bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (03/11/88)
In article <3895@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.) writes: >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. >"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." >"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. Feh. Sevener clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of refraction, whether it be real or affected I leave to the net. Let me provide a couple of counter-quotes that were written long before Sevener graced this world with his presence, to wit, from "Elementary Optics and Applications to Fire Control Instruments", written in 1921 under the direction of the Chief of Ordnance. This little tome was still in use in WWII - and you can be certain its contents aren't politically oriented; unlike the views of one 20th century nation and one certain net.personality, physics is not a political expression ("Reaganistas", indeed!). pg 8: "The index of refraction of any substance with respect to a vacuum is termed the 'absolute index'." Please note that the index of refraction does not require an interface to a vacuum, or to any other medium. It is inherent. p13: "If we have a single medium in which the index of refraction changes gradually as the ray proceeds from, point to point, the course of the ray will change gradually and will be a curved rather than a straight line. Accordingly, the commonly made statement that light travels in a straight line is incorrect unless the path is restricted to a homogenous medium." I know this hard to understand, Tim, but it is absolutely essential to grasp this concept in order to understand John Carr's proof that light refracts in a way as to make it possible to see Cuba from Key West. To resume, (and pay attention): "The importance of this lies in the fact that air is not homogenous but departs from homogeneity to such an extent arising therefrom must be taken into account in all precise levelling or operations of a similar nature." p14: "The index of refraction of the air is influenced by its density, which varies with height, temperature, and amount of water vapor present. The result is that a ray of light traveling through the air does not in general follow a straight line but is refracted and follows a curved path." Please note this, Tim. It means that one's vision extends beyond what you would get with a childishly simplistic "light travels in straight lines" calculation, which you have insisted on and even claimed that an encyclopedia supported your calculations. In your very own words: > My calculations are backed by the Columbia Encyclopedia, Which is hard to believe. (By the way, Darren Leigh has denied your statement claiming that he provided the reference - where's your reply? Could it be that you are more dishonest than Michael Friedman, who you called a "blatantly lying" "pathological liar"? Darren Leigh has demanded an apology. Where is it?) >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. Tim Sevener still has to show us why. >And I hope this teaches them all a lesson about "seeing >what they want to see" and believing what they want to >believe. ... I'm sorry, it took me a couple minutes to stop laughing. This is rich! Tim, you should've been a stand-up comic! Imagine: Tim Sevener standing up there deadpanning "And I hope this teaches them all a lesson.."!!! >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. Ah ha! The old "I can't possibly pay therefore you can't find me guilty" defense. Poor Timmie! He has posted misquotes, he has wrongly savaged others on the net, has ignored requests for support for his unsupportable assertion, and now he says "I cannot possibly respond to all of them." There is another word for this kind of behaviour. Tim has effectively declared that he is bankrupt. You guess what kind. >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 Oh, we will, Tim, You bet we will. Now: How about an apology, and I mean a *real* apology to Michael Friedman for calling him a "blatantly lying" "pathological liar" suffering from "paranoid delusions"? How about an apology to Michael Friedman for that piece of sleaze you posted, calling it an apology? How about an apology to Michael Friedman for your attempt to imply that he was claiming to present the official position of MIT? How about addressing Darren Leigh's claim that you falsely attributed the Columbia Encyclopedia quote to him, when he never mentioned it and says, as a matter of fact, that he has never even seen that encyclopedia. How about telling us why you never responded when I asked for support for your claim that the Glock-17 (a "plastic" gun, but 80% metal) could be easily disguised from airport X-ray machines? How about addressing JanW's complaint that you have fraudulantly misquoted him, and not just once? How about an apology to Michael Friedman for your series of vituperative articles about Figueres, claiming, that Friedman is, as he said in his complaint "a liar, a cheat, and a scoundrel". Remember, when he looked up support for his statements and posted them, (quoting again) "I didn't hear a peep from you. Not even a private letter acknowleging you were wrong." How about an answer to Nat Howard <in 5771>? You never responded to him. Does this mean you support his position? You responded to part of his article, you had to have read it, - why not respond to the rest? Timothy J. Sevener, you have spent your credibility quite freely and the bills are now overdue. Pay up or declare yourself bankrupt. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill "Say NO to NoRM!" - Republicans Against Maleng As Governor
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (03/11/88)
In article <1542@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (I, William Swan) wrote: >In article <3895@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.) writes: >>Knowing full well that the Reaganistas will not accept >>my explanation of the principle of refraction My apologies to the sci.misc crowd for continuing the cross-posting into your group. It was not intentional. I normally check groups but forgot this time. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill "Say NO to NoRM!" - Republicans Against Maleng As Governor