Quote (majorblood @ Oct 19 2016 05:12pm)

whether or not melania met natasha 10+ years ago isn't in question (because it doesn't matter) but sexual assault without evidence supporting it and a witness she claims "burst into the room" directly refuting it is

Quote (card_sultan @ Oct 19 2016 06:34pm)

their excuse "Atmospheric refraction" is not possible because if the "atmosphere" works as a lense and refracts light then they must also explain whether the "atmosphere"
is:
1. )( = Concave
2. () = Convex
or what i would say mostly resemble what is called a meniscus or (( <------like that
So from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)
Convex-concave (meniscus) lenses can be either positive or negative, depending on the relative curvatures of the two surfaces. A negative meniscus lens has a steeper concave surface and is thinner at the centre than at the periphery. Conversely, a positive meniscus lens has a steeper convex surface and is thicker at the centre than at the periphery. An ideal thin lens with "two surfaces of equal curvature" would have zero optical power, meaning that it would neither converge nor diverge light.
nor curve/create mirage shadows from objects that arent completly parrelel

Sun worship busted yet again.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 01:42pm)

It is possible because we know for a fact that the atmosphere is convex. You've busted nothing.

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 19 2016 03:38pm)

Ya so you're saying conflicting evidence and it's refutable proof. Soooo.

You can't claim to know the credibility of any of them just say it.

Quote (card_sultan @ Oct 19 2016 06:47pm)

So could you draw a picture with ball/sphere earth showing the convex atmosphere?

Atmospheric refraction is an excuse you use when you wife sees your car park in the Sleazy Hotel parking lot, confirmed by Nasa your car wasn't there.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 01:55pm)

Can you show a photograph from on high of a flat earth?

Quote (card_sultan @ Oct 19 2016 07:11pm)

http://projectsmartspacescience.sr.unh.edu/photos/2012Balloon-watermarked.jpg

For "atmospheric refraction" to be feasible - your saying that not only the light would be refracted - but the shadow itself as well but this is not the cause in normal Lunar eclipses so why doesn't the atmosphere refract light and shadows then? and would the bottom of the moon be lit up and not the top?

Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 07:16pm)

No, I want to see a picture looking straight down at the whole disc. I want to see the whole flat Earth in one shot.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 19 2016 02:16pm)

No, I want to see a picture looking straight down at the whole disc. I want to see the whole flat Earth in one shot.

You don't get to decide what's "feasible," physics does. That you do not grasp that light waves are bent as they pass through the atmosphere (or a prism or even water) is not my problem.

Quote (card_sultan @ Oct 19 2016 07:46pm)

Show me a complete picture of ball Earth that Nasa doesn't admit is just a composite of hundreds of high altitude pictures with a lot of photoshop?
Also if you believe these are "photos" and not drawing could you explain why these are only produced by Nasa and not by the Russian program as well and why do they show such different proportions for the same continents with aspect to the ball
http://i.imgur.com/xhwEEwK.jpg
Why are you convinced by simply a picture?
Also if Selenelion eclipse are the result of atmospheric refraction explain how the refraction of the Sun though the atmosphere can cast a mirrored shadow which is cast back in the same direction of the moon - is the atmosphere also a mirror when you want it to be?