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

what is its name

and how did you derive it

Atmospheric refraction

look up the term “standard atmospheric refraction” and don’t waste time in a discussion you’re not qualified to have. i already know you don’t have an experiment, i just wanted to see how long you’d stroke your egos

apparently for hours

It's an approximation on the perceived effects of refraction on earths apparent curvature.

I gave you a bunch of tries so it seems like you're not up for a semi-serious debate

i'm heading off now

If I had a dollar for every ego comment I could buy lunch

you’ll write essays about how you’ve won a debate but never prove the assertion. as far as I’m concerned, finish your thesis. get the last word. find your climax so you can sleep at night. goodbye

Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function of height.

alright gn

@Morning Dew lol

I like your ad homs

They're pretty unique

Found your source: https://www.metabunk.org/standard-atmospheric-refraction-empirical-evidence-and-derivation.t8703/

1.) No idea if it's reliable
2.) No idea if author is qualified
3.) No way to check if it is right

I'm off to bed

"...This assumption is made so often that it's conventional in surveying and geodesy to use a “refraction constant” that's just the ratio of the two curvatures. A typical value of the ratio is about 1/7; that is, the ray curves about 1/7 as much as the Earth does"

is what san diego state u claims at least https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html