Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Ladislaus on January 08, 2022, 04:42:39 PM
-
So, multiple laser experiments have conducted at distances of over 20 miles. But the typical Globetard "argument" (aka gratuitous assertion, a deus ex machina to solve all problems) is that it's refraction. Dr. John does all the math and science and rules out refraction. And what destroys refraction 100% is that he had lasers pointing in both directions. In order for refraction to magically bend laser perfectly along the curvature of the earth, there would have to be an continually increasing density gradient along the path of the laser. But that would mean a continually decreasing density gradient in the opposite direction, which would cause the laser to refract upward. Both lasers were spotted across from one another. Toward the end of this video he also does the math and experiments demonstrating that the vacuum of space should in fact rip the atmosphere off the earth.
(https://i.ibb.co/wJBPcBM/flateart1.png)
With lasers going in both directions, and able to be spotted on the opposite site, refraction is literally dead in the water.
This video starts with his debunking of a guy who tried to disprove him by creating pressure differences using sugar in a water tank. He's not demonstrating anything that everyone doesn't know, that light refracts downward when hitting a denser medium. But Dr. John explains that there's no such density difference when the light travels through a single layer (vs the different layers of the sugar-water tank). After the slides, there's video of the complete experiment.
Here's the video. As I said, it's also worth watching his vaccuм of space vs. atmosphere argument at the end. Throughout he takes meticulous readings and measurements and shows all the math. He invited and had observers present and livestreamed the videos on Youtube.
Enjoy the video. It requires some patience, as some slides go by a little too fast and you might have to pause to read the entire slide. After his debunking of "Mr. West", he shows the videos of the two-way laser experiments with all the measurements and math, with video being livestreamed from the both locations simultaneously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwBVYXDyCA
He is an obscure figure because a lot of people don't have the patience to follow all the math, and he isn't as charismatic as some of the others, nor does he do a great job of promoting his channel. He's a scientist and not a social media guru. He doesn't even have "Playlists" for his videos and his channel is impossible to find. But it's the best and most thorough stuff out there about Flat Earth.
Here's his channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrV1BQhaufM-PsEtMjjehDQ/videos
-
Dr. John's "Black Swan" video ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9JPxYOlYoQ
-
In order for refraction to magically bend laser perfectly along the curvature of the earth, there would have to be an continually increasing density gradient along the path of the laser.
Not so. If the density gradient is as a result of altitude (e.g the air is thinner the higher you go), it would apply the same in both directions. When you look off into the horizon, you're looking at less dense air since, despite it being at eye level, it's actually higher off the surface as the Earth falls away beneath it.
Or that's the globe explanation at least. I haven't looked into either model enough to have a strong opinion about which is true.
-
Dr. John's "Black Swan" video ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9JPxYOlYoQ
It's just a round earther, "order of magnitude" distance calculation error... what's the big deal ? :popcorn:
-
It's just a round earther, "order of magnitude" distance calculation error... what's the big deal ? :popcorn:
Well, theoretically, it COULD be ... just by maths (to use the British term) alone. If the earth had a circuмference 10x bigger than we've been told, then the earth curve would allow for these distances. In either case, modern science is debunked.
It's been driven by an atheistic agenda for hundreds of years, and they built a mathematical fantasy land (as Tesla characterized it) to the point where now even Kaku admits that they're off by a factor of 10 to the 28th power.
-
Not so. If the density gradient is as a result of altitude (e.g the air is thinner the higher you go), it would apply the same in both directions. When you look off into the horizon, you're looking at less dense air since, despite it being at eye level, it's actually higher off the surface as the Earth falls away beneath it.
Or that's the globe explanation at least. I haven't looked into either model enough to have a strong opinion about which is true.
I urge you to watch the video. We aren't talking about the sun here. There's all kinds of refraction in play through multiple layers of the atmosphere, but he's conducting an experiment which is about 1.5 meters above the water level on either end, where there wouldn't be a question of different layers of the atmosphere. So within that narrow layer of the atmosphere there would have to be a continual gradient of increasing density to have the refraction/bending take place in such a way as to exactly follow the curvature. If I were a mathematician, I would calculate the odds of that happening. Probably 1 out of 10 million that it could happen. But if in one direction you had increasing densities of air along the path of the laser, then in the opposite direction, you would have decreasing densities of air. So both lasers could not be spotted at the same time, and yet they were.
He spends a long time doing the refraction math.
I've been thinking for a long time that there should have been a bi-directional laser experiment to rule out refraction, and that's exactly what Dr. John did. FECORE, another group that did laser experiments (over 20 miles sitant) tok temperature and humidity readings down the line and concluded that refraction could not have caused the laser to bend along the earth's curvature.
-
Here's a relatively short one explaining how the atmosphere could not stay on the planet if adjacent to a vacuum. "Gravity" does not suffice to overcome the massive pressure differential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KljpNuXM3Ws
-
There is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, with densest layer being at the bottom.
Light continuously bends towards the denser medium (Snell's law), so downwards.
(https://lifeisthermal.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/bookchap2-8.gif?w=NaN&h=&zoom=2)
That's why a flat Earth would actually appear concave to us.
That's why a shperical Earth would actually appear more flat to us (light travels further than the geometry itself would allow).
Thus the two-way laser test is completely valid.
Just consider the Blackswan, does it show refraction depending on atmospheric conditions? If no, what causes the obstruction? That would be curvature, but it doesn't explain the apparent change in visibility. If yes, then the black swan does not show a lack of curvature because light is refracted (bent) while traveling through the atmosphere.
Still, what causes physical bottom-up obstruction, if not a curved water surface?
(https://i.imgur.com/hj22LvO.jpg)
Or consider this:
(https://jessekozlowski.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/200414_aph_comcast.jpg)
If this is on a flat plane, why do the buildings sink into the ground, partially? Why is our horizontal level of 256ft higher than 256ft in Philadelphia?
-
There is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, with densest layer being at the bottom.
That's already been discussed. This experiment was all conducted on the same level, about a meter and a half above the water level, not through multiple layers of the atmosphere. Density of the different layers of the atmosphere is moot.
Plus you've discredited yourself as totally dishonest. You never watched the video but are "refuting" it. His "Black Swan" is not the one you post pictures of. So come back and try again.
-
Since you dishonestly "refuted" Black Swan obviously without watching it, repasting the same trash from a previous thread (where, BTW, it's obvious that in the first image, the waves heights are higher and therefore obscuring the bottom of the platform), I post the key images from Dr. John D here. There was lengthy video of the whole thing and all the numbers were given.
This is a view of windmills out at sea between 8 and 11 miles away from the observer.
(https://i.ibb.co/kQPM4R3/bs1.png)
I'll post the picture in a minute where here he lists the distance of each one.
These get gradually lower and smaller/shorter exactly as one would expect from perspective without any refraction whatsoever. In order for that to happen, every single one of these would have to be refracted at the exact same rate and in the exact same degrees. So 6 would have to refract to 5, which would refract to 4, etc. ... all with IDENTICAL degrees of refraction. So the angle of refraction between 6 and 5 would have to be the same angle as between 5 and 4, and 4 and 3, and so on. If they angles were off, you wouldn't get this perfectly proportional perspective effect. They're all at the same height above sea level. And they're all in the same "atmosphere layer". If a higher layer of atmosphere were hit, and it were less dense, then the light would refract up, and make it LESS possible for the observer to see it than globe curvature would. And, on other pictures, you can see that the different points on the turbine all the way to the top, from the propeller dynamo housing to the tops of the actually blades, are all equally-proportionally smaller / shorter / closer to sea level as they get more distant. So the degree of refraction would have to be perfect from top to bottom. And then also the horizon, which is visible behind the farthest one, from well over 11 miles, that too would have to have been "refracted" over the top.
Globtards pull "refraction" out of their posterior as the gratuitous answer for all such pictures, without doing any math or analysis whatsoever. That's because they simply refuse to consider the possibility with an open mind.
So, again, the two-way laser experiment, which you undoubtedly also didn't bother watching, absolutely devastates refraction. You would have to have a continuously increasing density gradient all the way there. But, then on the way back, you would by definition have a continually DECREASING density gradient, which would not only NOT bend the laser beam down, but would in fact bend it even higher, in the other direction. Two lasers going in opposite directions at the same place and same time cannot both be seen from the other side. That puts the nail into the coffin of your precious deus ex machina to save the globe earth.
-
Here he lists the differences in distance between the different turbines.
(https://i.ibb.co/09B9B0p/bs2.png)
Most of them are about a half mile apart, but there's a one-mile gap between 4 and 5 (for some reason ... maybe they couldn't put one there due to the sea bed). And you can see the increased gap between 4 and 5, maintaining the proportionality between the distances. For this to be the product of multiple refraction, all at the exact same angle due to increasing density ... the odds of that are incalculably small. What are the odds that there would be significant density differences between each of the different turbines that each step would be nearly identical? Zero. So the density difference between 6 and 5 would have to be nearly identical to the density difference between 5 and 4, which would have to be nearly identical to the density difference between 4 and 3, which would have to be nearly identical to the density difference between 3 and 2, which would have to be nearly identical to the density differenece between 2 and 1. That would mean a very significant density difference between 6 and 1 overall, but in a continuous gradient. What would cause the densities between the same elevation of sea level to be so different, and so orderly? Answer: nothing. We live on a flat plane. End of story.
-
This is a view of windmills out at sea between 8 and 11 miles away from the observer.
(https://i.ibb.co/kQPM4R3/bs1.png)
So, again, the two-way laser experiment, which you undoubtedly also didn't bother watching, absolutely devastates refraction. You would have to have a continuously increasing density gradient all the way there. But, then on the way back, you would by definition have a continually DECREASING density gradient, which would not only NOT bend the laser beam down, but would in fact bend it even higher, in the other direction. Two lasers going in opposite directions at the same place and same time cannot both be seen from the other side. That puts the nail into the coffin of your precious deus ex machina to save the globe earth.
Right, you show this, but not this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8C8wJ8Z.jpg)
This is the Thorntonbank wind farm, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorntonbank_Wind_Farm
-
Right, you show this, but not this:
(https://i.imgur.com/8C8wJ8Z.jpg)
This is the Thorntonbank wind farm, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorntonbank_Wind_Farm
Just zoom in bro, BOOM debunked FE fo lyfe
-
Right, you show this, but not this:
Absolutely I show that, with numbers and explanations, and an detailed explanation for why refraction cannot account for that phenomenon.
As for your picture, where are the numbers? From where was it taken? How far away are the individual turbines, etc. As typical for globers, they don't do any of this actual work.
Refraction, reflection, wave heights, atmospheric conditions can all account for a picture like the one you posted.
But they are incapable of explaining Dr. John D's Black Swan picture above. Nor can refraction explain the two-way laser test from the same location. Both lasers could not have been spotted at the same time for the reasons explained.
I saw one similar picture as this, where the numbers were ridiculous and cannot possibly account for what was being seen, and the size of the propellors was exaggerated to twice what the actual size would have been, clearly indicating some kind of atmospheric magnification.
So provide the location of this picture and data regarding the distances away the various turbines are. Is this even a real picture? Nobody knows. Anyone could shop something. Please provide the data, and I'll have a look at it. Lower ones could be reflections of something else. How tall are these things? How far away from the observer? How much of them are anticipated to be cut off by "curvature" given their distance?
Provide the data and it can be analyzed. Without the data it's absolutely meaningless.
-
Just zoom in bro, BOOM debunked FE fo lyfe
What are you babbling about?
-
What are you babbling about?
Looks like you either converted another poster to the FE cause, or else he's making fun of you guys lol
I think he's a millennial btw, if that explains it better :laugh1:
-
So within that narrow layer of the atmosphere there would have to be a continual gradient of increasing density to have the refraction/bending take place in such a way as to exactly follow the curvature.
But this is exactly what one would expect to observe if the density-gradient were caused by altitude. On a globe Earth, the altitude of my eye level would increase with distance in direct proportion to the curvature of the Earth, as that is what would cause the increase in altitude. This would also apply bi-directionally as so too would the change in altitude due to curvature.
(https://i.gyazo.com/95afc288f735ae248b36f642871169e5.png)
I wouldn't have to look up or down to be staring from denser air to thinner air, since altitude would increase with distance even as I looked directly straight ahead. And as we know, lighter things rise up through denser things, so at higher altitudes we'd be seeing less dense air. And so, along the x-axis directly ahead of me, I would be witnessing the light bend as it transfers from denser to lighter mediums.
-
But this is exactly what one would expect to observe if the density-gradient were caused by altitude.
I've already said a couple times that altitude was not a consideration with the Dr. John D laser test, nor for his Black Swan video, since everything was lined up on the same plane. There was no change of altitude between the turbines, nor with the two lasers on the same plane in two directions.
If one laser was experiencing gradually increasing air density in one direction to cause refraction, then the other laser would have experienced a gradually decreasing air density in the opposite direction. Consequently if one of the lasers were refracted down (perfectly in line with the earth's curvature), then the other one would have been refracted up. BOTH lasers could not have been viewed at the same time. This experiment conclusively rules out refraction.
-
Looks like you either converted another poster to the FE cause, or else he's making fun of you guys lol
I think he's a millennial btw, if that explains it better :laugh1:
I wouldn't decipher that one way or another.
-
Globers constantly throw out two dei ex machina to save the Globe Earth from Flat Earth observations: refraction and gravity. But they never provide the numbers or do the math, etc.
Basically, the psychological mechanism at work here is that they accept these explanations by way of confirmation bias. They simply don't want to believe that the earth is flat, so they latch onto these without any proof whatsoever.
Some pictures show things cut off by a water line, whereas with many pictures, you can see all the way through it. One or the other of these does not reflect reality and the geometric curvature. FEs do the math, take the temperature/humidity readings, etc. Globe Earthers NEVER do that. Like Dankward here, they throw out one picture and say: "ha, proof" while ignoring the observations that contradict their position. That's simply dishonest and is done by way of confirmation bias. They'll throw out "refraction" and "atmospheric conditions" (unproven of course) as explanation for the FE pictures, but then magically those same forces cannot be in play with their pictures. Ah, when the pictures indicate globe, there clearly was NO refraction. See how this works? They've been brainwashed, and Flat Earth causes them psychological pain, so there's confirmation bias mechanism at play here.
So Dankward's picture of the wind farm. Where's the observer? How far away are the turbines? What were the wave heights? (John D records all these for his long, admittedly dry, videos.) Were the "taller" turbines much closer than the "shorter" ones in the picture? If the shorter ones were miles away and the taller ones much closer, then that would be expected. Was there rough water (with wind) causing wave heights that would block the view? There's zero data there. Why don't globers do the experiments and collect the data like the FEs do? Answer is simple. They don't really want to know, so they're not interested in actually doing scientific observations.
Again, it would be very simple to disprove Flat Earth once and for all. Simply take a plane and "circuмnavigate" Antarctica. Get a few FEs on board to make sure there's no trickery, and have observers on the "other side" of the continent. Let those on board observe that the edge of the "continent" remains on the same side of the plane the entire time. Its circuмference is allegedly about 9800 miles, which many planes can do without refueling. Entire flight should take a bit under 20 hours. It should appear on the other side to the observers about 10 hours in, and then go back to where it started in under 20 hours. It would be that simple.
It's the same thing with Michelson-Morley. Allegedly we can send equipment to the moon. NASA should be able to send a Michelson-Morley apparatus to the moon. If motion is detected by the apparatus, then that would be proof that the earth is motionless. Sungenis pointd this out during his video. But they don't WANT to believe that the earth is motionless, so instead they invent bizarre theories to explain away the results. Airy's Failure also conclusively proved that the earth remains still while the stars move in relation to it.
-
This should be good. Due out 02/22/2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjZ9Xg5rTZA
I can't find Trailer #1. It's impossible to find even this thing (because, you know, it's a psyop that they're promoting). I just happened to run across this one by accident.
-
I've already said a couple times that altitude was not a consideration with the Dr. John D laser test, nor for his Black Swan video, since everything was lined up on the same plane. There was no change of altitude between the turbines, nor with the two lasers on the same plane in two directions.
If one laser was experiencing gradually increasing air density in one direction to cause refraction, then the other laser would have experienced a gradually decreasing air density in the opposite direction. Consequently if one of the lasers were refracted down (perfectly in line with the earth's curvature), then the other one would have been refracted up. BOTH lasers could not have been viewed at the same time. This experiment conclusively rules out refraction.
And I've already shown how looking off in a straight line would necessarily mean looking at an altitude-gradient in a globe model.
-
And I've already shown how looking off in a straight line would necessarily mean looking at an altitude-gradient in a globe model.
Although not an exact replication of the layers in the atmosphere, this demonstrates how light can travel through the density layers of Earth's atmosphere:(https://i.imgur.com/YyFVki8.jpg)
-
Globers constantly throw out two dei ex machina to save the Globe Earth from Flat Earth observations: refraction and gravity. But they never provide the numbers or do the math, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
There have been experiments done. I don't have access to their papers though.
-
Although not an exact replication of the layers in the atmosphere, this demonstrates how light can travel through the density layers of Earth's atmos
No, it doesn't. For the FOURTH time now, he's shooting the laser through deliberately created layers of sugar, and that's the equivalent of bouncing it through multiple layers of atmosphere, not through the same layer 1.5 meters above sea level. That's why he puts the laser way down beneath the globe, so that it can cross through multiple levels of of the sugar mixture. Nothing but lies and deceptions from the globers.
With Dr. John D's laser experiment, you'd have to have constantly increasing density gradients about 1.5 meters above sea level ... in BOTH directions, which simply isn't possible.
-
Nothing but lies and deceptions from the globers.
Why don't you make this your signature already? :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
No, it doesn't. For the FOURTH time now, he's shooting the laser through deliberately created layers of sugar, and that's the equivalent of bouncing it through multiple layers of atmosphere, not through the same layer 1.5 meters above sea level. That's why he puts the laser way down beneath the globe, so that it can cross through multiple levels of of the sugar mixture. Nothing but lies and deceptions from the globers.
With Dr. John D's laser experiment, you'd have to have constantly increasing density gradients about 1.5 meters above sea level ... in BOTH directions, which simply isn't possible.
No deception. It's even better conditions for light to bend on Earth than the laser test in sugar water. Any beam of light that starts to travel in a straight line (a tangent to the surface) will bend towards the denser layer of atmosphere below it, so it will follow a downwards path. Makes sense, doesn't it? It's called terrestrial refraction and is derived from Snell's law of light bending towards the denser medium, so it effectively increases Earth's radius as we observe it - that's how the Blackswan etc. are possible.
(https://i.imgur.com/lYDONLJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/nIkKi6G.png)
The effective radius increases the larger k gets. Details see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction).
(https://i.imgur.com/iMf8WRF.png)