Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8243 sci.misc:974
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!rutgers!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: <3925@whuts.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 88 23:09:27 GMT
References: <3405@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3895@whuts.UUCP> <3588@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3904@whuts.UUCP> <3699@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany, NJ
Lines: 169

In article <3699@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>
>Tim: I learned much of this from my professors, there is no need to ask
>them and involve them in this discussion.    I will post a more detailed
>derivation when the above condition is met: someone else is not convinced
>that you are wrong.  What was your major?  I am majoring in Aerospace 
>Engineering and Planetary Science (which includes astronomy) (I am a double 
>major: those are two seperate fields).  I think I am in a position to make
>statements on subjects such as refraction.

I don't care what your major is - your scientific reasoning is totally
wrong.

Once again to repeat some major points of this argument so far:

1)Michael Friedman claimed to "see" Cuba while standing on the
  shore on Key West. 

2)I pointed out that:
  a)I, my roommate and others have been to Key West, the shores of Lake
    Michigan and other such bodies of water and never been able to see
    the opposing shore.
    I asked if anybody could testify to being at Key West and been able
    to see Cuba.
    Nobody, outside of Michael Friedman, has personally testified to
    being able to see Cuba from Key West.

  b)I also pointed out that it was *physically impossible* to see
    Cuba from Key West, given the curvature of the Earth.
    The highest point anywhere close to the 90 mile point from Key
    West on Cuba is 344 feet. The height of the tangent line of 
    sight from Key West to a point 90 miles away is 2059 feet.
    I.e. there is a difference of *1700* feet between the tangent
    line of sight and the highest point in Cuba close to 90 miles
    from Key West.
    I asked if there were errors in my calculations.
    Nobody has found any yet.
    Even John Carr admits they are correct.

  c)John Carr, however, claimed that based on his knowledge of refraction
    from his Astronomy classes, that the light from the Sun was refracted
    0.5 degrees. Mr. Carr claimed that since the light from Cuba to Key West
    was being refracted through sea-level density atmosphere that it
    should *also* refract that light by values similar to that for the
    Sun and other astronomical objects.

  d)I pointed out that this was a totally erroneous view of refraction.
    Refraction *only* occurs in a *non*uniform medium or when going from
    one uniform medium to another.
    I provided quotes from Leon N. Cooper's "An Introduction to the
    Meaning and Structure of Physics" to back up this point about
    refraction.

    To the extent that a medium such as a gas varies continuously in
    one direction, i.e. decreased density as one leaves Earth, then
    to that extent it will be continously refracted.
    On the other hand, to the extent a medium is *uniform*, then light
    will not be refracted *one iota*.
    I further pointed out that the actual difference in atmospheric
    pressure between sealevel air and air at 3000 ft is 29.92 inches
    vs 26.81 inches according to the Encyclopedia of Atmospheric
    Sciences and Astrogeology(p.781-783).
    I would argue this is far closer to being a *uniform* medium
    than a nonuniform medium.

    Mr. Carr continues to insult my scientific understanding of
    refraction.  I would say his argument is not with me but with Leon
    Cooper, the authors of the Physics Encyclopedia and other sources
    which all give exactly the same view of refraction as something
    which only occurs either in shifts of medium or *non*uniform
    media.

  e)Just to give Mr. Carr's hypothesis the greatest benefit of the 
    doubt I calculated the distance from the Earth of a tangent line
    of 0.5 degrees instead of 1 degree as in my original calculation.
    I.e. assuming the *total* refraction Mr. Carr himself states for
    the Sun.  (actually according to the Physics Encyclopedia the value
    is 35 minutes. Only 5 minutes different than 0.5 degrees. For once,
    John Carr has something right even if he fails to understand why)
    That distance comes out to be 844.8 feet.
    A difference of *500* feet from the highest point close to 90
    miles from Key West of 344 feet!
    I.e. even *IF* light from Cuba were refracted to the same extent
    as light from the Sun (which it is *NOT*!), it is *still*
    impossible to see Cuba from Key West.

  f)Finally, it turns out that the Physics Encyclopedia says that
    changes in the index of refraction of a gas are *proportional*
    to the density of the gas.  This would mean the index of
    refraction at 3000 feet can be derived as follows:

       index of refraction at 3000 feet = 1 + (26.81/29.92 * .000293)

        = 1.000263
    
    Thus the index of refraction at sea-level is 1.000293 and at 3000 ft
    is 1.000263.  I.e. .00003 different!
    I would call that basically a uniform medium as far as refraction
    is concerned!

Here is the way I would evaluate the situation:

1)Michael Friedman was wrong to claim he could see Cuba from Key West.
  It is physically impossible, even with refraction.
  Of course neither Friedman, Carr, Swan, et al are willing to concede
  this point, although I have provided references and respected sources
  for every step of my argument

2)John Carr was wrong to claim refraction from Key West to Cuba is
  the same as that from Key West to the Sun because of the distance
  the light travels in sea-level density air.
  I was also wrong to make any argument based on similar reasoning
  such as my argument that the Sun was further away.
  Both arguments have nothing to do with *refraction* which *only occurs*
  from a *change* in medium, whether it's a change in gaseous density
  or change in substance from air to water, air to glass, air to vacumn,
  etc.
  Mr. Carr is still unwilling to concede he was wrong on this point.
  Instead he insults my scientific understanding even when I have
  posted direct quotes from basic physic textbooks to support my
  point.

3)Even if John Carr were right to argue that the index of refraction
  between an atmospheric density of 26.81 inches and 29.92 inches
  is the same as that between 29.92 inches and 0 inches, he is
  *still* wrong in contending that a refraction of 0.5 degrees would
  make Cuba visible from Key West.
  In fact, even with a refraction of 0.5 degrees the highest point
  in Cuba of 344 feet is still 500 feet below the tangent line
  of sight *with refraction*'s height of 844.8 feet.

4)This whole incredibly boring and senseless argument is simply typical
  of the argument style of Mr. Carr, Mr. Friedman, et al.
  When caught flat-out wrong, Mr. Friedman resorted to all manner
  of obfuscating dodges - "I was on a 15 foot jetty" 
  "a difference between .99980 and .99989 could be siignificant",
  "Refraction makes it possible", "ad nauseum, ad infinitum".
  Mr. Friedman never even bothered to calculate if a 15 ft jetty,
  difference in the 100,000th decimal place or refraction makes
  a bit of difference. *I* had to calculate and show such things
  were totally insignificant.
  Mr. Carr posted elaborate calculations based on a total misapprehension
  of what refraction is, and insulted my scientific understanding for
  quoting from an elementary college physics textbook to show he
  should know better.
  I have provided references to every one of my points.
  Let Mr. Carr debate the authors of those references.
  To wit:

References
Rand-McNally World Atlas for highest points in Cuba, radius of
the Earth

"An Introduction to the Meaning and Structure of Physics" by Leon
N. Cooper for the definition of refraction.

Also for meaning of refraction, "New Columbia Encyclopedia", and
"Physics Encyclopedia"

"Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences and Astrogeology" for
atmospheric density at 3000 ft versus sea-level

"Physics Encyclopedia" for the fact that refractivity of a gas
is proportional to density, for the index of refraction of
1.000293 at sea-level and for the value of 35 minutes for
total refractive displacement of the sun's light on the
horizon

tim sevener whuts!orb