Addressing the claim that “mirages” or “refraction” can cause the illusion of no Earth curvature.

Here's a picture of the entire city of Chicago from the Michigan shoreline.

https://files.catbox.moe/o3hnot.jpg

Here's an abc57 article talking about the picture.

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

From the article:

A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage. This is a form of Superior Mirage, superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located.

The article has to claim this because from where the picture was taken, there should be over 2,000 feet of obstruction caused by the supposed curvature of the earth, but yet we see the entire city of Chicago which has its tallest building, the Willis Tower, standing at 1,729 feet tall.

Every single time I see an image that shows an object that should be hidden beneath a supposed physical horizon caused by the supposed curvature of the globular Earth, I'm told it's a "mirage" or that it's "refraction." It seems like these words are thrown around as if they are magical words that create miracles while preserving this notion that curvature still exists but the lack thereof is only an illusion. I'm going to address this fallacy and prove that mirages and refraction do not create such an illusion.

Let's start with mirages.

The claim in the article is that a "superior mirage" is what's causing the illusion. What's a mirage? It's a reflection. A reflection is the act of light reflecting back. Reflections cause inversion.

Here's an example of a "superior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/huri1b.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship above its true position. The ship is reflecting off the atmosphere above it.

Here's an example of an "inferior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/eeg4ad.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship below its true position. The ship is reflecting off the surface below it.

The differences between "superior" and "inferior" are simply the position of the mirage.

Is the article suggesting that the mirage is somehow a projected image above the object's true location and without inversion? Maybe they meant to say "Fata Morgana," a "complex" form of superior mirage visible in a narrow band right above the horizon.

So it's "complex." What makes it so complex? Basically, the only thing complex about it is that it's actually not a mirage at all but a misinterpretation of what really is a "false horizon."

Here's an example of a "false horizon."

https://files.catbox.moe/9az794.jpg

Notice the image on the left. It appears to be a ship floating in mid-air. If we were to change the color temperature in the photo, like we see in the image on the right, we can see that it's actually not floating in mid-air but is floating on a section of water that is experiencing a mirage effect. It's caused by a change in the refractive index due to the high temperature near the water and the lower temperature above it. Remember, mirages are reflections. It is reflecting the sky above it, giving the illusion that it itself is part of the sky. So technically, it's just an "inferior mirage" of the sky. Notice where the mirage ends. It's creating a "false horizon." This type of inferior mirage can also be seen on solid surfaces.

Here's an example of an asphalt road experiencing the same type of inferior mirage.

https://files.catbox.moe/o4ctaa.jpeg

The reality is, there is no such thing as a mirage that can be seen as a non-inverted image projecting above an object's true position. The only examples that exist are provably misinterpreted false horizons.

Now that we've established that the Chicago photo isn't caused by a "mirage," let us take a look at the possibility that refraction's causing the illusion.

What's refraction? Refraction's the process by which light shifts its path as it travels through a material, causing the light to bend. That's what refraction is, but most people misunderstand the effect of refraction.

Here's an example of refraction.

https://files.catbox.moe/e9ehww.jpg

Notice you are viewing the pencil as it exists in two different mediums. From your position you see the top of the pencil surrounded by air as you'd normally see it. As it enters a different medium, water, which acts as a lens that bends light, you see that it magnifies the pencil. A lens has limitations though. When an object's magnified within a lens, the entire image is expanded from the center of the lens outward, cutting off the edges that no longer fit in the lens. Since the pencil isn't directly in the center of the image being magnified, it expands outward, giving the illusion of a broken pencil.

Here's another example that shows what a pencil would do in 3 different positions.

https://files.catbox.moe/yzyz9b.jpg

Notice the image on the far left. The pencil is positioned in the center of the glass. The lens magnifies the image from the center outward. Since the pencil is in the center, it remains in its horizontal position but magnifies, only cutting off the top and bottom slightly. Now notice the image on the far right. The pencil's placed close to the left edge of the lens. Since the lens is magnifying the image from the center of the lens outward, part of the pencil is cut off due to the limitation of the lens not being able to fit the entire image that's now being magnified.

Now that we understand what both reflection and refraction is, and the actual effects they create, let me give you an example of refraction occurring naturally in the atmosphere.

https://youtu.be/Y0bQm8sJwd4

This is called the "Shrinking Mill" because of the refraction that occurs regularly in this area. Notice the object being refracted is magnified at a distance, then reduces in size as it's approached. This effect is no different than holding a magnifying glass out from your face and bringing it closer. You'll notice the closer the magnifying glass is to your face, objects will appear smaller, allowing more room in the lens to see more objects.

Here's an example of how refraction would actually prevent you from seeing objects at great distances.

https://youtu.be/s-PhStb6mTQ

Notice how objects at the bottom of the lens disappear as it magnifies. This is because the apparent horizon acts as the bottom of the lens as it's at the bottom of the medium creating the magnification effect.

This is how refraction works. It doesn't magically project an image of an object above its true position. Not only is it nonsense to say it's refraction that allows one to see an object beyond a supposed physical horizon caused by supposed curvature, it's asinine because refraction would actually do the opposite and hide an image you actually could see if it wasn't being magnified by refraction.

Being able to see the entire city of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan is due to the atmospheric conditions creating a LACK OF REFRACTION and it's NOT producing a magnifying effect, allowing the bottom of the lens to be viewed as normal. Like taking the water that's causing refraction out of the glass, allowing you to see the pencil as it truly is.

Conclusion: There is no curvature to the earth and any claim that a mirage or refraction can bend light in such a way as to project an image above an object's true position is just false. It simply does not work that way and not a single bit of evidence exists that would suggest otherwise. So if you have the evidence, please present it.