Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
From: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: understanding physics
Message-ID: <1652@sigma.UUCP>
Date: 22 Apr 88 23:13:54 GMT
References: <3405@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3884@whuts.UUCP> <2177@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <4009@whuts.UUCP> <1598@sigma.UUCP> <4089@whuts.UUCP> <1619@sigma.UUCP> <4147@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan)
Followup-To: sci.misc
Organization: The Keith Highlanders Pipe Band, The Official Band of the Clan Keith
Lines: 98

In article <4147@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.) writes:
>>A different, but similar, process may be observed by re-examining Sevener's
>>statements regarding refraction, another subject he did not seem to
>>understand at all initially, and only somewhat better now. Early on he
>>quotes an elementary physics textbook:
]>>"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."
>>
>>Of course, Sevener's elementary physics textbook is in error here (possibly
>>through poor phrasing), but Tim Sevener not only fails to see it, he amplifies
>>it! According to Sevener, in the following statement, the index of refraction
>>is a property of *two* materials:
>>
]>>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.
>>
>>Later on, John Carr tells him:
>>
]>>Also, this is not the correct definition of "index refraction".
]>>The index of refraction is measured relative to vacuum, and is 
]>>defined by (speed of light in material) * (index of refraction) = c.
>>
>>Sevener apparently looks this up, finds it to be true, and replies:
>>
]>>2)I never denied that the refractive index is related to the
]>>  velocity of light in a given medium. 
>
>Mahatma Gandhi, will you bozos ever give up!!
>
>This is getting positively irksome.
>In fact, Mr. Swan, the relation between the speed of light and
>indices of refraction is explained in the very Intro Physics
>book which you and Mr. Carr seem to have so much trouble
>understanding.
>
>DesCartes with his particle theories of the universe postulated
>ways in which the results obtained by refraction when passing
>between different media could be explained by differing speeds
>of light particles.
>
>I suggest you get a copy of Leon Cooper's "An Intro to the 
>Structure and Meaning of Modern Physics" and read it.
>You will find it quite enlightening as will any net readers
>interested in physics.  It is a very well-written, lucid text.
>
]This does not mean that there is such a thing as an
]"index of refraction" independent of any change in the velocity
]of light in different media or a continuous change in a given
]medium.  It so happens that because the maximum speed of light
>as we understand it currently occurs in a vacumn, that is
>taken as the standard for measuring indices of refraction.
>
>But if you read *any* elementary treatment of refraction,
>including that in good encyclopedias, you will find that
>refraction is calculated by Snell's Law which relates
>*two* indices of refraction to each other.
>
>Perhaps you should create a new "Carr's-Swan's" Law of
>Refraction to go along with the wonderful science of
>Creationism  :-)!!
>
>Meanwhile you evade the initial point in which you were all
>proved wrong which is:
>
>YOU CANNOT SEE CUBA FROM KEY WEST! Period.
>
>Learn some physics and stop wasting net bandwidth...
>
>tim sevener  whuts!orb


Is this guy for real?

He apparently cannot distinguish between angle of refraction and index of
refraction.
He postulated an abrupt transition from atmosphere to space, then declared
it fact.
He "proved mathematically" that one could not see Cuba from Key West by
ignoring refraction.
He also "proved" it from his personal experience - he never saw Cuba from
Key West, nor Canada from Michigan...
And so on...

He also evades the central point of the argument, which is that he called
Michael Friedman a "blatantly lying pathological liar" suffering from
"delusionary visions", among other things, for having said that he saw
Cuba from Key West after having been told by some natives that it was
sometimes possible to do so and having tried to do so himself. 



-- 
William Swan  {ihnp4,decvax,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!{piobaire!}bill