Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8053 sci.misc:895
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!uflorida!codas!mtune!mtunx!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Re: The Last Word on Friedman, Sevener, and Cuba
Message-ID: <3895@whuts.UUCP>
Date: 8 Mar 88 16:11:51 GMT
References: <3405@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany, NJ
Lines: 84

Knowing full well that the Reaganistas will not accept
my explanation of the principle of refraction, 
I will herein post quotes from "An Introduction to the
Meaning and Structure of Physics" by Leon N. Cooper.
It is an introductory college physics textbook.

Also knowing full well that Mr. Carr will undoubtedly
attempt to weasel out of his totally inaccurate explanation
of refraction and how it applies to a view of the Sun,
whereas it does not apply scarcely *at all* to the ability
to see Cuba from Key West, I will post further proof of
Mr. Carr's lack of understanding of refraction.

To wit:

Article 11721 of talk.politics.misc:
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu.UUCP

TS : 1)the Sun is up in the sky being refracted through an
TS :   atmosphere many miles thick.

JFC :This is my point.
JFC :
JFC :The figure I quoted, .5 degrees, is for the sun on the horizon.
JFC :This means its light passes through the equivalent of about 200
JFC :miles of sea-level air.  Light from Cuba passes through half this 
JFC :much air, so will be refracted by half as much (in both cases the
JFC :light travels almost horizontally through the air, so the reasoning 
JFC :is valid).

Actually, I was not thinking clearly myself in this passage.
The reason the Sun is refracted whereas day to day objects
(including those seen over the sea) in air are not, is due to
the change in density of the atmosphere at higher altitudes
and the abrupt change to the vacumn of space.

Cooper's text says this (p. 181):
"Light traveling through a vacumn, or through a uniform medium
 in a straight line and with finite speed, has what seems to
 be an inertial property."

"We now consider the behavior of light as it passes from one
 *homogeneous medium* to another, for example as it passes from
 --------------------
 air to water."

Further, (p. 182), Cooper says:
"This constant, known as the index of refraction, is a property
 of the two materials and differs for different materials.  For
 example there is one index of refraction for an air-water surface,
 another for an air-glass surface, and a third for a glass-water
 surface."

There is *no such thing* as an "index of refraction" for SeaLevel
air.  There undoubtedly *is* some index of refraction for air at
sealevel density versus air in the upper atmosphere, and of course
there is *certainly* an index of refraction for an air-vacumn
surface.

Which leads back to my original point:

Michael Friedman could not *possibly* have seen Cuba from Key
West.  Mr. Carr, Mr. Swan, and others jumping in to attack
me and defend Mr. Friedman's statement on the grounds that
refraction makes it possible are all wrong.

And I hope this teaches them all a lesson about "seeing
what they want to see" and believing what they want to
believe.

Meanwhile, I have been bombarded with attacks from every
rightwinger on the Net on every statement I have ever made
in this newsgroup, or rather a very small subset of the
statements I have made in this newsgroup.

I cannot possibly respond to all of them.

All I can say is: this particular exchange was one which may
demonstrate to others on the net just who has credibility and
who does not.
Remember it in the future...

tim sevener  whuts!orb
see