Rethinking Perspective

  • 87 Replies
  • 8960 Views
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2017, 03:37:21 PM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

Please explain how refraction interacts with perspective to cause the apparent height of the poles/altitude of the Sun to shrink while causing the lamps to shrink but not the Sun.

Are you claiming the poles somehow show the shape of the Earth?  ::)

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2017, 03:39:17 PM »
Funny how they ignore when confronted with something that isnt in their guidebook.

I am sorry, you may not have had a major holiday in your backwards country, but we did here.  Did you ever think that maybe there are more important things for us FE'ers to do, like spend time with our families, rather than hear you lie about refraction only working in one direction? 

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2017, 03:41:42 PM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?

Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.

There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc.  The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that."  You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.

There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.

Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?

Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2017, 03:43:44 PM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?

Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.

There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc.  The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that."  You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.

There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.

Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?

Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?

Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to.  Do some research on mirages.  They are proof that light can bend every direction. 

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2017, 04:01:39 PM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?

Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.

There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc.  The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that."  You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.

There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.

Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?

Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?

Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to.  Do some research on mirages.  They are proof that light can bend every direction.

Let me explain what Jora is trying to do. He's trying to bait someone into making a definite claim about the direction that refraction works, and will then post the same old link to weather phenomena like looming and some situations where refraction does bend light the opposite way to how it normally does.
Unfortunately, the tiny-brained Jora doesn't understand that these phenomena are notable precisely because they are not the norm. He doesn't understand that the link he wants to post indicates that atmospheric refraction is highly researched and well understood, and therefore if it created the effect of magnifying the sun in order to combat shrinkage from perspective, then it would be well documented by conventional science.
Fail harder next time, John.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2017, 04:31:17 PM »
So, then, can we all agree that refraction does not always make things appear higher in the sky, and any roundy noob who comes here claiming otherwise is either a liar or simply ignorant of physics?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2017, 06:22:48 PM »
So, then, can we all agree that refraction does not always make things appear higher in the sky, and any roundy noob who comes here claiming otherwise is either a liar or simply ignorant of physics?
Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?

But refraction almost invariably makes the sun at sunrise and sunset a little (about 0.5) higher than its geometric position.
Though it can never make the sun appear 15 or more lower than its geometric position.

Any objections, oh learned one?

There are plenty of cases of refraction (and the related looming and mirage) making things appear higher, such as quite large ships well above the water and sailing boats flying.



The Red Ship Rides above the Ocean!
   



And how do you like a "flying boat"?
   
even back when everyone
 knew that the earth was a Globe.

This is a drawing of a sighting that
may have led to the Flying Dutchman myth

Now maybe you could show us some objects appearing over 15 lower than their real positions.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2017, 06:28:28 PM »
Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?

Perhaps you should start actually reading threads before you respond to them.

No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2017, 06:52:10 PM »
Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?

Perhaps you should start actually reading threads before you respond to them.

No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.
I simply asked that question, "Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?" then
added asserted, with a little evidence, that refraction usually makes objects appear higher.

But, there is no way that refraction can rescue your pathetic claims of atmoplanic lensing explaining sunrises and sunsets!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42360
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2017, 06:52:57 PM »
Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to.  Do some research on mirages.  They are proof that light can bend every direction.
Would you care to describe the physics that would cause light to refract in such a way as to result in a sunset on a flat earth?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2017, 07:05:24 PM »
Would you care to describe the physics that would cause light to refract in such a way as to result in a sunset on a flat earth?
Don't forget to include the reason that refraction always results in the sun appearing to set, every single unobscured night, no matter what the atmospheric conditions are.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2017, 12:12:31 AM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?

Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.

There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc.  The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that."  You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.

There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.

Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?

Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?

Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to.  Do some research on mirages.  They are proof that light can bend every direction.

'Do some research' - what a fucking joke.

I'm not talking about which direction light bends, so stop being an ass with your pathetic one liners.

Describe the mechanism that CONSISTENTLY allows the sun to get further away while staying the same size.

Describe how the distance between the sun and horizon can CONSISTENTLY shrink 'due to perspective' while the sun itself stays the same size.

Describe a mechanism for this that works as well and consistently as the earth being a sphere orbiting the sun.

If you are unable to do so that's fine, I think we all know what a one line non answer really means.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2017, 01:10:04 AM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?

Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.

There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc.  The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that."  You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.

There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.

Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?

Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?

Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to.  Do some research on mirages.  They are proof that light can bend every direction.

'Do some research' - what a fucking joke.

I'm not talking about which direction light bends, so stop being an ass with your pathetic one liners.

Describe the mechanism that CONSISTENTLY allows the sun to get further away while staying the same size.

Describe how the distance between the sun and horizon can CONSISTENTLY shrink 'due to perspective' while the sun itself stays the same size.

Describe a mechanism for this that works as well and consistently as the earth being a sphere orbiting the sun.

If you are unable to do so that's fine, I think we all know what a one line non answer really means.

Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.  You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed.  That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.  That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists. 

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2017, 02:37:29 AM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?

Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.

There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc.  The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that."  You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.

There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.

Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?

Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?

Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to.  Do some research on mirages.  They are proof that light can bend every direction.

'Do some research' - what a fucking joke.

I'm not talking about which direction light bends, so stop being an ass with your pathetic one liners.

Describe the mechanism that CONSISTENTLY allows the sun to get further away while staying the same size.

Describe how the distance between the sun and horizon can CONSISTENTLY shrink 'due to perspective' while the sun itself stays the same size.

Describe a mechanism for this that works as well and consistently as the earth being a sphere orbiting the sun.

If you are unable to do so that's fine, I think we all know what a one line non answer really means.

Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.  You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed.  That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.  That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists. 

You aren't making it up as you go along? Really? Because making it up as you go along appears to be EXACTLY what you're doing.

Well, according to my observations refraction does not behave in the manner you claim.

So what now? We all just live in our own little bubble where our interpretations of our own specific observations are 'correct' to ourselves?

That sounds like solid foundations for technological and social progression.




Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2017, 03:46:36 AM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.

lol, you are claiming that refraction only works in one direction.  Discussing this with you is like explaining relativity to a child.
There is one thing atmospheric refraction certainly is and that's variable.  Things such as temperature, humidity, pressure, and even pollution conditions affect atmospheric refraction.  If the size and position of the sun is based in part on atmospheric refraction then we would to need know those atmospheric variables to calculate and predict the elevation and azimuth of the sun.  Since it is impossible to predict the future atmospheric variables it is therefore impossible to predict elevation and azimuth of the sun.  Yet the elevation and azimuth of the sun is predictable and very accurate year after year. 

Further, the elevation and azimuth of the sun varies very little from year to year.  The elevation and azimuth of the sun on May 15th, in Norwich, CT, at noon is essentially the same year after year.  Since the amount of atmospheric refraction varies from hour to hour and even by location the suns elevation and azimuth values would never be consistent or predictable...especially at sunrise & sunset. 

Since the atmospheric variables to calculate refraction are wildly variable, atmospheric refraction cannot be what causes the sun to appear the size and rise/set below the horizon.  It just isnt logical.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2017, 03:59:17 AM »
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
Did anyone notice that the thread was on, "Rethinking Perspective", until jroa butted in with "the effects of refraction".

Yes, jroa, you do such a wonderful job of derailing threads away from issues that flatties are so abysmal at comprehending.

The inability of flat-earthers to understand perspective probably started with Rowbotham's totally confused ideas on the matter.

So you, jroa, have to keep discussion away from your Achilles' Heel, perspective at any cost.

And, jroa, you obviously excelled in your derailing classes in the Flat Earth Indoctrination Academy.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2017, 04:37:46 AM »
Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, I dont know. Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2017, 05:59:37 AM »
Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, I dont know. Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).

Your own roundy scientists can not even agree on what gravity is, or why the galaxies and universe do not follow Newtonian physics, yet, somehow, you people claim that our theories cannot possibly be correct unless we can fully explain every detail that you demand of use.  You people will lap what ever the prevailing roundy theory is of the month, yet mock us for theorizing without absolute proof for this or that.  You people are hypocrites. 

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2017, 08:15:56 AM »
Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, I dont know. Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).

Your own roundy scientists can not even agree on what gravity is, or why the galaxies and universe do not follow Newtonian physics, yet, somehow, you people claim that our theories cannot possibly be correct unless we can fully explain every detail that you demand of use.  You people will lap what ever the prevailing roundy theory is of the month, yet mock us for theorizing without absolute proof for this or that.  You people are hypocrites.
But you can't even present proof that your overarching idea works. You claim "The sun sets because of perspective" yet that claim has no basis in the math behind perspective, no basis in trigonometry, and no basis in any known/cataloged effects. Cavendish shows there is attraction between masses. The overarching idea behind gravity is sound in that evidence. The basic equation even works the majority of the time. FE however is claiming basic math breaks down for no given reason in order to make the sun set. Where is the evidence for this?

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2017, 08:21:13 AM »
Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, I dont know. Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).

Your own roundy scientists can not even agree on what gravity is, or why the galaxies and universe do not follow Newtonian physics, yet, somehow, you people claim that our theories cannot possibly be correct unless we can fully explain every detail that you demand of use.  You people will lap what ever the prevailing roundy theory is of the month, yet mock us for theorizing without absolute proof for this or that.  You people are hypocrites.

No, us non flatties simply ask that an explanation with a range of supporting observational evidence is given, as opposed to one liners and spur of the moment flights of fancy.

Use your zetetic method, I don't care, but give more than 'it could be refraction' for heavens sake.

I'm not asking for an accurate peer reviewed breakdown of how refraction achieves the phenomena you claim it does, just observable examples that show refraction behaving as it would need to for it to be the explanation for the OPs question.

*

JackBlack

  • 17509
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2017, 12:37:50 PM »
lol, you are claiming that refraction only works in one direction.  Discussing this with you is like explaining relativity to a child.
You really seem to enjoy acting like a broken record.
This has already been explained to you.

For the same situation, refraction only works in one direction.
If you change the situation, you can have it refract the other way.

From what is known about the atmosphere, typically light will refract downwards making things appear higher.
It is only transient events which have light refract the other way. That cannot explain the everyday occurance of sunsets.

You are asking me to make guesses
Well thanks for admitting you have no idea.
See, the real scientists (and even plenty of lay-people) know how refraction works.

And that is the key difference.
The things you ask us to explain, you have no better idea/explanation. Meanwhile the things we ask you to explain are well known and verified in real science.

We know that light bends towards the normal of a higher refractive index medium.
We know that for air, the refractive index is related to density such that more dense air will have a higher refractive index.
We know that in general, the air is less dense the higher you are.

All of this will lead to the conclusion that, in general, light will refract downwards through the atmosphere and thus make objects appear higher.

That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.
That is nothing like what you FEers do, that is pretty much what real scientists (those that conclude Earth is round) do.
You FEers make a guess, that Earth is flat, then make more and more guesses to try and explain away observations.

If you were going to make observations, analyse the data and then draw logical conclusions, you would have concluded that Earth is round.

This thread is on perspective and the effects thereof.

We can make observations, of numerous objects of known size and position, and find that they shrink the further away they go. We can even fit these to formulas, where their apparent angular size is given by 2*atan(s/2d), where s is their real size and d is the distance to them. (it gets more complex when you aren't viewing them straight on.

We can then apply this to the sun (with an appropriate filter to remove glare). We note that it remains roughly the same size.
This indicates it must remain roughly the same distance away from us.

Thus the best conclusion based upon that is that from our perspective, the sun is circling us, or a point near to us.

By taking these observations from various places on Earth we conclude that the distance to the sun must make the distance as you move around Earth insignificant.

This, combined with different time-zones leads to the conclusion that the sun can't be travelling over a flat surface.

This is what real zeteticism would lead to.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2017, 01:02:44 PM »
So, then, can we all agree that refraction does not always make things appear higher in the sky, and any roundy noob who comes here claiming otherwise is either a liar or simply ignorant of physics?
So explain how it works to make the sun and moon appear the same size all day and then appear to set below the horizon.  At a predictable time every day despite weather, air pressure etc.

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2017, 02:28:07 PM »
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.  You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed.  That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.  That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.

Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2017, 12:45:34 AM »
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.  You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed.  That is not how Zeteticism works.  We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.  That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.

Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.

In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS.  I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right? 

*

JackBlack

  • 17509
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2017, 01:18:18 AM »
In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS.  I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?
In case you have a hard time comprehend what you have read (or just ignored), it was explained that that was not the case at all.
Instead, it must be BS, not only because you are unable to provide any known mechanism, but because it contradicts observations and seems to be just put in to make Earth magically be flat while appearing round.
There are already explanations which work which can explain the observed phenomenon.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 01:56:40 AM by JackBlack »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2017, 01:21:07 AM »
Please fix your quote so it does not look like I am the one saying dumb shit.  Thanks. 

*

JackBlack

  • 17509
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2017, 01:57:05 AM »
Please fix your quote so it does not look like I am the one saying dumb shit.  Thanks.
There you go. It has been fixed so you are the one saying dumb shit, not dino neil.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2017, 03:04:06 AM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2017, 03:08:53 AM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)
Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".

Go derail some thread in CN!

Re: Rethinking Perspective
« Reply #59 on: November 29, 2017, 03:13:23 AM »
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)
More to the topic, I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post on refraction. 
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.