[REDACTED]

  • 133 Replies
  • 14912 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #120 on: October 03, 2010, 10:35:01 PM »
Sorry Tom, but atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, etc.) are not illusions.

Actually, they are.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=mirage&i=0&h=00#c
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 10:37:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #121 on: October 04, 2010, 02:41:51 AM »
"The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation."

Hmmm... It seems to me that Mr. Watson was describing ideal conditions for any number of atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, lofting, etc.).

It's funny how when confronted with one of the many experiments described in the Flat Earth Literature, or when confronted with a test which diametrically opposes RET, the Round Earther's sole and only rebuttal is "An illusion did it".
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction. Also, you don't have the photo so it's still questionable.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40311
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #122 on: October 04, 2010, 06:38:36 AM »
Sorry Tom, but atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, etc.) are not illusions.

Actually, they are.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=mirage&i=0&h=00#c

Even if they are illusions, atmospheric refractive phenomena (not all of which are mirages) are still a perfectly valid explanation for many such observations.  At least it's better than crying conspiracy.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #123 on: October 04, 2010, 02:58:09 PM »
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 03:46:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40311
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #124 on: October 04, 2010, 03:44:12 PM »
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Are you saying that a superior mirage (or some other atmospheric refractive phenomena) could not be a perfectly valid explanation for the observation?  Saying "an illusion did it" is perfectly valid when it's true.  Just remember, you are essentially saying the same thing when you say that a trick of perspective causes sunsets.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #125 on: October 04, 2010, 03:49:05 PM »
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Are you saying that a superior mirage (or some other atmospheric refractive phenomena) could not be a perfectly valid explanation for the observation?  Saying "an illusion did it" is perfectly valid when it's true.  Just remember, you are essentially saying the same thing when you say that a trick of perspective causes sunsets.

It must be quite an illusion, then, for a superior mirage to materialize in front of the experimenter's eyes, each and every time the experiment in performed in the literature.

This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment, but also projects bodies into the air exactly and precisely where it should if the earth were flat, no higher and no lower. Too high and the illusion would have the body hovering in the air. Too low and the body would be obscured. No sir. This purported illusion projects a distant body into the air exactly where it should be if the earth were flat.

Quite an illusion.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 03:54:46 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40311
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #126 on: October 04, 2010, 06:48:36 PM »
This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment, but also projects bodies into the air exactly and precisely where it should if the earth were flat, no higher and no lower.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?  I have personally attempted to observed Toronto across Lake Erie from a location where the Toronto skyline is known to be visible, but I was unable to make such an observation.  Obviously this illusion does not occur for everyone who tries it.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #127 on: October 04, 2010, 11:32:57 PM »
Obviously Toronto isn't going to be seen on a foggy day.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #128 on: October 04, 2010, 11:34:42 PM »
Obviously Toronto isn't going to be seen on a foggy day.
Incorrect. It depends on the amount of fog.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #129 on: October 04, 2010, 11:47:42 PM »
Actually I have seen a superior mirage do just that over lake superior.. Tom, you seem to fail at understanding refraction, temperature, or atmospheric conditions in regards to said experiments. Nor do you comprehend that only spherical Earth is going to give you the ability to show the Earth to be optically flat, concave, and spherical. This is especially true near ground level. And do note that light tends to follow the curvature of the Earth. The conditions posted in your "experiment" are actually prime conditions for said optical phenomenon. I suggest you study superior mirages more because those conditions you posted were very similar to the conditions from which I observed when I had seen a superior mirage over lake superior. You can in fact see over the curvature of the Earth (to a certain extent) giving the right conditions. So your argument here is useless. Especially when under average conditions no such phenomenon is observed.

btw, they can indeed appear to be no higher or lower.. However, even over a FE there is no such thing as exact in terms of elevation.. I suggest you figure out what hills, curbs, mountains, valleys, depths, rocks, cliffs, mounds, trees, grass, or even dunes are to understand your failure here. Do provide the data showing exact and perfectly flat Earth.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 11:56:35 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #130 on: October 04, 2010, 11:57:58 PM »
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Are you saying that a superior mirage (or some other atmospheric refractive phenomena) could not be a perfectly valid explanation for the observation?  Saying "an illusion did it" is perfectly valid when it's true.  Just remember, you are essentially saying the same thing when you say that a trick of perspective causes sunsets.

It must be quite an illusion, then, for a superior mirage to materialize in front of the experimenter's eyes, each and every time the experiment in performed in the literature.

This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment, but also projects bodies into the air exactly and precisely where it should if the earth were flat, no higher and no lower. Too high and the illusion would have the body hovering in the air. Too low and the body would be obscured. No sir. This purported illusion projects a distant body into the air exactly where it should be if the earth were flat.

Quite an illusion.
  The rebuttal still isn't "The illusion did it". The definition of mirage according to the American Meteorological Society's Glossary of Weather and Climate is:
    "Mirage: A refraction phenomenon wherein an image of some distant object is made to appear displaced from its true position because of large vertical density variations near the surface; the image may appear distorted, inverted, or wavering.
 It's not the illusion per se, it is a well explained phenomenon and it does not materialize in front of you every time when the person does the experiment. There is even no such an experiment done in the last 50 or even more years.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #131 on: October 05, 2010, 12:56:59 AM »
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Sounds a lot like "NASA did it", doesn't it?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40311
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #132 on: October 05, 2010, 06:12:38 AM »
Obviously Toronto isn't going to be seen on a foggy day.

It wasn't foggy.  In fact, it was a nice, sunny spring day.  However, there was something of a breeze which likely prevented the necessary thermal inversion layer from forming over the lake.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #133 on: October 06, 2010, 01:07:40 PM »
This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment

Can you show some evidence of the "experiment" that isn't over 100 years old?