What the frell is this?

*With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)*

The formula you use is an innacurate one.

You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.

Good thing it isn't just off the top of his head.

As many people know, a phenomenon associated with light is refraction.

This has the effect of curving light downwards. This means you see furhter than you should if you go based upon a spherical Earth with no atmosphere.

Given the nature of Earth's atmosphere, a good approximation to account for standard refraction is to increase the radius by a factor of 1/6.

Before you go making up any BS saying that is too good to be true, as it is just increasing the numerator by 1, it isn't. It is adding some factor of the radius. If refraction was less significant it would be a larger denominator, e.g. 1/20, giving a "corrected radius" of 21/20*r.

There is a discussion of it here:

https://www.metabunk.org/standard-atmospheric-refraction-empirical-evidence-and-derivation.t8703/#post-205947The simple fact that you need to ignore refraction to pretend Earth isn't round, shows your dishonesty.

Especially when even though large portions are still hidden, you foolishly claim it as a victory for FE.

If Earth was flat, refraction wouldn't come into it nor would any be hidden.

So all you have done is proven Earth is round and proven the dishonesty of FEers.

Your innacurate assessment leads to an irrational result: where you are able to delete 13.89 ft from the correct value (30.44 ft).

And there you go misunderstanding it yet again.

The correct value was never 30.44 ft.

That is only the value you expect if your head was at water level.

But you said 2 feet.

That is not 0.

So this is just another example of your dishonesty, where you need to blatantly lie about the situation to pretend there is a problem with a RE, while you continue to ignore the problems with the FE.

Remember, I have been involved in many more debates

I am yet to see you engage in any debate on this site. You continually ignore what has been said and just repeat the same refuted BS.

That isn't debate.

The main component is the QUALITY OF THE CAMERA

No it is not.

If the camera was an issue for why you couldn't see the bottom of the houses you would see the water line, a blur where the botom of the houses should be, then the top of the houses.

A camera cannot magically make a section of a house disappear as if hidden by the curve.

Three successive photographs, each using a better quality camera, thus capturing more details.

Nope. Three photos taken from completley different locations with completely different conditions.

What is needed is another video which could settle the entire debate.

It has already been settled. On a FE the towers should appear to be in a straight line and the bottom of the houses should be clearly visible, as should Toronto's shore.

Instead it is hidden by the water. Clear proof of the curvature of Earth.

Good job refuting yourself yet again.

This is just what that user on youtube did.

Here is the final video:

Distance 10.4 miles.

Drop = **66 ft.**

Drop, not how much should be hidden. Try again.

And yet again, it is wonderful proof of the curve.

At first, you can't see the bridge at all. Then after panning right far enough it appears to rise from behind the water, with the bottom pylons disappearing long before the rest of the bridge.

Clear evidence of the curvature of Earth.

This is how easy it is to prove that Lake Pontchartrain is actually flat.

Nope, you just proved it is curved.

That is how hard it is to prove it is flat; when trying to you end up proving it is curved.

Now quit with this irrelevant BS (or would you prefer them to be called lies, as that is what they are) and deal with the OP.

What causes the curve?