i bet the original socratic debates were socrates verbally beating down on people

maybe physically too

I don't think you even read the definition

wow you guys just love your words. i’m happy for you

Refraction can go any direction, depending on how it's entering the medium

Light refracts whenever it travels at an angle into a substance with a different refractive index (optical density). This change of direction is caused by a change in speed. For example, when light travels from air into water, it slows down, causing it to continue to travel at a different angle or direction.

@Morning Dew you're not actually responding to any of my points with actual science, rather making remarks based in either ad homs or evidence-less claims. If you seriously believe you're making any remote argument here by invoking a philosophical debate, you're mistaken. In fact you're somehow debating off a claim I never made, since you're saying that I've said there is no other explanation for this phenomena, which is a strawman.

depending on the angle changes which direction it refracts

depends on medium and source

still waiting for that experiment that proves light refracts downwards, but I’m glad your egos are in tact. if not, please continue writing irrelevant essays @mineyful INCORRECT, no experiment proves that light can ever refract downwards in air. that is simply a lie told to justify something that has never been proven

So essentially throughout this you've acted like a sophist

Stop you guys. LIGHT REFRACTS UPWARDS

🙀😂

Definetly seen your type

let them keep going, i don’t want to prevent their egos from being stroked, afterall its why they’re here

mate you gotta cool it with the attacks

we're just trying to debate

I ask rhetorically since i know there is no experiment to prove what they claim

@mineyful don't, he's baiting with ad homs.

Explain what you mean by "refract downwards in air"

yeah lots of loaded questions and ad hom

He's a sophist, no suprise

a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.

I'm gonna head out now you guys have fun

“standard refraction” implies downward refraction. not only do you not have an experiment to prove this, but you contradict the equation by implying that it can actually refract in the opposite of what is “standard” and taken for granted in every equation. by all means, continue projecting sophistry onto me

As much as I try I cannot find a standard refraction definition, do you mind linking a source

I know you've already run away from our debate but in the end you've made no substantial claims besides using a strawman to argue and the consistent ad homs. So mate, you're a sophist.

can’t wait for more words that aren’t A)an experiment or B)an explanation for why you just contradicted yourself

you think i care if you write more essays about how you’ve won? go ahead, yours in the only ego that needs to do such vain things

link source please

@mineyful 7/6*R

and i'm still trying to find out your arguemnt

what does that even mean

Not writing essays, merely pointing out your fallacious style of debate. Another ego remark too, unsurprisingly.

It's the molar mass constant?

meta discussion, thats what you’re doing

Hai

That's far from a source it's just a term by itself with no context

Show. Me. An. Experiment. Which. Proves. Light. Refracts. Downward. As. 7/6*R. Implies. Or. You. Have. Lost. The. Debate.

What is 7/6R

where is it coming from