Can White Swans exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
It would be interesting to read that, if you can post the whole section.
A quick google search suggests Paul really doesn't want us to have this knowledge without crossing his palms with silver first.

I'm afraid I personally doubt it's worth the money. I shall continue to look deeper though.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Incorrect. Geometry is a mathematical tool which, amongst other things, can be used to model reality as Mendel aptly put it.

Oakley's geometry is not wrong, nor is the globers'. It's the physical variables that are being modelled that can be wrong or limited as is the case with Oakley's simplistic model ignoring the variables of refraction and spheroid.

'Geometry' is a great example of why we must clarify terms and agree on a common usage before discussing them at any length. Otherwise we keep missing each other by a mile.

We're mainly having a communication issue here. Nothing more serious.
I did (and what I assumed was quite clearly) say this morning...
Personally I'm uncomfortable with how I use the word "geometry" and dunno if other connotations can be made with my use of it. I'd rather just go with "math" but I'm gonna use "geometry" instead so if I've used it wrong anywhere then please help me out and point it out.
Is there a better word that I should use instead of geometry if my intentions are starting to come across clearer?
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
If they can't respond sensibly to "you're missing refraction" then I don't think there's much point in conversing with someone.
Oh totally, but unfortunately it's where my mind finds itself at the moment and seems to enjoy pondering on it all.

I feel I should probably point out that I haven't partaken in any arguments with flat earthers or globe deniers (although my brother's girlfriend did drop into a conversation a while ago that they think the shape of the earth is debateable and I've wondered whether it's worth taking on actually face to face with someone but left it at the time) but I do read them.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Quick stop by, no crazy big text dumps today (at least any more than this one). Promise.

Earlier on I was thinking the "MUST BE NO MORE THAN" was a claim of the argument maker, but I'm now thinking it's more about the opponents' "faith" in maths which puts it as a claim of the opponent.

But that does come with certain implications which would be that light travels in straight lines and I'm thinking that could be boiled down to claiming there's never any optical phenomena between you and an object if there is no other physical object between you an the object (I know that's the same as refraction doesn't happen but bare with me).

While not advancing the argument in any way surely this means that if you are a flat earther that uses the black swan as evidence it also means you can't be looking for (making up) optical phenomena to explain why things disappear bottom first, or why we see different distances on different days, or anything to do with observation.

If you back the black swan there can be no "it's optical" excuse for anything else.

I'm confident that applies to QE's black swan. Not sure yet if Nathan Oakley's weasels out of that (could be a reason for why it mutated) but i'll get round to that eventually.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
While not advancing the argument in any way surely this means that if you are a flat earther that uses the black swan as evidence it also means you can't be looking for (making up) optical phenomena to explain why things disappear bottom first, or why we see different distances on different days, or anything to do with observation.
in my experience, the typical FEer just mentally goes "it's complicated" and stops thinking about it. This is most readily apparent with the sky: sun, moon, stars all work according to globe laws, so as FE believer you have to deny that what you're seeing is where it is. (Sounds a lot like brainwashing, doesn't it?) And it's not the "difference of 1⁰ you can see with a telescope" type of discrepancy, it's the "the sun rises South of East in Australia right now" type of discrepancy which make you wonder why Australia has FEers at all. These people have given up on understanding the world (I blame their teachers), and that's the obstacle you need to overcome.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Just to try and cut myself some slack...

The following comments were made in this thread...
I expect they use "geometry" to refer to Euclidean geometry.

You can do geometry, its just non-Euclidean, in reality it always has been non-Euclidean because of the curvature of the Earth, it's just there's now another curve to account for.
... and for someone like me who is not totally au fait with the world of geometry that does kind of suggest that there are different geometries within the all encompassing geometry.

And I both don't want to give the impression I know exactly what I'm talking about (because I don't) nor make a blunder in what I call things so I'm not that comfortable using such terms, although that's not to say I couldn't have just asked I suppose.

With all that in mind, that's where I was coming from when I was talking about "THE" geometry being wrong and everything that came from that with statements like...

The glober is comfortable sitting behind the "the". They know if you change the geometry to include refraction then that geometry is correct.

By looking at more than one object in the photograph you can show that THE geometry is wrong. If THE geometry is wrong then it's not Q before it's even got to the distance to the horizon.

Ultimately I think I probably should've used the word "equation" instead of geometry. Or would that be wrong as well?

I just hope that maybe clears up some confusion that I might have created.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
... and for someone like me who is not totally au fait with the world of geometry that does kind of suggest that there are different geometries within the all encompassing geometry.
Yes.
Generally speaking, in non-Euclidean geometries parallel lines meet, i.e. a geometrically "straight" line isn't what we intuitively think of as straight in such a framework.

Ultimately I think I probably should've used the word "equation" instead of geometry. Or would that be wrong as well?
If you're referring to the equation that derives horizon distance from observer height, that'd be a good way to put it.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Ultimately I think I probably should've used the word "equation" instead of geometry. Or would that be wrong as well?

Doesn't really matter in terms of the main point you're making. Algebraic geometry has plenty of equations. Geometry is a subset of math and within geometry there are many subsets.

To recap: Oakley's geometry/equation/math is not mathematically wrong, nor is the globers'. It's the mathematical model x, y or z's match with the physical reality that can be wrong or limited as is the case with Oakley's simplistic model ignoring the variables of refraction and spheroid. Hence it doesn't 'add up' in the real world whilst internally consistent.
 

AmberRobot

Active Member
The logic is correct to say:

If strawman then Q.
Not Q therefore not strawman.

The problem isn’t with the logic it is with the flawed premise.

If flat earthers understood geometry they wouldn’t be flat earthers, as the geometry of their model makes multiple demonstrably false predictions.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
If flat earthers understood geometry they wouldn’t be flat earthers, as the geometry of their model makes multiple demonstrably false predictions.

You nearly had total agreement from me, then I realised it wasn't strong enough. It's not just *predictions* that are false, predictions are permitted to not turn out to be true without violating the premises. It's the *conclusions* that are demonstrably false, the model is logically inconsistent. As I think Mendel worded it upthread (or elsethread, and I guess by others too, this isn't groundbreaking) "they have no model".
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
The problem isn’t with the logic it is with the flawed premise.
Indeed. Absolutely. Always has been. But I'm not sure we even know what it's actual premise really is.

It's not the first or only photograph where because what we see isn't what the numbers say then reality can't be the numbers. That's the fundamentals of can see too far, isn't it?

Could an argument be formed such that the opponent assumes the wrong premise and arguing against that premise even helps the actual premise?

What if the actual premise was something as simple as unobstructed spheres must have horizons?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Though, again, that isn't what's happening here. The numbers are fine - if you use all of them.
nobody uses all of them

we make predictions for standard refraction, and for everything else we usually don't have the atmospheric data
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It's not the first or only photograph where because what we see isn't what the numbers say then reality can't be the numbers. That's the fundamentals of can see too far, isn't it?
Yes.
Could an argument be formed such that the opponent assumes the wrong premise and arguing against that premise even helps the actual premise?
That helps win debates, but doesn't prove anything about the premise.
What if the actual premise was something as simple as unobstructed spheres must have horizons?
Yes.
The question is then, why does Flat Earth have a horizon?
The old answer was (ca 2018), "perspective" (things go downward with distance until you can't see them—it doesn't work that way, though)
There's a newer answer by some, "refraction", requiring light to curve upward always, which it only rarely does.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
nobody uses all of them

we make predictions for standard refraction, and for everything else we usually don't have the atmospheric data

If I'm not mistaken, @Rory's point is that the distance-to-horizon calculation would largely add up if we had the approximate numbers for the non-standard refraction apparent in the oil rig photograph.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
What if the actual premise was something as simple as unobstructed spheres must have horizons?

I don't see how that would help.

In Oakley's case, the ill-informed premise P of his modus tollens is if the globe theory is true, a horizon in a photograph shows the geometric horizon. The Q of his modus tollens is the oil rig photograph shows the geometric horizon. The not-Q of his modus tollens is seeking an acknowledgement from the glober that the distance to the oil rig in front of the horizon is further than the geometric horizon (hence, we have a black swan and the glober is wrong).

The premise P is what we could call a 'strawman'. It is flatly :cool: wrong since according to the globe theory a photograph only ever shows the apparent horizon.

However, Oakley's logic is by and large consistent. And while we're at it, logic and mathematics are replete with imaginary premises yielding imaginary conclusions through perfectly logical sequences. But most logicians/mathematicians won't use these imaginary premises as 'strawmen' representing their ideological opponent's actual thinking about the universe.

Overall, the P just demonstrates great ignorance and disinterest to truly understand one's adversary's argument. Given such an extreme lack of receptivity, there's really no point trying to make the FEer stumble upon his own logic as you seem to be intently pursuing. Even if you succeed in doing so, it's likely going to make the FEer dig his heels even deeper in his flat earth.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
If I'm not mistaken, @Rory's point is that the distance-to-horizon calculation would largely add up if we had the approximate numbers for the non-standard refraction apparent in the oil rig photograph.
Yes. If you read my reply closely, I don't contradict that point.
I contradict the implication that his "if you use" (your "if we had") is anything but hypothetical.
So you appear to be responding to me, but don't actually address what I wrote.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Yes. If you read my reply closely, I don't contradict that point.
I contradict the implication that his "if you use" (your "if we had") is anything but hypothetical.
So you appear to be responding to me, but don't actually address what I wrote.

Understand. But (1) the fact that the oil rig photograph visibly demonstrates heavy refraction (e.g. by looking at the cranes) and (2) our (globers') acknowledgement that the rig is roughly nine miles away (despite the nine miles being hypothetical in relying on someone else's claim) (3) already provide, for the sake of argument with the FEer, the logical premise whereby to infer a ballpark refraction figure for the horizon. That ballpark figure can be thrown at the FEer albeit probably not making much of a dent.

The photograph visibly demonstrating refraction already obliterates Oakley's MT's premise P in its tracks whereby he naively assumes that the glober would accept the photograph showing a geometric horizon.
 

AmberRobot

Active Member
You nearly had total agreement from me, then I realised it wasn't strong enough. It's not just *predictions* that are false, predictions are permitted to not turn out to be true without violating the premises. It's the *conclusions* that are demonstrably false, the model is logically inconsistent. As I think Mendel worded it upthread (or elsethread, and I guess by others too, this isn't groundbreaking) "they have no model".
If I were to be as strong as I would like to be I would likely receive a warning from the moderators.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
so your process is, "make up a number that fits the observation"?
who has actually done that?

I'm merely suggesting that the correct 'glober' geometry matching the picture can be roughly calculated based on the claimed oil rig distance from the observer. The nine miles distance to the rig allows us to infer the refraction value and by extension apply it to the horizon distance. Hence, white swan.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Qe's modus tollens, with its maths, is just can see too far. The oil rig photo is not a black swan for can see too far.

Every can see too far photograph has a distinct (apparent) horizon.

Then we have something (and I paraphrase) "not considered the norm" (a seeing too far without a horizon) "something supposed to not exist" (find another photo taken from that height that sees as an undistict horizon).

While Oakley's makes the modus tollens more vague as far as the maths is concerned it seems more "clear" that it's the horizon (or lack of it) that the listener should be inferring as the premise.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
I don't see how that would help.
Possibly because you're still looking at it as though it's supposed to prove a flat earth instead of looking at it as just a way to "win" arguments in online debates and discussions.

I dunno, but when you know you know your ultimate premise is indefensible it strikes me as a feasible strategy.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Qe's modus tollens, with its maths, is just can see too far. The oil rig photo is not a black swan for can see too far.

Every can see too far photograph has a distinct (apparent) horizon.

Then we have something (and I paraphrase) "not considered the norm" (a seeing too far without a horizon) "something supposed to not exist" (find another photo taken from that height that sees as an undistict horizon).

While Oakley's makes the modus tollens more vague as far as the maths is concerned it seems more "clear" that it's the horizon (or lack of it) that the listener should be inferring as the premise.
It doesn't matter whether the horizon is distinct or not, what matters is that it hides things. "Geometrically", on FE, you should be able to see everything, and observer height shouldn't matter. The fact that the sun shines hundreds or thousands of miles above Flat Earth means we should see it 24 hours a day, and every nightfall falsifies the Flat Earth—or the existence of some continents. But we're not actually able to see all that far, considering the size of the Earth.

That's why FEers love mirages: because they hide things.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Possibly because you're still looking at it as though it's supposed to prove a flat earth instead of looking at it as just a way to "win" arguments in online debates and discussions.

I'm not. I'm only suggesting a more direct way to attack the falsity of the main premise P of Oakley's MT head on.

I dunno, but when you know you know your ultimate premise is indefensible it strikes me as a feasible strategy.

Agreed. And that's what we've been demonstrating all along.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Agreed. And that's what we've been demonstrating all along.
We've had 6 pages of explaining seeing too far. We've had 6 pages of invoking refraction.

No amount of refraction can help unobstructed spheres not having a horizon. I'm guessing that it's infinite r that gets no horizon.

If I was personally to infer the premise of unobstructed spheres must have horizons from the modus tollens then I'd still consider the black swan winning at this point in the thread despite refraction being a perfectly valid explanation for why we can see too far. And I'd be quite comfortable with posting "black swan wins lol" after watching any debunking video of the black swan as they waste their time talking about refraction and anyone with a different premise is bamboozled how I can think that.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
And I'd be quite comfortable with posting "black swan wins lol" after watching any debunking video of the black swan as they waste their time talking about refraction and anyone with a different premise is bamboozled how I can think that.

Your error throughout these 6 pages is your erroneous assumption that you can 'win' a FEer in a reasoned argument of any kind. Your main mistake in the last few pages is thinking that by accepting the FEer's false premise you get closer to winning.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Your main mistake in the last few pages is thinking that by accepting the FEer's false premise you get closer to winning.
Accepting? Was my bolding still too subtle?

I only think I may have found the actual premise.

And the mistake of the last few pages is just arguing about the wrong premise.

If you can't even appreciate the stunning beauty of refraction being the apparent premise then there really is no hope. And while I'd love to take the credit for that I personally have a hard time believing its a coincidence.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
your erroneous assumption that you can 'win' a FEer
I've said I don't argue with FEers. This is just me (and anyone else who wants to join in) against the argument.

I know there is no win when against nuh-uh.

But I'm learning it's easier to "win" if you hide your real premise from the opponent. If that's what's happened here, where else might it be happening?

Yes I should be putting my time into learning other things.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Accepting? Was my bolding capitalisation still too subtle?

I meant you 'accepting for the sake of argument'. I didn't mean you accepting genuinely as true. You or anyone else won't win any debate with a FEer even by accepting their premises for the sake of argument only to pinpoint logical errors in their thought process. Winning a FEer in a reasoned debate by coming across as the more logical and scientific party won't be winning them over. Full stop.

If you want to win a FEer purely in a reasoned debate, we've already done that adequately with the refraction argument head on irrespective of whether the FEer understands/accepts it. It's an easy win. But obviously it won't win 'hearts and minds'. To go anywhere else with the Quantum Eraser's modus tollens whilst ignoring refraction is tantamount to fruitless hairsplitting on delusional fancies.

I only think I may have found the actual premise.

And the mistake of the last few pages is just arguing about the wrong premise.

You may be right to some extent, and I may have added to the confusion.

Firstly, a premise can be wrong/right in at least two ways, (1) logically/mathematically or (2) ontologically. The first means that the premise at the start of a logical sequence is either self-contradictory or contradicts another proposition from which it is derived.* The second means that the premise doesn't correspond to reality (i.e. it doesn't tell us truths about the real world). It's either partially or fully an imaginary construct incompatible with reality.

I may have added to the confusion by not addressing QE's modus tollens precisely. For clarity, let's revisit it:

"If the earth is a sphere with the radius 3,959 miles (P), then every horizon distance measurement must be no more than 1,225 x square foot of observer's height in feet (Q). Not-Q: The horizon distance is greater than 9,41 miles from a 1 foot observer. Therefore not-P: Earth is not a sphere with a radius of 3,959 miles."

Whilst the premise P is both logically and ontologically (roughly) correct, the implication Q is neither.

The Logical Falsity of Q:

If we are to be technically pedantic, Q doesn't logically follow P because it doesn't preserve the truth of P but adds new truths to it.** Among other things, Q adds new semantic components to the simple statement of a sphere with a certain radius (P) such as an observer with a height observing the geometric horizon of P on top of the P. None of these 'truths' are logical implications of P but rather constitute additional assumptions. A more logical formulation of the modus tollens is possible where the P explicitly includes these assumptions but still wouldn't escape the inherent ontological falsities.

The Ontological Falsity of Q:

Q is also ontologically wrong by ignoring the effect of refraction on the observed horizon and, by extension, its distance from the observer. Due to refraction, every actually observed horizon's distance measurement is more than 1,225 X square foot of observer's height in feet which directly contradicts QE's articulation of Q.

Hence, QE's articulation of Q renders his modus tollens both illogical as well as divorced from reality. In other words, Q is the 'strawman' used by the FEer rather than P which we earlier mistakenly stated as the strawman. To 'win' the argument purely on the basis of reason, the glober needs only to highlight the strawman Q as incompatible with his actual position and as an illogical inference from P. The FEer misfires on both counts.

*The premise could be a theorem (i.e. a proposition derived from another proposition) or an axiom (i.e. a proposition that is not derived from any other proposition).

**Truth preservation is a property of a valid deductive argument that ensures the truth in the premises is involved/transferred in/to the conclusion.

If you can't even appreciate the stunning beauty of refraction being the apparent premise then there really is no hope.

With or without refraction, every unobstructed sphere with an observer must show true horizons. Refraction doesn't change the truth of there appearing a horizon. Only the type of horizon being observed (apparent rather than geometric).

Also, horizons (whether geometric or apparent) have no existence independent of an observer. Horizon is an optical appearance and changes as soon as the observer looks around or changes position. Like a rainbow, you can never walk to the horizon in order to 'find' it nor locate it on a map. In the case of a geometric horizon, it's purely a mathematical construct which is metaphorically visible to the metaphorical observer on a metaphorical refractionless sphere. It's never observed in the real world by real people.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
How about, that if the premise is just missing refraction, can anyone explain what it is about this particular swan that it remains black where so many swans have failed the refraction filter before?

Surely it's a flat earther that saw this picture and thought "black swan!".

All the horizons in the other see too far pictures aren't quite far enough away and flat earth knew that if they could get a horizon greater than 9 at 1 foot high it would be the real killer?

Would a flat earther really present a black swan to their audience where the blackness was in the maths?

How could a black swan that beats the maths not include the figure required to beat it?

Why, when the premise is the position of the horizon, does the majority of the debunking out there seem to concentrate on the oil rigs?

My thread title even suffers from the distraction that I think is going on. Never mind the white swans, what the heck is a black swan?
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
All the horizons in the other see too far pictures aren't quite far enough away and flat earth knew that if they could get a horizon greater than 9 at 1 foot high it would be the real killer?

Probably. But the caveat is that in these extreme distance horizons the refraction is so powerful that it's evidently manifest on the picture for everyone to see (e.g. the crane distortions). And therefore the argument that there's no refraction but only inconsistent math turns right on its head.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Probably. But the caveat is that in these extreme distance horizons the refraction is so powerful that it's evidently manifest on the picture for everyone to see.
But if it's about the "power" of refraction that must first acknowledge that refractions exists, that refraction can do this but can't do that.

Accepting refraction fixes the premise, unless you want to pit the numbers against it. The premise doesn't have that number. Greater than 9 doesn't cut it.

Is anyone really that stupid to propose that argument? Not just propose it, but call it the black swan. I don't think so.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
But if it's about the "power" of refraction that must first acknowledge that refractions exists, that refraction can do this but can't do that.

The "power" of the refraction in the oil rig picture adds to the "power" of the glober's argument since any idiot can see the heavy distortions in the picture. The photo used against the glober turns out to be the most powerful piece of evidence in the glober's support.

Is anyone really that stupid to propose that argument? Not just propose it, but call it the black swan. I don't think so.

You have a gracious heart.

If someone can seriously believe in flat earth and seriously deny the existence of planet earth, how can it be surprising that they can also advance very stupid arguments in its support?
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
The "power" of the refraction in the oil rig picture adds to the "power" of the glober's argument since any idiot can see the heavy distortions in the picture. The photo used against the glober turns out to be the most powerful piece of evidence in the glober's support.
Only IF the premise is about refraction. I'm still not convinced it is.

And if that was the case, why use this photograph as THE BLACK SWAN? Why not use a "can see too far" that doesn't suffer from as much evidence that it's supposed to be using for it's argument (that's all over the place, sorry)?

Refraction cannot be THIS powerful, here's a photograph with really powerful refraction to prove it. Is that what you think is going on?

If someone can seriously believe in flat earth and seriously deny the existence of planet earth, how can it be surprising that they can also advance very stupid arguments in its support?
I don't think the "stupid" is where other people think the "stupid" is. This is too stupid even for my liking.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Only IF the premise is about refraction. I'm still not convinced it is.

The FEers premise isn't, the glober's is. Doesn't contradict my point.

And if that was the case, why use this photograph as THE BLACK SWAN?

Because the horizon is so far (which you already aptly stated as the reason). They were just sloppy and didn't realize the rig pic contains clear evidence of refraction -- the very thing that invalidates their not-so-clever modus tollens. The problem for the FEer is that there simply isn't visual evidence of an extremely distant horizon without heavy refraction. So they had to make do with the 'best' one available.

I don't think the "stupid" is where other people think the "stupid" is. This is too stupid even for my liking.

Yet it exists. Stupidity. Even smart people can be stupid if they're deep in the rabbit hole of ridiculous beliefs surrounded by their own echoes.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
The FEers premise isn't, the glober's is. Doesn't contradict my point.
I'm not saying it contradicts anything.

If the FEer's premise has NOTHING to do with refraction then discussing refraction has nothing to do with discussing the premise.

That's just how it is to them (or at least how I think it is to them). For example, if you want to say something about the wibbly oil rigs then the flat earther can just say "where do I say they can't be wibbly?", and technically the flat earther isn't even saying the oil rigs can't be doing the can-can if they wanted to. Avoiding the implications of one statement on another is a staple of the flat earth world and that seems to be a tactic to cope with that. Even though this could be inferred from that, I'm not saying it has to be inferred.

It's the FEer's black swan. It's not the glober's black swan. I get the feeling we are treating it as the glober's black swan.

Just what is a flat earth black swan?

Since when was "if only we could see THIS far" the line between white and black if you want the premise to be about refraction?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
particular swan that it remains black where so many swans have failed the refraction filter before?

Surely it's a flat earther that saw this picture and thought "black swan!".

All the horizons in the other see too far pictures aren't quite far enough away and flat earth knew that if they could get a horizon greater than 9 at 1 foot high it would be the real killer?
most of the other "see too far" pictures are about how much of a distant object is hidden

this one is about "behind the horizon" vs. "in front of the horizon"
and it's very powerful in saying, "horizons aren't real" (real="physical").

anything a glober says about refraction is dismissed as them "sheeping" a textbook, especially if they're simply claiming what is convenient
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I'm not saying it contradicts anything.

If the FEer's premise has NOTHING to do with refraction then discussing refraction has nothing to do with discussing the premise.

That's just how it is to them (or at least how I think it is to them). For example, if you want to say something about the wibbly oil rigs then the flat earther can just say "where do I say they can't be wibbly?", and technically the flat earther isn't even saying the oil rigs can't be doing the can-can if they wanted to. Avoiding the implications of one statement on another is a staple of the flat earth world and that seems to be a tactic to cope with that. Even though this could be inferred from that, I'm not saying it has to be inferred.

It's the FEer's black swan. It's not the glober's black swan. I get the feeling we are treating it as the glober's black swan.

Just what is a flat earth black swan?

Since when was "if only we could see THIS far" the line between white and black if you want the premise to be about refraction?

You seem to mean by 'premise' something different than I so let's forget the term. The lack of terminological discipline in this discussion can be frustrating and we end up missing each other all the time. Please read me carefully before rushing to respond.

My point is very simple:

You're expecting scientific rigour from a science-denier and seem surprised when there's none and they end up proposing something stupid while trying to be smart.

The FEer can deny or ignore refraction all they want. But they cannot refute the glober's argument that their best photograph for a too-distant horizon demonstrates heavy refraction. They can only ignore and deny it demonstrates refraction without providing a more plausible explanation for the distortions.

The consequence of the said FEer's denial: An impasse in the discussion between the two.

Full stop.

Let's not muddle this basic truth with any more verbal confusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top