Refraction Exibited by The Dark Side of The Moon Cover:
When you shoot a laser parallel to the surface of a lake, does the light refract up or down when it hits a denser medium of atmospheric water vapor?
We often hear Heliocentrists claim that green laser tests across flat lake water cannot be trusted because laser light refracts downwards when shot from air through the denser medium of surface lake water vapor. The claim further states that through refraction, the laser light will bend downwards towards the normal as its hits its “angle of incidence” (the angle between a ray incident on a surface and the line perpendicular at 90 degree angle to the surface at the point of incidence called the normal), thereby curving over and down around The Earth’s alleged curvature to hit its target, usually a mirror set up on the opposing side of a large lake. And for this reason, they claim that flat water laser experiments cannot be trusted as legitimate proof of a flat terrain, regardless of how many missing feet of Earth curvature is discovered in the test.
Refraction Explained:
However, There are at Least Three Things Very Wrong With This Heliocentric Explanation:
A. The amount of missing Earth curvature detected in thousands of Earth curvature laser tests far, far exceeds the expected refractive index of laser light passing from a less dense medium through a more dense medium.
In optics, the refractive index (or refraction index) of an optical medium is the ratio of the apparent speed of light in the air or vacuum to the speed in the medium. The refractive index determines how much the path of light is bent, or refracted, when entering a denser medium. This is described by Snell’s Law of Refraction, n1 sin θ1 = n2 sin θ2, where θ1 and θ2 are the angle of incidence and angle of refraction, respectively, of a ray crossing the interface between two media with refractive indices n1 and n2. The refractive indices also determine the amount of light that is reflected when reaching the interface, as well as the critical angle for total internal reflection, their intensity Fresnel Equations and Brewster’s Angle. Nevertheless, the amount of missing Earth curvature detected in thousands of Earth curvature laser tests far, far exceeds the expected refractive index of laser light passing from a less dense medium through a more dense medium.
For example, while surface lake water vapor increases the overall downward bending of a laser beam compared to clear air, calculating a single, precise value in feet for a 14-mile distance is impossible. The specific downward refraction is highly variable and depends on multiple environmental factors, including the type and density of fog, temperature gradients, humidity, and air pressure. There is no way to accurately calculate the refractive index (the intensity of downward refraction) over a 14 miles flat lake, and it gets even more difficult as that distance increases.
The Atmosphere’s Refractive Properties:
Variable Air Density: The amount of refraction depends on the gradient of the air’s refractive index. This index changes with altitude because of changes in air pressure and temperature. The standard coefficient for atmospheric refraction is an average; the real atmosphere is rarely “standard”.
Temperature Gradients: Light bends toward colder, denser air. A standard atmosphere cools with altitude, which causes light to bend downward, following the Earth’s curvature. However, a temperature inversion—where warm air sits on top of cooler air near the ground—can reverse this, causing a laser beam to bend upward.
B. Additionally, refraction constitutes the sudden change in direction of light as it hits a denser medium (the angle of incidence), and has nothing to do laser light making an alleged parabolic path of curvature around The Earth. They are two different path trajectories, altogether.
In addition to atmospheric refraction, the hypothetical Earth curvature over 14 miles would cause a laser beam to appear to drop significantly, with a calculation based purely on curvature showing a drop of approximately 219 feet. However, this presumed effect is largely irrelevant for determining the additional downward refraction caused by denser water vapor. Rather, it is an assumed calculation that has nothing to do with the refractive index of light. Light refracts but refraction constitutes the sudden change in direction of light as it hits a denser medium (the angle of incidence), and has nothing to do with light making an alleged parabolic path of curvature around The Earth. They are two different path trajectories, altogether.
C. The primary effect of laser light passing from a less dense through a more dense medium will not be simply refraction, but also, scattering, which makes the light appear diffuse and less focused, an effect not observed in any of these flat water laser experiments.
When a laser beam traveling in air hits a denser fog, the light will refract downwards, but for a different reason than with other media like glass or water. The primary effect of the fog will not be simple refraction, but scattering, which makes the light appear diffuse and less focused.
Refraction Versus Scattering:
Simple Refraction is the bending of a light ray as it passes from one transparent medium to another with a different refractive index, such as from air into water or glass. The most visible effect of laser light hitting a fog bank is scattering, where light from the beam diffuses and spreads out in all directions. We are simple not observing this effect in the thousands if flat water laser experiments, which shows that refraction is playing a negligible role in these experiments.
Water Vapor and Fog are not uniform mediums like glass. It is a suspension of microscopic water droplets in the air. While each individual water droplet does refract the light that hits it, the main effect of trillions of these droplets is to scatter the light in all directions. This is why you cannot see clearly through fog.
The Downward Bending is an atmospheric refraction effect caused by temperature differences, not by the water vapor and fog, itself. The air just above a lake is often more humid and cooler than the air above it, especially if the fog is denser at the surface. Cooler, denser air has a slightly higher refractive index than warmer, less dense air. When a laser beam travels parallel to the lake’s surface, its lower edge is in slightly denser air than its upper edge, resulting in light scattering. The beams focus is depressed and lost, and we do not observe this in the thousands of flat water laser experiments to detect Earth curvature or not. This means that refraction plays little to no role in flat water laser experiments.
Because Light Bends Towards a More Optically Dense Medium, the bottom of the beam will slow down and bend more than the top. The result is that the entire beam curves slightly downwards towards the surface of the lake, but not around any alleged curvature of The Earth. It merely dips down a bit, which again illustrates how the amount of missing Earth curvature detected in thousands of Earth curvature laser tests far, far exceeds the expected refractive index of laser light passing from a less dense medium through a more dense medium. They simply do not compare. Laser light my refract down a few feet, but not 1,640 feet as we have seen in some flat water laser experiments.
The Role of Water Vapor and Fog on Refraction:
Water vapor and fog dramatically alters how a laser beam propagates by causing it to scatter and become attenuated.
Scattering, not Refraction: Unlike the gradual bending of light due to changes in air density, the primary effect of water vapor and fog is not additional downward refraction but rather scattering and absorption. This means the light hits millions of tiny water droplets, which scatter the photons in all directions.
Reduced Intensity: Because of this scattering, a laser beam traveling through water vapor and fog over 14 miles would lose most, if not all, of its intensity. The beam would not have a well-defined endpoint to measure a “downward refraction” in feet. But we do not observe this in these flat water laser tests which means water vapor and fog are not causing a signification refractory effect
Multiple Scattering: In dense fog, photons undergo multiple scattering events, further blurring and dispersing the beam. This would make it impossible to track a single “refracted” beam path. This makes The Heliocentric refractive claims entirely obtuse and uncalculatable.
Summary: What we Can and Cannot Calculate:
It is not possible to quantify the “downward refraction” of a laser going into water vapor and fog with a single numerical value in feet.
The primary interaction between a laser and water vapor and fog is scattering, which severely attenuates the beam and diffuses the light, rather than causing a predictable bending effect.
Atmospheric Refraction from temperature and pressure gradients does cause a downward curve, but this effect is independent of the water vapor and fog’s influence on the beam. Any calculation would be a rough estimate based on average atmospheric conditions, which do not account for the specific local effects of the water vapor and fog.
Enclosed Cosmology is Not a Model or a Belief Structure, but Rather, it is the Empirical Observation that The Earth Exhibits No Curvature and That the Antecedent to Pressure is Containment
Ample Laser Test Evidence to Demonstrate Zero Curvature
Enclosed Cosmology is not a model or a belief structure. Rather, it is the empirical observation that both Heliocentrists and Enclosed Cosmologists share alike, which states that no observable curvature has ever been detected on The Earth, and that the antecedent to pressure is containment. Contrariwise, Heliocentrism is an assumed model and belief structure based upon the presupposition of an unseen spherical Earth, proven by gazing up into The Stars in order to assert claims about the ground, as well as enthusiastically extolling a preponderance of CGI cartoons as further evidence of its presuppositions.
A belief structure is a framework of assumptions and values that shapes how individuals interpret the world, while empirical observation is the process of gathering verifiable, evidence-based information. The tension between these two concepts is a central theme in philosophy and science, as a belief structure can influence which observations are accepted, and compelling empirical evidence can challenge deeply held beliefs.
Sea of Galilee Flat Earth Proof:
Again, Enclosed Cosmology is not a model or a belief structure. It’s an empirical observation, based upon literally thousands of green laser tests over large bodies of perfectly still and flat water, while also factoring in the atmospheric refractory index at the time of the test, which reveal, over and over again, that all expected predictions of geometric curvature are absent when applying The Heliocentric Earth Curve Calculator. These tests are repeatable, demonstrable, reproducible, and verifiable proof that large bodies of water lay flat with zero curvature.
The Lasers that PROVED Flat Earth:
Not one legitimate test to detect curvature of The Earth has ever provided evidence of this elusive curvature. And so, the burden of proof of Earth curvature is still in the court of The Heliocentric Model’s claim of sphericity. And yet, zero evidence of Earth curvature has been supplied. Thus, it is clearly The Heliocentric Model that has a belief fixation, based upon spurious presuppositions and unfounded assumptions, anchored in bias, faith, and a preponderance of NASA cartoon CGI images.
Finland Laser Test Proves Earth is Flat:
No one need believe in Enclosed Cosmology. Belief is not prerequisite to perform tests for curvature. Enclosed Cosmologists simply find zero evidence to support the Heliocentric claims of sphericity. In science, ample evidence must be provided for magnificent claims. So far, the most ubiquitous claim coming from Heliocentrism is that The Earth is too big for anyone to provide any compelling evidence of curvature. That’s not evidence of sphericity. That’s an admission that The Heliocentric Model is a presuppositional belief structure held in place by epistemological bias and an assumptive worldview. It readily becomes apparent that Heliocentrism is the closest thing to a faith based religion that science has ever encountered.
16.4-Mile Laser Test Confirms Earth is Flat:
How to Fake the Curvature and Still Get Promoted by YouTube:
Canada Laser Test Proves the Earth is Flat:
Great Salt Lake Laser Test - 21 Miles and No Curvature:
Globe Debunked by Flat Earthers Armed with Lasers:
An Attorney’s Guide to the Number 1 Proof of the Flat Earth and the Top 5 Long-Distance Observations:
Lasers Prove Our Flat Earth - New Evidence!:
There’s No Curvature ... Let’s Just Fake It! - Re-uploaded:
Belief Structure:
A belief structure is a systematic way of organizing and making sense of the world.
It Operates on Two Levels:
Individual Beliefs: These are personal convictions or assumptions based on upbringing, personal experience, tradition, or faith, and do not necessarily require objective evidence.
System of Beliefs: Individual beliefs are organized into a larger system with internal logical relationships. This framework can include core assumptions (like the atom in scientific theory) or unquestioned ideas (like the values of a culture) upon which other beliefs are built.
Empirical Observation:
Empirical Observation:
Empirical observation is the process of acquiring knowledge through direct, sensory experience and data collection, as used in the scientific method.
Objectivity: The goal of empirical observation is to obtain objective, verifiable data, meaning it can be scrutinized and replicated by independent observers.
The Scientific Method: This process is central to the scientific method, which uses observation, hypothesis testing, and experimentation to produce verifiable facts. Conclusions based on empirical evidence are considered scientific findings, distinct from personal opinions.
The Interaction Between The Two:
The relationship between a belief structure and empirical observation is complex and sometimes contradictory.
Navigating the Conflict:
When empirical observation contradicts a belief structure, the outcome depends on the context and the people involved.
In Science: When empirical evidence invalidates a hypothesis, the scientific community adjusts its theories. This is a core principle of science, as seen when Albert Einstein’s work led to revisions of Isaac Newton’s theories.
In Society: Individuals and groups may handle contradictions in different ways:
Overriding Observation: A person might dismiss a valid observation that conflicts with their core beliefs and reinforce the existing worldview.
Questioning the Belief: Some people may engage in critical thought and re-examine or modify their beliefs in light of new evidence.
Reconciling Differences: In some cases, people find ways to coexist with conflicting beliefs, acknowledging that different types of knowledge, such as spiritual and empirical, can serve different purposes.
The tension between belief and observation is fundamental to the search for knowledge. Belief structures provide a necessary framework for understanding, but empirical observation provides a vital check against personal or collective bias, ensuring that our understanding remains grounded in reality.
The Greatest Laser Experiments in History by FECORE Using a Blue Laser:
Apparatus:
A blue laser is a laser that emits electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 360 and 480 nanometers, which the human eye sees as blue or violet. Blue beams are produced by helium-cadmium gas lasers at 441.6 nm, and argon-ion lasers at 458 and 488 nm. Semiconductor lasers with blue beams are typically based on gallium(III) nitride (GaN; violet color) or indium gallium nitride (often true blue in color, but also able to produce other colors). Both blue and violet lasers can also be constructed using frequency-doubling of infrared laser wavelengths from diode lasers or diode-pumped solid-state lasers.
Methods:
Several experiments were performed using a Blue Laser, resulting in the greatest and most sophisticated laser experiment in history performed by FECORE, demonstrating the flat Topography of The Earth. In the following video, FECORE will show how this historic laser experiment was performed. Ambient air pressure, humidity, refraction indexes, laser position and altitude, target height, sea level quotient, point of tangency, hidden areas, WGS mathematical constructs based upon the Heliocentric geoid model, and alleged spherical convexity were considered as experimental variables.
Results:
In one experiment, 98% of the target’s hidden height was visible, which should have been concealed if the Earth was, indeed, spherical. Accounting for the index of refraction on the exact time of the measurement, the laser beam was refracted by a measurement of 0.6 millimeters, which cannot explain for the degree of visibility of the target in accordance with known WGS mathematical constructs. The observer should not have seen the laser at any height below 89.3 meters or 293 feet, but the beam was recorded from a height of 1.5 meters or 4.92 feet.
Lunar Gravitation Influence:
Additionally, the Moon’s alleged gravitational pull on the Earth was considered and found to have no significant effect upon the experimental results. The Moon’s alleged gravitational pull on the Earth is said to be the main cause of the rise and fall of ocean tides. The Moon’s gravitational pull is said to cause two bulges of water on the Earth’s ocean, one where ocean waters face the Moon and the pull is strongest, and one where ocean waters face away from the Moon and the pull is weakest. If such were the case, the experimental results would have shown the target to have even more visible obscuration, which it did not. Additionally, Lake Balatan and Lak Ijssel, where two of the experiments was performed, are not oceans, and cannot be said to be effected as an ocean is. Even so, if the Moon was to be attributed for any rise in water convexity, the experimental results would have revealed far less target visibility than was recorded, which did not occur, resulting in the conclusion that Lunar gravitational influence had zero influence upon the experimental results.
Conclusion:
The results of the seven TLT measurements ( TLT measurements include a two-beam laser triangulation for measuring the position of a moving object) indicate that these two lakes do not conform with the WGS 84 mathematical construct, and that they lack the predicted convexity of The Heliocentric model. Additionally, the testing results agree with the analysis of air sources. In summary, the testing results of the lake surfaces were plus or minus 0.2 meters and the relative accuracy was within one percent. Hence, the TLT measurements met the accuracy of the experimental design requirements and provided a definite deliverable output.
WGS 84 Coordinate System:
Definition of the WGS 84 coordinate system The World Geodetic System - 1984 (WGS 84) coordinate system is a Conventional Terrestrial System (CTS), realized by modifying the Navy Navigation Satellite System (NNSS), or TRANSIT, Doppler Reference Frame (NSWC 9Z-2) in origin and scale, and rotating it to bring its reference meridian into coincidence with the Bureau International de l’Heure (BIH)- defined zero meridian.
Origin and axes of the WGS 84 coordinate system are defined as following:
Origin = Earth’s Center of Mass
· Z-Axis = The direction of the Conventional Terrestrial Pole (CTP) for polar motion, as defined by BIH on the basis of the coordinates adopted for the BIH stations.
· X-Axis = Intersection of the WGS 84 reference meridian plane and the plane of the CTP’s equator, the reference meridian being the zero meridian defined by the BIH on the basis of the coordinates adopted for the BIH stations.
· Y-Axis = Completes a right-handed, Earth Centered, Earth Fixed (ECEF) orthogonal coordinate system, measured in the plane of the CTP equator, 90° East of the x-axis.
Containment is the Necessary Antecedent For Atmospheric Pressure Gradients: Fictional Gravity is Not a Container
Containment:
For gas pressure gradients to form and remain intact contiguous to a vacuum, the necessary antecedent of a container is required, according to The Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words, without solid and impermeable containment, there could be no atmospheric pressure gradients at all, again according to Thermodynamic Law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal empirical observation concerning heat and energy interconversions. A simple statement of the law is that heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter (or “downhill” in terms of the temperature gradient).
Additionally, Gravity is no longer defined as mass attracting mass as described by Newtonian rhetoric, and was superseded by Einstein in 1915 in his publication, “General Theory of Relativity”. Einstein had overthrown the idea of the Newtonian mass attracts mass claim with his fantastical, nonsensical, and imaginary 4th dimensional pseudo Riemannian bending of space and time. From this Einsteinian reimagining of Gravity, we know that fictional Newtonian gravitational attraction has no power to hold singular atoms, regardless of how sparse or densely stratified, nor The Earth’s atmospheric pressure gradients from being immediately “pushed upwards” in a homogenous confluence out into the imaginary vacuum of Outer Space. Further, by no means can gravitational attraction serve or behave as a barrier between The Earth and the alleged vacuum of Outer Space. Fictional Gravity is not a container.
This being the case, and since The Earth, indeed, possess a pressurized atmosphere with atmospheric pressure gradients, the claim that The Earth is surrounded by an Outer Space vacuum is null and void, and the container is rightly and logically inferred to be The Firmament.
Again, Gravity, as defined in modern academia, is a concept of the 4th dimensional pseudo Riemannian bending of space and time, caused by the uneven distribution of mass in a geodesic framework.
It’s purely a mathematical construct and concept, born from the mind of plagiarist, Albert Einstein:
You cannot apply practical science using the scientific method to a concept. The scientific method requires a physical environment in which to test your independent variable and hypothesis, which must be a real physical thing and not merely an abstract concept. As such, Einstein’s nonsensical and imaginary 4th dimensional pseudo Riemannian bending of space and time concept was literally invented to save the Heliocentric concept from complete demolition over 110 years ago, and is heavily contested in academia today because it falls apart at the quantum scale.
It’s important to educate people to stop calling Gravity a theory because it is not a theory. It is simply a concept, which cannot be tested using the empirical scientific method. Also, anytime scientists attempt to test for Gravitational attraction, they can never wholly isolate their independent variable, and so, they can never entirely rule out the role of object density, atmospheric density, atmospheric pressure, buoyancy, electrostatic effects, electromagnetic effects, or dielectric effects etc…as possible causes for downward vectors.
In fact, more empirically speaking, objects fall or rise due to the relationship, ratio, and dynamism between:
1. Object Density
2. The Index of Buoyancy of an Object
3. Dielectric Forces
4. Electrostatic Attraction
5. Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Magnetism
6. Electromagnetic Forces
7. Aerodynamic Resistance
8. Thermodynamic Exchange
9. The Result of an Object in a Particular Atmospheric Medium
10. The “Aetheric Wind” (Luminiferous Aether)
Again, Gravity is no longer defined as mass attracting mass as described by Newtonian rhetoric, and was superseded by Einstein in 1915 in his publication, “General Theory of Relativity”. Einstein did not apply any practical science using the scientific method to his conceptual mathematical framework because it cannot be done, yet masses of people still believe that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has some scientific validity or real credibility. It does not. It’s all mathematical wizardry based upon conceptual fantasy. Einstein’s field equations, which were published in November of 1915, were purely mathematical and only offer a description of the imaginary warping and bending of spacetime in a 4th dimensional concept. Contrariwise, Natural Science, which is based in the real 3-dimensional world that we all inhabit, provides theories by following the scientific method, and Natural Science cannot be adulterated by mathematical concepts. It stands firmly upon the grounds of testable, repeatable, demonstratable, and scalable conditions and parameters.
All Fictional Einsteinian Nonsense:
The Myth of Gravity and Newton’s Fictional Downward Force Vector in Terms of Gravity Versus Weightlessness: Newton’s Gravitational Model Refutes Itself
Often Heliocentrists confuse weightlessness with Gravity. They sometimes say, with respect to objects in orbit, “They are in free fall and therefore Gravity is cancelled.”, which illustrates their lack of understanding of Newtonian Mechanics, for the concept of Gravity does not get cancelled in this model.
Heliocentrists are conflating two different situations:
1. Gravity, which is a derivation of acceleration, spherical symmetry, and static mass.
2. Weightlessness, which is a derivation of hypothetical acceleration, directional vectors, and falling mass.
According to The Heliocentric Model, there is a shared gravitational property to all matter, which accounts for what we call, “the gravitational force”. Gravity is thought to be the result of an invisible, unconfirmed, theoretical particle known as The Quantum Graviton. When we consider the homogeneous summation of these collective molecular vectors, resulting in the spherical symmetry of Earth, all the horizontal components cancel out, resulting in an amalgamated downward force towards the center of The Earth. This is the erroneous model that we have been presented with by modern science.
In this erroneous model, the overall Spherical Symmetry of The Earth is an assumption that Heliocentrists operate beneath in order to derive various mathematical models concerning the way in which upward, and side to side gravitational vectors cancel out in a spherical model, resulting in the downward force called gravitational acceleration.
Flat Earthers Don’t Understand Gravity?:
In other words, in this gravitational model, Gravity is literally conferred to mass by virtue of its presence, while mass is literally imbued with gravitational attraction by virtue of its specific Gravity. It’s a classic dog-chasing-its-tail, chicken-or-the-egg, self-recursive feedback loop of nonsensical paradox. In this model, there is no way to isolate nor determine which comes first, mass, or gravitational attraction. Together, they are not mutually exclusive variables, meaning that they are two events that happen simultaneously, and by extension, independently, with neither dependent upon the other, which completely contradicts Newton’s gravitational model, and therefore, nullifies both as mutually derivative events, thereby resulting in logical absurdities.