theguy on Nostr: I think you meant Snell’s Law which is used to describe light passing through a ...

I think you meant Snell’s Law which is used to describe light passing through a boundary between two isotropic (homogeneous) media, such as water, glass or air. And as you can see it is not relevant in our case, as in the original photo the light passes solely through a single media which is air with supposedly different refraction indexes at different layers.

I am stating the fact that using simple geometry it is not possible to see as far away as 443km according to official earth’s size and dimensions, as any object would be under the physical horizon by more than *5* kilometres. This is not my personal proposal, it is a geometrical fact. If someone claims that it is possible nevertheless due to the layers of air through which the light passes being of different temperature, pressure and humidity and subsequently having different refraction indexes - the burden of proof is on them. They literally need to provide photographic evidence coupled with all the other relevant data points. There is no other way to objectively prove this theory otherwise. I don’t understand how this is even debatable.

Thank you for sharing the video. Is this the best documented “evidence” for terrestrial refraction that’s out there? I have a lot of problems with it, mainly that it shows light going through air, glass and water (with sugar in it) at the same time, this is 3 completely different media. How is this supposed to be the evidence of how the light acts between the boundaries of supposedly different layers of air? I am not even going to go into how this experiment is done unprofessionally, all kinds of variables were straight up changed in the midst of it. If you have any other proper scientific evidence (preferably that is not documented by some amateur conspiracy debunkoor), I would appreciate if you could share it with all of us.