The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Alex Tomasovich on July 13, 2013, 11:58:56 AM

Title: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Alex Tomasovich on July 13, 2013, 11:58:56 AM
Throughout these forums I have seen refraction both denounced as a contrived explanation by RE to explain things like daytime lunar eclipses and as an explanation by FE to explain things like sunsets.

So I'd like to, once and for all, get a definitive position on refraction by both sides. I'll contribute presently:

Refraction Experiments and Maths

With a block of glass, a laser, and a protractor, I have many times performed experiments to show that light 'bends' as it enters and exits mediums. Experiments to measure the speed of light through various substances have allowed the formulation of an equation to predict how much light will be bent when transitioning from one to another:

n1 * sin(anglei) = n2 * sin(angler)

n1 and n2 are the 'index of refraction' of each substance (1 being where the light is coming from, 2 being where the light is going to), and the angles being degrees away from the normal (a line perpendicular to the surface of the border between the mediums at the point where the light crosses).

The index of refraction of an object is c/v, with c being the speed of light in a vacuum and v being the speed of light through the medium in question.

This tells us (and experiments have confirmed) that as light goes to a slower medium (air to glass, vacuum to air, air to water, etc.), light will bend toward the normal, and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 14, 2013, 02:16:21 AM
I don't remember an FE'er saying that refraction does not exist.  Please quote someone.  Otherwise, you are making yourself look silly. 
Title: Re: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Scintific Method on July 14, 2013, 02:33:27 AM
I don't remember an FE'er saying that refraction does not exist.  Please quote someone.  Otherwise, you are making yourself look silly.

I think Alex is referring to exchanges such as this one:

Quote
Quote
Quote
The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".

Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).

What scientific evidence?
Title: Re: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 14, 2013, 02:37:38 AM
I don't remember an FE'er saying that refraction does not exist.  Please quote someone.  Otherwise, you are making yourself look silly.

I think Alex is referring to exchanges such as this one:

Quote
Quote
Quote
The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".

Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).

What scientific evidence?

It would be nice if you could quote properly so we can look at the context.  However, if it is Sceptimatic that you are quoting, then never mind.
Title: Re: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Scintific Method on July 14, 2013, 02:59:40 AM
It would be nice if you could quote properly so we can look at the context.  However, if it is Sceptimatic that you are quoting, then never mind.

Fair enough. The quote was a portion of this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59139.msg1515354.html#msg1515354). And, the full quote (not the whole post, just the relevant bit) with authors properly credited (I had to fix it up a bit, Tom appears to have stripped my alias out of it when he quoted me):

Quote from: Scintific Method
Quote from: Scintific Method
In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory.

No, it doesn't, for reasons quite thoroughly explained elsewhere.

The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".

Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).

What scientific evidence?

Better?  :)
Title: Re: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 14, 2013, 03:06:20 AM
It would be nice if you could quote properly so we can look at the context.  However, if it is Sceptimatic that you are quoting, then never mind.

Fair enough. The quote was a portion of this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59139.msg1515354.html#msg1515354). And, the full quote (not the whole post, just the relevant bit) with authors properly credited (I had to fix it up a bit, Tom appears to have stripped my alias out of it when he quoted me):

Quote from: Scintific Method
Quote from: Scintific Method
In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory.

No, it doesn't, for reasons quite thoroughly explained elsewhere.

The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".

Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).

What scientific evidence?

Better?  :)

Much better.  However, you are still taking Tom's words out of context.  He did not say that refraction does not exist. 
Title: Re: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Scintific Method on July 14, 2013, 04:57:30 AM
...you are still taking Tom's words out of context.  He did not say that refraction does not exist.

No, but he did imply that refraction was

...a contrived explanation by RE to explain things like daytime lunar eclipses...

and then he used it

...as an explanation by FE to explain things like sunsets.

right here:

Quote
Sometimes the sun just seems to fade out to the opacity of the atmosphere, without even hitting the horizon, suggesting that the disappearance of the sun is more too do with the atmosphere's thickness, and less on the horizon.
The key word there being "sometimes". Your explanation lacks the consistency required to be credible. Besides, can't you see the fog in the provided image?
The images suggest that the sun is disappearing into a fog near the surface of the earth, and its apparent dipping beneath the horizon is a refraction effect.

There is no doubt refraction exists, but implying in one breath that it can't explain the small shift required for a daytime lunar eclipse, then in the next breath saying that it explains the rather large shift required to make the sun appear to set, is somewhat contradictory.
Title: Re: Refraction: real or contrived?
Post by: Alex Tomasovich on July 15, 2013, 07:21:07 PM
Thanks, Scintific Method. Sorry for making you do all the quoting--I had hoped people could use the 'search' function everyone's so fond of.

So ... anybody going to start in on the topic? Tom? Scepti? Bogous? One of the moderators?