bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (04/09/88)
In article <4089@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.) writes: >In article <1598@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: >>As I showed in a previous posting, this "abrupt edge" of the atmosphere >>does not exist as Sevener claims. > >I guess it depends on what one means by an "abrupt end" to the atmosphere >and just what this means. In fact, as one gets into the exosphere, >the atmosphere becomes a layered mix of gases rather than a homogeneous >mix. [...] Once again in an attempt to defend the indefensible, Tim Sevener has looked up some information and gotten it wrong. In this instance he would have us believe that the atmosphere is formed like some kind of giant rum Zombie, layer upon layer. This contrasts nicely with the homogenous atmosphere idea he apparently held earlier, and the definitiveness of the abrupt edge he claimed earlier. Once again he doesn't present any real understanding of the mechanisms involved, just an incorrect regurgitation of some texts: the Sevener approach to science. But then again, we have seen the Sevener approach to science through some of his earlier arguments. The background is this: Early on, John Carr said that refraction was greatest at low altitudes, and gave a figure for the angle of refraction of the Sun. This was disadvantageous for Tim Sevener, who tried to gain advantage by claiming that the refraction had to have occurred much higher up, so as to avoid the possibility that light might be refracted from Cuba to Key West, the denial of which led Sevener to post some incredible and uncalled-for flames against Friedman. An early statement Sevener made in e-mail went as follows: I suggested there might be an abrupt shift from the atmosphere to space at the edge of the atmosphere. A poster has suggested this is not correct. Personally I don't know. Logically, it seems to me that there will be some kind of abrupt shift or discontinuity at the point of escape from the Earth's gravity. Apparently without researching the issue he soon proceeds to: >One might also add that there comes an altitude at which the >escape velocity approximately equals the average velocity of >the gas molecules making up the atmosphere. This is the >"abrupt end" of the atmosphere. and very shortly thereafter (as this was being challeged by all and sundry): >And there *is* an abrupt end to the atmosphere in the region >where the escape velocity approximates the velocity of the gas >molecules at the edge of the atmosphere. Please note the progression and definiteness of these remarks. Sevener stated as absolute fact that there is an abrupt edge to the atmosphere. Despite the available documentary evidence to the contrary, he held on to these statements until two posters demonstrated, by differing means, just how ludicrous this assertion was. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Which directly contradicts his earlier statement. It cannot be both. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Sevener also ignored this posting by Darren Leigh which explains in layman's terms more of what John Carr's posting provided the formulas for: >There really doesn't have to be a layer of anything. Light tends to >bend toward regions of higher index of refraction and so can travel in >curves. This is the principle behind a "graded index" fiber optic >cable, where there is no abrupt change between areas of higher and >lower indices of refraction. Instead, the index varies gradually, >being highest in the middle and falling off with larger radius. The >light travels in neat curves -- it bends back before it can escape the >fiber. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- We could go on and on, but it really isn't necessary. Tim Sevener's postings have provided some interesting illumination to his declaration: > ...However I do know *some* fundamentals >of science which I have gained primarily by voluminous >reading over a lifetime and studies in the Sociology >of Science at Indiana University. Tim Sevener is not (as somebody recently claimed) stupid. But he fails to recognize his own limitations and shortcomings, he continues to doggedly pursue, and even, incredibly, claim victory in, an argument long after it is clear to one and all that he is proven wrong. To call this sophistry is, well, simply not enough. In any case, he has amply demonstrated for us all just how much credibility he really has, and it isn't very much. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (04/23/88)
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