) which are ALWAYS moving?  Again, modern science assumes the sun doesn't move, so their experiments are laughable.

Since according to you we can't know about anything that passes through the atmosphere, we can't know that the Sun, moon, or stars or sky even exist, let alone what they might look like or where they might be.

Since the atmosphere makes everything suspect, we also can't know for sure there are cars, or houses, or other people, or any other objects. We just can't be sure.

Yes, I agree with you that modern science doesn't know much as a certainty.  Most of modern science is based on assumptions but because (they say) multiple people use flawed-tests and the same assumptions, then modern science labels things as "facts". 

Santa Maria, the caravel of Columbus. (NASA photography)


Ships had a crow's nest, some do still today. The higher up, the better. That's because the earth isn't flat. If the earth were flat, one could see as far from the deck. From the crow's nest, staff sees other ships or land earlier.

  Or...a crow’s nest helps you to avoid large waves which might obstruct one’s view, like being on a mountain helps you to see over rolling hills. 

Nobody climbs up a crow's nest when there are 10 meter waves.


The crow's nest allows to see other ships and land earlier.