*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2019, 12:39:09 AM »
Here is a DIY solar filter being used on a light bulb at home. Hmm...seems to me it works properly as described, revealing the true shape of an object.

I have a lot of issues with that statement.

1. There is a HUGE difference between these things:

Light which is generated under optical conditions of an indoor room, spending 100% of it's time traveling through optical conditions of an indoor room, and  hitting a light detector in the optical conditions of an indoor room

Light which is generated under the optical conditions A  the vacuum of space, passes through optical conditions B the exosphere, passes through optical conditions C the thermoshpere, then D the mesosphere, then E the stratosphere, then F the mesosphere, then hitting a light detector in the chaotic surface level optical conditions.




notice this video.

Scenario 1:

let A = indoor air optical conditions
let B = glass optical conditions
let C = water optical conditions

path of light
A -> arrow -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> A -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> C -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing RIGHT

Notice how passing through multiple different types of optical conditions DRAMATICALLY changes your perception?

2. You are using limited human perception here. Saying it looks like the true shape is like a doctor saying I don't need to wash my hands they look clean. Or like a physicist saying that the glass is not made of atoms because I don't see them.

Just because the limited abilities of the human eye and visual cortex are unable to perceive something does not mean that it does not exist.



We don't live in a glass of water. Cool trick though.

It's true we don't live in a glass of water. Yet the logic still applies.


The logic that still applies is this:
That video demonstrates that under conditions where the light that hits our eye has gone through multiple refractive mediums with different refractive indexes the electrical signal sent to the visual cortex, and the visual cortex's attempt to create a perception of said cloud of electrical signals can be grossly inaccurate to reality.

 Light from the sun has gone through multiple different refractive mediums with different refractive indexes such as the vacuum of space,  the exosphere,  the thermoshpere, the mesosphere,  the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, and finally the complex different layers of your eye.

All you have done is added another variable to the equation by adding another set refractive medium transitions

 New light path:

The vacuum of space,  the exosphere,  the thermoshpere, the mesosphere,  the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, a solar filter, more surface level chaotic atmospheric conditions after exiting the solar filter and finally the complex different layers of your eye.

Yeah, so, the indices of refraction between vacuum and atmospheric density on the earths surface differ by about 0.0003. Those would bookmark the greatest difference as light passes through all these different layers.

Hence, the diffraction through medium is negligible.

Chaotic atmospheric conditions? What are you talking about?

If a butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, and this creates a hurricane in Europe, which topples a tree in a forest with no one around to hear it, does your long diatribe make any sense?

Apparently not.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2019, 02:54:59 AM »
Yeah, so, the indices of refraction between vacuum and atmospheric density on the earths surface differ by about 0.0003. Those would bookmark the greatest difference as light passes through all these different layers.

Hence, the diffraction through medium is negligible.




Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that the refraction caused by light traveling through the different layers of the atmosphere is negligible?


allow me to present evidence which supports the claim that refraction caused by light traveling through the atmosphere is significant





Chaotic atmospheric conditions? What are you talking about?

notice how the water level LOOKS LIKE it has increased in altitude a good 15-20 feed over the course of a few minutes? The water level is not really raising and lowering by 20 feet this afternoon.

Because of chaotic atmospheric optical variables the path the photos take through the air TRICKS your visual cortex into creating an INCORRECT image.





If a butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, and this creates a hurricane in Europe, which topples a tree in a forest with no one around to hear it, does your long diatribe make any sense?

Apparently not.

I don't know what anyone has to do with the topic.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2019, 05:00:26 AM »
Yeah, so, the indices of refraction between vacuum and atmospheric density on the earths surface differ by about 0.0003. Those would bookmark the greatest difference as light passes through all these different layers.

Hence, the diffraction through medium is negligible.




Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that the refraction caused by light traveling through the different layers of the atmosphere is negligible?


allow me to present evidence which supports the claim that refraction caused by light traveling through the atmosphere is significant





Chaotic atmospheric conditions? What are you talking about?

notice how the water level LOOKS LIKE it has increased in altitude a good 15-20 feed over the course of a few minutes? The water level is not really raising and lowering by 20 feet this afternoon.

Because of chaotic atmospheric optical variables the path the photos take through the air TRICKS your visual cortex into creating an INCORRECT image.





If a butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, and this creates a hurricane in Europe, which topples a tree in a forest with no one around to hear it, does your long diatribe make any sense?

Apparently not.

I don't know what anyone has to do with the topic.

A YouTube video showing a cartoon...is your evidence. Oh dear.

You know that anyone can make YouTube videos, right?

Why don’t you spend some time learning optics. Grab a textbook on the subject, and read through it. Look up indices of refraction, snell’s law, and then draw me a diagram with actual distances and numbers, using mathematics to demonstrate that we somehow see the Sun two minutes before it rises.

Good lord, kids these days and YouTube. Wouldn’t know evidence from their ass.

Also, chaotic has a precise definition. You are using it wrongly.

But do detail for me what these “chaotic atmospheric variables” are. In fact, if you even manage to state a variable, let alone an atmospheric one or one that exhibits chaotic behaviour, then I will award you one internet.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

manicminer

Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2019, 11:49:35 AM »
Here is what the British Astronomical Association have to say about atmospheric refraction.

https://britastro.org/node/17066


*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2019, 12:27:45 PM »
Here is what the British Astronomical Association have to say about atmospheric refraction.

https://britastro.org/node/17066

Hell of a lot better than YouTube.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2019, 06:41:04 PM »
A YouTube video showing a cartoon...is your evidence. Oh dear.

Good lord, kids these days and YouTube. Wouldn’t know evidence from their ass.

If something is a cartoon or on youtube not has no effect on if the information is correct or accurate. The correct, and accurate information, based on the evidence provided is that atmospheric refraction is significant.

Do I really need to present more evidence? I guess so. Here is more. Sorry they still have cartoon diagrams. I noticed how the CARTOON from the HONG KONG OBSERVATORY looks very similar to the CARTOON you so easily dismissed from youtube.

https://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493
http://jgiesen.de/refract/index.html

good lord. Kids these days and their inability to determine if a youtube video is accurate and corroborated by places like the Hong Kong Observatory or just made up.


Why don’t you spend some time learning optics. Grab a textbook on the subject, and read through it. Look up indices of refraction, snell’s law, and then draw me a diagram with actual distances and numbers, using mathematics to demonstrate that we somehow see the Sun two minutes before it rises.

It's true I didn't take any optics classes. I did take some astronomy classes and guess what, we learned about atmospheric refraction.


Also, chaotic has a precise definition. You are using it wrongly.

But do detail for me what these “chaotic atmospheric variables” are. In fact, if you even manage to state a variable, let alone an atmospheric one or one that exhibits chaotic behaviour, then I will award you one internet.

I really don't like when people argue semantics about the definition of words. Since you don't like me using that word i looked up the definition of it online. I will correct that previous statement using the definition of chaotic instead of the word.

 Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that i'm using the word chaotic incorrectly? Allow me to present my evidence which supports my claim that I AM using the word correctly:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic

Chaotic:
"marked by chaos or being in a state of chaos"



Chaos:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2019, 07:17:34 PM »
A YouTube video showing a cartoon...is your evidence. Oh dear.

Good lord, kids these days and YouTube. Wouldn’t know evidence from their ass.

If something is a cartoon or on youtube not has no effect on if the information is correct or accurate. The correct, and accurate information, based on the evidence provided is that atmospheric refraction is significant.

Do I really need to present more evidence? I guess so. Here is more. Sorry they still have cartoon diagrams. I noticed how the CARTOON from the HONG KONG OBSERVATORY looks very similar to the CARTOON you so easily dismissed from youtube.

https://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493
http://jgiesen.de/refract/index.html

good lord. Kids these days and their inability to determine if a youtube video is accurate and corroborated by places like the Hong Kong Observatory or just made up.


Why don’t you spend some time learning optics. Grab a textbook on the subject, and read through it. Look up indices of refraction, snell’s law, and then draw me a diagram with actual distances and numbers, using mathematics to demonstrate that we somehow see the Sun two minutes before it rises.

It's true I didn't take any optics classes. I did take some astronomy classes and guess what, we learned about atmospheric refraction.


Also, chaotic has a precise definition. You are using it wrongly.

But do detail for me what these “chaotic atmospheric variables” are. In fact, if you even manage to state a variable, let alone an atmospheric one or one that exhibits chaotic behaviour, then I will award you one internet.

I really don't like when people argue semantics about the definition of words. Since you don't like me using that word i looked up the definition of it online. I will correct that previous statement using the definition of chaotic instead of the word.

 Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that i'm using the word chaotic incorrectly? Allow me to present my evidence which supports my claim that I AM using the word correctly:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic

Chaotic:
"marked by chaos or being in a state of chaos"



Chaos:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE

No - you needed to present SOME evidence, not more.

If you had actually taken an astronomy class, and paid attention, then you probably would have learned that YouTube is not good evidence.

Do tell me what you leaned in that class - go pull out your old notes. THAT would actually be meaningful.

Warning: if you try to BS this, then I will catch you.

It is not semantics...it’s science. We use precision in science. That’s something else an astronomy class would have taught you - I should know - I teach astronomy classes.

Some properties of the atmosphere are modelled using chaotic systems, and some are not. You are not using this word correctly. Now try again.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2019, 12:36:16 AM »
No - you needed to present SOME evidence, not more.

If you had actually taken an astronomy class, and paid attention, then you probably would have learned that YouTube is not good evidence.

Do tell me what you leaned in that class - go pull out your old notes. THAT would actually be meaningful.

1. You have yet to present ANY evidence. Please provide SOMETHING.

2. If you don't accept the Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association as evidence then i don't know what you will accept as evidence.




It is not semantics...it’s science.



We are clearly speaking two separate languages.  I'm speaking English as defined Merriam Webster. I don't know what language you are speaking.


I teach astronomy classes.

It's unfortunate that you teach this class and you are unable to present any evidence to refute the Hong Kong Observatory. Clearly you know more than they do but are unable to present any evidence to support your claims.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2019, 02:23:19 AM »
No - you needed to present SOME evidence, not more.

If you had actually taken an astronomy class, and paid attention, then you probably would have learned that YouTube is not good evidence.

Do tell me what you leaned in that class - go pull out your old notes. THAT would actually be meaningful.

1. You have yet to present ANY evidence. Please provide SOMETHING.

2. If you don't accept the Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association as evidence then i don't know what you will accept as evidence.




It is not semantics...it’s science.



We are clearly speaking two separate languages.  I'm speaking English as defined Merriam Webster. I don't know what language you are speaking.


I teach astronomy classes.

It's unfortunate that you teach this class and you are unable to present any evidence to refute the Hong Kong Observatory. Clearly you know more than they do but are unable to present any evidence to support your claims.

I.am.not.making.a.claim.

You are. I do not need to present evidence to refute your claim, you need to present evidence to support it.

That’s how it works, sparky.

Shiiit man, that astronomy course don’t taught you nuthin bout this here scientific method.

But you never really took any class did ya?
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2019, 03:18:52 AM »


I.am.not.making.a.claim.



1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.

2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.

(without any evidence to support your claim)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 03:23:15 AM by iamcpc »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2019, 04:29:11 AM »


I.am.not.making.a.claim.



1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.

2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

No, I can reject your evidence without it being a claim. See look: I reject your evidence.

But I even supply a reason. I’m just a generous guy!
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2019, 04:14:26 PM »


I.am.not.making.a.claim.



1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.

2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

No, I can reject your evidence without it being a claim. See look: I reject your evidence.


Again I'm speaking English and you appear to be using your own language which I am unable to converse because you have different definitions of words than the English dictionary.


when i googled the definition of the world "claim"

state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.



1. You asserted that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube. Without providing evidence or proof.
2. You asserted that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly. Without providing evidence or proof.
3. You asserted "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer. Without providing evidence or proof.

By definition you did make claims.

Please stop debating semantics.

It's like i'm saying I dove into the water.

Your reply is a dove is a flying bird therefore you can't flying bird into the water.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 04:20:51 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2019, 05:23:52 PM »


I.am.not.making.a.claim.



1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.

2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.

(without any evidence to support your claim)

No, I can reject your evidence without it being a claim. See look: I reject your evidence.


Again I'm speaking English and you appear to be using your own language which I am unable to converse because you have different definitions of words than the English dictionary.


when i googled the definition of the world "claim"

state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.



1. You asserted that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube. Without providing evidence or proof.
2. You asserted that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly. Without providing evidence or proof.
3. You asserted "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer. Without providing evidence or proof.

By definition you did make claims.

Please stop debating semantics.

It's like i'm saying I dove into the water.

Your reply is a dove is a flying bird therefore you can't flying bird into the water.

Whelp, too bad lad, you can look in the dictionary all you want, but it won’t save you from your burden of proof.

Now fly away my little dove, we will not dive into any more silly distractions here. We were talking about your class - your astronomy class, and all the refraction that you learned there.

No more straw-manning this aside, little dove.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2019, 08:32:55 PM »

Whelp, too bad lad, you can look in the dictionary all you want, but it won’t save you from your burden of proof.

Now fly away my little dove, we will not dive into any more silly distractions here. We were talking about your class - your astronomy class, and all the refraction that you learned there.

No more straw-manning this aside, little dove.



I can't PROVE anything. I am not even trying to PROVE anything.  I can only present EVIDENCE which you can then reject.  With someone like you PROOF is IMPOSSIBLE. Even if I found the mathematical PROOF of atmospheric refraction you could just say "does not count" like you have been.

Why you would reject published evidence from Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association is beyond me.

At this point I don't see the point of presenting more evidence.  If you reject current evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory or the British Astronomical Association I don't see how me trying to figure out the name of my text book from years ago and researching the information it had about refraction will help anything.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 08:50:02 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2019, 12:35:55 AM »

Whelp, too bad lad, you can look in the dictionary all you want, but it won’t save you from your burden of proof.

Now fly away my little dove, we will not dive into any more silly distractions here. We were talking about your class - your astronomy class, and all the refraction that you learned there.

No more straw-manning this aside, little dove.



I can't PROVE anything. I am not even trying to PROVE anything.  I can only present EVIDENCE which you can then reject.  With someone like you PROOF is IMPOSSIBLE. Even if I found the mathematical PROOF of atmospheric refraction you could just say "does not count" like you have been.

Why you would reject published evidence from Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association is beyond me.

At this point I don't see the point of presenting more evidence.  If you reject current evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory or the British Astronomical Association I don't see how me trying to figure out the name of my text book from years ago and researching the information it had about refraction will help anything.

Lol, talk about equivocation fallacy. A burden of proof does not mean you prove anything. This is what happens when you rely too much on dictionaries instead of using your brain.

You will not find any mathematical proof, because you are not interested in evidence. You are interested in posting cartoons from YouTube and lying about classes you never took.

And when called on it, you will do what every other faker does: everything except verify. You will continue complaining, and then, predictably, at the very end say: well no point in me showing it now.

Congrats, you fit the pattern nicely.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2019, 01:08:38 AM »

You will not find any mathematical proof, because you are not interested in evidence.

Coming from the guy who has ignored evidence I have posted which was not from youtube while, at the same time, providing no evidence of his own.

You are interested in posting cartoons from YouTube and lying about classes you never took.

Another claim made without one single shred of evidence.

And when called on it, you will do what every other faker does: everything except verify. You will continue complaining, and then, predictably, at the very end say: well no point in me showing it now.


I sent you links to the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was evidence from  British Astronomical Association. Which you ignored.


Here's the wikipedia page too. I notice it has cartoons so you won't accept them either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Notice how it has many mathematical formulas to calculate refraction? It's not PROOF but it's evidence that we do have the ability to use math to come pretty close to calculating refraction.


Here is another source https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html

I guess you won't accept that one either because it has a cartoon on it.


Here's another one:"


https://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/sunflat.htm

AN optics website. It still has cartoons on it so you won't accept it either.



Here's another

http://www.funscience.in/study-zone/Physics/RefractionOfLight/AtmosphericRefraction.php#sthash.uW4jeCa4.dpbs

What is the point of talking about this when you just basically make things up and provide no evidence whatsoever to your claims.



« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 01:19:05 AM by iamcpc »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2019, 01:18:41 AM »
Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.

How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.

This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.

You recognise the difference.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2019, 01:46:07 AM »
Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.

How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.

This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.

You recognise the difference.

First off:

recognize not recognise


Second off: 

What I did was search the internet and provide that information on this thread.  What you did was argue about the definition of words, ignore the evidence presented, and failed to see that research can come in the form of text, spoken word, mathematical equations, diagrams, books, articles, and VIDEOS.

When the youtube evidence  is matching the Hong Kong Observatory evidence and and also matching the British Astronomical Association evidence it's pretty safe to say there is a good chance that it's not bullcrap.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2019, 07:10:55 AM »
What's the specific point you're trying to make in regard to the topic: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

Are you arguing that refraction exists? Or that refraction is the cause for the sun to disappear below the horizon causing night?

If the former, yes, it does. If the latter, so far you've laid out that refraction exists. That's about it.

*

Offline Bette Davis Eyes

  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • let's eat some apples and get naked
    • View Profile
Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2019, 12:44:24 PM »
Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.

How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.

This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.

You recognise the difference.

First off:

recognize not recognise


Second off: 

What I did was search the internet and provide that information on this thread.  What you did was argue about the definition of words, ignore the evidence presented, and failed to see that research can come in the form of text, spoken word, mathematical equations, diagrams, books, articles, and VIDEOS.

When the youtube evidence  is matching the Hong Kong Observatory evidence and and also matching the British Astronomical Association evidence it's pretty safe to say there is a good chance that it's not bullcrap.

First off, never start your post with first off - it just shows everyone what an angry jefferson you are.

On the Second hand, spelling errors really only matter in spelling bee's.  Otherwise you're just being a cheater and misdirector and trying to make someone look stupid just because they misspelled a word.  It's a rude thing to do and you should stop it.  Since you weren't arguing about how to spell that word, I'd ask you stay on topic (oh by the way, you should have used a semicolon in your sentence above so let's make fun of you for not being smart enough to use correct punctuation (I'm kidding, but that was pretty scary huh?  Everyone almost thought you weren't proficient with your semicolons)

Second hand clothes part II, would you be that guy reading the secret of life whose pointing out every typo?  Maybe you just like causing conflict over nothing?  Maybe you like picking on people and instead of responding to their thoughts which they spent a lot of time on, you'll try to embarrass them because they had a spelling error.  Oh boy, you sound like basically all the teachers I've had the pleasure of putting in their place (their most disliked place, the place where people are equal).

Thirdsofall, why does this matter to you?

Thirdsofall, why does it matter if someone thinks the earth is flat?

Thirdsofall, do you go to LGBTgay websites and tell them why they’re wrong for wanting same sex with someone else?  Do you come with carefully prepared arguments that explain they really don’t like it?

fifth of the good stuff of all, what if the earth is a triangle.  What if it's 17,000 triangles all jammed together inside a potato.  So what?  Who cares?  WHO CARES?

Sixthly, why are you in this argument?   You don't really care what people here believe.   You probably won't invite us to dinner with your family, again.   You may as well tell your argument to a teacher for all the value that'll come of it.

Sevengetting-off, Why are you here other than to get into an argument with people you're angry at and think are stupid?  Why do you want to interfere with people's peace and quiet and instead start challenging them and then challenging their answers.  Do you treat everyone who thinks something different than you like this?  Do you like to pick on people when you know that everyone else laughs at them and sees them as less than human?

eight - Every time you've been wrong in your life, you've thought the person who was right didn't know the answer.

You only get smarter by not having the right answer, and since it's so important to you to have it, you'll probably waste your gifts, because you can't own being wrong and learning (and don’t realize there's no correlation between wrong and smart, well there is, but it’s the opposite of what you think).

Good luck Matey!
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 01:27:08 PM by Bette Davis Eyes »
I can't believe I'm still fucking trapped in the infinite Universe....Anyone got something for claustrophobia or anxiety?

Yesterday is here to show us how far we’ve come.
Today is here to show us what fool’s we have remained.