I swear White Rabbit or youtube deleted or censored my ultimate rebuttal to his pseudo arguments.

I literally destroyed him with my post, now it wont even show? Hmmm...

+White Rabbit "Having said that, just because light can bend, doesn't mean it is always bending."

Wrong.. You make this statement completely without evidence or sufficient reasoning behind it. Light has been proven to bend consistently and varies in intensity depending on the time of day, so far as we can deduce here on the surface. Most likely this is a factor of the Central Octahedrons universal compression and it's interaction with Ether, as well as the Sun's proximity.

"What you failed to mention, is that light has another curious characteristic. It travels in the path of least resistance. Always."

No it doesn't. It travels in its path of trajectory. If there is sufficient resistance to block its travel, say a *blindfold* in front of your eyes (some double entendre for your literary obsession) the light will not in fact travel around and into your eyes. Is this not simple fact? Come on guy.

"Now, where do you think the light coming from the Sun bends? In the sky? As it travels through the air? Both? Please, explain." Your mind is limited as you have been conditioned all your life to never think beyond your programming. The light does not have to bend through a medium. Get refraction out of your head. It bends due

to the influence of the Central Octahedron and its universal compression which also creates the pushing force we erroneously call 'gravity'. Matter gets repulsed; light gets attracted. This is evident by the Gegenshein where light from the sun bends all the way around the Central Celestial Heaven and conglomerates in the anti-solar illumination point.

"For your model to gain credibility, of any kind, simple physics (like light's trajectory from the Sun) must be described mathematically. These mathematical formulas can then be used to test the validity of the model."

Incorrect. It has sufficient credibility without precise mathematical formulas of the Octahedrons effect on light. Furthermore, I as much as anyone else would love to have the means and technical capability to measure such influence. Let me ask you a simple question, Einstein: When was the last time you flew into 'outer space'? Until you have personally gone there and bring me back some photos of a Globe Earth, your silly convex model has zero credibility to me.

You know what is truly ironic about your ridiculous statement is that the convex cult has all the technology and financial capability they need and yet you *still* believe the world is inside-out. Lol!!

"Next time you're outside on a sunny day, look at your shadow. Take note that you only have one (in direct sunlight). "

Pointless statement.

Okay, I have entertained your drivel long enough. Allow me to swiftly and conclusively destroy you and your fallacious fantasy belief of a convex earth.

We clearly see objects in the distance which should be well below the horizon (if the Earth were convex). If you deny this, you are either lazy, or stupid and are

unworthy of even debating me. The formula to calculate how far below they would be due to curvature is X^2 = 3/2 C where x is the distance in miles and C is the curvature in feet. So when Joseph Winthrop proved that a laser was visible over a 20 mile distance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8auPtlRTyM, it proved conclusively through video evidence that this phenomenon is indeed real. The laser beam should be 266 feet below the line of sight of the observer. Yet it is clearly visible on camera. Is this or is this not Fact? Answer the question.

Now, and this is where it gets so laughably ironic, you would attribute this succinct, conclusive debunking of the convex Earth as merely the result of 'refraction'. Oh, the irony! After allllll your pompous, arrogant demands for 'precise mathematical formulas' to prove the credibility of the Concave Earth you have not once ever bothered learning *your own convexers mathematical formulas* which *prove* beyond any doubt that the Earth CANNOT in fact be convex.Have you ever bothered calculating the rate of refraction through a changing lapse rate over a convex atmosphere? *I have*: it proves what Geodesy has known for hundreds of years - that refraction accounts for a vertical shift 1/5th to 1/12th of an objects height. So a laser beam appearing 267 feet higher than it should be can only appear 53 feet higher from refraction, which should still leave it 214 feet below the horizon.

The index of refraction of air at SATP is 1.0002772. The change of the Index of refraction with elevation due to changes in temperature and pressure 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 from mile 1 to mile 2 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.

However, 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 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 to match a fake curvature. It is because the Earth is in fact Concave.

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.

Have fun piecing yourself back together after this one, White Rabbi.