Flat Earther Learns a Lesson About Refraction (Black Swan Debunk) 

Aaah but you claimed it over a curved horizon without regard for the fact that you portrayed it incorrectly! What happened to the bending light from the upper part of the oil rig? Oh you just forgot about that.. how convenient to be low IQ in such a manner

@@elcid451 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Dktw9ncLuhg.html No inversion. And besides you told us the water was the same temp as the air at the surface, so no inversion would occur. Learn about the topic. This is what you need for inversion: issuu.com/kees.floor/docs/lsnl

@@Captain-Obvious1 Just not too bright are you... and with a satanic mindset

@@elcid451 The problem is, little guy, by trying to distract us and talking about how smart you think you are, you're actually showing people that you can't deal with nor falsify the actual arguments themselves. Every time you dodge you lose. It's called ad-hominem and it's pretty st00pid to us it. Most people here understand this nowadays.

@@Captain-Obvious1 I don't THINK I'm smart.. you however by refusing to address the error in the Blueprint diagram at 6:37 just show you are low IQ.. I guess you are easily distracted And most people are brainwashed and so the claim that "most people here" have "understanding" is a nonsense because it is a logical fallacy argument.. You must THINK you are being clever when really all you are demonstrating by this argument is your low IQ

I'm not surprised...

It's more likely RU-vid auto-moderation, which is notoriously stupid.

@Atlas His video is the end of the globe cult? The black swan guy? Didn't he support flat earth?

It may have been the correction factor that I used. I could dig up where I got it from, if you like.

@@BlueprintScience we know you got it from your indoctrination or maybe NASA's made up theories and pictures

@@AlanSurgeoner Uh, no... I actually got it from a telecommunication textbook about line-of-sight radio transmission. Unless you're suggesting that nobody knows how cellular networks work...

Well they're so indoctrinated I guess they believe that the laser is curving downwards too 🤣 oh and when the railgun hits the target 100 mi away line of sight I guess it's really curving around the ball 🤣

They don't. Funny how you can't show the reference by the navy claiming this. Can they shoot at targets that far? Of course.

@@aarone34 Except you guys don't actually believe in research. Instead, you have a pre determined outcome and discard all information contrary to your dreams of making yourselves feel good.

@@kitcanyon658 I see, now admit you need flat earthers to educate you 🤣 as all of you Globe believers do. You've never researched reality ever you can only regurgitate your indoctrination. Okay I'll try once but it's probably a waste of my time on your indoctrinated mind.... But here you go..... 1) is mass attracts Mass which has never been proven and can't be today in 2022 please don't show your ignorance by spouted the alleged experiment 150 years ago. And 2) is the bending of space and time which is pure science fiction nonsense even Einstein said he couldn't prove and it was his theory!!! So Newtonian and Einsteinian are your two types of G but here's the real kicker you need two more unproven theories to make the theory of gravity work on a chalkboard calculation.... Gravity needs 96% dark matter and dark energy to make the math magic work. As for the 26th x stronger than gravity it's electrical forces according to MIT physics 3 which has relegated G to space and time far from Earth and now claims electrical forces governed why things fall down near Earth. More specifically it's incoherent electrostatic acceleration. Gravity is an unproven theory that needs two more unproven theories to explain it and electrical forces are well known and understood. The Earth has a measurable negative charge and when something leaves the surface of the Earth it becomes positively charged and the higher you go the stronger that charge gets so your answer is relative density and electrical forces... no gravity necessary. Water is always level to its container we don't need magical gravity to hold trillions of tons of water to a ball 😉

@@aarone34 : Yawn. So all that is just your way to avoid discussing no naval documents saying lasers can spot things from the surface level of water that far away, such as the original poster claimed? Ah, ok. That's cool. Probably good to avoid such things for flatters. They do that all the time. For example, how it is that that pesky sun of yours never changes size throughout the entire day time. And let's not even mention where the sun is in the sky. How come you flatters can think you know how to model forces on matter (electrical, gravitational, chemical, etc) and yet you can't even model a light bulb circling over a flat earth? Well, to be fair, I guess you flatter don't actually model anything but just rather parrot other scientific discoveries.

Not as a rule. Warmer air typically rises above cooler air, but there can be mitigating factors. Ocean temperatures fluctuate much less than air temperatures, so the oceans can warm the air on a very cold day. In the context of the video in question, it appears to be a hot summer day, so the air layer over the water is certainly cooler than the air above.

@@BlueprintScience OK, in the summer , the sea surface is cooler and cools the air layer above .. that means, refraction as in 6:42 shouldn't work in the winter when sea surface is warmer ?

@@BlueprintScience I found a video where the experiment is performed on a frozen lake and the object supposed to be obscured is still visible. Temperature graph according to several sources drops the higher we go on the ice surface.

@@braveheart2205 They're suggesting the ice was warming the air? Where did did they say the warmer air came from?

You can compare with model predictions using a theodolite. Etc. To determine if refraction is present, just look for reflections and distortion. It's all only significant within about a degree or less if the horizon, typically. Everything there is refracted but it varies from no significant change to lees than a degree. Again. Typically. The black swan is possibly with only about 0.1° refraction. Flatties use ridiculous zoom to make it look impressive. But you hardly ever notice anything by naked eye.

@@Dr-Curious refraction doesn't work that way dude

@@jt6mania558 You were just answered. Sorry - I'm not really interested in how you feel. My posts are for the public not the recipient. If you have an explanation supported by science, then serve it in an adult fashion. If you don't, it's not really worth posting your opinions unless you want to discredit your stance.

@@jt6mania558 Yeah. It figures you would run away. You're obviously a flat earther who doesn't understand anything they gush about. Yep, thats how refraction works and I can link you to the theory and practical demosntrations. In the black swan, youre looking at refraction that's occurring within about a degree of the horizon. Drop at 9.41 miles is 59.05 feet - Geometric Hidden at 1 for elevation is= 44.68 feet Using trig, thats 0.051º So to bring the base of that platform into view, you need a minimum of 0.051º refraction, depending on how high the geometric horizon has been elevated in angle. To put that into context, the sun at setting is typically refracted by about 0.5º, or, ten TIMES that amount.

@@Dr-Curious I'm curious why you are clinging to the ludicrously made up assumption that The Sun is travelling 448,000 mph through the "Solar System", dragging us along for a magical rollercoaster fairytale ride through "Infinite Space"......as we travel 66,600 mph....🤣

radius of what?

@@BerryTheBnnuy exactly

@@JQ-zu4iv First: Nobody needs an r value to make an observation of refraction or obscuration. Nobody uses a horizon to derive an r value because it's not accurate enough and it varies. If you WANT an r value - You use WGS84 from geodetic survey, or to do it with a personal observation, you use geometry and logic: The sub-solar point moves just over 1000 mph over the earths surface. 15º per hour. multiply that by the time it takes for one cycle, 24 hours and you have a circumference from which you derive a radius. Next, you use three N-S wide spread points one the earths surface to measure the shadow angles of the sun to corroborate the other evidence. It's so simple.

@@Cosmic-Spanner The refraction in your curve calculator is called "terrestrial refraction" and it requires an r-value (which you no longer have) to derive it. You don't have to like it but it's a fact. If the earth is spinning underneath a "sub solar point" at 1,000 mph then it would be turning under bullets, balls, hot air balloons, drones, planes and helicopters at 1,000mph. It's not spinning under any of those things at even 1 mph therefore the earth is not spinning. It's so simple.

@@JQ-zu4iv Inertial reference frame...

Only 3? Rookie. I am banned from all of them just for asking for the map they use to drive around. Comedy gold! :)

these people (globers) are the dunning-krugers that keep on giving. We can't even find one with an actual claim.

@@fullbloodedchristian9206 Once again, you are the embodiment of irony itself! You are not just a clown, you’re the entire circus! Have you stopped to realize how completely ridiculous flat earth is? Literally even the most basic of observations prove it’s inaccuracy to reality. Sunsets, the moon only showing one face to the entire world, the position of the stars and planets, the rotation of the sky depending on if you’re north or south! All of it, and you run to silly magic instead of the obvious logical conclusion... Not to mention, you endure constant ridicule for this believing in this cult! So I must ask. Why? Why go through all of it, all in the name of this fraudulent cult of ideas so primitive we debunked them many millennia ago?

Distortion, absolutely. Refraction from below the physical horizon, no. This picture aside, you can find laser tests over salt flats reaching 30 miles + which would NO DOUBT be well below the physical horizon. Same with mirror flashes, they absolutely must have line of sight!

Because it's still one of the best proof that the earth is flat😂😂😂

​@Globe for Flat Brains so you see nothing wrong with the rig?

​@@FlatearthIndia25Yes, those are considered mirages . Where can we witness ocean water curving as a sphere or Spheroid in reality?

​@@algladyou Well they're considered mirages in reality. Is there anyway that you can present the evidence of water curving as a 🏀? Or Spheroid in reality? NASA cannot make up their mind about the shape of the earth cause science experiments are all models that are based on assumptions and not reality.

Why, You dont want to lose you religion?

@Eyal atiya My religion is called reality.

@Cleary Globeheads are where you get ALL the science and tech you try to BS about.

Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers

@@jackiechan3691 “Place this set of terms in a search: Variability in the Astronomical Refraction of the Rising and Setting Sun When you find that paper by E. P. Lozowski et al... Search term in paper: Refraction of the horizon "The average terrestrial refraction of the horizon for all themeasured sunrises was found to be 0.033, with a minimum of 0.008 and a maximum of 0.123." That’s a citation. There are hundreds more. Drop at 9.41 miles is 59.05 feet - Geometric Hidden at 1 for elevation is= 44.68 feet Using trig, thats 0.051º which is between a minimum of 0.008 and a maximum of 0.123.” So refraction is scientifically observed and recorded as capable of being much stronger than that needed to raise the sea’s visible horizon up into view as in this image.

And yet you cannot ever prove any of it. Just more lies, like all flerfs.

Analysis of the video is by 'Blue Marble Science'.

@cåññâbëār Hilarious 😂

This doesn't debunk FE though because the FE position is that the horizon is apparent, it changes based on atmospheric conditions, seeing curve doesn't prove curve for instance, there are various conditions causing an illusion of curve. The globe side claims a physical location, a physical, tangible, and literal geometric horizon that somehow vanishes and is never actually visible. Well if it's never visible then how can it be proven? How can you measure it? You can't, and no one has. There's only a need for a a single observation lacking a visible curve or illusion of curve, they are called black swans because they are considered impossibilities on the globe model. If there's a physical obstruction prior to the structures but it's invisible and there's instead another horizon that is somehow visible behind that location that's absurd. There should not be a second horizon if there's a physical location.

@@lrn_news9171 It’s proven if you watch the sunset over the ocean, quickly move to the top of a building, and see the sun again. It’s proven every time a rocket is launched just after sunset. Follow the dark plume up and up and boom, it’s illuminated by the sun.

@@lrn_news9171 The images totally refuting the "black swan" were from images captured the next day when the weather was colder and somewhat overcast. The nearer rig was seen to be about ⅓ obscured from the bottom by the horizon and the farther rig was seen to be at least ½ obscured from the bottom by the horizon. There was no refraction and what was visible of each rig showed absolutely no distortion whatsoever. By the way, I have been blue water sailing for getting on for 50 years. I have seen sunrises/sunsets and moonrises/moonsets at sea. That cannot happen on a flat earth. And before the use of GPS for navigation, we sailed using sextants to fix our position. And, if you knew anything about celestial navigation, you'd know that it only works because the earth is a globe.

It too bad tho about that flat earther who died in a failed rocket launch a few months ago

@@BlueprintScience He was NOT a flat earther! He needed funding so used them as a resource.

Mike Hughes RIP. He left a big impression.

Your wrong he wasn't a flat earther and he never flew rockets. It's all disinformation and he was controlled opposition Go look in to his rockets lmao You clowns believe anything you see on tv Just like the globe as you most definitely don't see it in reality

@@cave1958 he never

No, they didn’t. Nice try

That was Bobby Shafto.

Yeah, I agree, it was. But that doesn’t really change my overall thesis.

They do use the "curve calc" a lot. The "experienced" ones know the reason is to try to disprove the model's predictions of views, whereas most them don't have a clue about falsification. Their opinion is all that matters. But they try to calculate from zero altitude and claim the drop from local-reference level is the "hidden" value.... and or use the calcs or tables that don't include any refraction calc because it explains their "impossible" view. Like this one. But yes. Also they will try the "You can do anything with math" BS. So, you ask them for an actual demonstration of this in context to prove their case and they will cry or run.

Math is what is used when we do our observations ( camera elevation, distance to object, height of object, earth curvature calculations ) to disprove curvature.

@@bmlsb "Math is what is used when... " When you ignore refraction and make claims that are not consistent with scientific measurement in a gas atmosphere.

Well it DOES, but you can see the obscuration happening as haze. These FE guys are claiming all sorts of other effects. Some will even claim the hard edge of the horizon is caused by visibility effect... and yet cannot show it happening in any demonstration.

Depends on precision etc, right? You can for instance, certainly validate the fact that the horizon dips down from eye level as flat earthers blindly claim. Atmospheric refraction would make it higher, so if it was at eye level it would end up even higher with refraction.

@@Dr-Curious I'm curious as to how much Curvature you see on the Bolivian Salt FLATS.....4,050 square miles Bolivia's Salar de Uyuni is considered one of the most extreme and remarkable vistas in all of South America, if not Earth. Stretching more than 4,050 square miles of the Altiplano, it is the world's largest salt flat, left behind by prehistoric lakes evaporated long ago

My question would then be, how did we ever get a measurement in the first place if it's so easily obscured? Surely, if you see anything outside of the geometric constraints then the question should and must be asked? To just say refraction (which I'm not questioning) is bending the light, how can you ever measure a position that moves constantly? There is and has never been a no atmosphere day. This vid creator has not realised that just saying refraction means you could have never made any measurement to claim your on a sphere. However, seeing something way way past the geometric constraints of those fixed numbers shows a model is not reality. Tec is exposing all the noncence.

So that means the geometric horizon would not be trustworthy for measurement

​@@logicalobservations2867 "I'm curious as to how much Curvature you see on the Bolivian Salt FLATS.....4,050 square miles" Why do you give a squared measurement for a linear phenomenon, champ? The square root is only 63 miles. The curvature would be 1º in 69 miles according to the model. And in videos I saw, objects where obscured from the base upwards with distance. Something you cannot explain, but just chant a few buzzwords to wavehand dismiss.

I'm curious why you are clinging to the ludicrously made up assumption that The Sun is travelling 448,000 mph through the "Solar System", dragging us along for a magical rollercoaster fairytale ride through "Infinite Space"......as we travel 66,600 mph....🤣

I won’t fight you. But I will insist on a few things… It is well understood that cool dense air exist right above bodies of cool water, and causes downward bending of light (elevating the image). Fata Morgana is just one example of that in action - though that is admittedly probably not what we see here, as it is rare to get the “column” necessary for Fata Morgana to occur. In short, I generally stand by my claims as the most likely explanation for these photos.

@@BlueprintScience this is a superior mirage/fata morgana. There is always an inversion in a mirage. If you had read the peer reviewed paper I linked, you would know that. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hRz5zzyx28M.html

@@BlueprintScience a thermal inversion (what causes superior mirages) is where the temperature decreases as normal from the surface, but a warm layer of air has moved in from the land. It is normally above the eyes level, causing the light to total internally reflect off that layer, and the image is mirrored onto that layer. In an inferior mirage the air is abnormally warmer at the surface, and the lightr is reflected below the object.

Patrick Poer 100%! Thank you for looking into the topic with an open mind and open heart.

Welcome to the globe belief and reality denial

@@TakingBackEdenFE discord.gg/flatearth

You can think as far outside the box as you want, but when you make absurd claims without proof you WILL be ridiculed. Being different is not a merit in it self, but introducing a point that contradict common beliefs AND being able to present reproducible evidence to support it, THAT will earn you the respect of scientist. Science contains enough contradictions between established theories to keep scientists busy, science does NOT need crazy claims, without proof or proof based on misunderstood facts. Here's an analogy; if you enter a game of soccer, pick up the ball with your hand and start running around the field, your opponents will be upset and probably kick you off the field. Same applies when you make scientific claims but not applying the laws of nature that contradict your claim. Most scientists will ignore you, some will be rude to you especially if you don't reply to or ignore the counter arguments.

Thinking the Earth is flat is NOT thinking outside the box. Thinking the Earth is flat is taking a stick and stirring your brains into gruel. It's evidence of damaging thought processes. Thinking outside the box is taking a fresh perspective on things not resurrecting ideologies that were proven wrong millennia ago.

I'm curious why you are clinging to the ludicrously made up assumption that The Sun is travelling 448,000 mph through the "Solar System", dragging us along for a magical rollercoaster fairytale ride through "Infinite Space"......as we travel 66,600 mph....🤣

@@logicalobservations2867 “I still can’t believe that when you stand up on a bus traveling 30,000,000 microns per second (~70mph) that you don’t go flying to the back!!” Yeah, point is: big numbers are arbitrary, motion relativity is a thing.

@@logicalobservations2867 You're late for your high school classes.

@@logicalobservations2867 Nice demonstration of another appeal to personal incredulity fallacy. Did you think you did something clever? Why don't you have any real arguments?

@@Magnum-Farce We live on a stationary plane, NOT on a spinning CGI DISNEY666 MARBLE. No arguments required.

Except refraction explains both views. All consistent with the globe.

Cool. Both are refracted in similar ways for certain distances from the respective view positions.

Theoretically yes, this would work; but it would be practically impossible. First, it would be insurmountable to prove that the stretch of land is completely *flat* and not sloped at all. Second, no material could bridge that distance without sagging under its own weight (which ironically would overestimate the curvature of the earth)

Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO): “LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.”

Alternatively you could just look at a photo taken from space. Much simpler.

@@gazh2166 That's a great idea, but try finding one... As far as most can tell, it's all CGI and openly admitted. Most people just assume everything they see is real and never read the fine print or use forensic tools to see if they are legitimate photos or artistic renditions. Good luck! Most people never actually look, they just blindly trust what they were indoctrinated with in preschool.

Didn't you look at the video demonstrating gradient refraction he posted? It's pinned at the top of this thread.

TJ Jones 1 month ago Did those boobies make you uncomfortable??? Grow up.

Haha! Yeah, that was a great time, Jay. But this thread was by far my favorite :)

@@BlueprintScience I enjoyed that conversation too. I respect both of your opinions and I would never insult your intelligence. Please watch these two videos and give me your honest opinion.. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O5M7vdrBrZc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GcEpmm1vLiU.html If the water was actually convex instead of LEVEL it would block your view of the oil rig at that distance? The horizon is NOT a fixed distance as it should be on a globe. It's an apparent horizon. If I can zoom in on objects beyond this apparent horizon something is wrong with the globe model. Hopefully we can have a civil conversation without ad hominem attacks.

@@ronshekelson they literally have nada

@@ronshekelson Nobody in the relevant fields of expertise ever claimed the visible horizon is a "fixed distance". That's a strawman based on the curve calcs that are used to calculate perfect mathematical geometry and act as approximations for a non uniform, oblate natural planet covered in a refractive atmosphere. " If I can zoom in on objects beyond this apparent horizon something is wrong with the globe model." False. You can see distant objects up to about a degree higher than the raw math will predict.

@@ronshekelson Refraction bends light down consistent with the pressure gradient in the atmosphere. Here's a miniturised practical demo of the process: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Dktw9ncLuhg.html

It seems odd because it is bullshit. Now, I have no idea what the shape of the earth is, because I’ve never been at a vantage point that might allow such visual confirmation, and even if I had been, some knucklehead would likely come up with a cockamamie story to explain why I really didn’t see what I thought I saw LOL. BUT, neither has any of these other clowns who insist they do know the shape, but never actually witnessed themselves. They only “know” what they have been told, and what they have chosen to believe. But beliefs aren’t knowledge and they aren’t facts. They are just beliefs, and a belief is simply a thought one chooses to keep thinking over and over again. And that my friend has absolutely nothing to do with actually thinking. But, when one manages to set aside beliefs, and simply analyzes facts, and allow those facts lead to wherever they will, this is a person that is actually thinking, rather than believing. What seems to throw a monkey wrench into the belief of the atmospheric refraction explanation is radar. Radar also experiences atmospheric refraction, estimated at approximately 15% under the right atmospheric conditions, best case. And while Inwon’t argue that there could be greater refraction of light waves, versus radar waves, the differences would be irrelevant, because there is one absolute truth about radar waves …. Radar responds to physical objects, and not refracted light illusions. So, when a radar beam picks up a target at 20 miles out … which it should not be able to pick up based on the mathematically provable restrictions using Pythagorean calculations, there is a problem atmospheric refraction cannot solve. Think about that.

Your lack of knowledge and understanding seems odd? Why?

@@Cosmic-Spanner yet you didn't address my question .. I'll restate it for you. Why can I see a point over a lake many many miles past the commonly agreed upon horizon distance ? from ground level that is. Is the light bending up and over the ball earth ?

@@matt79hz yes...

@@tomzzzen866 say it enough times and you will believe it's true.

I have, but Fata Morgana can't make fictional things like giant cities appear in the sky. That video was most likely a fake using CGI My favorite youtuber (Cap't Disillusion) explains that here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xmrn2IuSW-Q.html

Wait ...are you saying CGI is fake too? 🤔 How did they make Armageddon the Documentary then?

Haze Anderson, Ironic since all pictures of the flat earth are cgi

Mr Print, didn't Eratosthenes prove that CGI was fake over 2000 years ago with some maths and a stick. (I may have a few details mixed up.)

@@BlueprintScience I thought that thing was real, they way it was reported about at the time, just goes to show you!

Yep, the standard of your idea of "proof "is revealed.

Yeah globers are full of double speak and ad hoc assertions to justify their circular reasoning.

@@Blackhole-go3sx If you expect me to take you seriously you won't call me a flat tard. Or come to FE 24/7 Discord and we can discuss.

It's flat. I know the guy who made it. Metatron

@@Blackhole-go3sx Oh yes the ship must have been within 10 miles and of course we can't see 10 miles away with our eyes...right Black Hole? I mean maybe you can't see the forest from the leaf!

"we see ships disappear beyond the horizon" Hi. You made a claim in your post and Ill challenge you - and you will refuse to address the challenge: "If we then use a powerful optical zoom lense the ship reappears. " Link us to the very BEST single video/footage w timestamp, of any object that's seen partially obscured by the upper edge of the sea, at the horizon, then being zoomed back into view. As you know what you're doing and you made all your decisions based on testing evidence for yourself... It should just take you a few seconds to link. BTW: We know zoom makes things too small to see, but then you have lost the ability to show us the obscuration by the horizon. SO WHY are you going to fail? Why would you tell me there are thousands of such videos and I should go and find your evidence for you when I'm challenging you because I know you cannot present any evidence for your claim? "But this time, it’s because of refraction?" Nope. Show us the video and I'll explain.

Legit question. The same thing that holds to oceans to the ground - gravity. Although very light, air (that’s mostly nitrogen and oxygen) also have mass that pulls it down to the ground. We just live on the “ocean floor” of an ocean of air. There are two gasses light enough to escape earth altogether: hydrogen and helium (the two lightest elements) - that’s why helium is considered “gone forever” when it is released. Every other gas will stay put. P.S. if the earth were a closed container - like in a dome or something - then the atmosphere would be “isobaric” (same pressure everywhere as it fills the container evenly). We know it can’t be this because pressure decreases as altitude increases.

There is no higher pressure gas in a layer next to vacuum. We live in a measurable pressure gradient that extends out graduating into space. It's 15 spi at surface, about 1.5psi at 100,000 feet. Thats 100 times less pressure. You only have to use logic to see that will become space pressure with distance from surface. Also, if there's a 100 times differential at 100k feet, why is there no "container" or barrier needed between those layers?

@@BlueprintScience naa if the air is having lesser pressure in the dome that will result in things fallen back to earth as the density of the air changes and not gravity. Gravity is a fantasy. Where is Gravity to stop tsunami, Tornado, and the rest. Or gravity is not stable from time to time.

Also there is no way a gas cannot move in any direction in a vacuum. Please give me concrete explanation. Because I don't believe is gravity which is pulling things to earth.

@@enochsontv what you believe doesn't matter. What evidence do you have that gas can't be fired into a vacuum?

@jennamassey7766 First, gradient refraction (see the video in his pinned comment) will bring both the object and a more distant horizon into view. Secondly, what about the very many photographs and videos that CLEARLY SHOW objects being partially obscured from the bottom up by the horizon - why does that happen if the earth is flat? And in any case, it is all irrelevant - it is not enough to find the rare image that looks anomalous but which can be explained by things like gradient refraction, you need to explain ALL the observable phenomena that the globe explains, but with *_one, consistent flat earth model_* including: the variation in day length throughout the year, seasons, phases of the moon, 15 degree per hour drift, lunar and solar eclipses, the retrograde motion of a planet like Mars, the existence of both a north AND south celestial pole, how astronomical equatorial mounts work, why the horizon does NOT rise to eye level, why water flows downhill, how satellites work, etc. etc., all without saying fake, conspiracy, or liar. And, for good measure, produce a flat earth map that is accurate in distance and angle everywhere and has no cuts or distortions in it. After all, if we live on a flat earth then every measurement of the positions of places and the angles between them ever taken have all been made on a flat earth, so it should be easy. (Hint #1: it's not the Gleason Map.) (Hint #2: look up Gauss's remarkable theorem to get a clue as to why this is actually impossible.)

@Jenna Massey I'm glad you acknowledge the horizon exists. It proves the curve. There is no horizon on a flat plane. Plus, you can see the curve from the ground. If you have ever seen it, you have seen the Earth as it curves AWAY from you. The horizon debunks you all by itself. Oh, and so does this... Jenna Massey Feb 26 2023 @TJ Jones I may use Google maps...but that doesn't legitimize anything. You LET yourself get punked Jenna. smh

@@PeerAdder She already admitted which map she uses..... She thinks Google Maps is the FE map... Jenna Massey Feb 26 2023 @TJ Jones "I may use Google maps...but that doesn't legitimize anything." She literally just called her own map a cartoon ball! LOL I guess she thought I forgot... lol

@Fred Caldwell Are you familiar with either of the following: - shortwave radar systems that use refraction and the ionosphere - surface wave systems which utilize low frequency radio waves and diffraction Both of these systems are used for OTH radar detection. You're welcome.

@@montythebugman6308 when u find explanation like that u should always check everything its said there we shouldnt take it as a fact just because appeared first on google, maybe u did, just saying

"a pencil thick radar beam targets enemy ships at sea over 60 miles away" Hohoho. Go and look up laser beam divergence, champ. Again we see an FE Iying for his belief.

Oops, you got me. I rely on spell check more than I care to admut.

When pedantry is what you have to bring to the table.

5:19 so *too* does the image (comma).

@@AtlasReburdened Oh wow you got me, i'm not a flat-earther! EXPOSED! And we're among friends here, it's alright to poke a bit of fun at each other.

@@SianaGearz ;)

Atmospheric. Light in all fluids bends as it crosses boundaries between higher and lower density created by weather, just like a lens that's not uniform internally. Here's the practical demonstration: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WCaHvZQnIws.html Here's the effect lifting an object from behind something: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Dktw9ncLuhg.html Here it is in "real life": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GyLzdQFU3Og.html The black swan is an image taken at the most extreme refraction. You can also tell because the cranes are rippled. Refraction is the thing FE have to try to redefine or deny happens in the way science understands.

@@Dr-Curious When is there not atmospheric refraction? How did the horizon get measured? Was there no refraction the day it was measured and by whom? Thanks for your time!

@@slow-mo_moonbuggy "When is there not atmospheric refraction?" Never. But it will vary from very mild (insignificant/non detectable) to very strong, depending on conditions. The image above is about as strong as you'll ever see it... and it wont last long like that. Even so, it works out to about just 0.9º of refraction that that distance (raising the furthest rig up to be visible.). It looks shocking because the guy is zoomed in on it. "How did the horizon get measured?" You can use objects of known distance at the horizon to measure it. You can use a theodolite or autolevel to measure it's vertical angle from you. "Was there no refraction the day it was measured" If you measure it and it's AT the position predicted by the model without refraction, then there was no significant refraction. Refraction only moves it by fractions of a degree and upwards so it's normally not significant. Only really in sextant navigation. Inferior mirage is also normally a TINY band of mirroring that the horizon. If you know the temperature gradient from your position to the horizon, you can also calculate how much refraction there is. But that is rare. "and by whom? Thanks for your time!" Anyone with a theodolite, sextant auto level etc. or with knowledge of the distance of objects at the horizon.

@@Dr-Curious I'm not buying it but thanks anyway. Be well!

@@slow-mo_moonbuggy Of course youre not, youre a flat earther. You can't modify your belief using real evidence. It doesn't work. And you cant explain your denial and rejection, using justified propositions of evidence. But it doesn't matter. :-) Thats excellent for you to show everyone. Other people can read the thread that you gave me the opportunity to use. You are seen here rejecting explanations you cannot falsify. That discredits flat earth by showing that you use ignorance to protect a belief you cannot even understand how to defend. They can see you arent interested in anything except feeding the belief. If you cant understand your own belief enough to explain it, then it's not worth a thing. They can see you got thrashed here. If you're confused. I'll challenge you to falsify any point I made. You can't. Because your belief is false.

Wow you actually rekt the flat earther with this hahahah

Their reasons are all full of uneducated holes.

You lot tell some amount of lies to try and keep the heliocentric delusion in your mind! He'd never block you for that... What even was that? Literally nothing however I'll look forward to you bringing your debate to our server discord.gg/flatearth

@@Anonimowany1 come bring your debate then troll?

@@spakeface9752 Flat Earthers are not emotionally stable. I was kicked 2 times and later on banned for trying to prove my arguments. So sorry my man. The way they behave, I lost all my respect.

xPARTY PATROLx, Don’t worry about that. I find it a good way to keep my sciencey skills sharp. I thought it would make an interesting video because this conversation teaches a fun quirk of refraction. No other reason :)

Come get destroyed by flat earthers then? discord.gg/flatearth

Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers!

@@jackiechan3691 " this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, " Nope. You're talking about the standard refraction value used in surveying for approximations. Look it up. That's different from when you people refraction indexes to calculate angular change due to atmospheric refraction etc. And an "R value" doesn't need to be "at the horizon". It's a great-circle around the earth. "you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions" Raising a distant sea surface's height will extend the horizon. Nobody has to give you anything you can find for yourself. You're obviously not an engineer, but this isn't complex.

@@Dr-Curious terrestrial refraction uses an r value that You never proved based on an observation by al baruni of the horizon, Dont stress it tho buddy coz it's well established now that we dont have any geometric horizon or globe geometry, at both 1 foot elivation or direct from live stream footage from iss showing a flexible often flat land, have a great day buddy n welcome to flat earth!

Intermittently I suppose. But those legs are almost 100 feet tall to stay above the waves. The important bit, I think, is that the apparent horizon is seen behind the rigs, suggesting refraction.

@@BlueprintScience terrestrial refraction assumes a globe

@@spakeface9752 🥱

@@spakeface9752 Atmospheric refection bends light down according to Snell's and Maxwell's laws. That's not an assumption.

@@BlueprintScience Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers!

Dumbo

@@i.p2154 Top quality response there.

Which of the five types of refraction is causing the apparent horizon to distort so much more than anywhere else on the image? I'm unaware of any type of refraction that has a mind of its own and chooses to apply itself in such a biased, selective manner. And it does this every time this experiment is repeated in different conditions and settings, many of which show very little distortion anywhere else? This is a silly argument. It's a hand-wave dismissal of repeatable independently verifiable evidence. The implications of the ability to see much, MUCH further than the globe model allows in such an easily repeatable manner can't be dismissed like this. Regardless, even if you choose to make this ridiculous assumptions every time the experiment is repeated in different conditions and settings with similar results, you still no longer have a geometric horizon. You only have an apparent horizon, according to your own claim that the geometric horizon can't be seen. This invalidates all the maths used to measure the curvature of the Earth in this way because all those maths REQUIRE a geometric horizon which you no longer have. So now you have no independently verifiable scientific measurement of a curvature at all.

@@lightbeforethetunnel @Laker Mallow Oh, come on, man. Thats seriously your argument? First, who says its being biased? The air is not stable. Even on a calm day, there are always air currents, but over the sea, there will be loads of them. This causes the air pressure not to be stable, making air pockets that ripple and undulate, similir to how swirling a bowl or water with food dye in would cause the food dye to ripple and undulate. Therefore, the angle at which the light refracts isnt constant. If you look at the black swan video, you'll see that this is true. Its not biased, and its not selective. Its random motion. I would say this is more evidence for globe earth than for flat earth, as i would be very confused if I didnt see it happen. Its certainly not a hand wave, and you can throw in as many "MUCH"s as you want, physics doesn't give a damn about your own personal incredulity. Anyway, how can you deny refraction in the first place? Refraction is clearly taking place, as shown by the fact that the image looks squiggly, so how do you even deny it? And please don't handwave it with some made up perspective law. Also, i fail to see how this invalidates the maths. 9 times out of 10, the difference between the geometric horizon and the apparent horizon is neglible, thats why the black swan is so famous. Besides, we dont measure the curve by looking at objects on the horizon, where the air is thick and likely to diffract and cause errors, we look at objects high in the sky, ie the sun. Well, we did before we went up into space to have a look for ourselves, but thats not an argument i even want to have.

@@lightbeforethetunnel "Which of the five types of refraction "Which of the five types of refraction I" There's only one kind of refraction, champ. There are varying names we give to the effects, depending on temperature inversions etc. "I'm unaware of any type of refraction that has a mind of its own and chooses to apply itself in such a biased, selective manner." The more distance the more refraction, the greater the density variance the more refraction. All that's happened is this image was caught at a moment where there was a fairly consistent gradient all the way out to the distance. The platforms are exposed and the horizon has extended right behind them. "This is a silly argument." Nope. Refraction is a fact of life. The fact you're unaccustomed to it makes no difference to anyone. "It's a hand-wave dismissal" Nope it's an explanation using a well understood principle of light energy propagation through gas in a density gradient. " MUCH further than the globe model allows in such an easily repeatable manner can't be dismissed like this." The globe model isn't just geometrical math, champ. On the moon, you would be able to use JUST a geometrical prediction, but on earth you have to factor in light in gas or you are being dishonest. "Regardless, even if you choose to make this ridiculous assumptions" You haven't established this at all. Refraction isnt an assumption. You sound like you're losing it. "every time the experiment is repeated in different conditions and settings with similar results," Nope. The guy who does these platform shots has been doing them for years and only has a couple of vids of extreme refraction. He has shots of the horizon in front of them too. "you still no longer have a geometric horizon." Nobody cares. Nobody has to calculate the approximated horizon for a mathematical sphere to make an observation. It's just totally irrelevant. "You only have an apparent horizon, according to your own claim that the geometric horizon can't be seen. " It has shidted by refraction. It doesn't matter because it's predicted by science. I wouldn't believe anything that hopeless eediot Nathan Oakley tells you about science and evidence. Don't forget this is the guy who raged about diffraction in a debate and then couldn't explain what it was, and also disagreed that you derive KM from m by dividing by 1000 for about 20 minutes. "This invalidates all the maths used to measure the curvature of the Earth in this way because all those maths REQUIRE a geometric horizon" Again you sound batty. Nobody "requires" a geometrical horizon to make an observation. The math that IGNORES the fact you're looking through gas? You don't say. Better to either do the correct math using refraction theory, or admit that nobody took pressure data for the shot. " which you no longer have." Does your real body disappear when you look in the mirror champ? "So now you have no independently verifiable scientific measurement of a curvature at all." This is an observation not a measurement of curvature experiment. LOL

Quite right. Oceans tend to be much colder than the ambient air temperature, but not always, and not to such an extent. Despite being our main sense, sight is easily one of the most deceptive - thanks to light's unintuitive behaviors

Explanations is literally all he has that he is parroting from elsewhere

@@spakeface9752 Yep, to a flat earther, being able to understand and explain is BAD. LOL But you can't falsify the explanation using a supported argument which means you lose.

@@spakeface9752 Yeah, and his explanations are spot on. What have you got, there, genius? A link to another flattard RU-vid video? 🤣🤣🤣

The rigs are frigging there!! Ugh! What will it take! Lock it up with a surfsce to surface RADAR and blow it to smithereens with a high tech BALLISTIC PROJECTILE.which goes VERY STRAIGHT and VERY fast?....and has a locked range of a hundred miles or so. Those rigs would make easy pickins for the Navy. Refraction / distraction. Superfluous wavy perception.of what is right frkn there. Nothing more. Earth is flat. Duh.

You are so cool😂😂😂😂fuck your globe earth relgion go and explain and demonstrate relativity here on earth woth in instrument proving earth rotation ohh wait you can't cause its pseudoscience

the flat earth society is a shill and did that on purpose. Why would they make the president talk about it in one of his speeches?

Yeah if it is a globe, it’s amazing that the refraction is such a perfect gradient. Just fascinating

Radio and GPS works through ground based cell towers using triangulation..📡🎈🛰️ At what exact altitude, do you *believe* that the horizon stops being horizontal...🌅🐒🌴🌛🤙 Globalists..🌀🌐🪩🌎🍐🎱⚽🏀🧶🪀🚀💉🎈

Flat earth in a nutshell. It's all about the believer, not the belief.

I’m unsure if you’re trolling or not, but this is a highly delusional philosophy. Reality is absolute. Our perception of it does not change reality. Someone can believe 1 + 1 = 3, but they are simply mistaken because such a thing is impossible.

@@Trollsagan69420 Am I trolling? Yes and no.

All globe believers have is ridicule, never have any demonstrable, observable proof because the globe/pear was never true or real.

Thats probably far too advanced for them.

Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers!

@@jackiechan3691(or 90-degrees from line “A” to”B”) @@jackiechan3691(or 90-degrees) @@jackiechan3691 one from@@jackiechan3691 (cross)@@jackiechan3691?@@jackiechan3691does or @@jackiechan3691,@@jackiechan3691, @@jackiechan3691y @@jackiechan3691s@@jackiechan3691who have @@jackiechan3691and @@jackiechan3691 to these same objects@@jackiechan3691 Before becoming emotionally and attaching your credibility to someone else’s idea, opinions and objectives, in which you haven’t a clue what the objectives are. Remove all emissions, this isn’t a cool car you want to get in an drive just once. Research removing yourself from the pros and cons before vomiting to any conclusions. Then try and find people who you know have had practical experience who are credible. And when you meet these people be willing to change those opinions you might have incorrect, to whatever degree that might be. And always remember, learning is an act in progress, not a destination. No one knows it all, no matter how wise. And last of all, don’t believe me. I’m someone on the internet. What do I really know? From my perspective, I’m trying to help you. From your perspective, you should consider me as some nut who has more time on my hands than sense. Anyway whatever the case may be, I hope you have a great day and rest of the week. I hope you can do this experiment. Even if it’s on a beach at a long (big) lake or ocean side. A fun one would be a leveled hi-power laser scope, a big balloon filled with helium and a boat. Stand on the beach with the leveled laser and sent the boat out in as many directions as you can. I want to thank you for helping me. I think I will do this with my kids.

@@ronweber4508 so why waste all that time on a weird message that isn't really that clear, instead just talk to me like a normal, I'm assuming You think the horizon is geometric n by some experiment using boats n a laser you can measure this, If you truly want my help then here it is simply... The horizon is an optical effect that occurs in somebody's eyeball or a cameras aperture.. Deffo not a geometric sphere edge ... which is the very basis of the globe model, there has never been any r (radius) value ever proven n all orbital mechanics need this to work, Viewing the horizon from a plane or high altitude balloon n Ya will see the horizon rises not drops away, Please lemmy know if n how I can help ya more n explain the motive for this boat laser experiment please!! Ez now!

@@jackiechan3691 This caught my eye one day. I didn’t even know the flat earth idea had even come back. So I posted this and hadn’t thought about it again, until today. Directions are very clear. That’s why so much detail on much a simple plot. It so it would be very clear. The balloon idea. I’m not talking about viewing from the top down. I’m talking about viewing the balloon in the boat right next to you (this would work best with more than one scope from more than one position) out, then as the boat moves straight away from you raise the balloon. Do this is very quarter of a mile or so until you have gone as far as you can, or you can’t see the balloon any more. First get the line you are going to attach to the balloon and mark it every foot for 100 feet (this would make 100 marks). This way every time those in the boat raise the balloon they will know how many feet it has been raised when those on shore see the balloon on the level scope. If you arm comprehending my instructions, let’s work out the confusion, point by point. I don’t like. Wing confusing, help me to clear my explanation up. You will need Walkie-talkies for the people in the boat to communicate with the people on land.

It's called onus probandi fallacy. The slippery fish approach to "debate" They don't have any real evidence supported by actual science, so they will always try to make you the one answering their demands. Or, they start stacking up more and more claims as you destroy the first argument: The Gish Gallup, or red herring.

@@Dr-Curious science doesn't answer shape questions ffs! Its a strict method of establishing cause and effect relationships through experimentation

@@spakeface9752 You're incoherent again, champ. Science creates explanations and models via method - and in relevant cases shape and geometry is a fundamental part of the explanation. What parts cant you understand?

There was no refraction in those pictures the horizon goes on for dozens of miles PAST the crane.

@@ginafarrell6797 bruh look closely at 1:34 and tell me if you have ever in your life saw a wavy and bendy unstable crane arm?

I hope you mean the clock tower in London, and not your neighbour ;)

Wow what a stupid comment should you be able to see big ben? I guess you don't know what angular resolution is... You ever look off into the distance at something like a sky scraper and it looks like its a miniature model? Thats why you balltards think ships are disappearing over physical curvature when they can be brought back by high powered zoom. Pathetic attempt at debunking.

@@unbreakablefaith2240 I “guess you don’t know what a...” telescope is. Even though you mention “high powered zoom” in your reply. That’s why you flattards think ships disappearing over physical curvature “can be brought back by high powered zoom.” They can’t. Anything you can see, regardless of zoom, hasn’t gone beyond the horizon. Flattards cherry pick photos all the time zoomed in on small boats with plenty of ocean clearly visible behind them, but conveniently ignore pictures clearly showing half of a ship sticking up from behind the horizon. “Gotta lie to flerf.”

@@David_Lee379 something being cut off is not curvature it is refraction. This can be replicated on a flat surface with a magnifying lens. Your only 5 years out of date. Also since our eyes are always looking through a medium the horizon is refracted not geometric. Your model claims a geometric horizon boo hoo balltard your a dime a dozen.

the Vatican never claimed the Earth was flat. they did claim that the Sun went round the Earth and rejected the heliocentric model though.

could be, but look up about globe it was a catholic priest

You're wrong. Flat earth is a dumb internet hoax.

@@MrEjwheeler what’s wrong about it? I’m not a flat earther but all the globe earthers and flat earthers agree you can’t see the geographical horizon. I don’t think the picture proves flat earth but his response being refraction causes it means you can never see the curvature of the earth because you can never see the physical geographical horizon

@@cottonycircle4640 Everything is wrong about it. No map. No model. No math. No science. No evidence of any kind whatsoever. The entirety of the flat earth "argument" is lies, denial, ignorance, and bible thumping. That's it. They have nothing else.

@@Matuse do you have a response to my original comment tho because I don’t see how this video is on the globe earth side I’m confused

LOL

Here here! Respectfully its great to have differant views and better to challenge those views so long as the claim can be proven or disproven by science. Awesome work man! Wonder if anyone out there still thinks we never landed on the moon, maybe blueprint will have to prove them wrong to, next episode?

Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers!

They are not on to anything. People like Eric Dubay are grifters preying on ignorant and gullible people. That’s why he will block you and remove all your comments from his channel if you ask him a question he can’t answer - which is easy to do if you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

im a micro novae man meself

Lol

@@bannor216 that one certainly

Im a raptor earther

I prefer bean salad with a touch of feta.

Well if simply observing that this is the way our atmosphere exists is insufficient for you, I’d direct your attention to the other gas giant planets in our solar system that are held together the same way. Otherwise you could look to our oceans here on earth. The pressure increases the farther underwater you go. But the oceans are held down by their own weight, so they do not go flying up into the air. Our atmosphere works exactly the same way, except the fluid is air rather than water.

@@BlueprintScience il direct your attention to the skies lol SPACE IS FAKE buddy. look at thoes rocks in the sky lol

​@@pottymouthmexican Prove it is

Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers

@@jackiechan3691 where’s their radius 🦢

@@ownerofastolengun there is no radius as we dont live on a ball Yo!! Unless Ya know of a measured n proven r value? Ez now!

@@jackiechan3691 it’s funny how globers will say “well where’s your edge”.Where’s their curved edge for boats to go over?

@@ownerofastolengun deffo ... they think the horizon is the leading edge of their world where boats fall over, clowns!! Lol

Nah, I think somebody tried to fit the curvature onto a parabola and it just stuck A circular equation is a much better fit.

@@BlueprintScience thanks for the reply getting back into watch flat earthers. This subject only wants to make me to face palm, the politics south of Canada just wants me to nuke til it glows. No, no, aggression, what me?😜 Kept seeing occasional references to the “black swan”, so your video came up. Your voice on Catz site about the subject was different, confused by that. Since I’m back to see the slow moving train wreck, thought I should subscribe. Are they still complaining about space not sucking up the air?

@@Kolopsych Oh they complain about everything. It’s like talking with people who live in a completely different reality; where do you even start? Perhaps the flat earthers are a lost cause and our energy could be spent more productively elsewhere.

@@BlueprintScience yes, but it soooo amusing. In this day and age, could use a good chuckle. Even when they quote mine, it’s still no where near a the “sins” of Christian apologetics

I owe you an apology, I mixed you up with “blue marble”. When catz mentioned thought he was referring to you. Feel a little dumb now. Explains the difference in voice. Will follow your content, such a nice variety of it😁

I'm curious as to how much Curvature you see on the Bolivian Salt FLATS.....4,050 square miles Bolivia's Salar de Uyuni is considered one of the most extreme and remarkable vistas in all of South America, if not Earth. Stretching more than 4,050 square miles of the Altiplano, it is the world's largest salt flat, left behind by prehistoric lakes evaporated long ago

@@logicalobservations2867 earth is about 197 million square miles. Of course it looks flat from the ground. 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@tonylikesphysics2534 Neil deGrasse Tyson says you can't see Curvature from under 128,100 ft. You can't see Curvature above 128,100 ft either, BECAUSE there is NO CURVATURE.

@@logicalobservations2867 Just look at the videos from the International Space Station. The curvature is clearly visible.

@@jimmorrison2657You're Gullible

That's quite alright. I knew they would

Its sad, im starting to see a disproportionate amount of crackpot conspirationist comments on Blueprint's videos. It seems they like to bandwagon and attack science channels that challenge their retarded world views.

Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers!

link me his channel pls

The point is why is the horizon not *always* visible beyond the rigs, yes?

Graham Rathbone Thereby showing earth curvature.

Graham Rathbone The worrying thing is that they'll never work it out. They just don't *get* it. It's all "NASA hoax", "CGI trickery", "fake news", "scamdemic/plandemic", "big pharma - Masonic - Jesuit - deep state conspiracy". After all, how can there be global climate change when there's no globe? These people vote.

@@FuturePluperfect 6 hours of nasa faking it badly ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NqVv_9VuDvk.html Our wiki page wiki.247flatearth.net/index.php/Observations Our 247 flat earth discord server discord.gg/flatearth We have 16000 members as of today Head to vc check in 1 or 2 and let a mod know @MODping say panto gave u the link I'm pantomath I'm always about 😎

The horizon is HORIZONtal derp and always at eye level rising with you constantly You invoke terrestrial refraction I take it?

How just explain

@@jamesrobertson2792 The killer question. They cannot. Hence the drive-by crying.

Explain a lunar eclipse

@@jamesrobertson2792 because they wouldn’t base everything off a motionless flat plane, if it was the opposite! It would be the stupidest thing ever done especially with launching rockets or flying planes! Pretty much anything nasa does has to be very accurate. Nasa literally instructs their rocket scientist to assume a motionless flat earth for computing calculations. And everything else. So why would they do that??? Bad Joke??? No because it’s flat and motionless!!!!!!

@@mattronimus explain a Selenelion lunar eclipse...oh wait, your globe can't explain that, hence why it's called the "impossible eclipse."

Yes 👍 Thank you

@@BlueprintScience sorry dude I wrote that before I realised you were copying and pasting an email thread :D Great video, I gave you a sub, keep up the cool content.

Da moon iz cheese

Explain a lunar eclipse

Dear clown blueprint .. Obviously You havent realised that Your globe model requires a physical,visable geometric horizon .. Any1 claiming refraction has actually debunked Ya globe model as a refracted horizon is optical not geometric... Also like a clown Ya then actually claim terrestrial refraction... this requires a fixed r value at the horizon, it's an oxy moron in order to claim terrestrial refraction the horizon must be geometric n You just said it was refracted, Please also be aware the black swan modus tollens logical argument is actually about the horizon so please explain why You never mentioned the horizon in this vid n like a clown instead talked about the cranes? This proves Ya haven't even learnt the argument Ya trying to explain, Please if Ya have any credibility you must give a citation saying the horizon can stretch out 4 times further then its geometric restrictions caused by refraction to back up Ya lies, Also please be aware there is an un refracted bouy at water level in between observer n horizon so theres a big issue for this joke of a claim, Ps. Science is a hypothesis test of a cause and effect relationship ... you said this video was a win for science so clearly Ya dont even know what science is, Please go back to school n study basic science, cheers

Blueprint Dude, remove link blocking.

I have had no trouble adding links to messages in these comments. Maybe it's user error?

@@colinm3399 I added a set of links in posts and the posts were blocked. IT's happened over and over.

@@Magnum-Farce I haven't experienced the same. And others in these comments have added plenty of links. What kind of links are you trying to share?

@@colinm3399 You're in the thread with Dumb Corleone, I was trying to post links all through it. Even the partial links got deleted.