Correct, snells law states that the refractions are proportional to the ratios of the angle and the index of refractions of the mediums. Air is ~1.3 and a vaccum is ~1, however the important part is that I cannot calculate any difference in the angles of incidence from the sun with a calculator that only goes to 6 decimal places. The order of magnitudes between the distance from the sun to the earth, and between two different places on earth are too different to make any measurable difference.

Draw a right triangle with one leg as 1.489x10^11m as its length in the vertical direction, and any reasonable distance between two cities. The hypotenuse of the triangle will be nearly identical to 1.489x10^11m, and the angle of incidence will be essentially incalculable.

The angle between those cities 100Km apart is 1.16452x10^-8 degrees by my calculation.

Is it just the numbers used, or the concepts in my statement that are the issue? Like I said, I'm not going out of my way to prove that you are wrong to make you change your mind. I'm interested in what valid points of conflict there are. The question about the sun's angle with respect to refraction was interesting, and I got a lot out of it. So just a reminder, I'm not on some crusade against you.

That said, this is the point where I can't respond any more. Up until this point, we've been able to go back and forth discussing points. You claimed that modern physics could not explain a phenomena. I explained how it could. You then said my explanation isn't valid because the sun is significantly smaller and closer than what I'm assuming. We can't have a discussion if you make claims without your own proof, especially if we are changing multiple variables at the same time. The process of disproving the known, is to find a case where the known doesn't make sense, and you have to reevaluate what is known. What is the case where the sun being 93 million miles does not make all of the pieces fit together?

Claiming that the sun is 3,000 miles away is pretty far fetched, I'd be incredibly interested to hear what your justification is for that. 3,000 miles isn't even the distance across the Atlantic ocean. Can you imagine if there was a sun sized nuclear reaction going on in Europe, what your perspective from the East Coast US would be? I do know a handful of ways to justify the size and distance of the sun, however I can't do that if once I do we are going to disagree over what a joule or heat is.

Just remember, when the sun is 3,000 miles directly overhead at ground zero on a FE, on the ground at 3,000 miles away from ground zero, the sun would only have about 70% of its diameter as seen at ground zero. Crazy FE perspective "laws" will only make it smaller.

Buoyancy can exist without gravity in a cylinder, like a drum, that is spinning fast enough along its axis, so that centrifugal force causes water inside the drum to be forced against the cylindrical wall of the drum.

A lot of the things that FE people say fit the inside of a humongous cylinder better than they fit FE.

Nice, you take the position that a force that's a pull (really what?) isn't the the only possible force knowing that you'll be beat mercilessly but you somehow manage to chimp out in the end and claim there's a globe.

@salty what do you know about the coulomb force?







"... The law was first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism. Being an inverse-square law, it is analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation. Coulomb's law can be used to derive Gauss's law, and vice versa. The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle. ..."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

Well, you have to be pretty careful with terminology. Gravity is not a force, its an acceleration. There is a force due to gravity however. The simplest way to put it, is that you are constantly radially accelerating towards the center of the earth. The force felt by gravity is measured as weight.

I'm pretty confident I can answer any electricity and magnetism question you can ask, so feel free to propose your theory and what your justification is for it. I'm interested in the connection between buoyancy, coulombs force, and density, and how that can replace gravity.


We don't need to get into anything relativity for the context of this discussion. Dealing with a 99.999% accurate model that don't include vague concepts of time and space are good enough when explaining observable phenomena.

I honestly enjoy this, I feel like its helping my understanding of things a lot. The hardest course I took was a course that was solely dedicated to proofs. The hardest thing to explain is why addition works. Certain things we just kind of take for granted, and when someone asks why? Its hard to answer without assuming that they know or agree with all of the preexisting information that you might consider common sense.

I'm not denying Einstein, Physics with Relativity included is so incredibly misunderstood, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who truly understands most of it. I certainly do not, and have no intention of trying to correct your mistaken interpretation of what Einstein concluded with my mistaken interpretation. If we can't establish common ground on how satellites work, I don't think we need to debate why their clocks are adjusted to make up for time loss.

As I said, I'm not interested in whos wrong and whos right, so I'm not going to stick around to bicker. I'm interested in interesting thoughts. Someone looking for proof of a mundane thing is great. Making claims and then rather than explaining your claims, trying to pick a fight is boring. Inspiring the idea that the current idea of the geometry of the earth does not allow for "X" situation to hold true, is interesting. If you come up with a way to justify your thoughts, please feel free to share. Even if I think you are mistaken, that doesn't mean there isn't a useful overlooked tidbit in what you say.

Flat Earth is a psy up by know shills like Eric Dubay, Donald Trump .......
Main proponent and initiator in recent times.


The Earth is 4D.
Geographical any measurement or test will show nothing but flatness into eternity. 
Geometric no flatness can be found and 100% fail with certainty.

Flat Earth shills know this and talk double dutch, as they know they can not be wrong.

Space travel is fake as 3D beings can only move within the 3D realms. Up- down, left-right, forward-backward.
A line does not know about a square (it only knows forward and back) and a square is clueless of cubes (does not know about "up-down").

How so? The theory of gravity has never been proven, you'll be the first!

---

---

---

---

You've justified the heliocentric model in your mind based on images of puppets hanging from wires the government showed you when you were six. You can't even consider a flat Earth model with a close small Sun for the purposes of evaluating Eratosthenes experiment. This is the point where I tell you to go rope yourself.