⩖ powrelay.xyz

it isnt an experiment AT ALL. its an alternative explanation that claims atmospheric refraction doesn't exist and observed star position is the true position and ties itself in knots trying to make a dome over a flat earth fit the observable data. because the data shows that the observed occultation of star S over mountan A for two observers at different elevations and distances is NOT explained by simple trigonometry on a flat surface. it matches what you'd expect to find on a curved surface. and if theres no refraction or terrestrial curvature, what causes the difference? apparently they think we should just adjust the dome geometry or something.... theyre understandably silent on this point and only provide single observer measurements. anyway its not an experiment that tests a hypothesis. they just say "refraction doesn't exist and observed star positions are the true positions."

this experiment assumes spherical geometry to calculate "real positions" of stars. ie. It uses the Earth's radius, lat/long conversions to determine where a star "really is." so you see when the star is observably occluded and calculate it's "true position" (based on spherical geometry) and theres a difference between the two, which is traditionally explained by atmospheric refraction. iow, they say the apparent position of a star is true on a flat earth but wrong if on a globe. if you perform an experiment in this way you've either baked spherical geometry into your reference point (the "real star position" that refraction is needed to explain) or your using the apparent position as your reference and are assuming refraction doesn't exist. either way the experiment doesnt prove ANYTHING AT ALL because its not independent of either model. somebody doesn't understand logic and has too much time on their hands.

+

+

🐢

🐢

😂

😂

🫂

😂