you'll have to point out the circularity of my reasoning. I admit that I'm not seeing it.
IE going back to the FE theory by stating that a spherical Sun wouldn't effect the FE theory.. This is called ignoring evidence, or applying the cause and effect of changing the value of spot light to spherical sun.. It was circular because you go right back to the FE light bending hypothesis without applying a massively different light source over a horizontal plane.
This is exactly the kind of forcefeeding that got these people into this mess. Not everyone thinks the same way.
Facts aren't force fed, they are just simply facts. And yes people don't all think the same way. However, this doesn't change the facts, or that FE theory is a giant case of "Facts don't matter syndrome".. Thinking differently isn't going to magically make FE factual, or even remotely intelligible.. When you have people running around stating a Sun is a disk, or is 3,000 miles away as "Facts", they are setting themselves up to such scrutiny, and criticism to which they will argue is being force fed to them just so they can have the excuse to ignore them. I may not be friendly about it because I am a bit more bold and direct in my approach when it comes to confronting people that are obviously spewing nonsense..
You can't expect everyone to believe what they're told because you say it is so. Or because science says it is so. Not everyone is scientifically aware enough to realize what science really is. And such statements as this one make it seem like a ruthless dictatorship, and people will rebel.
If FE is about "rebelling" they have a lot of growing up to do. Rebelling isn't going to magically make their ideological constructs or theories intelligible or relevant. Again irrelevant to the discussion.
This is a reality we need to face as educated people, unless we want the world run amock with such anti-science as ufology, creationism, conspiracy theories, astrology, flat-earthism, etc. You can't force science on people. Saying "Your wrong, because your theory is absurd" just doesn't cut it, and I think is totally unacceptable. While I'm trying to iron out the small details for these people, you are just slamming the conclusion in their face before I can get the logic behind it to sink in for them.
Nobody here is holding a GUN to anyone's head to force them into science. However, if they are going to use science to support their position, they can't complain when their "science" is shown to be intelligible, illogical, false, wrong, miss leading, or intentionally ignorant. They have a choice to either be intelligent, or post nonsensical nonsense.. Hence, don't cry me a river if I bring down the hammer! That's emotional pleading to support the position, and doesn't make their position any more intelligible or relevant.
The light coming from the bottom of a cup of water bends downward upon crossing the water surface, making the bottom of the cup appear higher than it is... an easy experiment to try. When light bends, it's source appears to shift opposite the bending. In the case of the cup, water bends down, image shifts up. In the case of EA, light bends up, image shifts down. Since with EA, light is bending parabolically, the downward shift compounds with distance. at some point the image of the ground will shift lower than the image for the ground will at a shorter distance, and you get a hill effect, the upper visible limit of which is what is called the true horizon.
Firstly, nobody is at the bottom of a cup of water.. Your entire post here is essentially irrelevant, and is still wrong according to parabolic bowl across a flat plane. And you do realize what kind of warping effects water has correct? This isn't an effect you are going to achieve with a Gas atmosphere, or light refraction in our atmosphere.. And in your hill effect, the distance to horizon wouldn't matter, it would still be greater than eye level, or always above your head.. And when you gain altitude there would be severe warping.. And you do realize that once the light source goes horizontal a "theoretical" parabolic effect over a flat plane would collapse entirely (ignoring the fact you can't achieve this over a flat plane).. Please don't compare light bending in liquid water to that of the atmosphere..
Your argument is basically trying to change the vertex position from a parabolic bowl into a parabolic reflect position at the same time.. Hence you can not state the vertex position to be in both the following positions over a flat plane.. Also, the Focus point is always higher than the vertex position regardless of distance. So the horizon would always be over the vertex position at the focal point. So no matter what, the FE argument is false! The horizon is not above our heads, we do not have to look up to see the horizon..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg/300px-Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Parabola_focus_directrix.svg/320px-Parabola_focus_directrix.svg.pngIf you take Figure 2 and flip it upright, the Focus point would be under the ground by several feet..This is not possible over a flat plane, much less an infinite flat plane. And it can not be done at any point along the surface of the plane... So you can not turn a flat plane into a parabolic reflect (dome)..
Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too here. You are either in the vertex position of a reflective dome, or parabolic bowl.