This post was updated on .
Hello all,
After watching Concave Earth Sessions 2 it came to my awareness that there is some misunderstanding regarding Atmospheric Refraction amongst the Concave Earth community. I want to contribute this work for the sake of our movement and to get everyone up to speed and on the same page. Whether this knowledge supports our arguments or goes against them we are pioneers and are on the cutting edge, therefore we must be equipped with accurate scientific knowledge that surpasses that of flat earthers and convex Earthers combined. We have to be well versed in the science we are using as well as debunking. I believe the specific statement was something along the lines of; "the air gets less dense the higher up you go, so light would actually bend away from the surface of the Earth" which is incorrect. The less dense air would actually speed the velocity of the light up, causing it to refract away from the 'normal' or in other words toward the surface of the Earth, as convexers like to assert. What would however cause the light to refract away from the surface of the Earth would be the temperature of the air. Higher air is Colder air which is denser than warm air and would therefore slow the air down, making it refract toward the normal or away from the surface of the Earth. So the obvious dilemma we've come up against is: which affects the refractive index of air more, pressure or temperature? And is the minute difference in index of refraction with regards to distance, curvature and elevation enough to bend a convex surface into a flat one? I embarked on a journey to find out the truth and discovered that not only does the average welleducated person have no clue; most physicists and meteorologists don't know the answer either! The only people who took the time to figure it out were... mathemeticians! And of course they are way too deep into their math to care about the shape of the Earth. So here are my findings, suppositions, and conclusions regarding atmospheric refraction on a hypothetical convex Earth. Exibit A: Snell's Law. Basically, by knowing the ratio of the indexes of refraction "n1/n2", we can calculate the difference in the sines of angle1 and angle 2. The index of refraction of air at SATP is 1.0002772. Exibit B: Chart of refractive index comparisons of LorenzLorentz equation with Edlen's, and revised forumlae For those of you who want to contemplate the complex mathematics involved, here is the link http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/Ref/opticsPaper02.pdf As you can see with the pressure chart, the data is linear and a change of 500 milli bar (50kPa) corresponds to a refractive index change of 136 x10^6. Therefore, each millibar increase (or approx. .001 ATM) corresponds to a refractive index change in the air of .000136/500 or .000000272. 1 millibar also correlates to 6.912 meters of elevation change. So it is .00000003935 change in index for every meter in elevation due to pressure. In the temperature chart, let us deduce for simplicity's sake a change of 1 degree in the range of 15 to 15 degree C corresponds to 1.1 in the lower temperature and .9 approaching 15 C. 1 degree C change corresponds to an altitude change of 100 meters so a .9 index change for every 100 meters or .000000009 index change for every 1 meter change in elevation due to temperature. 39.5/9 gives us 4.372, in other words, the effect of pressure on the refractive index of air is 4.37 times more than the effect of temperature given the same increase in elevation. Of course, these values were derived from having standardized pressure vs. temp, and temp vs pressure so what we will actually see in reality is a change of index affected +.00000003935 and .000000009 or .00000003 for every meter of elevation, approximately. Light is speeding up from the pressure change, and slowing down from the temperature change, but overall speeds up and refracts away from the normal. This would seem to go against what we have been arguing with regarding refraction as an excuse for convexity. However, it is not so much the fact that refractive index decreases the higher you go as it is the scale of refraction which we can use to disprove them. To illustrate this, let us plug in to a real world example and get some figures and conclusions. I would like to use Joseph Winthrops 20 mile laser test as an example, since it was taken at night to simplify temperature fluctuations and has a reasonable distance. As we can see, an index change of approximately .0000410 would need to take place to divert the laser beam sufficiently around a convex Earths curvature. In other words, at .00000003 per meter elevation, the laser beam would have to move into air with an index found at 1367 meters or 4484.908 feet of elevation. Considering that the curvature of the convex Earth itself would only see the beam reaching a maximum of 267 feet, you can see the infeasibility of this happening. Of course, this was done using a gross simplification in order to avoid calculus. But because the rate of curvature of the Earth is only a function of the distance squared, and the derivative of x^2 is 2x, we can see using a fauxproof that at most the increase of change would be 2x or twice the amount of our example. So the index change would need to be .0000205, still far too much given the short distance of travel. Also remember that at every mile we are only seeing an elevation change of 8 inches! Or .0000000066 change in the air's index of refraction. Hope this has come in useful for everyone 
Administrator

ok, so this decisively rules out convexity once and for all then.

Administrator

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
why don't you come on this Friday and explain your math to everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUCiQrNLA8 
Banned User

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
Good lesson. Clear, Simple. Thank you

Administrator

In reply to this post by Steve
check out this laser bending action...

Wow that explains a lot is a few minutes. Nice and simple for my simple mind. Excellent piece.

In reply to this post by Steve
Hi Steve,
Yes, If I can get the exact calculus equations worked out, it will decisively destroy convexity. Of course there will always be those who will say "well the air and moisture conditions above the water in that experiment was different than standard conditions" etc. etc. etc. Never mind the fact that i've seen the shoreline of maui 100 miles away. So in truth the only real way to shut these types up is to closely measure the precise weather conditions and lapse rate at intervals across the distance. What's interesting to note is that my conservative figure  2200 feet elevation change needed for a refraction of 266 feet  is just about 8 times more. In other words, we get 1/8 times less refraction than expected for a given height, which corresponds to Geodesy and it's 1/5th to 1/12 allowance for refraction based on the height of an object. I would love to come on the Sessions but I will be taking care of my mother during those hours. She is in her last days with liver cancer, bless her heart. x2m  thanks glad you got something out of it 
In reply to this post by Ozymandias
Thanks glad you found it useful

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
Sorry to hear about your mom primal.

Thank you very much my friend. My heart perpetually aches but she tells me to be happy when she passes. She tells me to not to see her death as a bad thing. She says she will be much happier in Heaven and knowing how rough this life is for us humans, I believe her.
But still, it does not change the sadness I feel. We tried very hard to heal her cancer. She fought very bravely and even gave up her favorite foods to try certain diets. I don't think I am prepared psychologically in the least bit 
Banned User

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Banned User

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
Yes, I understand it much better now,
Sorry about your mom, never loose hope, miracles happen sometimes. 
In reply to this post by IrOnMaN
Thank you all for your kind words and support.

Banned User

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
Temperature and pressure can increase with altitude, as well as decrease, it depends on the atmospheric layer. The refraction of light through air is extremely small, and is a function of wavelength, too. Also, the effective height of our atmosphere is only 20 km. The atmosphere thus does not act to support or deny any model of the Earth, but only to make clear images over long exposure times difficult to obtain. 
For all intents and purposes temperature and pressure decrease with altitude. The only exceptions are temperature inversions where water meets large landmasses or hot or cold streams pass by. The refraction of light through air is precisely described in my post. Further, as you say it is a function of wavelength as well. Thus the refraction is insignificant for the obvious reason when I see an island with different colors they are not floating all over the place. 20 km is way, waaaaaay more altitude than is needed for any practical scale of refraction. Incorrect as I have clearly pointed out. The science of light refraction through the atmosphere strongly demonstrates that the Convex globe model is impossible. Do you believe in the Concave Earth lego spaceman? Because with your reasoning and comprehension ability I am starting to think you may not actually understand why the Earth is not a globe. 
Administrator

he's gone.

Once again I lose Lego Spaceman down a drain

Administrator


Recent post of mine. Man, I f**king destroyed this guy:
+eyesofaboy You keep saying "math and science supports convex earth", math and science, math and science...Lol! I am absolutely certain that you have no actual education let alone comprehension of the various sciences used to disprove the convex earth. You also claim people who believe in a Concave Earth are blind followers of Steve with no logic of their own. Ironic, since the average Concave Earther has about twice your IQ and is infinitely more knowledgeable regarding the subject of the shape of Earth than you are. Want proof of your own stupidity? Fine. Take Joseph Winthrop's laser experiment where he showed a laser beam visible across 20 miles of water. Now of course you, 'eyesandmindofaboy' have no clue how to calculate the curvature of your own 'globe'. But for the sake of shutting you up perhaps, I will explain it is derived using the Pythagorean theorem and for relatively short distances is approximately x^2=3/2C where x is the distance in miles and C is the curvature in feet. Thus a 20 mile distance would technically have an object 266 feet below the horizon!! So why is it that we can see the laser, mindofachild? A few minutes of googling will have you spouting off the word "refraction". Well, once again (and quite ironically I must add) I am absolutely sure you have no idea how to actually calculate the amount of refraction through air at SATP. First you need to know the index of refraction of air at SATP. Lol okay I will be merciful and inform your uneducated ass that it is 1.0002772. Now you need to understand the change of the Index of refraction with elevation due to changes in temperature and pressure. Of course you have no clue what any of this means let alone know how to go about calculating the change in index, So i will once again have mercy on your pitifully small brain and inform you it is a lowering of .00000003 for every meter of elevation given standard CO2 levels and humidity in the air. So, at a distance of 1 mile in a convex globe, a straight beam of light will find itself 8 inches higher relative to the surface of the Earth. 8 Inches is 0.2032 of a meter so the index change of refraction at that elevation would be 6.1x10^ 9. This yields a new refractive index of 1.0002771939. By Snell's Law of n1sin(angle1) = n2sin(angle2) (another mathematical law you have no clue about) it can be calculated that the new light rays angle of refraction will be the original index multiplied by the Sin of the angle of incidence. An increase of 8 inches or .6666 feet over 1 mile or 5280 feet gives an angle change of 0.00723 degrees thus the angle of incidence is 90  .00723 or 89.99277 degrees. By Snells law this yields 1.0002772 x sin(89.99277) = 1.0002771939 x sin (angle2). Sin(angle2) = (1.0002772 x .99999999) / 1.0002771939 = 0.99999999609 Angle2 = 89.99493329 Thus in the next 5280 feet with an angle change of 90  89.99493329 or .00506671 degree, the laser beam will be 5.604 inches lower from its original course due to refraction. There is a big problem with this. In the span from mile 1 to mile 2 the curvature of the Earth has already dropped 32 inches. 5.6 inches from refraction over 32 inches change in elevation. This comes out to just under 1/6th the change in height of the curvature. What do you know this coincides perfectly with the Refractive Allowance in the science of Geodesy (another term you have never heard about LOL!!) where refraction contributes 1/5 to 1/12 of an objects height at maximum. READ: atmospheric refraction does not bend light around a convex Earth at anywhere near the rate that the curvature of the convex Earth itself would change. So when I see an island from 100 miles away like I did just two months ago, it is not because the atmosphere created a Looming effect (yet another term you have absolutely no clue about) to match a fake curvature. It is because the Earth is in fact Concave. This was just one example, taken at one measurement point along the distance of 20 miles. The light beam never catches up despite the increase in the ratio of change of index of refraction due to elevation change at every increase of x in distance. The x function is squared therefore has a derivative or area under the curve of 2 which means at most the change due to refraction could only be 2 times the calculation at point of x=1, or 1/3rd the change in curvature. Thus it has been definitively proven beyond any shadow of a doubt or nagging utterance of ignorant convexers that Earth is NOT a convex globe. Enjoy the new Asshole, asshole! 
Administrator

thank you so much, Primal!

This post was updated on .
You're very welcome Steve! I'm glad I can contribute something to CER. It's like we are bringing Uzzi's to a knife fight lol
I knew the math added up when the refractive change matched with Geodesic standards. It pays to use 8 decimal places 

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
Very informative, thanks

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
Great to have a maths head on board. Much needed.

Thanks guys
And WildHeretic you are a hero here thanks for your work! 
Free forum by Nabble  Edit this page 