Earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

Erfisflat

Again, you are displaying great signs of ignorance and cognitive dissonance here.

Erfisflat

You are at the point of denying the water cycle now.

Erfisflat

This is third grade science.

Erfisflat

Let me spell it out for you


As the warm air rises, it is replaced by more hot air from the surface.

Erfisflat

This is why it is called a "cycle"

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

“We know that moist, warm air is less dense than dryer cooler air. This is undisputed scientific fact. We also know that the air just above the surface of water is warmer and more saturated than that air above it.”


”you haven't posted ANY material, therefore it is heresay. You can even post articles which make those claims. It is just heresay”


So should I believe when you assert a claim without showing any evidence, or should I believe you when you say that if you don’t provide any data, or even if you do provide data, any information you don’t like is “heresay”.

I've posted multiple sources that all agree those undisputed scientific facts. You?

Nah.

"Because right now - you haven’t provided any evidence that gradients of air are how you claim they are over water."

So now I must prove the process of evaporation to you?

This is so hilarious, I have to raise it again. First You haven’t provided a single link showing this is the way the gradient right above water is.

Your argument refutes itself, and like so much else you’ve said - is blatantly at odds with the laws of physics


If the air at the surface is less dense than the air above it, the less dense air will rise as the denser air will fall.

This means the denser air - with highest refraction index - is at the level of the ground. this is completely opposite to what you just said.


I mean, did you forget the laws of bouyancy existed for a moment?

Or did you just not think too hard when you wrote “that’s why hot air rises”

The clue is in the “rises” part, last time I checked, when something rises, this doesn’t mean “remains rooted to the lowest position”, shrug.

Evaporation is a constant, so you will amost always have a less dense layer below the denser layer.

You really do like making up a set of unscientific nonsense.

Evaporation is water turning into water vapour. It will rise if it is less dense.

So, first of all: no.

Second of all the laws of bouyancy means that if air at the surface of the water is being heated, it will rise, and be replaced with the denser air above.

You can get temperature inversions - (note: called inversions because they are different than the normal configuration of the atmosphere) - when the surface air is heated so quickly or so much that the falling dense air is itself rapidly heated, creating a disequilibrium.

This would result in an inferior mirage (which is normally pretty obvious to observers), and can only really happen when there is substantial radiation heating - which is kinda hard at night, and hard when your over water.


So yeah, on a regular, average, calm day - dense air is closest to the surface - it’s only when there large amounts of heating can this change. You cretin.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Again, you are displaying great signs of ignorance and cognitive dissonance here.

By pointing out all the major logical flaws and scientific errors in your position.

This entire thread is you trying to come up with a series of unsubstantiated excuses as to why the earth appears to be a sphere.

Plaffelvohfen

Erfisflat said:

Again, you are displaying great signs of ignorance and cognitive dissonance here.

  And you're definitely projecting here...

This is an awful waste of time, as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said : Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago... 

Erfisflat

"You really do like making up a set of unscientific nonsense.

Evaporation is water turning into water vapour. Humid air is denser than less humid air."

Not Accord to the whole of the scientific community

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/

So, first of all: no.

Again, dumbass assertions. I'll assume that you are just basing the rest of this drivel on that misunderstanding, so I'll dismiss it. Like I said, you are just wasting time.

Second of all the laws of bouyancy means that if air at the surface of the water is being heated, it will rise, and be replaced with the denser air above.

You can get temperature inversions - (note: called inversions because they are different than the normal configuration of the atmosphere) - when the surface air is heated so quickly or so much that the falling dense air is itself rapidly heated, creating a disequilibrium.

This would result in an inferior mirage (which is normally pretty obvious to observers), and can only really happen when there is substantial radiation heating - which is kinda hard at night, and hard when your over water.


So yeah, on a regular, average, calm day - dense air is closest to the surface - it’s only when there large amounts of heating can this change. You cretin.

John_C_87

@Gooberry ;

The idea is to locate a math key to translation of time into the universe.

Erfisflat

John_C_87 said:

@Gooberry ;

The idea is to locate a math key to translation of time into the universe.

I knew it! You are a bot!

Erfisflat

I really have lost count of the amount of ignorant and false assertions you've made

Erfisflat

In conclusion, @Gooberry should repeat the third grade before trying to debate science

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"You really do like making up a set of unscientific nonsense.

Evaporation is water turning into water vapour. Humid air is denser than less humid air."

Not Accord to the whole of the scientific community

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/

So, first of all: no.

Again, dumbass assertions. I'll assume that you are just basing the rest of this drivel on that misunderstanding, so I'll dismiss it. Like I said, you are just wasting time.

Second of all the laws of bouyancy means that if air at the surface of the water is being heated, it will rise, and be replaced with the denser air above.

You can get temperature inversions - (note: called inversions because they are different than the normal configuration of the atmosphere) - when the surface air is heated so quickly or so much that the falling dense air is itself rapidly heated, creating a disequilibrium.

This would result in an inferior mirage (which is normally pretty obvious to observers), and can only really happen when there is substantial radiation heating - which is kinda hard at night, and hard when your over water.


So yeah, on a regular, average, calm day - dense air is closest to the surface - it’s only when there large amounts of heating can this change. You cretin.

Glad to see that you check all claims being made - and are willing to point out errors if you find them. It just goes to show that when you are actually correct - you will provide evidence - and when you’re just making sh*t up, you will just made vague claims and demands that things are wrong.

You've not posted any links showing that anything else you’ve said is correct on this ground - perfect demonstration of your own intellectual dishonesty.

So let’s step over to the next point of dishonesty. Out of four things - 3 of which prove you wrong. You just ignore the 3 to focus on the one.

Lets recap those three.

1.) When less dense air is below more dense air it is called an inversion - because it’s different from the normal confirmation - this clearly shows that what you state is a normal configuration is not. Ergo - you are wrong.

2.). When air gets less dense it rises. This means that the air at the surface should always be more dense than the air above it due to the laws of bouyancy.

3.) The only exception, is during an inversion when there is so much heating the air is heated faster than it can rise - or evaporates faster than it can rise.

That requires exceptional conditions.




In exceptional conditions, it can produce the refr room You claim in the form of an inferior mirage.

But your insane claim that on a normal calm day or night - that “inversions” are the default state of the atmosphere is nonsense.



 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

In conclusion, @Gooberry should repeat the third grade before trying to debate science

Speaking of assertions and third grade science:

Here are the things that must happen if your claims are true.

1.) That light bends upwards

2.) That the rate the light from the sun is bent changes as the sun moves away in EXACTLY the right amount to make it move at constant speed.

3.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to be setting behind the earth

4.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to not be changing size

5.) That the light is bent in such a way that there is rarely if ever a double sun visible.

6.) That the effect affects the moon, but not the stars

7.) That when there is a double sun seen - both suns appear to set.

8.) That it occurs the same way in all places no matter what weather conditions there are - it is independent of local temperature, pressure and humidity

9.) That it occurs at every point in the world predictably at specific times without any substantial deviation at any point.

10.) That during 24hr sun in the Southern Hemisphere - the sun sets for people close to the sun, but not for people the other side of the planet from the sun.

Points 2-10 HAVE to be true in order for you pseudoscientific claims to be true - they are not proven just because (1) is proven - and not only have you repeatedly ignores them, provided no evidence to support them - nor have you even given a reason to expect that they COULD be true: 

The problems your claims face appear absurd and nonsensical on their face. You would have to be an , or in denial to believe them because they run so counter to logic and reason.

If you were intellectually honest, you would be charging into points 2-10 in full force, showing data, examples, calculations.

Instead you have gone through 7 pages without even acknowledging that these problems exist.

Wake up and smell the pseudoscience.

MayCaesar

In an open system which is at its thermodynamic equilibrium, indeed, the moist air will be less dense.
In real dynamic systems, it is much more complicated, and this does not have to be the case. In particular, in the open ocean, the air near the surface tends to be more dense than the air above. In general, the density of any gas drops with height, unless some external factors are at play.

So, indeed, the refraction, if anything, will bend the light downwards, not upwards, in the atmosphere. I am sorry that this ruins your toy model, OP, but then, is there anything that does not ruin it?

Erfisflat

"Glad to see that you check all claims being made - and are willing to point out errors if you find them. It just goes to show that when you are actually correct - you will provide evidence - and when you’re just making sh*t up, you will just made vague claims and demands that things are wrong."

What are you referring to here? Everything I should have said is based on empirical and undisputed science. You're just making rhetorical dumbass claims for non-existent events. you haven't a clue what you're saying and you proved it several times now where I pointed out the errors in your "science" and or logic. you silently conceded to several points now and you've just done it again.

"You've not posted any links showing that anything else you’ve said is correct on this ground - perfect demonstration of your own intellectual dishonesty."

I have if you think this is the case please point out what specifically I need to backup, instead of just making more dumbass vague assertions not backed by anything but your say so.

"So let’s step over to the next point of dishonesty. Out of four things - 3 of which prove you wrong. You just ignore the 3 to focus on the one.

Lets recap those three.

1.) When less dense air is below more dense air it is called an inversion - because it’s different from the normal confirmation - this clearly shows that what you state is a normal configuration is not. Ergo - you are wrong."

Wrong again.

"A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. This unusual arrangement is called a temperature inversion, since warm air above cold air is the opposite of the normal temperature gradient of the atmosphere. "



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

"2.). When air gets less dense it rises. This means that the air at the surface should always be more dense than the air above it due to the laws of bouyancy."

If that hot air weren't replaced by more warm, humid air, due to convection in the water cycle. I'm just repeating myself now, evaporation is in near constant, this is why it is called a cycle.

"3.) The only exception, is during an inversion when there is so much heating the air is heated faster than it can rise - or evaporates faster than it can rise."

Refuted in #1.

That requires exceptional conditions.

Again. An inversion is where a warmer layer is over a cooler area. This happens when breezes interrupt the normal gradient.



"In exceptional conditions, it can produce the refr room You claim in the form of an inferior mirage.

But your insane claim that on a normal calm day or night - that “inversions” are the default state of the atmosphere is nonsense."

Refuted above.

It seems like you are just going to go round and round to various "nuh-uhs" until they are all refuted, then you just reassert the same nonsensical assertion, pretending as if you are half illiterate.

Erfisflat

I think that is what is called "schooling"

Gooberry

@Erfisflat


As I explained, and you appear to have neatly ignored:

For your refraction to occur, less dense air must be produced faster than it can rise.

All of the time

every day

In all conditions

At  night

During the day

During calm days.

During hot days.

This only happens during extreme heating. You see these types of density inversions during inferior Mirages.

Density inversions are not normal things - they do not occur every day.


The normal state of the atmosphere is that the densest air is closest to the surface. 

So the type of refraction your talking about can occur - just isn’t present all the time, especially in scenarios where the air isn’t being heated faster than warm air can rise.

This is consistent with all the evidence:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelling

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelling_refraction

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

https://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html

This last one is a beauty as it explains all the different conditions that the ground can be under.

But to an extent none of this is really relevant - as is so often the case, it’s just an attempt to drive off the subject. Even if this is how refraction actually worked on the earth (it’s not), you’re still just hand waving :


- There is no possible reason that the experiment using multiple points of measurement should ever fail if the earth is flat - yet it always always does. 

- Even if there was negative refraction, even in the majority of times - that’s only one of 10 individual pieces of information you need to be true if the earth is flat - the other 9 major points you have failed to provide any evidence for.


Almost all of the evidence of every kind points to a spherical earth. Every objective and well designed experimental observation shows the earth is a sphere.

This entire thread is you coming up with a set of unscientific excuses as to why a flat earth looks spherical.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

I think that is what is called "schooling"

So, as you keep ignoring these: I’m still waiting for your evidence for points 2-10.

So far you’ve only offered insane assertions that are unsupported by any evidence.

1.) That light bends upwards

2.) That the rate the light from the sun is bent changes as the sun moves away in EXACTLY the right amount to make it move at constant speed.

3.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to be setting behind the earth

4.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to not be changing size

5.) That the light is bent in such a way that there is rarely if ever a double sun visible.

6.) That the effect affects the moon, but not the stars

7.) That when there is a double sun seen - both suns appear to set.

8.) That it occurs the same way in all places no matter what weather conditions there are - it is independent of local temperature, pressure and humidity

9.) That it occurs at every point in the world predictably at specific times without any substantial deviation at any point.

10.) That during 24hr sun in the Southern Hemisphere - the sun sets for people close to the sun, but not for people the other side of the planet from the sun.

Still waiting for your evidence. I wonder why you have repeatedly ignored them?

Erfisflat

It seems like you are just going to go round and round to various "nuh-uhs" until they are all refuted, then you just reassert the same nonsensical assertion, pretending as if you are half illiterate.

Your latest post is full of baseless assertions. You link multiple Wiki links, but there's no explanation for the link. You've basically just said "you're wrong" and inserted random, unrelated links, then go about on your rhetorical roundabout, yet again.

You've given me nothing at all to rebut you also Wikipedia links that seemed to agree with me but since you've offered no explanation for the link I have nothing to go by. You might as well if conceded.

What exactly do you disagree with? Meteorologists clearly say that the normal gradient is denser up.

Erfisflat

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

Exactly, the sun sets because of upwards refraction.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

It seems like you are just going to go round and round to various "nuh-uhs" until they are all refuted, then you just reassert the same nonsensical assertion, pretending as if you are half illiterate.

Your latest post is full of baseless assertions. You link multiple Wiki links, but there's no explanation for the link. You've basically just said "you're wrong" and inserted random, unrelated links, then go about on your rhetorical roundabout, yet again.

You've given me nothing at all to rebut you also Wikipedia links that seemed to agree with me but since you've offered no explanation for the link I have nothing to go by. You might as well if conceded.

What exactly do you disagree with? Meteorologists clearly say that the normal gradient is denser up.

I produced half a dozen links that all indicate the density of air is greater at the surface than it is above the surface. Each one of those sources says this.

Meteorologists do not say the
air is denser above than below - because this is not true.


Feel free to link me a meteorological site that states that density doesn’t decrease from the surface.

And feel free to point out and quote which part of the wikipedia articles or surveying data that points out that the density of air increases as you rise above the surface.



Because right now - I just produced evidence that agreed with me, and all you appeared to have replied with is “nuh uh”.

Everyone seems past this pathetic projection:

It seems to. Most vociferously claim people are saying “nuh uh”, whilst dismissing claims without evidence. You claim people are making assertions whilst hurling around wild and unsubstantiated claims.



You do this over and over and over and over again.

There are are scenarios where the air is heated so fast that a density inversion is created - this curves light upwards.

The issue is not that it’s not possible or doesn’t happens, it’s that you take this atmospheric phenomena, and vociforously assert over and over again that this extraordinary contain is the norm, and it proves that all of these innumerable facts refute that the earth is flat.


I’ve mentioned the list of 9 things you have no evidence for, that are absurd but you need to be true - and the experimental results that refute the flat earth and you can’t explain.

You ignore all of those things, for the very reason you have no evidence or justification.


These failed experiments, and impossible claims destroy your position - hence why you have repeatedly repeatedly ignored them.

You’re going to continue to ignore them, because they refute you and you have no answer.


I’m going to issue you a challenge, that I know you will ignore:

I bet that you can’t propose an experiment that could falsify or prove your position that the sun is setting because of refraction.

I also bet I can provide proof that refraction works the way I’ve claimed, by taking only images taken from flat earther videos.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

Exactly, the sun sets because of upwards refraction.

... he asserts without evidence:

Here are the things that must happen if your claims are true.

1.) That light bends upwards

2.) That the rate the light from the sun is bent changes as the sun moves away in EXACTLY the right amount to make it move at constant speed.

3.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to be setting behind the earth

4.) That the rate light from the sun is bent ALSO is just the right amount to make it appear to not be changing size

5.) That the light is bent in such a way that there is rarely if ever a double sun visible.

6.) That the effect affects the moon, but not the stars

7.) That when there is a double sun seen - both suns appear to set.

8.) That it occurs the same way in all places no matter what weather conditions there are - it is independent of local temperature, pressure and humidity

9.) That it occurs at every point in the world predictably at specific times without any substantial deviation at any point.

10.) That during 24hr sun in the Southern Hemisphere - the sun sets for people close to the sun, but not for people the other side of the planet from the sun.

Providing 1 doesn’t prove 2-10

MayCaesar

Erfisflat said:

What exactly do you disagree with? Meteorologists clearly say that the normal gradient is denser up.

No, they do not. You wish they did, because your entire world view depends on them doing so. But you would be surprised to learn how few of them care about your sensibilities.

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

Erfisflat said:

What exactly do you disagree with? Meteorologists clearly say that the normal gradient is denser up.

No, they do not. You wish they did, because your entire world view depends on them doing so. But you would be surprised to learn how few of them care about your sensibilities.

That's a Nuh-uh.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat Why did you stop responding to my argument? You marked it as "funny" so I thought you would rip it to pieces with your amazing intelligence. 

 Weird, that you stopped responding just after I mathematically proved that you were wrong. What a crazy coincidence? But not crazier than your magical, shape-shifting, unexplainable, physically impossible dome/something coincidentally refracting light in such a way that always makes it look like we live on a ball.

AlexOland

@Erfisflat
" In particular, in the open ocean, the air near the surface tends to be more dense than the air above. In general, the density of any gas drops with height, unless some external factors are at play."

 Here you go: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
 Proof that what he says is correct.

Oppolzer

The primary reason our ancestors believed the Earth was flat was that they were unaware of gravity. Gravity is effectively the most justifiable evidence you need to determine whether or not the Earth is flat.

Regarding spherical shapes, gravity affects the surface of the sphere equally, since gravity pulls everything in the same direction on the surface of the sphere. On the other hand, relating to the surface of a flat disc, gravity changes direction as something moves toward the edges of the disc. Therefore, if the Earth were flat, that would affect everything we do.

An example would be the location in which you throw a ball. If you are located in the center of the "flat Earth" and threw a ball as powerfully as you could, the ball would not travel nearly as high and far as a ball pitched on the edge. Explanation? The force at the edge is almost non-existent. And to add onto that, when you throw the ball directly in front of you regardless of location on the flat disc, the ball would go backward and drop in the opposite direction to where you're standing. As I mentioned earlier, this is caused by gravity changing direction on the disc as something moves away from the center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xwmqEUMWRI

MayCaesar

@Oppolzer

To be fair, your last argument only applies to the flat surface of a finite size. In case of a flat surface of an infinite size, the gravity force would be the same everywhere. More so, interestingly (and maybe somewhat counter-intuitively), it would not depend on the distance to the surface! Qualitatively it can be understood as a consequence of symmetry, making the net force always be directed downwards, which, as a result of conservation of energy, forces its value to not decay with distance, unlike how central forces do.

The approximation of infinite surface with this in mind is often used when discussing capacitors. In calculations, we generally can assume that the plates of the capacitors are infinitely large, given that they are much larger than the distance between them. The edge effects do exist, but their contribution to the net variable values is pretty small.

To think of it, the Earth possibly could be described as an infinite flat surface in Riemann geometry, where surfaces can loop over themselves infinitely. So the Earth could be flat, but flying on a plane strictly to the East would still lead you to come back to your initial position eventually.
Then, again, Riemann geometry resulted from the desire to describe flat surfaces in terms of spherical shapes, so such an interpretation seems to offer no advantages compared to the traditional sphere-like model.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

AlexOland said:

@Erfisflat By the way, the sun cannot be setting due to downwards refraction. Even if we assume that the light somehow gets refracted, this would not comport with reality. 

 According to this idea, if you were on a high building and experienced a sunset, you can just come down that high building to experience the same sunset again. But, in real life, we observe the opposite of this. We do not see further the lower we are, we see further the higher we are. 

It is illogical to assume that lights in the sky can prove absolute about the shape of the earth.

Fallacy.

Scientific theories are proven by testing them again and again and seeing if the results match what the model predicts.

Seeing if stars, the moon, the sun and other planets all react as expected if the earth were round and orbiting the sun is not only logical but a core part of ensuring the earth being spherical is real.

You're only trying to reject all astronomical arguments out of hand because they prove you wrong.

Which fallacy? 

I am not here to listen to arguments about the celestial bodies. That is another debate altogether. I have seen and presented very accurate measurements of the earth. Pointing at the sky and making inferences from those observations is so pre-20th century. 

If something provides evidence the earth is spherical, it's valid regardless of whether it involves astronomical bodies or not. The relevant thing is he evidence, not your suddenly  random allergy to evidence involving astronomic bodies.

Choosing to ignore evidence based of random criteria that you pull out of your is completely unscientific and incredibly fallacious.

The evidence that globites offered so far do not directly measure the earth. They assume it from observations in the opposite direction. It is illogical to dismiss evidence which directly contradicts the main tenant in the GE model (curvature) and instead infer the conclusion by making multiple assumptions about lights in the sky.

Posting random people's youtube videos is not valid evidence no matter how much you believe them.

Also do you not realise that your experiment is not directly observing the earth either? It's about observing a laser beam, making assumptions about how refraction works and then trying to infer the curvature of the earth from that. Not only are your bizarre objections to actual science completely invalid, but if they were correct you'd invalidate your own argument anyway. of course you're not correct and are just anti-science. Please learn that you not liking something isn't a reason for science not to be valid.

If you want to actually directly measure earth, then directly measure earth.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

The evidence that globites offered so far do not directly measure the earth. They assume it from observations in the opposite direction. It is illogical to dismiss evidence which directly contradicts the main tenant in the GE model (curvature) and instead infer the conclusion by making multiple assumptions about lights in the sky.

Posting random people's youtube videos is not valid evidence no matter how much you believe them.

Also do you not realise that your experiment is not directly observing the earth either? It's about observing a laser beam, making assumptions about how refraction works and then trying to infer the curvature of the earth from that. Not only are your bizarre objections to actual science completely invalid, but if they were correct you'd invalidate your own argument anyway. of course you're not correct and are just anti-science. Please learn that you not liking something isn't a reason for science not to be valid.

If you want to actually directly measure earth, then directly measure earth.

Zombieguy1987

Erfisflat said:

In conclusion, @Gooberry should repeat the third grade before trying to debate science

In conclusion, @Erfisflat should repeat the sixth grade before trying to debate earth science 

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

@Ampersand, still waiting on you to identify that fallacy.

No, I did that in the previous posts, pointing out how you were rejecting arguments fallaciously.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

It just so happens that my evidence abides by the scientific method.

It makes a prediction based on the GE, then tests it with precision. 

What evidence?

Lol

You thinks that's evidence?

Do you want to just admit it's bad or should I explain for the umpteenth time why your random YouTube videos are not evidence?

I welcome any critique, as does the PHD who performed the tests. His email is available and anyone who wants to confirm the tests are welcome to come and record.  

And by "the PHD" you mean the random YouTuber with no credentials who lists their name as "Dr John" on their YouTube channel? The only qualification for which is having an internet connection?

Also how's this for critique: he's a random youTuber whose videos are based around unsupported claims.

Now he actually performs experiments, which is a novelty, but what's the point when there is no scientific analysis or backing for what he reads into them.

So looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKrZnKu9ID4 which is apparently his updated version of the one you linked to. So for instance at 5:50 he claims it's impossible for the light to be visible even if it's refracted down. his evidence: Jack Squat.

Then let's look at 12:50 where he really shoots himself in the foot. first of all, this "Dr John" doesn't know how to record readings, you don't group them up like that - you record the actual result you can see. if it says 7.2 then that's what you record, you don't spread it out to 7.0/7.5, that'd ridiculous and adds needless imprecision. It treats 7.49 and 7.51 as if they're massively far apart. Not only that but he shows he has no real thought to his experiment. He says that because the temperature is "the same" between 0 and 1.5 metres that refraction should not be recording. of course as he's already explained earlier, in the globe earth model he's expecting the light to go potentially up to 10 metres. This means: a) He's missing most of the data he needs b) He's not even reading the data he has correctly as the 2 C inversion at 2 metres is relevant and the expected result of the kind of temperature gradient would be the beam curving downward towards the viewer at the other pier.

Want to bet that if we had the data for is failed experiments he mentioned at the beginning he'd have misread the supposed temperature inversion and actually the laser would just be being blocked by the curvature of the earth?

There is no actual merit to these studies. What you'll find with this and every Flat Earther is that their "evidence is based on unsupported claims". Sometimes unsupported claims is all they have. Sometimes they'll have some kind of data, but they'll interpret it in a nonsense way based on unsupported claims. Hmm, what does that remind me of:

"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited."

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Prominent globe earthers were invited to the empirical test, and not surprisingly, just as we see here, the invitation was declined by all of them. It appears that globetards are only interested in scientism, and as is the case here, the sky.

I've literally provided you with scientific peer reviewed studies before and you've refused to read them because the only thing you trust is the random claims of people on YouTube..

Ampersand

Also just out of curiosity do you understand how solar eclipses work in the globe model yet?

Erfisflat

Guys I had to put my dog down this morning. Sorry for any delays

Erfisflat

"So looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKrZnKu9ID4 which is apparently his updated version of the one you linked to. So for instance at 5:50 he claims it's impossible for the light to be visible even if it's refracted down. his evidence: Jack Squat."

Dr. John D uses the "standard refraction" assumption put forth by metabunk.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Which means that the gradient should have been in this imaginary colder, dryer down situation. The empirical measurements did not register any data that agrees with this "inversion" (thermal). It was 85%(?) higher than standard refraction, you are welcome to check the math.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Also just out of curiosity do you understand how solar eclipses work in the globe model yet?

Yes, it was demonstrated for me.

Erfisflat

Selenelions are still iffy, considering the physics of light.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

"So looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKrZnKu9ID4 which is apparently his updated version of the one you linked to. So for instance at 5:50 he claims it's impossible for the light to be visible even if it's refracted down. his evidence: Jack Squat."

Dr. John D uses the "standard refraction" assumption put forth by metabunk.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Which means that the gradient should have been in this imaginary colder, dryer down situation. The empirical measurements did not register any data that agrees with this "inversion" (thermal). It was 85%(?) higher than standard refraction, you are welcome to check the math.

Well as you didn't respond to most of my points, I'll respond to the one bit you did. 

Here's what metabunk says about "standard refraction":

"Standard Refraction" is an approximation of the refraction expected under average or Standard Atmospheric conditions. 
Actual atmospheric conditions can vary greatly, and the resultant refraction can be complex, especially close to the horizon. 
See here for the source of this approximation.  See here for historical usage of this approximation 
For a more detailed simulation of the effects of refraction, see the Metabunk Refraction Simulator"

For instance in standard atmospheric conditions it's assumed there will be a lapse rate of 6.5C per 1000 metres or 0.0065 C per metre. The lapse rate just in the small few metres above the water as per his readings showed an increase of around 2C in 2 metres, meaning that this key characteristic which effects air density (and therefore refraction) is having an effect over a hundred times greater than it would be in standard atmospheric conditions! When you're dealing with a small volatile region of air just in the few metres above the shore, you'd expect it to be inconsistent with the standard atmospheric conditions which are a trend across large vertical distances of dozens of kilometres and so using the curve calculator at all is silly. The fact he actually took measurements to appear scientific and then completely ignored those measurements when it was actually relevant and would have made his "experiment" in any way scientifically valid though is totally absurd!

Not only that though,  but the same organisation whose work he apparently trusts specifically has a more advanced calculator with this very set-up already in it, showing that a small temperature increase above the water (as was observed) would lead to refraction which would make light visible at longer distances than assumed under standard refraction: https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/?~(p~%27Brighton*20to*20Worthing*20Pier)_

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Prominent globe earthers were invited to the empirical test, and not surprisingly, just as we see here, the invitation was declined by all of them. It appears that globetards are only interested in scientism, and as is the case here, the sky.

I've literally provided you with scientific peer reviewed studies before and you've refused to read them because the only thing you trust is the random claims of people on YouTube..

That is scientism, @Ampersand, I'm only interested in the scientific method. I am presenting empirical science. 

Sites like Youtube are the reason the internet was created in the first place. Scientists needed to share data, "peer review" as you call it. 

Erfisflat

What better way to demonstrate a concept like selenelions

MayCaesar

@Erfisflat

The Internet was created to streamline communication. It was not created with the purpose of random people with no knowledge wasting legitimate scientists' time with their simple ideas.

If you want to communicate with scientists productively, then offer something of substance that does not get obliterated upon the slightest scrutiny. As it is, you are like an elephant walking up to a chess game between two grandmasters and knocking all the pieces out, thinking, "I showed them how the real game is played!".

billbatard

I'm only supposed to make vacuous "civil" comments so i can't continue to comment on this pointless debate

billbatard

@MayCaesar and with that you have just won this debate mazeltov

billbatard

@Erfisflat please get help or get laid, this is pathetic

billbatard

@Ampersand Is THERE REALLY ANY POINT TO ALL OF THIS??!

billbatard

@Erfisflat Have you ever considered psychiatric help? or maybe seeing a priest about exorcism?