frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




The earth is ball shaped

124



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.
    You stating it fixes it does not mean in actuality it fixes it. You made no attempt to back up your claim and you were so vague, not even talking about what "second" should be changed to "minute" that there is no way to assess the specifics of your claim.

    Of course it can be disregarded based on generalities without having to get into specifics.

    No argument you make where you try and find the amount of drop in [unit of time] by dividing the drop by [units of time] will work. Put whatever unit of time you want in there it won't work. The question is can you spot the fundamental mistake you've made even putting aside your erroneous and now vague to the point of non-existent mathematics?

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 
    Feel free to point out to the other debators how you now realise you're wasting your time because if:

    a) Your definition of Snell's law counts air, water etc as isotropic mediums.

    and

    b) Those mediums are not isotropic, as you agree that water for instance "has varying levels of density due to temperature, salinity, and depth".

    Then a) must be incorrect as it is a theory about reality while b) is objective reality itself and you have already accepted it as accurate.

    Feel free to either completely disregard Snell's law altogether or to accept my more nuanced definition. The latter is correct but either works for me as you then have to disregard all the nonsense arguments using Snell's Law in non isotropic mediums

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one. 
    This actually proves me right and you wrong. Did you bother to read this or just google and then C+P the first semi-relevant looking link?

    First of all go to the full text of the article: http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry_files/96JD03399.pdf

    You'll see Snell's Law is referenced only once when they describe how they integrate one part of the formula and then mention that that part of the formula could also have been deduced from Snell's Law. It is not itself Snell's law nor is it the entirety of the euqation required, ergo you cannot calculate atmospheric refraction with Snell's Law, though the factors behind Snells Law can help you deduce part of a more comprehensive method of assessing refraction which is useful in atmospheric refraction. i'd refer you again to the Pythagoras theorem analogy, where the Pythagoras theorem does not help you solve non right angled triangles but the principles could help you deduce the Law of Cosines.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    You seriously think this is a valid scientific paper? I mean really? You can’t possibly think any of this is accurate.
  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    You guys should get a room , it is amusing though to see two lunatics  exchange “views” 
    ErfisflatGeorge_HorseZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    You seriously think this is a valid scientific paper? I mean really? You can’t possibly think any of this is accurate.
    You post is just appealing to the stone. It's from Professor Lary at University of Texas at Dallas. You've given me no reason to believe that it isn't a legit paper. As for it's accuracy, what do you think? If you presented this paper to me, a flat earther, and I said what you just said to me, you'd call me out, right? I already explained why I think it's inaccurate, nonetheless, he is measuring atmospheric refraction with Snell's, hypothetically or not.


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat

    You guys should get a room , it is amusing though to see two lunatics  exchange “views” 
    Who? Why is it that you couldn't prove the earth was a ball? Go back to your religious debates, this is a scientific debate.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  


    You say ......Who?

    My reply .... Oh ! There’s more than one ? Ooookay 

    You say ....Why is it that you couldn't prove the earth was a ball?

    My reply ..... But I destroyed you in debate , it’s seems everyone does as one cannot educate pork .




    You say .....Go back to your religious debates,

    My reply .... But you’re the who quotes the Bible as a proof the earth is covered in a ........dome 

     You say .....this is a scientific debate.

    My reply ..... Yes people correcting you are using science but you don’t or cannot do science , pseudoscience yes but that’s your limit 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    You seriously think this is a valid scientific paper? I mean really? You can’t possibly think any of this is accurate.
    You post is just appealing to the stone. It's from Professor Lary at University of Texas at Dallas. You've given me no reason to believe that it isn't a legit paper. As for it's accuracy, what do you think? If you presented this paper to me, a flat earther, and I said what you just said to me, you'd call me out, right? I already explained why I think it's inaccurate, nonetheless, he is measuring atmospheric refraction with Snell's, hypothetically or not.


    Note the following is an incomplete summary of things you said - just on page 3 of this post - that are contradicted explicitly or implicitly by the statements in this paper, or by the argument you used the paper to support - the paper that you helpfully just corroborated as valid for me.



    “If you want to support the idea that the sun actually sets before it appears to, which suggests that refraction happens in the opposite way, then we would need to test it, to see which is supported by the evidence.”


    “Actual definition of Snell's law:

    a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.”


    “On the contrary, you’ve asserted that Snell’s law causes light to bend downwards, but this is a lie. An invention of yours to win an argument”


    “You would actually change what basic laws of physics say to soothe your insecurities, and it's sad.”


    “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary, where a dense medium crosses a less dense one”


    “If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away”


    “Add some distance though, and you can add water, or panes of glass to the equation and you will get a boundary. A "wall" of water, if you will(from your perspective). The boundary is the point where the water has accumulated enough, with distance, to start bending the light. Of course, the wall won't be level, because, as you said, the air gets less dense the higher you go”


    “Now, you can go on asserting that snells law is applicable, and that it supports the round earth theory, but you've ignored the very basic questions that I've asked, so I'll ask again, so that we can settle this indifference...

    ..Where exactly is this boundary? In your diagram:”


    “The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet?.”



    George_HorseZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    You seriously think this is a valid scientific paper? I mean really? You can’t possibly think any of this is accurate.
    You post is just appealing to the stone. It's from Professor Lary at University of Texas at Dallas. You've given me no reason to believe that it isn't a legit paper. As for it's accuracy, what do you think? If you presented this paper to me, a flat earther, and I said what you just said to me, you'd call me out, right? I already explained why I think it's inaccurate, nonetheless, he is measuring atmospheric refraction with Snell's, hypothetically or not.


    Note the following is an incomplete summary of things you said - just on page 3 of this post - that are contradicted explicitly or implicitly by the statements in this paper, or by the argument you used the paper to support - the paper that you helpfully just corroborated as valid for me.



    “If you want to support the idea that the sun actually sets before it appears to, which suggests that refraction happens in the opposite way, then we would need to test it, to see which is supported by the evidence.”


    “Actual definition of Snell's law:

    a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.”


    “On the contrary, you’ve asserted that Snell’s law causes light to bend downwards, but this is a lie. An invention of yours to win an argument”


    “You would actually change what basic laws of physics say to soothe your insecurities, and it's sad.”


    “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary, where a dense medium crosses a less dense one”


    “If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away”


    “Add some distance though, and you can add water, or panes of glass to the equation and you will get a boundary. A "wall" of water, if you will(from your perspective). The boundary is the point where the water has accumulated enough, with distance, to start bending the light. Of course, the wall won't be level, because, as you said, the air gets less dense the higher you go”


    “Now, you can go on asserting that snells law is applicable, and that it supports the round earth theory, but you've ignored the very basic questions that I've asked, so I'll ask again, so that we can settle this indifference...

    ..Where exactly is this boundary? In your diagram:”


    “The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet?.”



    I did say that I don't think the paper is accurate with reality, and there is no scientific evidence that supports it.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:


    You say ......Who?

    My reply .... Oh ! There’s more than one ? Ooookay 

    You say ....Why is it that you couldn't prove the earth was a ball?

    My reply ..... But I destroyed you in debate , it’s seems everyone does as one cannot educate pork .




    You say .....Go back to your religious debates,

    My reply .... But you’re the who quotes the Bible as a proof the earth is covered in a ........dome 

     You say .....this is a scientific debate.

    My reply ..... Yes people correcting you are using science but you don’t or cannot do science , pseudoscience yes but that’s your limit 
    Yes, there are more than one person here. Your words " you guys.." even acknowledges this, no you ask if there is more than one? Did you think I was talking to myself? And you did not "destroy" me in a debate. It was not even voted on. This is entirely your opinion.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    You seriously think this is a valid scientific paper? I mean really? You can’t possibly think any of this is accurate.
    You post is just appealing to the stone. It's from Professor Lary at University of Texas at Dallas. You've given me no reason to believe that it isn't a legit paper. As for it's accuracy, what do you think? If you presented this paper to me, a flat earther, and I said what you just said to me, you'd call me out, right? I already explained why I think it's inaccurate, nonetheless, he is measuring atmospheric refraction with Snell's, hypothetically or not.


    Note the following is an incomplete summary of things you said - just on page 3 of this post - that are contradicted explicitly or implicitly by the statements in this paper, or by the argument you used the paper to support - the paper that you helpfully just corroborated as valid for me.



    “If you want to support the idea that the sun actually sets before it appears to, which suggests that refraction happens in the opposite way, then we would need to test it, to see which is supported by the evidence.”


    “Actual definition of Snell's law:

    a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.”


    “On the contrary, you’ve asserted that Snell’s law causes light to bend downwards, but this is a lie. An invention of yours to win an argument”


    “You would actually change what basic laws of physics say to soothe your insecurities, and it's sad.”


    “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary, where a dense medium crosses a less dense one”


    “If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away”


    “Add some distance though, and you can add water, or panes of glass to the equation and you will get a boundary. A "wall" of water, if you will(from your perspective). The boundary is the point where the water has accumulated enough, with distance, to start bending the light. Of course, the wall won't be level, because, as you said, the air gets less dense the higher you go”


    “Now, you can go on asserting that snells law is applicable, and that it supports the round earth theory, but you've ignored the very basic questions that I've asked, so I'll ask again, so that we can settle this indifference...

    ..Where exactly is this boundary? In your diagram:”


    “The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet?.”



    I did say that I don't think the paper is accurate with reality, and there is no scientific evidence that supports it.
    Lol, you literally provided the paper as valid evidence to try and support your views. Weird how after in my prior post I point out it actually contradicts you and supports me, suddenly it becomes inaccurate and void of any scientific evidence.

    At no stage did you actually provide any evidence to back up either interpretation so it seems your claims are based on pure bias. If something supports you you assume it is valid, if it doesn't support you you assume it's invalid. Screw the truth, right?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @ampersand your initial argument was that atmospheric refraction could not be measured with snell's law. That it was like using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle. This is where our disagreement lies. You then attempted to kick the stone where I showed that it was possible, unlike your analogy, and now you have apparently flip flopped. The paper was hypothetical and assumes a spherical earth, along with several thermal inversions which must always be there, and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    You seriously think this is a valid scientific paper? I mean really? You can’t possibly think any of this is accurate.
    You post is just appealing to the stone. It's from Professor Lary at University of Texas at Dallas. You've given me no reason to believe that it isn't a legit paper. As for it's accuracy, what do you think? If you presented this paper to me, a flat earther, and I said what you just said to me, you'd call me out, right? I already explained why I think it's inaccurate, nonetheless, he is measuring atmospheric refraction with Snell's, hypothetically or not.


    Note the following is an incomplete summary of things you said - just on page 3 of this post - that are contradicted explicitly or implicitly by the statements in this paper, or by the argument you used the paper to support - the paper that you helpfully just corroborated as valid for me.



    “If you want to support the idea that the sun actually sets before it appears to, which suggests that refraction happens in the opposite way, then we would need to test it, to see which is supported by the evidence.”


    “Actual definition of Snell's law:

    a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.”


    “On the contrary, you’ve asserted that Snell’s law causes light to bend downwards, but this is a lie. An invention of yours to win an argument”


    “You would actually change what basic laws of physics say to soothe your insecurities, and it's sad.”


    “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary, where a dense medium crosses a less dense one”


    “If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away”


    “Add some distance though, and you can add water, or panes of glass to the equation and you will get a boundary. A "wall" of water, if you will(from your perspective). The boundary is the point where the water has accumulated enough, with distance, to start bending the light. Of course, the wall won't be level, because, as you said, the air gets less dense the higher you go”


    “Now, you can go on asserting that snells law is applicable, and that it supports the round earth theory, but you've ignored the very basic questions that I've asked, so I'll ask again, so that we can settle this indifference...

    ..Where exactly is this boundary? In your diagram:”


    “The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet?.”



    I did say that I don't think the paper is accurate with reality, and there is no scientific evidence that supports it.

    So you don’t think the paper is valid, and you don’t think any of it is accurate?

    Your argument is that this paper - which you’re saying doesn’t represent reality or is valid in any of its conclusions - is evidence that the world works the way you have claimed.

    this makes no sense.
  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  



    You  say .....Yes, there are more than one person here. Your words " you guys.." even acknowledges this, no you ask if there is more than one?

    My reply .... Oh dear even simple sarcasm eludes you 

    You say ......Did you think I was talking to myself?

    My reply ..... I would think it’s something you’re more than familiar with 

    You say.......And you did not "destroy" me in a debate.

    My reply ..... Well yes I did your denial is typical 



    You say ..... It was not even voted on.

    My reply .... But Debra which you seem to put so much faith in deemed it 70 to 30 in my favour which was actually generous given you had nothing 

    You say .....This is entirely your opinion.

    My reply .... Actually it’s not as I’ve just proven 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @ampersand your initial argument was that atmospheric refraction could not be measured with snell's law. That it was like using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle. This is where our disagreement lies. You then attempted to kick the stone where I showed that it was possible, unlike your analogy, and now you have apparently flip flopped. The paper was hypothetical and assumes a spherical earth, along with several thermal inversions which must always be there, and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
    1.) Snells law isn’t a way of measuring anything.

    2.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refraction - after telling me (in quoted text above) - that you couldn’t,

    3.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refaction - then used a paper you claim is not validand doesn’t represent reality to show it.

    4.) the paper doesn’t assume or require “thermal inversions”. This is either a lie, or you don’t understand what the paper is describing.  - the paper requires pressure of air and refraction index of air, and the temperature of the air as you increase altitude to match the confirmable and reproducibly measured relationships it does.

    5.) you claim that the paper is hypothetical - and yet state the use of snells it invokes is a definite non-hypothetical thing - confirmed by this hypothetical paper.

    I said in my first post, that given enough time: you refute your own position.

    This is a perfect example.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:



    You  say .....Yes, there are more than one person here. Your words " you guys.." even acknowledges this, no you ask if there is more than one?

    My reply .... Oh dear even simple sarcasm eludes you 

    You say ......Did you think I was talking to myself?

    My reply ..... I would think it’s something you’re more than familiar with 

    You say.......And you did not "destroy" me in a debate.

    My reply ..... Well yes I did your denial is typical 



    You say ..... It was not even voted on.

    My reply .... But Debra which you seem to put so much faith in deemed it 70 to 30 in my favour which was actually generous given you had nothing 

    You say .....This is entirely your opinion.

    My reply .... Actually it’s not as I’ve just proven 
    The Debra is not dependable for deciding who won the debate, especially when my third round argument was in the "For" position. This is why Debra predicted the For arguments to win, it assumed that I forfeited or changed my position. Your arguments were very poor.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand

    Maybe you missed the response to your correction, where I stated that just changing the word second to minute would fix it. It doesn't make it that much more plausible, but I did thank you for the correction.

     In your last response, it appears that I have gotten under your skin. Allow me to apologize, one day. Some of your posts are actually useful in tightening up my arguments, and I appreciate you being here.

    Oh and as for Snell's denying that air is isotropic media is denying both of the other debaters present, and the very definition of Snell's Law, which includes air as an isotropic medium. 

    As for studies which use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction:

    http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html

    There is just one.
    You seriously think this is a valid scientific paper? I mean really? You can’t possibly think any of this is accurate.
    You post is just appealing to the stone. It's from Professor Lary at University of Texas at Dallas. You've given me no reason to believe that it isn't a legit paper. As for it's accuracy, what do you think? If you presented this paper to me, a flat earther, and I said what you just said to me, you'd call me out, right? I already explained why I think it's inaccurate, nonetheless, he is measuring atmospheric refraction with Snell's, hypothetically or not.


    Note the following is an incomplete summary of things you said - just on page 3 of this post - that are contradicted explicitly or implicitly by the statements in this paper, or by the argument you used the paper to support - the paper that you helpfully just corroborated as valid for me.



    “If you want to support the idea that the sun actually sets before it appears to, which suggests that refraction happens in the opposite way, then we would need to test it, to see which is supported by the evidence.”


    “Actual definition of Snell's law:

    a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.”


    “On the contrary, you’ve asserted that Snell’s law causes light to bend downwards, but this is a lie. An invention of yours to win an argument”


    “You would actually change what basic laws of physics say to soothe your insecurities, and it's sad.”


    “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary, where a dense medium crosses a less dense one”


    “If the normal is a "vertical" line, then the boundary must be a horizontal one. This is assuming that we are looking down into a denser medium when we see these mountains from over 250 miles away”


    “Add some distance though, and you can add water, or panes of glass to the equation and you will get a boundary. A "wall" of water, if you will(from your perspective). The boundary is the point where the water has accumulated enough, with distance, to start bending the light. Of course, the wall won't be level, because, as you said, the air gets less dense the higher you go”


    “Now, you can go on asserting that snells law is applicable, and that it supports the round earth theory, but you've ignored the very basic questions that I've asked, so I'll ask again, so that we can settle this indifference...

    ..Where exactly is this boundary? In your diagram:”


    “The observer is looking down at an angle from a lower refractive index into a medium that has a higher refractive index. How does this represent reality in any way? Is this boundary below the feet?.”



    I did say that I don't think the paper is accurate with reality, and there is no scientific evidence that supports it.

    So you don’t think the paper is valid, and you don’t think any of it is accurate?

    Your argument is that this paper - which you’re saying doesn’t represent reality or is valid in any of its conclusions - is evidence that the world works the way you have claimed.

    this makes no sense.
    It makes no sense because it wasn't directed at you and was taken out of context. The paper was valid in that you CAN use Snell's law to calculate atmospheric refraction in one way or another. It isn't accurate because it makes several assumptions and has no supporting evidence.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @ampersand your initial argument was that atmospheric refraction could not be measured with snell's law. That it was like using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle. This is where our disagreement lies. You then attempted to kick the stone where I showed that it was possible, unlike your analogy, and now you have apparently flip flopped. The paper was hypothetical and assumes a spherical earth, along with several thermal inversions which must always be there, and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
    1.) Snells law isn’t a way of measuring anything.

    2.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refraction - after telling me (in quoted text above) - that you couldn’t,

    3.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refaction - then used a paper you claim is not validand doesn’t represent reality to show it.

    4.) the paper doesn’t assume or require “thermal inversions”. This is either a lie, or you don’t understand what the paper is describing.  - the paper requires pressure of air and refraction index of air, and the temperature of the air as you increase altitude to match the confirmable and reproducibly measured relationships it does.

    5.) you claim that the paper is hypothetical - and yet state the use of snells it invokes is a definite non-hypothetical thing - confirmed by this hypothetical paper.

    I said in my first post, that given enough time: you refute your own position.

    This is a perfect example.


    1. Yes, Snells law is a means of measuring and dictates the angle at which light is refracted when crossing a boundary between two refractive indexes.

    2. Nowhere in the quotes above do I state this.

    3. It is valid in that, and I'm repeating myself again, you can measure the refraction in the atmosphere.

    4. Yes, that is what I said, only in the dichotomy, these layers are spherical in your model, and flat in mine. 

    5. The hypothetical portion is the location of the sun, and the physics in the models, as explained above.
    Joeseph
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @ampersand your initial argument was that atmospheric refraction could not be measured with snell's law. That it was like using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle. This is where our disagreement lies. You then attempted to kick the stone where I showed that it was possible, unlike your analogy, and now you have apparently flip flopped. The paper was hypothetical and assumes a spherical earth, along with several thermal inversions which must always be there, and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
    1.) Snells law isn’t a way of measuring anything.

    2.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refraction - after telling me (in quoted text above) - that you couldn’t,

    3.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refaction - then used a paper you claim is not validand doesn’t represent reality to show it.

    4.) the paper doesn’t assume or require “thermal inversions”. This is either a lie, or you don’t understand what the paper is describing.  - the paper requires pressure of air and refraction index of air, and the temperature of the air as you increase altitude to match the confirmable and reproducibly measured relationships it does.

    5.) you claim that the paper is hypothetical - and yet state the use of snells it invokes is a definite non-hypothetical thing - confirmed by this hypothetical paper.

    I said in my first post, that given enough time: you refute your own position.

    This is a perfect example.


    1. Yes, Snells law is a means of measuring and dictates the angle at which light is refracted when crossing a boundary between two refractive indexes.

    2. Nowhere in the quotes above do I state this.

    3. It is valid in that, and I'm repeating myself again, you can measure the refraction in the atmosphere.

    4. Yes, that is what I said, only in the dichotomy, these layers are spherical in your model, and flat in mine. 

    5. The hypothetical portion is the location of the sun, and the physics in the models, as explained above.
    1.) No. snells is an equation. Not a measurement. If you don’t understand the difference - you have big problems.

    2.) “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary”

    - this was in a reply for me using snells to explain how light bends in the atmosphere...

    3.) No we get it... you’re saying the paper is completely invalid at the same time as being completely valid. It’s either valid or not, reliable or not. You’re casting doubt on your own paper, and thus you can’t then say the paper is reliable - but only for the bits you say it is. 

    No no matter how many times you assert - as you have provided no evidence either way - that the paper is both completely invalid in all its conclusions and assumptions - and also not; it doesn’t make that any less coherent.

    you can keep repeating for the next thousand posts if you want: it’s an Incoherent position to take.

    4.) You said the paper requires inversions - it doesn’t. That is a lie. The paper only requires air to generally conform to the typirical measurements we make with it: in temperature, pressure and humidity with altitude.

    I don’t know quite what you’re trying to respond to: but it doesn’t sound like the point I raised...

    5.) Again, as per 3: simply restating the contradiction doesn’t make it not a contradiction.

    Youre claiming that:

    Snells law works the way you claim because A paper that  you say has invalid conclusions, and hypothetical data, uses geometry that is invalid, and assumptions that you claim are unscientific, uses snells to calculate a type of refraction that you claim doesn’t happen, isn’t valid to produce values and refractive calculations that you reject.

    This is not a scientific or intelligent argument: this is just the waving of scientific sounding arguments to make it sound like your position is accurate.




    JoesephGeorge_Horse
  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    You say .......The Debra is not dependable for deciding who won the debate, especially when my third round argument was in the "For" position.
    This is why Debra predicted the For arguments to win, it assumed that I forfeited or changed my position.

    My reply ...... Nonsense, you were thrashed 

     You say ......Your arguments were very poor.

    My reply ..... 70 to 30 in my favour demonstrates you were destroyed , your only “arguments “ were You Tube conspiracy channel drivel and highly edited videos from whackos claiming to be scientists 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @ampersand your initial argument was that atmospheric refraction could not be measured with snell's law. That it was like using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle. This is where our disagreement lies. You then attempted to kick the stone where I showed that it was possible, unlike your analogy, and now you have apparently flip flopped. The paper was hypothetical and assumes a spherical earth, along with several thermal inversions which must always be there, and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
    1.) Snells law isn’t a way of measuring anything.

    2.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refraction - after telling me (in quoted text above) - that you couldn’t,

    3.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refaction - then used a paper you claim is not validand doesn’t represent reality to show it.

    4.) the paper doesn’t assume or require “thermal inversions”. This is either a lie, or you don’t understand what the paper is describing.  - the paper requires pressure of air and refraction index of air, and the temperature of the air as you increase altitude to match the confirmable and reproducibly measured relationships it does.

    5.) you claim that the paper is hypothetical - and yet state the use of snells it invokes is a definite non-hypothetical thing - confirmed by this hypothetical paper.

    I said in my first post, that given enough time: you refute your own position.

    This is a perfect example.


    1. Yes, Snells law is a means of measuring and dictates the angle at which light is refracted when crossing a boundary between two refractive indexes.

    2. Nowhere in the quotes above do I state this.

    3. It is valid in that, and I'm repeating myself again, you can measure the refraction in the atmosphere.

    4. Yes, that is what I said, only in the dichotomy, these layers are spherical in your model, and flat in mine. 

    5. The hypothetical portion is the location of the sun, and the physics in the models, as explained above.
    1.) No. snells is an equation. Not a measurement. If you don’t understand the difference - you have big problems.

    2.) “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary”

    - this was in a reply for me using snells to explain how light bends in the atmosphere...

    3.) No we get it... you’re saying the paper is completely invalid at the same time as being completely valid. It’s either valid or not, reliable or not. You’re casting doubt on your own paper, and thus you can’t then say the paper is reliable - but only for the bits you say it is. 

    No no matter how many times you assert - as you have provided no evidence either way - that the paper is both completely invalid in all its conclusions and assumptions - and also not; it doesn’t make that any less coherent.

    you can keep repeating for the next thousand posts if you want: it’s an Incoherent position to take.

    4.) You said the paper requires inversions - it doesn’t. That is a lie. The paper only requires air to generally conform to the typirical measurements we make with it: in temperature, pressure and humidity with altitude.

    I don’t know quite what you’re trying to respond to: but it doesn’t sound like the point I raised...

    5.) Again, as per 3: simply restating the contradiction doesn’t make it not a contradiction.

    Youre claiming that:

    Snells law works the way you claim because A paper that  you say has invalid conclusions, and hypothetical data, uses geometry that is invalid, and assumptions that you claim are unscientific, uses snells to calculate a type of refraction that you claim doesn’t happen, isn’t valid to produce values and refractive calculations that you reject.

    This is not a scientific or intelligent argument: this is just the waving of scientific sounding arguments to make it sound like your position is accurate.




    1. I didn't say it was a measurement. You obviously can't understand simple English. I said it was a means of measurement. Similar to the Pythagorean theorem in the analgy of @Ampersand. If you can't properly paraphrase something I've said, just concede. Don't make sh!t up, I will call you out on it. It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    2. The quote does not say that you can't use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction, and instance like the one described above. Matter of fact, it says that you have to have a defined boundary to use the law with the atmosphere, not that you can't use it.

    3. Yet again, you pretend as though you don't understand plain English.

     You could say that 2+2=4 and this would be a valid statement, but when you analyze the assumptions of what 2 stands for, and find them to be false, then the statement becomes inaccurate, while at the same time, valid. I honestly cannot explain this any more in detail. A statement is only true as the axioms involved. I don't expect you to understand. You appear to be just a "no" man, specifically MY "no" man.

    You butted into a conversation you weren't involved in where my opponent claimed that Snell's was inapplicable in atmospheric refraction. This was my purpose in posting the paper, not that I believe the conclusion therein. You know this and you're trying your best not to look like a tool.

    If you want to talk about evidence, we can go back to magnification, or lack thereof, which you conceded to.

    4. No, snell's law, as repeatedly pointed out to you, requires a boundary, not a general conformity as you claim. Do I need to define Snell's law, yet again? Your incompetence of simple English and sudden lapses in memory astounds me.

    5. I explained my position, in detail in number 3. Repeated attempts to warp or misconstrue my position will result in a copy paste of this post until you can comprehend it.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    @ampersand your initial argument was that atmospheric refraction could not be measured with snell's law. That it was like using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle. This is where our disagreement lies. You then attempted to kick the stone where I showed that it was possible, unlike your analogy, and now you have apparently flip flopped. The paper was hypothetical and assumes a spherical earth, along with several thermal inversions which must always be there, and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
    This is a load of baseless claims that is also largely nonsensical. You make claims like "now you have apparently flip flopped" and not only don't even provide evidence to support your claim, you also don't even say what you're referring to with this supposed flip flop so no-one can possibly have any idea of what you're talking about. You also use nonsense phrases like "kick the stone" when I imagine you either mean kick the can down the road or appeal to the stone, although I'm taking wild stabs in the dark there.

    Also before you attempt to rewrite your post to a) contain actual evidence to support your claims and b) make sense, I'd suggest you respond to my previous post which rebutted your attempt to use http://www.utdallas.edu/~djl101000/DavidLary/Publications/Entries/1997/4/20_Refraction_and_atmospheric_photochemistry.html and showed how you were shooting yourself in the foot because it helps destroy your argument and bolster mine. Until you respond, simply reiterating your claims would be meaningless. Then again making your claims without evidence is meaningless in the first place. Maybe this is part of an experiment on your part to see if making claims that are doubly meaningless works like a double-negative and cancel each other out! (Spoiler: They don't, it just makes the argument extra bad)
    Joeseph
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @ampersand your initial argument was that atmospheric refraction could not be measured with snell's law. That it was like using Pythagorean theorem to measure a triangle without a right angle. This is where our disagreement lies. You then attempted to kick the stone where I showed that it was possible, unlike your analogy, and now you have apparently flip flopped. The paper was hypothetical and assumes a spherical earth, along with several thermal inversions which must always be there, and there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
    1.) Snells law isn’t a way of measuring anything.

    2.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refraction - after telling me (in quoted text above) - that you couldn’t,

    3.) You said you can use snells law to measure atmospheric refaction - then used a paper you claim is not validand doesn’t represent reality to show it.

    4.) the paper doesn’t assume or require “thermal inversions”. This is either a lie, or you don’t understand what the paper is describing.  - the paper requires pressure of air and refraction index of air, and the temperature of the air as you increase altitude to match the confirmable and reproducibly measured relationships it does.

    5.) you claim that the paper is hypothetical - and yet state the use of snells it invokes is a definite non-hypothetical thing - confirmed by this hypothetical paper.

    I said in my first post, that given enough time: you refute your own position.

    This is a perfect example.


    1. Yes, Snells law is a means of measuring and dictates the angle at which light is refracted when crossing a boundary between two refractive indexes.

    2. Nowhere in the quotes above do I state this.

    3. It is valid in that, and I'm repeating myself again, you can measure the refraction in the atmosphere.

    4. Yes, that is what I said, only in the dichotomy, these layers are spherical in your model, and flat in mine. 

    5. The hypothetical portion is the location of the sun, and the physics in the models, as explained above.
    1.) No. snells is an equation. Not a measurement. If you don’t understand the difference - you have big problems.

    2.) “The Snell's law is a demonstrable fact, but in order to apply the law and calculate the angle that the light's path will take, there must be a definable boundary”

    - this was in a reply for me using snells to explain how light bends in the atmosphere...

    3.) No we get it... you’re saying the paper is completely invalid at the same time as being completely valid. It’s either valid or not, reliable or not. You’re casting doubt on your own paper, and thus you can’t then say the paper is reliable - but only for the bits you say it is. 

    No no matter how many times you assert - as you have provided no evidence either way - that the paper is both completely invalid in all its conclusions and assumptions - and also not; it doesn’t make that any less coherent.

    you can keep repeating for the next thousand posts if you want: it’s an Incoherent position to take.

    4.) You said the paper requires inversions - it doesn’t. That is a lie. The paper only requires air to generally conform to the typirical measurements we make with it: in temperature, pressure and humidity with altitude.

    I don’t know quite what you’re trying to respond to: but it doesn’t sound like the point I raised...

    5.) Again, as per 3: simply restating the contradiction doesn’t make it not a contradiction.

    Youre claiming that:

    Snells law works the way you claim because A paper that  you say has invalid conclusions, and hypothetical data, uses geometry that is invalid, and assumptions that you claim are unscientific, uses snells to calculate a type of refraction that you claim doesn’t happen, isn’t valid to produce values and refractive calculations that you reject.

    This is not a scientific or intelligent argument: this is just the waving of scientific sounding arguments to make it sound like your position is accurate.




    1. I didn't say it was a measurement. You obviously can't understand simple English. I said it was a means of measurement. Similar to the Pythagorean theorem in the analgy of @Ampersand. If you can't properly paraphrase something I've said, just concede. Don't make sh!t up, I will call you out on it. It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    2. The quote does not say that you can't use Snell's law to calculate the angle of refraction, and instance like the one described above. Matter of fact, it says that you have to have a defined boundary to use the law with the atmosphere, not that you can't use it.

    3. Yet again, you pretend as though you don't understand plain English.

     You could say that 2+2=4 and this would be a valid statement, but when you analyze the assumptions of what 2 stands for, and find them to be false, then the statement becomes inaccurate, while at the same time, valid. I honestly cannot explain this any more in detail. A statement is only true as the axioms involved. I don't expect you to understand. You appear to be just a "no" man, specifically MY "no" man.

    You butted into a conversation you weren't involved in where my opponent claimed that Snell's was inapplicable in atmospheric refraction. This was my purpose in posting the paper, not that I believe the conclusion therein. You know this and you're trying your best not to look like a tool.

    If you want to talk about evidence, we can go back to magnification, or lack thereof, which you conceded to.

    4. No, snell's law, as repeatedly pointed out to you, requires a boundary, not a general conformity as you claim. Do I need to define Snell's law, yet again? Your incompetence of simple English and sudden lapses in memory astounds me.

    5. I explained my position, in detail in number 3. Repeated attempts to warp or misconstrue my position will result in a copy paste of this post until you can comprehend it.
    1.) “Yes, Snells law is a means of measuring”

    yes you did. Snells it not a means of measuring anything. It’s an equation that you can use to calculate something - if you don’t understand the difference between the two - you have major issues in scientific understanding.

    its not a means of measurement either.

    2.) This is retarded word salad from someone who can’t keep their stories straight.

    The quote is accurate: 

    Air is either isotopic or it’s not: you literally cannot cite a paper as an argument that air is isotropic to counter Amph after going ten posts of asserting that air is not isotropic when countered by me.

    ”but I didn’t say that” - yes you did. This is the meaning of what you said. You may not understand that “no clear boundary” is the opposite of isotropic: but what you understand or not is largely irrelevant.


    3.) I understand plain English.

    you are literally arguing 2+2 = 5 and then saying 2+2=7 three posts later.

    You are attacking the paper as making false assumption, faulty logic and claiming it isn’t mathematically accurate (and yes you are - as it comes to the same conclusions I’ve made and you rejected)

    You can’t tell us that the paper is not a credible source and can be discarded - then tell us we must accept it as a credible source.

    4.) Emphatically contradicting yourself by sounding as if you really mean what you say doesn’t mean that you’re not contradicting yourself.

    If snells doesn’t apply to air because it is not isotropic (has no defined boundary): then you are conceding that Amp is correct.

    if snells does apply to air because it is isotropic (can be treated as having a defined boundary), then you are conceding that I am correct.

    those are literally the only two options you have.

    5.) No i understand it perfectly - as shown - you are repeatedly contradicting yourself because you have an incoherent and unscientific position.

    You can’t be right in both your argument against me and amp (4), and you can’t both say a paper is authorative and not

    In terms of hypotheticality, I understand exactly what you mean: and have not misconstrued anything you’ve said, as you continue to complain.


    You’re presented a source that contradicts almost everything you’ve been saying (quote list), you reject as invalid all of the conclusions it makes that you don’t like, claiming it makes false assumptions and is largely hypothetical but without external evidence of justification hold this article up as an authority on how to use snells.

    Why isnt the applications of snells “hypothetical”, or a “bad assumption” or simply bad maths.

    This is called cherry picking.










  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  

    My favourite part of this other than Erf refuting himself - is that he’s citing a paper that explains how refraction would work on a spherical earth (the paper)- then says it cant be used to defend what happens on a sphere (my arguments concerning refraction that say the same thing) - because it treats the earth as if it’s a sphere.



    Apparently to demonstrate what observations could be made on a sphere - we have to only ever use maths and science that assumes the earth is the shape of a Ford Camero or something.


  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  
    @Gooberry

    You stated .....t's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.


    My reply ......Yet here you go yet again with another ......reply which being the moron you are you have failed too .....ignore .....ouch 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
    Case in point, @gooberry

     :D 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
    Case in point, @gooberry

     :D 

    Well done: that’s one post on this page where didn’t refute something you had already said on a previous page.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
    Case in point, @gooberry

     :D 

    Well done: that’s one post on this page where didn’t refute something you had already said on a previous page.

    And that's one post that wasn't a platitudinous repetitive red herring.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
    Case in point, @gooberry

     :D 

    Well done: that’s one post on this page where didn’t refute something you had already said on a previous page.

    And that's one post that wasn't a platitudinous repetitive red herring.
    So - when there’s is atmospheric refraction in the air, is there any sort of boundary to which snells can apply?

    If so you concede that you are wrong, and I am right.

    Otherwise, there is no boundary - and refraction in air is not within an isotropic medium: and so you concede that you are wrong, and ampersand is correct.


    I will also point out that You claimed that water in the air causes refraction over distances. But denied that humidity causes refraction over distance: Water in the air is what humidity is.


    You've also said that the gradual accumulation of water over distance “creates a boundary”. A gradual change over a large distance is by definition not “a boundary”

    Is the paper you cited untrustworthy or not?


    It’s as if you’re throwing around scientific terms without really understanding what they mean.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
    Case in point, @gooberry

     :D 

    Well done: that’s one post on this page where didn’t refute something you had already said on a previous page.

    And that's one post that wasn't a platitudinous repetitive red herring.
    So - when there’s is atmospheric refraction in the air, is there any sort of boundary to which snells can apply?

    If so you concede that you are wrong, and I am right.

    Otherwise, there is no boundary - and refraction in air is not within an isotropic medium: and so you concede that you are wrong, and ampersand is correct.


    I will also point out that You claimed that water in the air causes refraction over distances. But denied that humidity causes refraction over distance: Water in the air is what humidity is.


    You've also said that the gradual accumulation of water over distance “creates a boundary”. A gradual change over a large distance is by definition not “a boundary”

    Is the paper you cited untrustworthy or not?


    It’s as if you’re throwing around scientific terms without really understanding what they mean.


    Im not sure why I even bother trying, but I feel that you have more sense than the average sack of meat here on debate island, so...



    The accumulation is from our perspective. You seem to be trying to look at this maybe from a side view, still. The trees at the bottom of the image have very little smoke in front of it. The building has a bit, but the mountains in the distance have a substantial amount. This is nearly enough smoke to block the mountains out entirely. This is the general idea that I am trying to convey. That Mobile has enough atmosphere, or refractive elements therein, where humidity, water, and even dry air, which is more dense than moist air causes an unseen boundary. The paper gives us a concave boundary from our perspective, or several, layered boundaries, which, when you consider the above, is proposterous. Concave or no. You have held the position that atmospheric refraction causes Chicago to be raised up from the imaginary curve, without providing an ounce of the great many specific details you insist I make. Where is your alleged boundary? Then you have answered your own questions.
    Gooberry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
    Case in point, @gooberry

     :D 

    Well done: that’s one post on this page where didn’t refute something you had already said on a previous page.

    And that's one post that wasn't a platitudinous repetitive red herring.
    So - when there’s is atmospheric refraction in the air, is there any sort of boundary to which snells can apply?

    If so you concede that you are wrong, and I am right.

    Otherwise, there is no boundary - and refraction in air is not within an isotropic medium: and so you concede that you are wrong, and ampersand is correct.


    I will also point out that You claimed that water in the air causes refraction over distances. But denied that humidity causes refraction over distance: Water in the air is what humidity is.


    You've also said that the gradual accumulation of water over distance “creates a boundary”. A gradual change over a large distance is by definition not “a boundary”

    Is the paper you cited untrustworthy or not?


    It’s as if you’re throwing around scientific terms without really understanding what they mean.


    Im not sure why I even bother trying, but I feel that you have more sense than the average sack of meat here on debate island, so...



    The accumulation is from our perspective. You seem to be trying to look at this maybe from a side view, still. The trees at the bottom of the image have very little smoke in front of it. The building has a bit, but the mountains in the distance have a substantial amount. This is nearly enough smoke to block the mountains out entirely. This is the general idea that I am trying to convey. That Mobile has enough atmosphere, or refractive elements therein, where humidity, water, and even dry air, which is more dense than moist air causes an unseen boundary. The paper gives us a concave boundary from our perspective, or several, layered boundaries, which, when you consider the above, is proposterous. Concave or no. You have held the position that atmospheric refraction causes Chicago to be raised up from the imaginary curve, without providing an ounce of the great many specific details you insist I make. Where is your alleged boundary? Then you have answered your own questions.

    I’ve pointed out in pretty specific detail the problem with your “approach”, your reply fails to acknowledge them


    1.) an accumulation of distance is - by definition - not a definable boundary. 


    Asserting, over and over and over again again that it is a boundary doesn’t make it so any more than saying an orange is an apple makes it true.


    Where is the physical boundary. Is there 1? 5? 10? What is the refractive index of these regions? You don’t seem to know any answers to that


    2.) “Humidty, water” - again - let me repeat - humidity in the air is almost invariably the same thing as water in the air - unless there are clouds.


    3.) the air being semi opaque - due to dust, smoke and pollution - is a completely different effect that works in a different way than refraction.


    Opacity is dependent on distance - refraction is not: they have different causes, and one has little bearing on the other.


    4.) refraction is based on refractive index - you argue that there is some form of accumulation - which is not how refraction works.

    Though it is hard to tell as you’re being incredibly vague and non descriptive, with hand waving when you’re describing how your “boundary” and “accumulation” works srather than any technical description (I mean - you don’t even reference refractive index when talking about how refraction works in your “example” is kind of a red flag)


    5.) Air of approximately similar “humidty” - ie: water in the air - has the same refractive index, and thus there is no boundary over which to refract


    Even if there was a gradual change in humidity over time as you moved across the valley: by definition it’s not boundary either.


    6.) “when I consider the above” a treating the air as if it is made of several layers over the earth of decreasing density.

    Why is it preposterous, exactly, to treat the layers of earth atmosphere exactly as they are measured to be? Decreasing layers of density and thus refractive index with altitude?

    What about your non specific, generalized, boundary - who’s formation you gloss over with babble, and doesn’t even make sense in terms of refraction - makes treating air as it is measured to be - preposterous?



    7.) mobile has enough “refractive elements to produce a boundary”

    ... he asserts without evidence or explanation. How? Why? 



    What you’ve said makes no scientific sense at all. 



    I’ve pointed these all out previously. And nothing in your post does anything more than restate the pseudoscience babble you made in the first place.


    This is why I’ve constantly asked you to show your maths: you keep saying snells - a mathematical equation - produces the effects you claim it can.


    If you actually attempted to use the calculation:


    When you tried to calculation the refractive index of start and end, you’d find there is no change of refractive index.


    If you used change in humidity - you’d find it could work different ways depending on conditions - rather than one single way you claim.


    It would also be impossible to find a boundary, and impossible for you to achieve greater refraction over distance - because snells doesn’t work like that.


    Finally, you’d also find almost 0 refraction too: as minimal refraction occurs an angle near perpendicular to the boundary: (sin(0) is the point of greatest change in the sun equation - meaning a small change in angle produces a large change in the results of sin(angle), so less angular change is produced as a result of N1/N2


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;


    You say ...... It's one of your typical posts where you strawman me, and why your posts are ignored, aside from the typical morons like @Joeseph.

    My reply ...... Hilarious , you claim I’m moronic because I didn’t ignore the Flatard yet youre the prize cabbage who’s engaged in 100’s of replies to his nonsense making you an imbecile using your “ logic “

    I think you need to head back to C D and continue defending your 9 /11 conspiracy theory bull 
    Case in point, @gooberry

     :D 

    Well done: that’s one post on this page where didn’t refute something you had already said on a previous page.

    And that's one post that wasn't a platitudinous repetitive red herring.
    So - when there’s is atmospheric refraction in the air, is there any sort of boundary to which snells can apply?

    If so you concede that you are wrong, and I am right.

    Otherwise, there is no boundary - and refraction in air is not within an isotropic medium: and so you concede that you are wrong, and ampersand is correct.


    I will also point out that You claimed that water in the air causes refraction over distances. But denied that humidity causes refraction over distance: Water in the air is what humidity is.


    You've also said that the gradual accumulation of water over distance “creates a boundary”. A gradual change over a large distance is by definition not “a boundary”

    Is the paper you cited untrustworthy or not?


    It’s as if you’re throwing around scientific terms without really understanding what they mean.


    Im not sure why I even bother trying, but I feel that you have more sense than the average sack of meat here on debate island, so...



    The accumulation is from our perspective. You seem to be trying to look at this maybe from a side view, still. The trees at the bottom of the image have very little smoke in front of it. The building has a bit, but the mountains in the distance have a substantial amount. This is nearly enough smoke to block the mountains out entirely. This is the general idea that I am trying to convey. That Mobile has enough atmosphere, or refractive elements therein, where humidity, water, and even dry air, which is more dense than moist air causes an unseen boundary. The paper gives us a concave boundary from our perspective, or several, layered boundaries, which, when you consider the above, is proposterous. Concave or no. You have held the position that atmospheric refraction causes Chicago to be raised up from the imaginary curve, without providing an ounce of the great many specific details you insist I make. Where is your alleged boundary? Then you have answered your own questions.

    I’ve pointed out in pretty specific detail the problem with your “approach”, your reply fails to acknowledge them


    1.) an accumulation of distance is - by definition - not a definable boundary. 


    Asserting, over and over and over again again that it is a boundary doesn’t make it so any more than saying an orange is an apple makes it true.


    Where is the physical boundary. Is there 1? 5? 10? What is the refractive index of these regions? You don’t seem to know any answers to that


    2.) “Humidty, water” - again - let me repeat - humidity in the air is almost invariably the same thing as water in the air - unless there are clouds.


    3.) the air being semi opaque - due to dust, smoke and pollution - is a completely different effect that works in a different way than refraction.


    Opacity is dependent on distance - refraction is not: they have different causes, and one has little bearing on the other.


    4.) refraction is based on refractive index - you argue that there is some form of accumulation - which is not how refraction works.

    Though it is hard to tell as you’re being incredibly vague and non descriptive, with hand waving when you’re describing how your “boundary” and “accumulation” works srather than any technical description (I mean - you don’t even reference refractive index when talking about how refraction works in your “example” is kind of a red flag)


    5.) Air of approximately similar “humidty” - ie: water in the air - has the same refractive index, and thus there is no boundary over which to refract


    Even if there was a gradual change in humidity over time as you moved across the valley: by definition it’s not boundary either.


    6.) “when I consider the above” a treating the air as if it is made of several layers over the earth of decreasing density.

    Why is it preposterous, exactly, to treat the layers of earth atmosphere exactly as they are measured to be? Decreasing layers of density and thus refractive index with altitude?

    What about your non specific, generalized, boundary - who’s formation you gloss over with babble, and doesn’t even make sense in terms of refraction - makes treating air as it is measured to be - preposterous?



    7.) mobile has enough “refractive elements to produce a boundary”

    ... he asserts without evidence or explanation. How? Why? 



    What you’ve said makes no scientific sense at all. 



    I’ve pointed these all out previously. And nothing in your post does anything more than restate the pseudoscience babble you made in the first place.


    This is why I’ve constantly asked you to show your maths: you keep saying snells - a mathematical equation - produces the effects you claim it can.


    If you actually attempted to use the calculation:


    When you tried to calculation the refractive index of start and end, you’d find there is no change of refractive index.


    If you used change in humidity - you’d find it could work different ways depending on conditions - rather than one single way you claim.


    It would also be impossible to find a boundary, and impossible for you to achieve greater refraction over distance - because snells doesn’t work like that.


    Finally, you’d also find almost 0 refraction too: as minimal refraction occurs an angle near perpendicular to the boundary: (sin(0) is the point of greatest change in the sun equation - meaning a small change in angle produces a large change in the results of sin(angle), so less angular change is produced as a result of N1/N2


    Surprise! Another long, monotonous post of I've already responded to.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    When a pseudoscientist asserts his way through some non specific hand waving explanation that fails on multiple counts to be coherent or scientific: to detail why refute that explanaition is wrong, It requires words and argument.



    If your only reply to my post, which is very specific, very detailed, and points out the key flaws in your position is;

    “Omg you’re post is too long, and it’s all wrong anyway ha!”

    It pretty much shows that you have no ability to argue on the scientific merits of your position.




    As I have explained: you’ve made a series of unsubstantiated made up assertions that fail at the most basic level of understanding of sciences: you have not provided an explanation of any of these specific things, despite me raising them multiple times.



    1.) If “the accumulation of water” is gradual over distance: how can there be a boundary? That’s the opposite of what “gradual accumulation” means. 


    2.) Where is the boundary? You say you’re applying refraction: so what are the refractive indexes either side: is there just one boundary? Or multiple boundaries. 


    3.) you constantly talk about water in the air and humidity as if they are different things water in the air is the same thing as humidty (clouds are the exception - but it’s hard to argue refraction works through a non-transparent medium)


    4.) opacity doesn’t work the same way as refraction


    5.) the paper treats air like it is multiple layers, with higher layers being less dense with less refractive index than lower layers: that’s what air is measured to be: you say your “explanation” invalidates that empirically measurable fact: how? Why? On what planet?


    6.) You’ve claimed that you can describe reality using a boundary and snells: why won’t you do the maths: what are the refractive indexes either side of the boundary? How will it refract light and by how much? Why have you gone 30 posts attempting to avoid doing the maths you are emphatically trying to tell us all applies?






    The reason you can’t answer any of these, and are now retreating into the typical denialiast rhetoric you use when you’re pretty much shown to be wrong, is because you’re making this up, nothing you said has any scientific validity: for the reasons I will continue to list, and you have not addressed.


    Claim to have addressed them already? I preemptively call : 


    No. I have listed the issues - and you simply replied with re-asserting the same thing I was refuting - that is barely even coherent leave alone a valid point.


    Also note: you’ve also now dropped any pretence if addressing prior issues with your argument.


    Way to change the subject! It’s like you don’t want to deal with refuting yourself so changed the subject and are now refusing to engage!


    I remember when Einstein did that with Bohr: when Bohr pointed out Einstein’s thought experiment was incorrectly interpretated, Einstein changed the subject then wrote a letter back saying “I’ve already addressed that”


    George_Horse
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    When a pseudoscientist asserts his way through some non specific hand waving explanation that fails on multiple counts to be coherent or scientific: to detail why refute that explanaition is wrong, It requires words and argument.



    If your only reply to my post, which is very specific, very detailed, and points out the key flaws in your position is;

    “Omg you’re post is too long, and it’s all wrong anyway ha!”

    It pretty much shows that you have no ability to argue on the scientific merits of your position.




    As I have explained: you’ve made a series of unsubstantiated made up assertions that fail at the most basic level of understanding of sciences: you have not provided an explanation of any of these specific things, despite me raising them multiple times.



    1.) If “the accumulation of water” is gradual over distance: how can there be a boundary? That’s the opposite of what “gradual accumulation” means. 


    2.) Where is the boundary? You say you’re applying refraction: so what are the refractive indexes either side: is there just one boundary? Or multiple boundaries. 


    3.) you constantly talk about water in the air and humidity as if they are different things water in the air is the same thing as humidty (clouds are the exception - but it’s hard to argue refraction works through a non-transparent medium)


    4.) opacity doesn’t work the same way as refraction


    5.) the paper treats air like it is multiple layers, with higher layers being less dense with less refractive index than lower layers: that’s what air is measured to be: you say your “explanation” invalidates that empirically measurable fact: how? Why? On what planet?


    6.) You’ve claimed that you can describe reality using a boundary and snells: why won’t you do the maths: what are the refractive indexes either side of the boundary? How will it refract light and by how much? Why have you gone 30 posts attempting to avoid doing the maths you are emphatically trying to tell us all applies?






    The reason you can’t answer any of these, and are now retreating into the typical denialiast rhetoric you use when you’re pretty much shown to be wrong, is because you’re making this up, nothing you said has any scientific validity: for the reasons I will continue to list, and you have not addressed.


    Claim to have addressed them already? I preemptively call : 


    No. I have listed the issues - and you simply replied with re-asserting the same thing I was refuting - that is barely even coherent leave alone a valid point.


    Also note: you’ve also now dropped any pretence if addressing prior issues with your argument.


    Way to change the subject! It’s like you don’t want to deal with refuting yourself so changed the subject and are now refusing to engage!


    I remember when Einstein did that with Bohr: when Bohr pointed out Einstein’s thought experiment was incorrectly interpretated, Einstein changed the subject then wrote a letter back saying “I’ve already addressed that”


    It's simple logics. If you refuse to logically explain how it is impossible, then there is no reasoning with you. Smoke works exactly the same way, despite your assertion, and you've yet to explain how it logically doesn't simply, yet again, asserting that it doesn't. When looking at an object through a small distance of smoke, the light will not be refracted or blocked a noticeable amount. But over a larger distance the smoke accumulates, making distant objects harder to see. You can do a simple experiment that demonstrates this. Looking through your window, a single pane of glass, there will not be much refraction, but ad say, 50 more, and refraction will occur. It is the accumulation that causes this.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    When a pseudoscientist asserts his way through some non specific hand waving explanation that fails on multiple counts to be coherent or scientific: to detail why refute that explanaition is wrong, It requires words and argument.



    If your only reply to my post, which is very specific, very detailed, and points out the key flaws in your position is;

    “Omg you’re post is too long, and it’s all wrong anyway ha!”

    It pretty much shows that you have no ability to argue on the scientific merits of your position.




    As I have explained: you’ve made a series of unsubstantiated made up assertions that fail at the most basic level of understanding of sciences: you have not provided an explanation of any of these specific things, despite me raising them multiple times.



    1.) If “the accumulation of water” is gradual over distance: how can there be a boundary? That’s the opposite of what “gradual accumulation” means. 


    2.) Where is the boundary? You say you’re applying refraction: so what are the refractive indexes either side: is there just one boundary? Or multiple boundaries. 


    3.) you constantly talk about water in the air and humidity as if they are different things water in the air is the same thing as humidty (clouds are the exception - but it’s hard to argue refraction works through a non-transparent medium)


    4.) opacity doesn’t work the same way as refraction


    5.) the paper treats air like it is multiple layers, with higher layers being less dense with less refractive index than lower layers: that’s what air is measured to be: you say your “explanation” invalidates that empirically measurable fact: how? Why? On what planet?


    6.) You’ve claimed that you can describe reality using a boundary and snells: why won’t you do the maths: what are the refractive indexes either side of the boundary? How will it refract light and by how much? Why have you gone 30 posts attempting to avoid doing the maths you are emphatically trying to tell us all applies?






    The reason you can’t answer any of these, and are now retreating into the typical denialiast rhetoric you use when you’re pretty much shown to be wrong, is because you’re making this up, nothing you said has any scientific validity: for the reasons I will continue to list, and you have not addressed.


    Claim to have addressed them already? I preemptively call : 


    No. I have listed the issues - and you simply replied with re-asserting the same thing I was refuting - that is barely even coherent leave alone a valid point.


    Also note: you’ve also now dropped any pretence if addressing prior issues with your argument.


    Way to change the subject! It’s like you don’t want to deal with refuting yourself so changed the subject and are now refusing to engage!


    I remember when Einstein did that with Bohr: when Bohr pointed out Einstein’s thought experiment was incorrectly interpretated, Einstein changed the subject then wrote a letter back saying “I’ve already addressed that”


    It's simple logics. If you refuse to logically explain how it is impossible, then there is no reasoning with you. Smoke works exactly the same way, despite your assertion, and you've yet to explain how it logically doesn't simply, yet again, asserting that it doesn't. When looking at an object through a small distance of smoke, the light will not be refracted or blocked a noticeable amount. But over a larger distance the smoke accumulates, making distant objects harder to see. You can do a simple experiment that demonstrates this. Looking through your window, a single pane of glass, there will not be much refraction, but ad say, 50 more, and refraction will occur. It is the accumulation that causes this.

    I explained: though I figured that you would understand the basic science of “opacity” vs “refraction”, and that I didn’t have to sit here and explain 3rd grade remedial science to a retard in order to avoid having them pretend as saying so is no better than making claims about quantum loop gravity 


    Smoke works the same way as refraction? How? Why? What scientific basis do you have for making that claim? You have provided no evidence or justification: you have just asserted that this is the case, and now shift the burden of proof.



    Opacity: works by scattering light. Light is randomly deflected by particles in the air meaning less light reaches your eye from the object, and more light reaches your eye from random trajectories: IE the light is all jumbled up.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering



    Refraction is not the same thing: despite your unsubstantiated and unevidenced assertions that this is the case:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction


    In refraction, the medium being travelled through changes the speed of light, it isn’t being physically deflected by the particles. When the speed of light changes, the wavelength of the light changes, if the speed is not changed equally across the wavefront : IE, it’s entering a new refractive index at an angle, the wave length of the light is changed unequally and it is dragged in the direction of the slower side.


    This is almost directly analogous to when a speeding car enters a gravel road at an angle: there is more drag on one side than the other and it turns the car.


    Once both wheels have entered, the car is travelling slower -  but there is no turn.




    Different process.

    Different effect.


    Your explanation is flat out scientifically nonsensical.




    Now: in addition. Your reply here simply reasserts that a gradual accumulation of water in the air produces more refraction over distance.


    This is bullsh*t.


    If there is a gradual accumulation of water in the air over a distance - there cannot be a boundary. By definition - you are literally using incoherent terms like “dry puddle”.


    You don’t even mention the word boundary in this reply. So you’re obviously trying to ignore this point.


    Secondly: refraction doesn’t work that way.


    If there is no change in refractive index - there is no refraction.


    Accumulation of water in the air is called humidty - no change in humidity - no change in refractive index - no refraction


    If there is a change in refractive index, there is refraction, where you look through 1mm or 100 miles. Because distance is irrelevant to snells and refraction.



    If you look into 10m of water the refraction is the same as if you’re looking at a glass of water. 


    What you’re confused about: is that you don’t seem to realize that looking through 1mm or 50m of glass is actually two boundaries: air to glass to air - which is a completely different scenario the way you’re claiming the world actually works.



    But none of this really matters: as you can’t actually explain any of what you’re asserting.


    You can’t tell us where the boundary is, whether there is more than 1, or more than 5, you can’t tell us what any of the refractive indexes are in stable conditions, nor can you tell us how the refractive index changes, nor how you can apply snells to actually produce anything you’ve said:


    You are REALLY good at asserting that you can do all of those things: the spend 20 posts evading, trying to change the subject, etc.

    George_HorseZombieguy1987
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    Jesus Christ, my brain is hurting from reading all of this stuff!
    Zombieguy1987Erfisflat
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  
    @Gooberry

    You say .....that I didn’t  have to sit here and explain 3rd grade remedial science to a retard

    Yes , but you’re an imbecile so in your case it’s par for the course 
    Erfisflat
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @George_Horse:

    You could ask Erfisflat about he feels about NASA and the mainstream media, but that might add to your headache. 
    Erfisflat
  • I think it is oval shaped. 
    Erfisflat
  • These Debates are always the funniest because on one side we have the pissed off flat earthers who don’t even know what they’re saying, and then on the other side we have the people with facts and logic defeating the flat earthers.
    Zombieguy1987Erfisflat
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    These Debates are always the funniest because on one side we have the pissed off flat earthers who don’t even know what they’re saying, and then on the other side we have the people with facts and logic defeating the flat earthers.

    And then we have the idiots like you, who don't really know why they think they live on a ball, but to share a popular opinion and finally agree with the majority and be liked is all they ever wanted. Please, tell me what "facts" and logic led you to believe you are on a spinning ball? The wide array of goobers assertions, which have been refuted repeatedly?




    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    When a pseudoscientist asserts his way through some non specific hand waving explanation that fails on multiple counts to be coherent or scientific: to detail why refute that explanaition is wrong, It requires words and argument.



    If your only reply to my post, which is very specific, very detailed, and points out the key flaws in your position is;

    “Omg you’re post is too long, and it’s all wrong anyway ha!”

    It pretty much shows that you have no ability to argue on the scientific merits of your position.




    As I have explained: you’ve made a series of unsubstantiated made up assertions that fail at the most basic level of understanding of sciences: you have not provided an explanation of any of these specific things, despite me raising them multiple times.



    1.) If “the accumulation of water” is gradual over distance: how can there be a boundary? That’s the opposite of what “gradual accumulation” means. 


    2.) Where is the boundary? You say you’re applying refraction: so what are the refractive indexes either side: is there just one boundary? Or multiple boundaries. 


    3.) you constantly talk about water in the air and humidity as if they are different things water in the air is the same thing as humidty (clouds are the exception - but it’s hard to argue refraction works through a non-transparent medium)


    4.) opacity doesn’t work the same way as refraction


    5.) the paper treats air like it is multiple layers, with higher layers being less dense with less refractive index than lower layers: that’s what air is measured to be: you say your “explanation” invalidates that empirically measurable fact: how? Why? On what planet?


    6.) You’ve claimed that you can describe reality using a boundary and snells: why won’t you do the maths: what are the refractive indexes either side of the boundary? How will it refract light and by how much? Why have you gone 30 posts attempting to avoid doing the maths you are emphatically trying to tell us all applies?






    The reason you can’t answer any of these, and are now retreating into the typical denialiast rhetoric you use when you’re pretty much shown to be wrong, is because you’re making this up, nothing you said has any scientific validity: for the reasons I will continue to list, and you have not addressed.


    Claim to have addressed them already? I preemptively call : 


    No. I have listed the issues - and you simply replied with re-asserting the same thing I was refuting - that is barely even coherent leave alone a valid point.


    Also note: you’ve also now dropped any pretence if addressing prior issues with your argument.


    Way to change the subject! It’s like you don’t want to deal with refuting yourself so changed the subject and are now refusing to engage!


    I remember when Einstein did that with Bohr: when Bohr pointed out Einstein’s thought experiment was incorrectly interpretated, Einstein changed the subject then wrote a letter back saying “I’ve already addressed that”


    It's simple logics. If you refuse to logically explain how it is impossible, then there is no reasoning with you. Smoke works exactly the same way, despite your assertion, and you've yet to explain how it logically doesn't simply, yet again, asserting that it doesn't. When looking at an object through a small distance of smoke, the light will not be refracted or blocked a noticeable amount. But over a larger distance the smoke accumulates, making distant objects harder to see. You can do a simple experiment that demonstrates this. Looking through your window, a single pane of glass, there will not be much refraction, but ad say, 50 more, and refraction will occur. It is the accumulation that causes this.

    I explained: though I figured that you would understand the basic science of “opacity” vs “refraction”, and that I didn’t have to sit here and explain 3rd grade remedial science to a retard in order to avoid having them pretend as saying so is no better than making claims about quantum loop gravity 


    Smoke works the same way as refraction? How? Why? What scientific basis do you have for making that claim? You have provided no evidence or justification: you have just asserted that this is the case, and now shift the burden of proof.



    Opacity: works by scattering light. Light is randomly deflected by particles in the air meaning less light reaches your eye from the object, and more light reaches your eye from random trajectories: IE the light is all jumbled up.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering



    Refraction is not the same thing: despite your unsubstantiated and unevidenced assertions that this is the case:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction


    In refraction, the medium being travelled through changes the speed of light, it isn’t being physically deflected by the particles. When the speed of light changes, the wavelength of the light changes, if the speed is not changed equally across the wavefront : IE, it’s entering a new refractive index at an angle, the wave length of the light is changed unequally and it is dragged in the direction of the slower side.


    This is almost directly analogous to when a speeding car enters a gravel road at an angle: there is more drag on one side than the other and it turns the car.


    Once both wheels have entered, the car is travelling slower -  but there is no turn.




    Different process.

    Different effect.


    Your explanation is flat out scientifically nonsensical.




    Now: in addition. Your reply here simply reasserts that a gradual accumulation of water in the air produces more refraction over distance.


    This is bullsh*t.


    If there is a gradual accumulation of water in the air over a distance - there cannot be a boundary. By definition - you are literally using incoherent terms like “dry puddle”.


    You don’t even mention the word boundary in this reply. So you’re obviously trying to ignore this point.


    Secondly: refraction doesn’t work that way.


    If there is no change in refractive index - there is no refraction.


    Accumulation of water in the air is called humidty - no change in humidity - no change in refractive index - no refraction


    If there is a change in refractive index, there is refraction, where you look through 1mm or 100 miles. Because distance is irrelevant to snells and refraction.



    If you look into 10m of water the refraction is the same as if you’re looking at a glass of water. 


    What you’re confused about: is that you don’t seem to realize that looking through 1mm or 50m of glass is actually two boundaries: air to glass to air - which is a completely different scenario the way you’re claiming the world actually works.



    But none of this really matters: as you can’t actually explain any of what you’re asserting.


    You can’t tell us where the boundary is, whether there is more than 1, or more than 5, you can’t tell us what any of the refractive indexes are in stable conditions, nor can you tell us how the refractive index changes, nor how you can apply snells to actually produce anything you’ve said:


    You are REALLY good at asserting that you can do all of those things: the spend 20 posts evading, trying to change the subject, etc.

    Both cases cases involve the behavior of light, which increases with distance. Your assertions that atmospheric refraction is non-existent is contradictory to your previous position, attending to explain why an observer can see the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan. Not only have you contradicted your previous position that standard refraction explains the Chicago skyline, you've asserted this despite "expert" opinion, who use an "air to glass to air" demonstration.

    http://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

    Can you explain where the boundary is in this example, and how it matches reality? Probably not.

    Can you explain, since: "If there is a change in refractive index, there is refraction, where you look through 1mm or 100 miles. Because distance is irrelevant to snells and refraction."

    How can we see the skyline when we shouldn't? Is this what you are proposing?


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @goober, at least you have yourself some cheerleaders now.
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    When a pseudoscientist asserts his way through some non specific hand waving explanation that fails on multiple counts to be coherent or scientific: to detail why refute that explanaition is wrong, It requires words and argument.



    If your only reply to my post, which is very specific, very detailed, and points out the key flaws in your position is;

    “Omg you’re post is too long, and it’s all wrong anyway ha!”

    It pretty much shows that you have no ability to argue on the scientific merits of your position.




    As I have explained: you’ve made a series of unsubstantiated made up assertions that fail at the most basic level of understanding of sciences: you have not provided an explanation of any of these specific things, despite me raising them multiple times.



    1.) If “the accumulation of water” is gradual over distance: how can there be a boundary? That’s the opposite of what “gradual accumulation” means. 


    2.) Where is the boundary? You say you’re applying refraction: so what are the refractive indexes either side: is there just one boundary? Or multiple boundaries. 


    3.) you constantly talk about water in the air and humidity as if they are different things water in the air is the same thing as humidty (clouds are the exception - but it’s hard to argue refraction works through a non-transparent medium)


    4.) opacity doesn’t work the same way as refraction


    5.) the paper treats air like it is multiple layers, with higher layers being less dense with less refractive index than lower layers: that’s what air is measured to be: you say your “explanation” invalidates that empirically measurable fact: how? Why? On what planet?


    6.) You’ve claimed that you can describe reality using a boundary and snells: why won’t you do the maths: what are the refractive indexes either side of the boundary? How will it refract light and by how much? Why have you gone 30 posts attempting to avoid doing the maths you are emphatically trying to tell us all applies?






    The reason you can’t answer any of these, and are now retreating into the typical denialiast rhetoric you use when you’re pretty much shown to be wrong, is because you’re making this up, nothing you said has any scientific validity: for the reasons I will continue to list, and you have not addressed.


    Claim to have addressed them already? I preemptively call : 


    No. I have listed the issues - and you simply replied with re-asserting the same thing I was refuting - that is barely even coherent leave alone a valid point.


    Also note: you’ve also now dropped any pretence if addressing prior issues with your argument.


    Way to change the subject! It’s like you don’t want to deal with refuting yourself so changed the subject and are now refusing to engage!


    I remember when Einstein did that with Bohr: when Bohr pointed out Einstein’s thought experiment was incorrectly interpretated, Einstein changed the subject then wrote a letter back saying “I’ve already addressed that”


    It's simple logics. If you refuse to logically explain how it is impossible, then there is no reasoning with you. Smoke works exactly the same way, despite your assertion, and you've yet to explain how it logically doesn't simply, yet again, asserting that it doesn't. When looking at an object through a small distance of smoke, the light will not be refracted or blocked a noticeable amount. But over a larger distance the smoke accumulates, making distant objects harder to see. You can do a simple experiment that demonstrates this. Looking through your window, a single pane of glass, there will not be much refraction, but ad say, 50 more, and refraction will occur. It is the accumulation that causes this.

    I explained: though I figured that you would understand the basic science of “opacity” vs “refraction”, and that I didn’t have to sit here and explain 3rd grade remedial science to a retard in order to avoid having them pretend as saying so is no better than making claims about quantum loop gravity 


    Smoke works the same way as refraction? How? Why? What scientific basis do you have for making that claim? You have provided no evidence or justification: you have just asserted that this is the case, and now shift the burden of proof.



    Opacity: works by scattering light. Light is randomly deflected by particles in the air meaning less light reaches your eye from the object, and more light reaches your eye from random trajectories: IE the light is all jumbled up.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering



    Refraction is not the same thing: despite your unsubstantiated and unevidenced assertions that this is the case:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction


    In refraction, the medium being travelled through changes the speed of light, it isn’t being physically deflected by the particles. When the speed of light changes, the wavelength of the light changes, if the speed is not changed equally across the wavefront : IE, it’s entering a new refractive index at an angle, the wave length of the light is changed unequally and it is dragged in the direction of the slower side.


    This is almost directly analogous to when a speeding car enters a gravel road at an angle: there is more drag on one side than the other and it turns the car.


    Once both wheels have entered, the car is travelling slower -  but there is no turn.




    Different process.

    Different effect.


    Your explanation is flat out scientifically nonsensical.




    Now: in addition. Your reply here simply reasserts that a gradual accumulation of water in the air produces more refraction over distance.


    This is bullsh*t.


    If there is a gradual accumulation of water in the air over a distance - there cannot be a boundary. By definition - you are literally using incoherent terms like “dry puddle”.


    You don’t even mention the word boundary in this reply. So you’re obviously trying to ignore this point.


    Secondly: refraction doesn’t work that way.


    If there is no change in refractive index - there is no refraction.


    Accumulation of water in the air is called humidty - no change in humidity - no change in refractive index - no refraction


    If there is a change in refractive index, there is refraction, where you look through 1mm or 100 miles. Because distance is irrelevant to snells and refraction.



    If you look into 10m of water the refraction is the same as if you’re looking at a glass of water. 


    What you’re confused about: is that you don’t seem to realize that looking through 1mm or 50m of glass is actually two boundaries: air to glass to air - which is a completely different scenario the way you’re claiming the world actually works.



    But none of this really matters: as you can’t actually explain any of what you’re asserting.


    You can’t tell us where the boundary is, whether there is more than 1, or more than 5, you can’t tell us what any of the refractive indexes are in stable conditions, nor can you tell us how the refractive index changes, nor how you can apply snells to actually produce anything you’ve said:


    You are REALLY good at asserting that you can do all of those things: the spend 20 posts evading, trying to change the subject, etc.

    Both cases cases involve the behavior of light, which increases with distance. Your assertions that atmospheric refraction is non-existent is contradictory to your previous position, attending to explain why an observer can see the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan. Not only have you contradicted your previous position that standard refraction explains the Chicago skyline, you've asserted this despite "expert" opinion, who use an "air to glass to air" demonstration.

    http://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

    Can you explain where the boundary is in this example, and how it matches reality? Probably not.

    Can you explain, since: "If there is a change in refractive index, there is refraction, where you look through 1mm or 100 miles. Because distance is irrelevant to snells and refraction."

    How can we see the skyline when we shouldn't? Is this what you are proposing?


    Strawman alert.

    He didn't say atmospheric refraction didn't occur, he said your ideas about how it occurs are wrong.

    If you're going to ignore arguments and not respond to points that show you're wrong, you could at least respond properly to those you do reply to rather than making up imaginary strawman in your head.

    What makes it especially perverse is you ask him to make your argument for you. Why would he provide evidence of a boundary when that is your belief, not his, and he has just specifically explained why he rejects your theory on boundaries in atmospheric refraction? It's like me going "Oh btw erfisflar, if you you can just show me evidence of how the southern celestial pole proves the earth is spherical that would be great".

    1) It is dumb to ask people to make your arguments for you
    2) It is dumb to expect people to support positions they have explicitly rejected
    3) It is dumb to strawman an argument.

    Stop being so dumb.
    Gooberry
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    @Erfisflat

    Firstly: Unfortunately, I don’t think you actually understood the point I was making: as I very much did not say, imply, assert or suggest that  atmospheric refraction is non existent in any way shape or form.

    Perhaps you didn’t understand what I said, how I said it: or any of those us context - So part #1 of your response to a post that went through every detail of your “position” and Debunked it - is a complete straw man.

    Perhaps you were confusing what I did - using the conditions you describe - and applying them to snells to show they’d produce negligible refraction?

    The second part,  you seem to be confused again - and misrepresenting my position as saying that there can never be a lower-higher-lower air transition with light in the atmosphere.


    This is also an obnoxious straw man - as not only did I not say this, but as evident through multiple explanations - including both Chicago and pique gaspard, citations (including images like you just posted), previously drawn diagrams, the scientific paper you cited and I pointed out showed just this, all show fairly clearly that I am clear that there are conditions like that - on a spherical earth - (hint: because of the geometry of a globe with horizontal layers of air!)


    My point, if you had paid attention is that the example you gave was a completely different configuration and produces different effects  that the one you were explaining:

    IE you were arguing: we can tell this thing that works this way produces this effect - because of this other thing that works a completely different way produces a different effect.



    So in both these cases, you appear to have massively distorted the argument I’m making, in order to drop and ignore multiple points and arguments I’ve made that comprehensively refute your position.





    Let’s go back to them again, as they’re obviously so awkward for you that you have to avoid them like the plague


    1.) Your entire premise hinges on it being possible for a gradual build up of water to produce a definable boundary. 


    You won’t explain how this seemingly physically impossible claim is possible and you won’t provide any details of exactly how this boundary is created - or where it is, or how to measure it: but you are very good at emphatically telling us all its definitely there nonetheless. 


    2.) Your entire premise also hinges on the amount of water accumulating over distance in the atmosphere going up causing more refraction.


    You won’t tell us the mechanism by which this happens (you’ve said snells - but as I pointed out Snells doesn’t work on distance - it works on boundaries). You’ve also confused “scattering” with “refraction”, and attempted to argue they were the same thing, despite them really not being the same thing.


    You can’t tell us how much water causes what type of refraction or how much - you can’t seem to be able use the law you’ve said makes it work to show refracting working this way - you can’t provide the scientific mechanism for for the claim, and you won’t say how this same mechanism accounts for all the things you’ve said it can.

    3.) snells is based on refraction index, and is a mathematical formula that tells you what happens in given refractive conditions.

    Despite you saying that you’re argument is based on snells - you can’t tell us what the conditions are - what refractive these conditions produce - where the boundary is - or information that could let us verify the angles involved - and not only have you not provided any details - you’ve instead gone 30 + posts doing your best to avoid answering any specific questions either.


    You have been doing all you can over the last two pages to ignore requests for calculations, details, specifics - or anything that is substantial enough to actually verify or falsify your claims.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    When a pseudoscientist asserts his way through some non specific hand waving explanation that fails on multiple counts to be coherent or scientific: to detail why refute that explanaition is wrong, It requires words and argument.



    If your only reply to my post, which is very specific, very detailed, and points out the key flaws in your position is;

    “Omg you’re post is too long, and it’s all wrong anyway ha!”

    It pretty much shows that you have no ability to argue on the scientific merits of your position.




    As I have explained: you’ve made a series of unsubstantiated made up assertions that fail at the most basic level of understanding of sciences: you have not provided an explanation of any of these specific things, despite me raising them multiple times.



    1.) If “the accumulation of water” is gradual over distance: how can there be a boundary? That’s the opposite of what “gradual accumulation” means. 


    2.) Where is the boundary? You say you’re applying refraction: so what are the refractive indexes either side: is there just one boundary? Or multiple boundaries. 


    3.) you constantly talk about water in the air and humidity as if they are different things water in the air is the same thing as humidty (clouds are the exception - but it’s hard to argue refraction works through a non-transparent medium)


    4.) opacity doesn’t work the same way as refraction


    5.) the paper treats air like it is multiple layers, with higher layers being less dense with less refractive index than lower layers: that’s what air is measured to be: you say your “explanation” invalidates that empirically measurable fact: how? Why? On what planet?


    6.) You’ve claimed that you can describe reality using a boundary and snells: why won’t you do the maths: what are the refractive indexes either side of the boundary? How will it refract light and by how much? Why have you gone 30 posts attempting to avoid doing the maths you are emphatically trying to tell us all applies?






    The reason you can’t answer any of these, and are now retreating into the typical denialiast rhetoric you use when you’re pretty much shown to be wrong, is because you’re making this up, nothing you said has any scientific validity: for the reasons I will continue to list, and you have not addressed.


    Claim to have addressed them already? I preemptively call : 


    No. I have listed the issues - and you simply replied with re-asserting the same thing I was refuting - that is barely even coherent leave alone a valid point.


    Also note: you’ve also now dropped any pretence if addressing prior issues with your argument.


    Way to change the subject! It’s like you don’t want to deal with refuting yourself so changed the subject and are now refusing to engage!


    I remember when Einstein did that with Bohr: when Bohr pointed out Einstein’s thought experiment was incorrectly interpretated, Einstein changed the subject then wrote a letter back saying “I’ve already addressed that”


    It's simple logics. If you refuse to logically explain how it is impossible, then there is no reasoning with you. Smoke works exactly the same way, despite your assertion, and you've yet to explain how it logically doesn't simply, yet again, asserting that it doesn't. When looking at an object through a small distance of smoke, the light will not be refracted or blocked a noticeable amount. But over a larger distance the smoke accumulates, making distant objects harder to see. You can do a simple experiment that demonstrates this. Looking through your window, a single pane of glass, there will not be much refraction, but ad say, 50 more, and refraction will occur. It is the accumulation that causes this.

    I explained: though I figured that you would understand the basic science of “opacity” vs “refraction”, and that I didn’t have to sit here and explain 3rd grade remedial science to a retard in order to avoid having them pretend as saying so is no better than making claims about quantum loop gravity 


    Smoke works the same way as refraction? How? Why? What scientific basis do you have for making that claim? You have provided no evidence or justification: you have just asserted that this is the case, and now shift the burden of proof.



    Opacity: works by scattering light. Light is randomly deflected by particles in the air meaning less light reaches your eye from the object, and more light reaches your eye from random trajectories: IE the light is all jumbled up.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering



    Refraction is not the same thing: despite your unsubstantiated and unevidenced assertions that this is the case:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction


    In refraction, the medium being travelled through changes the speed of light, it isn’t being physically deflected by the particles. When the speed of light changes, the wavelength of the light changes, if the speed is not changed equally across the wavefront : IE, it’s entering a new refractive index at an angle, the wave length of the light is changed unequally and it is dragged in the direction of the slower side.


    This is almost directly analogous to when a speeding car enters a gravel road at an angle: there is more drag on one side than the other and it turns the car.


    Once both wheels have entered, the car is travelling slower -  but there is no turn.




    Different process.

    Different effect.


    Your explanation is flat out scientifically nonsensical.




    Now: in addition. Your reply here simply reasserts that a gradual accumulation of water in the air produces more refraction over distance.


    This is bullsh*t.


    If there is a gradual accumulation of water in the air over a distance - there cannot be a boundary. By definition - you are literally using incoherent terms like “dry puddle”.


    You don’t even mention the word boundary in this reply. So you’re obviously trying to ignore this point.


    Secondly: refraction doesn’t work that way.


    If there is no change in refractive index - there is no refraction.


    Accumulation of water in the air is called humidty - no change in humidity - no change in refractive index - no refraction


    If there is a change in refractive index, there is refraction, where you look through 1mm or 100 miles. Because distance is irrelevant to snells and refraction.



    If you look into 10m of water the refraction is the same as if you’re looking at a glass of water. 


    What you’re confused about: is that you don’t seem to realize that looking through 1mm or 50m of glass is actually two boundaries: air to glass to air - which is a completely different scenario the way you’re claiming the world actually works.



    But none of this really matters: as you can’t actually explain any of what you’re asserting.


    You can’t tell us where the boundary is, whether there is more than 1, or more than 5, you can’t tell us what any of the refractive indexes are in stable conditions, nor can you tell us how the refractive index changes, nor how you can apply snells to actually produce anything you’ve said:


    You are REALLY good at asserting that you can do all of those things: the spend 20 posts evading, trying to change the subject, etc.

    Both cases cases involve the behavior of light, which increases with distance. Your assertions that atmospheric refraction is non-existent is contradictory to your previous position, attending to explain why an observer can see the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan. Not only have you contradicted your previous position that standard refraction explains the Chicago skyline, you've asserted this despite "expert" opinion, who use an "air to glass to air" demonstration.

    http://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

    Can you explain where the boundary is in this example, and how it matches reality? Probably not.

    Can you explain, since: "If there is a change in refractive index, there is refraction, where you look through 1mm or 100 miles. Because distance is irrelevant to snells and refraction."

    How can we see the skyline when we shouldn't? Is this what you are proposing?


    Strawman alert.

    He didn't say atmospheric refraction didn't occur, he said your ideas about how it occurs are wrong.

    If you're going to ignore arguments and not respond to points that show you're wrong, you could at least respond properly to those you do reply to rather than making up imaginary strawman in your head.

    What makes it especially perverse is you ask him to make your argument for you. Why would he provide evidence of a boundary when that is your belief, not his, and he has just specifically explained why he rejects your theory on boundaries in atmospheric refraction? It's like me going "Oh btw erfisflar, if you you can just show me evidence of how the southern celestial pole proves the earth is spherical that would be great".

    1) It is dumb to ask people to make your arguments for you
    2) It is dumb to expect people to support positions they have explicitly rejected
    3) It is dumb to strawman an argument.

    Stop being so dumb.
    He said that my ideas were wrong, but has offered no practical evidence of his assertion.

    My comparison with what is being claimed with Chicago, and what happened in Mobile is a valid one, and I've explained that distance does matter, in that air is a gradient of refractive index in the atmosphere due to different densities near the surface and above it. This is also supported, and even used in globe earth arguments, though the gradient is parallel to the ground in some cases, like mirages, and almost  perpendicular in others, when and object is apparently lower.




    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    A big summary of the evidence I have presented against you, is quoted in the post you just strawmanned, and half dozen or so posts before that which you have stopped responding to, where I point out your error in detail. They were pretty comprehensive taken all together

    A big part of it is that despite you vehemently explaining how right you are, you haven’t been able to offer:

    1.) any laws of physics, examples or sources that show “accumulation of water” works the way you say

    2.) any practical demonstration or experiments of the atmosphere to valid this is the way things work.

    3.) any calcultions, or details about you “claims”, That allow us to show where the “boundary” is, where we can determine why it forms, how we can detect or measure where it is, and what the refactive indexes are either side.



    Of course, this is indeed ignoring that despite me pointing it outnumbered for a dozen posts - you have yet to explain how a gradual build up of something can produce a definable physical boundary in this way.

    Also, we’re still waiting for concede in who you lost you’re argument to when you’ve argued both that snells can’t happen without a boundary and that it can.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand my point is that to claim that there is definitely atmospheric refraction causing the Chicago skyline test, but not in Mobile test, a difference in about 20 miles distance, is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @Ampersand my point is that to claim that there is definitely atmospheric refraction causing the Chicago skyline test, but not in Mobile test, a difference in about 20 miles distance, is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

    Just as an FYI: I proved that there was atmospheric refraction going on in the mobile pictures, by showing the distortion in the images.

    Also, the mobile test was around 12-13
    miles away. The Chicago mirage was at a distance of 79 miles: so I have no clue where you’ve pulled 20 miles from.


    On the same subject I’ve provided exceptionally detailed arguments about refraction, and why you’re claims about refraction fail in a scientific level, and are vague hand waving at best. Ignoring that and misrepresenting the position as saying one is refraction and the other is not - is a straw man - especially as you have largely ignored all of the’s inconvenient scientific argument.


    in addition, I will point out that you have repeatedly asserted the videos of chicago are not refraction - despite repeated examples of shimmering, inversion, movement and variation consistent with refraction.

    You claimed mobile bay images weren't
    refraction until it was pointed out that they showed the right amount of curvature - at which point there was definitely refraction.


    so in reality the only one being intellectually dishonest by claiming on example is refraction and the other is not, a you.


    this would be ironic: But this is mostly all you do.




    Erfisflat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch