A Black Swan IS A Black Swan: Distance IS Beyond Refraction (Controlled for Refraction)
1Scientific Method Statement: You do need to know your elevation, distance to object, distance to “horizon” based on a curve argument to debunk or to affirm and to make sure your goal post is so far beyond the curve controlling for retraction of light through gas, but still within observable range WHERE sans a curve and only with the existing composition of gas said object must necessarily be observable under ideal conditions (there that’s the hypothesis in a nut shell so simple a K-9 can do it) to setup a “scientifically valid” experiment in plain common sense and plain English.
A curve argument is that simple. At distance some object is behind a curve, so you move the goal posts further controlling for refraction: it’s intuitive and can be shown at a much smaller scale.
What I am going to do is based on falsifiable hypothesis, with an emphasis on repeatability under pitch perfect weather, but repeatability won’t be necessary with what I have planned which is precisely to restate “the observation of an object so extremely far beyond a supposed curve at a minimum of 22 miles out to sea based on my elevation, my height plus the ground height above sea level, distance to object beyond a supposed curve, where observation of my intended objects will be impossible if and only if there is a curve as opposed to the composition of gas on a flat plane”.
This is simple common sense plain logic scientific without nerding out flat out field test no BS. I will do a black swan the likes of which has never been attempted at 20 miles at sea with myself at sea level.
My elevation shall be about 10 to 15 ft. My object shall be 22 miles distant at sea. My equipment shall be the Nikon P1000 on a very great tripod.
I am going to show an object so far below supposed curvature using a simple P1000 camera.
We know how to setup a scientific experiment. The idea that if Mount Everest grew a pair of legs and set up 50 miles west of Huntington Beach California example of a non result. Don’t confuse maximum observable range through gas on flat earth with the argument of observable range based on the argument of a curve.
Thus you don’t need “advanced math” but very simple maths.
We have seen people on all sides try to intimidate with big command of maths and laws: we are clearing up the BS. You don’t need big math but very simple math to set up an XP that is scientifically falsifiable, valid, testable, and repeatable.
A Black Swan IS A Black Swan: Distance IS Beyond Refraction (Controlled for Refraction)
Without getting mathematical at this time: the reason the black swan is a black swan is because the distance was sufficient so as to negate any one off (outlier) effects of refraction or light being refracted, bent, defracted like a light in a physics lab where it could present a false positive to an observer at such distance as to fully control for any effects refraction. I believe what Dave is implying or suggesting is that the black swan is not a black swan but an outlier due to whatsoever effects aka refraction where the majority of observations would show a rig obscured from bottom up with the visible portion "sticking out behind the horizon" but the bottom invisible.
We are on the verge of observing, under ideal conditions, objects 22 miles out at sea.
We are awaiting ONE thing: the weather alone. I cannot test until I get pitch perfect weather under ideal conditions @NathanOakley1980 @ConspiracyToonz @DaveMcKeegan