Once again: how does the sun go down?

Atmospheric refraction allows us to see further. Light bends towards the dense, thus apparent origin appears higher.

Atmospheric refraction allows us to see further. Light bends towards the dense, thus apparent origin appears higher.

This is a qualitatively true statement, although I think I have to clarify what denser means. It refers to the value of the refraction index. The larger it is, the more (optically) denser the medium is. It is not the density of the atmolayer that is important. Of course, you all made the assumption(s) that the index decreases with altitude (and that the Earth is round). I made the opposite assumption.

Atmosphere gets more dense towards the Earth's surface. This is not an assumption this is a fact whether you believe in RE or FE and both models can explain why this is the case. So knowing this to be the case we can conclude that sunlight is refracted towards the Earth's surface.

Again, I urge You to read my post about what "dense" actually means in Snell's Law.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:17:37 AM

Quote from: Bushido on June 04, 2007, 12:37:45 AM

The index of refraction essentially increases with altitude, although it may also change as the distance from the Earth's axis changes, so the light rays coming from a point-like source at some height above the Earth will deflect as they move to the surface of the Earth. When they hit the Earth, the tangent to the path of the ray builds a smaller angle with the horizon than the connecting line between the light source and the observation point. At greater distances from the normal from the source to the Earth, this angle decreases, and, when it becomes zero, total internal reflection occurs and the point source is no longer observable from points further away.

Sorry, but you've got it exactly backwards. Please review Snell's Law. Please reference this High School Text. Light traveling along the course you describe would bend upwards. Indeed this effect explains the reason that an RE model predictions that do not consider this have sunrise late and sunset early. We get about 4 to 6 minutes more of daylight each day thanks to the atmosphere.

You can see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere because of two effects. A view from a height and the bending of light by the atmosphere both contribute to allow Polaris to be seen in a few limited areas south of the Equator.

Go to High School you nimcapoop.

So, you can't answer my question then. I guess you're giving up!

I am a monk of the order of St. Fu, Gulliver.

Again, I urge You to read my post about what "dense" actually means in Snell's Law.

Okay. That's wrong. Increasing he incidence angle doesn't affect the refractive index of the substance according to Snell's Law. I don't see how your defending yourself in the least.

What he's saying is that the sun is in full view one second then all of a sudden, total internal reflection occurs and it vanishes.

Here, give me your hand and I'll guide you through the garden (of knowledge).

1) Density = mass/volume. It is measured in kg/m³. We say that a medium is denser from another when its density is greater. It is true that air becomes rarer as the altitude increases.

2) refractive index = speed of light in vacuum/ speed of light in the medium. It is a dimensionless number that is never less than one (since the speed of light in vacuum is the upper speed limit).

As you can see, these two are different physical quantities. Maybe there is a correlation between the two, but I am not sure. You used the assumption that the refractive index also decreases with altitude so that you can explain some deviations in your known model of a Round Earth. I used the opposite assumption (that it increases with altitude) to answer the question posted in the OP of the thread if a Flat Earth is assumed.

What he's saying is that the sun is in full view one second then all of a sudden, total internal reflection occurs and it vanishes.

The sun is not a point. Some part of it fulfills the condition of total internal reflection and is unobservable, while the other is still observable. This is what we see every morning and evening.

What he's saying is that the sun is in full view one second then all of a sudden, total internal reflection occurs and it vanishes.

And, of course, we know that total internal reflection can occur only when the atmosphere has a rare inversion. He seems to believe that Snell's Law has the mediums refractive index change as the incident angle changes. That's not the case. Furthermore, he'd need to explain where the light that was refracted totally internally goes, and the reason no sees this sunlight (or moon light).

Do you even read, you dislectics?

Here, give me your hand and I'll guide you through the garden (of knowledge).

1) Density = mass/volume. It is measured in kg/m³. We say that a medium is denser from another when its density is greater. It is true that air becomes rarer as the altitude increases.

2) refractive index = speed of light in vacuum/ speed of light in the medium. It is a dimensionless number that is never less than one (since the speed of light in vacuum is the upper speed limit).

As you can see, these two are different physical quantities. Maybe there is a correlation between the two, but I am not sure. You used the assumption that the refractive index also decreases with altitude so that you can explain some deviations in your known model of a Round Earth. I used the opposite assumption (that it increases with altitude) to answer the question posted in the OP of the thread if a Flat Earth is assumed.

I see now. Thank you for explaining.

Your assumption is incorrect. We know: "The refractive index increases as pressure increases, due to the resulting increase in density." Please reference: http://www.pirika.com/chem/TCPEE/RI/ourRI.htm. Now that you know your error, I hope you'll reconsider your position.

Finally, you've posted the true solution.

Now, as you all know, light bends in gravitational fields. Maybe the UA has something to do with strange "refractive properties" of the atmolayer on a FE?


EDIT:

Sure, we can always define a different physical quantity (RD, or molar refraction in our case by the formula RD = (n² - 1)/(n² + 2) M/ρ) and make an unfounded assumption about it (which is that RD does not change with temperature and density) and that would prove our point, but the fact remains that you used an assumption which you haven't proven.

Looking at the Lorentz - Lorenz equation, we may ask the following question:

What is the refractive index of the medium when the density becomes:


Insted of using RD, we can use the parameter ρ_c (since the molar mass M is constant) and rewrite the Lorentz - Lorenz equation in the form:

Finally, you've posted the true solution.

Now, as you all know, light bends in gravitational fields. Maybe the UA has something to do with strange "refractive properties" of the atmolayer on a FE?


EDIT:

Sure, we can always define a different physical quantity (RD, or molar refraction in our case by the formula RD = (n² - 1)/(n² + 2) M/ρ) and make an unfounded assumption about it (which is that RD does not change with temperature and density) and that would prove our point, but the fact remains that you used an assumption which you haven't proven.

As a REer, I'm glad to see FE resort to a new unexplained physical quantity to explain obsersavtions. Since RE has a simpler explanation with known physics, we must prefer RE over FE in this round as well. So I won't bother to debate your new invention. (Though you might want to define n in your equation)

I said before that the simplest explanation now may not be the truth. Please look at this post:

Quote

Science is not based on explanations. It is based on predictions.

I would agree with you here, but how do you know your predictions are representative of the truth? Because they have been right thus far?

Here's and example: If I give you the sequence of numbers 1 2 4... and ask you what your prediction for the next number is, what will you say? 8? What if the answer is not as simple as you think: the sequence which you think goes n_k+1=2*n_k actually goes n_k+1=n_k+n_k!

Our modern scientists may think they've got it all worked out, but they fail to see the more complex patterns and systems that underlie their foolishly simple predicitons.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 01:00:27 PM

Quote from: narcberry on June 04, 2007, 12:31:57 PM

The atmosphere is contained thanks to the surface tension created by all the polar particles in the air. The ice wall does add a little stability to this structure, but only at the base.

This seems to be dribble. Please define "polar particles". Please explain the mechanism that would cause the required surface tension. Please explain how a meteorite would not disrupt the surface tension. Please explain why "polar particles" has never been used in the Forum before.

And please explain where did you find surface tension on GASES! You might even get a Nobel Prize just by giving evidence of the existence of surface tension on a gas, but, of course, you do not have space in your shelves for another trophy, or do you?

Surface tension in gasses has been demonstrated with only a small amount of humidity in the air. (Humidity should suggest to you the idea of water in the air, water is a polar particle, none of this should be new.)

Er, what?

Gotta love that Narcberry!

He has a degree in bastardisation.

I think I'm going to help solve this atmosphere problem using the only method worth using: a scale diagram!
Here is a modified version of the picture on the first page; let me explain what it shows.

The green part is the actual solid Earth.
The black line is a bottom layer of the atmosphere; ninety percent of the atmosphere is contained here.
The orange line is the rest of the atmosphere.  Together, the two lines contain 99.99997% of the atmosphere.
The sun is still there, as is the line of vision of someone at the equator on the other side of the earth from the sun looking toward the sun during an equinox.

Discuss.

I love these diagrams, I wanna see and FEer try to refute one!

Quote from: trig on June 04, 2007, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 01:00:27 PM

Quote from: narcberry on June 04, 2007, 12:31:57 PM

The atmosphere is contained thanks to the surface tension created by all the polar particles in the air. The ice wall does add a little stability to this structure, but only at the base.

This seems to be dribble. Please define "polar particles". Please explain the mechanism that would cause the required surface tension. Please explain how a meteorite would not disrupt the surface tension. Please explain why "polar particles" has never been used in the Forum before.

And please explain where did you find surface tension on GASES! You might even get a Nobel Prize just by giving evidence of the existence of surface tension on a gas, but, of course, you do not have space in your shelves for another trophy, or do you?

Surface tension in gasses has been demonstrated with only a small amount of humidity in the air. (Humidity should suggest to you the idea of water in the air, water is a polar particle, none of this should be new.)

Reference? Evidence?

I think I'm going to help solve this atmosphere problem using the only method worth using: a scale diagram!
Here is a modified version of the picture on the first page; let me explain what it shows.

The green part is the actual solid Earth.
The black line is a bottom layer of the atmosphere; ninety percent of the atmosphere is contained here.
The orange line is the rest of the atmosphere.  Together, the two lines contain 99.99997% of the atmosphere.
The sun is still there, as is the line of vision of someone at the equator on the other side of the earth from the sun looking toward the sun during an equinox.

Discuss.

I would have to believe that that post has just won the entire RE debate for life.

And...

200th post!

nope Tom will argue that the atmosphere from that far away is as thick as a solid steel wall so you won't see the sun (even though he claims he can see Polaris from the other side of the world, go figure)

Well, considering that the majority of the atmosphere is empty space above the brown area, he really can't. And it is very well known that most of the atmosphere is in a very small area, and that above that it is almost nothing. This being said, no matter the angle that the rays of the Sun strike the Earth, the amound of atmosphere is going to remain almost exactly the same.

Do you even read, you dislectics?

Is that like dyslexic?

Quote from: Bushido on June 05, 2007, 02:41:38 AM

Do you even read, you dislectics?

Is that like dyslexic?

rofl

My original idea was is something like this:


@Gulliver (who sucks):

Quote from: Bushido on June 05, 2007, 02:54:17 AM

Finally, you've posted the true solution.

Now, as you all know, light bends in gravitational fields. Maybe the UA has something to do with strange "refractive properties" of the atmolayer on a FE?


EDIT:

Sure, we can always define a different physical quantity (RD, or molar refraction in our case by the formula RD = (n² - 1)/(n² + 2) M/ρ) and make an unfounded assumption about it (which is that RD does not change with temperature and density) and that would prove our point, but the fact remains that you used an assumption which you haven't proven.

As a REer, I'm glad to see FE resort to a new unexplained physical quantity to explain obsersavtions. Since RE has a simpler explanation with known physics, we must prefer RE over FE in this round as well. So I won't bother to debate your new invention. (Though you might want to define n in your equation)

Don't be an obtuse SoB. It is you who posted the link pointing to the Lorentz - Lorenz formula:

...
We know: "The refractive index increases as pressure increases, due to the resulting increase in density." Please reference: http://www.pirika.com/chem/TCPEE/RI/ourRI.htm.

Why do I have to define refractive index (labeled by n)?  Also, you did not answer the question:

Looking at the Lorentz - Lorenz equation, we may ask the following question:

What is the refractive index of the medium when the density becomes:

ρ_c = M/RD

Insted of using RD, we can use the parameter ρ_c (since the molar mass M is constant) and rewrite the Lorentz - Lorenz equation in the form:

ρ/ρ_c = (n²-1)/(n²+2)

Now, answer objectively or else go worhip St. Fu.

Quote from: Bushido on June 05, 2007, 02:41:38 AM

Do you even read, you dislectics?

Is that like dyslexic?

No, it's like dyslectic.