Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.

  • 28 Replies
  • 3915 Views
*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
On the debate section of this forum, the horizon often pops up from longtime users, or new users, using it as a way to prove that the Earth is round. Most times, the best excuse that the Flat Earthers can offer is "refraction causes the light to bend downwards". While they aren't wrong in how refraction works, they're wrong in using it as an excuse for the horizon.

To start off, I'm going to explain what a Refractive Index is. A Refractive Index determines how fast light propagates through a medium, and how much it bends. The Refractive Index of any medium can be determined using the formula n = c / v, where c is the speed of light in vacuum, and v is the speed of light in said medium. How much light bends as it propagates through the medium is determined using the formula n1 sinθ1 = n2 sinθ2, as described by Snell's Law.

Finally, here's the kicker - the Refractive Index of air is only 1.000277-1.000293. Compare this to the Refractive Index of a vacuum, which, by definition, is 1. This means that the refraction actually caused by the Earth's atmosphere is not even close enough to a large enough value to cause significant refraction.

In conclusion, the Earth's atmosphere would not cause a horizon on a flat Earth. Unless you flat Earthers can come up with a valid proof for why a horizon would exist on a flat Earth, the horizon remains the ultimate disproof of a flat Earth.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

JustThatOneGuy

  • 193
  • Expect to see activity bursts and stops.
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2016, 08:32:55 AM »
On the debate section of this forum, the horizon often pops up from longtime users, or new users, using it as a way to prove that the Earth is round. Most times, the best excuse that the Flat Earthers can offer is "refraction causes the light to bend downwards". While they aren't wrong in how refraction works, they're wrong in using it as an excuse for the horizon.

To start off, I'm going to explain what a Refractive Index is. A Refractive Index determines how fast light propagates through a medium, and how much it bends. The Refractive Index of any medium can be determined using the formula n = c / v, where c is the speed of light in vacuum, and v is the speed of light in said medium. How much light bends as it propagates through the medium is determined using the formula n1 sinθ1 = n2 sinθ2, as described by Snell's Law.

Finally, here's the kicker - the Refractive Index of air is only 1.000277-1.000293. Compare this to the Refractive Index of a vacuum, which, by definition, is 1. This means that the refraction actually caused by the Earth's atmosphere is not even close enough to a large enough value to cause significant refraction.

In conclusion, the Earth's atmosphere would not cause a horizon on a flat Earth. Unless you flat Earthers can come up with a valid proof for why a horizon would exist on a flat Earth, the horizon remains the ultimate disproof of a flat Earth.
Jroa's reply: DUST MAKE REFRACTIN BIGR
Pardon me for roughly translating it into trollspeak, the language he's fluent in with a heavy English accent.
Nah, I'm just here to correct your grammar. The Earth's still round, though.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2016, 08:54:51 AM »
In conclusion, the Earth's atmosphere would not cause a horizon on a flat Earth. Unless you flat Earthers can come up with a valid proof for why a horizon would exist on a flat Earth, the horizon remains the ultimate disproof of a flat Earth.

  The horizon in FE and RE in ground level would be same, at eye level. Difference is when you start rising higher. On RE horizon goes down and doesn't stay at eye level but on infinite plane it would be always at eye level however high you go.
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.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2016, 09:36:50 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2016, 09:52:22 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2016, 09:54:56 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2016, 09:59:21 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)
There is evidence though.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2016, 10:01:30 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)
There is evidence though.

Then, why do so many of your round Earth scientists do not even believe it is a force? 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2016, 10:11:28 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2016, 10:20:33 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much? 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2016, 10:22:17 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2016, 10:27:24 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers will be banned.  Have you read the rules lately? 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2016, 10:29:43 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers will be banned.  Have you read the rules lately?

You decided to start talking about gravity and how "false" it is. This thread is about atmospheric refraction. That is derailing.

You also decided to call me a hypocrite and talk about something else when I pointed out that you were making off-topic posts. That is also derailing.

So please, stop derailing and keep the topic focused on refraction.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2016, 10:35:10 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers will be banned.  Have you read the rules lately?

You decided to start talking about gravity and how "false" it is. This thread is about atmospheric refraction. That is derailing.

You also decided to call me a hypocrite and talk about something else when I pointed out that you were making off-topic posts. That is also derailing.

So please, stop derailing and keep the topic focused on refraction.

Was I the first person to mention gravity?  No?  You simply pick on us flat Earthers every chance you get and then pretend that we said things. 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2016, 10:37:51 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers will be banned.  Have you read the rules lately?

You decided to start talking about gravity and how "false" it is. This thread is about atmospheric refraction. That is derailing.

You also decided to call me a hypocrite and talk about something else when I pointed out that you were making off-topic posts. That is also derailing.

So please, stop derailing and keep the topic focused on refraction.

Was I the first person to mention gravity?  No?  You simply pick on us flat Earthers every chance you get and then pretend that we said things.

No, you were the first person to mention it: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1746255;topic=65438.0;last_msg=1746290

Above that post, there are no mentions of gravity, and the thread was on-topic. Please, stop lying, and stop derailing.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2016, 10:46:42 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers will be banned.  Have you read the rules lately?

You decided to start talking about gravity and how "false" it is. This thread is about atmospheric refraction. That is derailing.

You also decided to call me a hypocrite and talk about something else when I pointed out that you were making off-topic posts. That is also derailing.

So please, stop derailing and keep the topic focused on refraction.

Was I the first person to mention gravity?  No?  You simply pick on us flat Earthers every chance you get and then pretend that we said things.

No, you were the first person to mention it: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1746255;topic=65438.0;last_msg=1746290

Above that post, there are no mentions of gravity, and the thread was on-topic. Please, stop lying, and stop derailing.

I notice that you do not tell your little minions to stop talking about gravity.  It is only me.  Perhaps gravity makes you so mad that you can not even discuss it? 

Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2016, 11:11:28 AM »
*sigh*

jroa, have you seriously got nothing better to do?  Do you have to trash every thread?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2016, 11:47:08 AM »
Jroa's reply: DUST MAKE REFRACTIN BIGR
Pardon me for roughly translating it into trollspeak, the language he's fluent in with a heavy English accent.

That's how he became a moderator in the first place. Trolling is actually the reason for FES to exist

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2016, 12:00:57 PM »
This thread is talking about refraction, not gravity. Also it's nice to have a new thread in the debate section.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2016, 12:26:07 PM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)
There is evidence though.

Then, why do so many of your round Earth scientists do not even believe it is a force?
Because they are smart and can see the evidence is in favor of it not being a force.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JustThatOneGuy

  • 193
  • Expect to see activity bursts and stops.
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2016, 01:14:22 PM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers (like me, obviously, the prime demonstration) won't be banned.  Have you read the rules lately?
Nah, I'm just here to correct your grammar. The Earth's still round, though.

*

Globus Cruciger

  • 74
  • Go to: www.vaticancatholic.com
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2016, 03:58:44 PM »
Yes, refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.  The extremely low refractive index of light (coupled with 'standard atmosphere' parameters) serves to prove the earth is round, rather than disprove it.  Also, the 'circle of a sphere' explains why the horizon looks flat from ground level (8000x magnification of a globe), and the FE myth that a 'law of perspective' explains the gradual disappearance of objects beyond the horizon, is refuted by the 'law of proportion', i.e. that when things shrink due to distance, they still keep proportion (parts don't simply disappear), as proven by the use of a telescope.  Further, if the earth was flat, the horizon would never 'drop out', but would always appear to be almost exactly at eye level and continue infinitely ("infinite plane").

This is probably why the trolls are attacking this and many other RE threads.  It seems the REers dominate this debate forum, so maybe FES is paying people to 'pa-troll' it.

I strongly suspect that Jroa (trollerator = troll + moderator) and Jane (was BiJane until today) are paid trolls.  For example, in this thread, Jane tried to derail the topic with a question about aether, then Jroa comes in to talk about gravity ("teamwork").  Jane didn't offer any valuable information, just asks a difficult question.  Jroa appears to specialize in this method.  It could be called 'socratic trolling' (after the questioning style of the 'socratic method').  Jane appears to specialize in deconstructive criticism, and again almost never offers any valuable information on the topic, and when she does it's not certain whether she is pro FE or RE.  Jane also changed her name after I called her out for being a troll yesterday (see point 7 below).  The moral of the story is: Whether they are paid or not, don't "feed" the trolls or else they will bite you.  Ignore them.

20 Habits of Paid Trolls (in this quote, it appears that 'diary' is used instead of 'thread') - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/22/978170/-20-Habits-of-Paid-Trolls
"3) Never completely disagree - just throw the comment thread off track
7) When comments get troll rated - dump ID and move to new ID
11) Discourage new diary [thread] posters
12) Turn off readers with a hostile tone, vicious, or condescending attack
13)Call your statistics arbitrary, ask you to check your figures, doubt your analysis or facts,
14) Tell readers your story lacks facts, that your story lacks depth, that your story lacks research, that your links prove nothing, that your conclusions are wrong etc (of course a troll will never offer a shred of "evidence" to back up a single of their assertions)
15) Write using a dismissive, surly tone
16) Dismiss diary writer or comment posters as not quite right
19) Never offer any constructive ideas
20) Complain that someone is not following the dKos [forum] 'rules'"
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 04:38:31 PM by Globus Cruciger »
Outside the Traditional Catholic faith there is no salvation, but modern Rome has lost the faith: www.vaticancatholic.com
Have you seen this video? Amazing Evidence For God - Scientific Evidence For God -

*

JustThatOneGuy

  • 193
  • Expect to see activity bursts and stops.
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2016, 08:40:41 AM »
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)
There is evidence though.

Then, why do so many of your round Earth scientists do not even believe it is a force?
Because they are smart and can see the evidence is in favor of it not being a force.
Wasn't it a byproduct of other forces? :P It was demoted from being its own force, or something, just like Centrifugal force...
Nah, I'm just here to correct your grammar. The Earth's still round, though.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2016, 10:26:33 PM »
I might be mistaken but I thought the topic was "Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2016, 07:49:36 AM »
I normally do not get involved in horizon/refraction debates as there are too many variables (most mitigated if you increase your altitude a bit).

So, I am confused about one thing...

If refraction makes things (the Sun) look HIGHER in the sky:


and the Sun is ALWAYS above the Earth:


why does it set and not look HIGHER in the sky?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

Gazpar

  • 34
  • Anticitizen One.
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2016, 01:11:41 AM »
I normally do not get involved in horizon/refraction debates as there are too many variables (most mitigated if you increase your altitude a bit).

So, I am confused about one thing...

If refraction makes things (the Sun) look HIGHER in the sky:


and the Sun is ALWAYS above the Earth:


why does it set and not look HIGHER in the sky?
Because the electromagnetic attractor pulls light down and bends it upward once in the surface?
Pick up the can.
Pick. Up. The. Can.
I said pick up the can!

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2016, 11:15:33 AM »
I normally do not get involved in horizon/refraction debates as there are too many variables (most mitigated if you increase your altitude a bit).

So, I am confused about one thing...

If refraction makes things (the Sun) look HIGHER in the sky:


and the Sun is ALWAYS above the Earth:


why does it set and not look HIGHER in the sky?
Because the electromagnetic attractor pulls light down and bends it upward once in the surface?

How can you prove that.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Gazpar

  • 34
  • Anticitizen One.
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2016, 12:03:23 PM »
I normally do not get involved in horizon/refraction debates as there are too many variables (most mitigated if you increase your altitude a bit).

So, I am confused about one thing...

If refraction makes things (the Sun) look HIGHER in the sky:


and the Sun is ALWAYS above the Earth:


why does it set and not look HIGHER in the sky?
Because the electromagnetic attractor pulls light down and bends it upward once in the surface?

How can you prove that.
I dont think I can but most FE's seem to believe that.
Pick up the can.
Pick. Up. The. Can.
I said pick up the can!

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Why refraction is not a valid excuse for the existence of the horizon.
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2016, 05:07:31 PM »
So it is either a magical light bending show, or the Earth is spherical...
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.