CathInfo.com

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.

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.



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?


Or consider this:

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?

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.



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.