Drive by science

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Wait, you are trying to say the sunlight is refracting to light the bottom of the moon, and the shadow is refracting to darken the top of the moon?

wat

Shadows don't refract.

I did not say refract, don't try to blame that on me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Its an eclipse, the whole point is the earth is in the way of the light.

Are you saying it not a real eclipse or something? What are you trying to say which fits your model?

It was a partial eclipse, which does happen, look it up. Why are you trying to claim an all or nothing approach, or are you just being willfully-ignorant.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If it was a round Earth there could have been a slight downward angle which would have put the Sunlight coming on the other side of the Earth from the observers.

So the sunlight hits the earth, then curves around the 'top' of the earth, then straightens out? After going through a prism, does the angle of light change back to its original line? does light have memory?

The top of the moon is in shadow, so even though the sun is in the sky, and the earth is not in the way, its not high enough in the sky to illuminate the moon. This is your claim. All of the sun's light has been 'captured' by the atmosphere and refracted around the earth's curvature.

This also means, by your explanation, with the refraction you are claiming, that the sunrise is way ahead of time for the areas of the earth in the direction of the moon.

Do you have any observational examples where refraction has caused a much earlier sunrise than predicted?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

So the sunlight hits the earth, then curves around the 'top' of the earth, then straightens out? After going through a prism, does the angle of light change back to its original line? does light have memory?

The top of the moon is in shadow, so even though the sun is in the sky, and the earth is not in the way, its not high enough in the sky to illuminate the moon. This is your claim. All of the sun's light has been 'captured' by the atmosphere and refracted around the earth's curvature.

This also means, by your explanation, with the refraction you are claiming, that the sunrise is way ahead of time for the areas of the earth in the direction of the moon.

Do you have any observational examples where refraction has caused a much earlier sunrise than predicted?

I did not claim refraction, are you just being stupid, or what.

Sunlight goes on the other side of the Earth from the observers, proving the round Earth.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Sunlight goes on the other side of the Earth from the observers

The other side of the earth is night time in your model.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Your claim here is the sunlight is refracting around the whole of the earth, the 'bottom' of the earth from the point of view of the observer. That would mean the whole of the earth is in sunlight.

No, I'm not claiming that.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm not sure if "refraction" is the correct answer

Atmospheric refraction - Wikipedia

[thedoc]

Like all other flat-Earthers you are being stupid and will-fully ignorant. You refuse to acknowledge the facts and continue to foist your fiction onto the unknowledgeable population.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by fragment

No, I'm not claiming that.

Atmospheric refraction - Wikipedia

I'm not sure that refraction can account for the degree of difference that Flat-Earthers are claiming disproves a round Earth. Certainly it can account for some of the deflection, but Earths gravity is not strong enough to account for all the deflection that Flat-Earthers claim.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm not sure that refraction can account for the degree of difference that Flat-Earthers are claiming disproves a round Earth. Certainly it can account for some of the deflection, but Earths gravity is not strong enough to account for all the deflection that Flat-Earthers claim.

Refraction is from the optical properties of the atmosphere, not gravity.

eta Moon angular diameter is 29'-35'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter Refraction on the horizon has been measured above that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

The other side of the earth is night time in your model.

No, it is Sunset, there is a difference.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by fragment

No, I'm not claiming that.
Atmospheric refraction - Wikipedia

What is making the sunlight change direction 'above' the earth onto the moon after it has been refracted around the earth's curvature 'downwards'?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by fragment

Refraction is from the optical properties of the atmosphere, not gravity.

eta Moon angular diameter is 29'-35'. Angular diameter - Wikipedia Refraction on the horizon has been measured above that.

Both have an effect, according to Einstein, and it has been measured in starlight close to the Sun.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by fragment

Refraction is from the optical properties of the atmosphere, not gravity.

Not according to Einstein.

In observational science yes, but according to Einstein's maths, gravity does refract light.

[Jerome]

You guys really need to focus on your model and how the observation presented works with your model.

You are getting confused trying to use the observation to argue against some other model.

The problem in the observation is that your model does not have a valid explanation.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Jerome

What is making the sunlight change direction 'above' the earth onto the moon after it has been refracted around the earth's curvature 'downwards'?

You're not making sense here.

The moon is just reflecting light as per normal, apart from those parts that are in the Earth's shadow. The moon and the sun, despite being on almost exactly opposite sides of the earth, are both visible at the same time because atmospheric refraction makes both the sun and the moon appear higher in the sky than they actually are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

What is making the sunlight change direction 'above' the earth onto the moon after it has been refracted around the earth's curvature 'downwards'?

Sunlight doesn't deflect downward, it passes "under" the Earth, from the point of view of the observers. You really need to let go of your flat-Earth dogma, and listen to the arguments from a round Earth point of view.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Jerome

In observational science yes, but according to Einstein's maths, gravity does refract light.

That's not called refraction. Just curving of light under gravity.

Refraction - Wikipedia

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by fragment

[
The moon is just reflecting light as per normal, apart from those parts that are in the Earth's shadow.

That is the problem with the observation and your model.

The wrong part of the moon is in light, and the wrong part of the moon is in shadow.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Jerome

That is the problem with the observation and your model.

The wrong part of the moon is in light, and the wrong part of the moon is in shadow.

No it's not. There is no wrong part of the moon to be in shadow. It's just out there in space, and depending on exactly where it is relative to the sun and earth, part of it is in shadow. It only looks wrong to you because the apparent positions of the sun and moon are higher than they actually are, due to refraction.

[Jerome]

Your model predicts, from the observers point of view, that the 'bottom' of the moon will be in shadow, and the 'top' of the moon will be in light.

The opposite is observed.

[Jerome]

Your claim here is now neither the sun nor the moon are actuality above the observers point of view. The whole of the moon should be in shadow. It, according to your thought here, is completely hidden by the earth.

Do you not see how this makes the refraction claim cover a good 80% of the earth in sunlight, and still does not explain how the 'top' of the moon is in shadow?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Your model predicts, from the observers point of view, that the 'bottom' of the moon will be in shadow, and the 'top' of the moon will be in light.

The opposite is observed.

No it doesn't, the model of the round Earth predicts that part of the Moon may be covered by the Earth's shadow, it does not say that it has to be the top of the Moon from the observers point of view. The model accurately predicts which part of the Moon or the whole Moon will be in shadow. What is observed is exactly what is predicted. Only the flat-Earth model claims that it will always be one way, and observation proves that the flat-Earth model is wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Your claim here is now neither the sun nor the moon are actuality above the observers point of view. The whole of the moon should be in shadow. It, according to your thought here, is completely hidden by the earth.

Do you not see how this makes the refraction claim cover a good 80% of the earth in sunlight, and still does not explain how the 'top' of the moon is in shadow?

Refraction does not claim that 80% of the Earth is in light, that is a corruption of the claim by the flat-Earthers, the standard model, with refraction claims That 50% of the Earth is in daylight, and that is what is observed. You are making false claims and attributing those claims to round Earthers.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Like all flat-Earthers you are a liar and a fraud. You make false claims and try to attribute them to round Earthers.

[Jerome]

You are ignoring, or are ignorant of your model.

sad when one is in such a religious fever