lensing is supposed to be a proof but... have you ever seen that happen?

maybe we can check during the next total solar eclipse like einstein did

but, i feel like there'd be a more practical way to demonstrate curvature, if it existed

gravity does not prove what you implied it proved, as I have have just socratically proven. by all means though, continue stroking your ego

it is a very good theory that correlates with reality, congratulations

i hope you got an A in physics

probably didn’t have the same luck in english

@Morning Dew but the explanation that could work on a flat earth isn't gravity. That's my point. You're trying to use a specific theory and say it's the same as a completely different one that would need different rules and properties. And no gravity still doesn't work on a flat earth, you're literally claiming that a completely changed version of the theory in the globe model is the exact same as the original, it's like saying newtonian gravity is the exact same as general relativity.

@raspberry curvature of spacetime?

i meant of the earth lol, but that too

both i guess

I'm not really talking about earth though

as you have claimed yourself, it is a phenomenon. A phenomenon you have CORRELATED with an equation. It does not prove that it is the only equation that can correlate with that phenomenon. emphatically, it does not prove that the Earth is round. that is called a socratic proof, consider taking philosophy and learning about truth tables, or keep rephrasing what you have already said, feel free to do it again, i grow bored of this since my ego is detached from this pointless discussion of semantics

i figure we got into gravity because of globe vs fe, but, same for gravity too i guess

in any case, still waiting for you to prove your “standard refraction” with an experiment

What's standard refraction

A common measure of refraction is the coefficient of refraction. ... One is the ratio of the radius of the Earth to the radius of the line of sight, the other is the ratio of the angle that the line of sight subtends at the center of the Earth to the angle of refraction measured at the observer.

is that it

@mineyful a convenient excuse

doesn't sound like a real term

Refraction is the bending of light as it passes from one substance to another. Here, the light ray passes from air to glass and back to air. The bending is caused by the differences in density between the two substances.

@Morning Dew there isn't one equation to describe said phenomenon. I've identified a specific cause for said phenomenon rooted in mathematics, yes. But this specific cause also implies other consquences of itself that have turned into predictions of the model. These predictions have been experimentally observed and proven consistent with the original model. Therefore we have not only attributed a cause to the observation but made predictions that have been confirmed showing our model to be consistent with reality.

refraction ^

look at that, he really just rephrased the same thing again, and still doesn’t realize that it doesn’t prove his point. how unfortunate, socrates would be disappointed. good day sir

i hope you find someone less intelligent to bamboozle, truly. your ego seems starved

A Socratic proof in E* can be transformed into a Gentzen-style proof in some sequent calculi. Next we develop a calculus of questions E**; Socratic proofs in E** can be transformed into analytic tableaux. We show that Socratic proofs can be grounded in Inferential Erotetic Logic.

don't think socratic proofs are debate related

rather socratic method is better fit

Correlation does not imply causation. ... The complementary idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy,

you would be right there

and there is too much ad hom here for my taste

The Socratic method, also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

idk if this was a socratic debtae

Just verbal beatdowns

you would have been fine if you didn't keep bringing up his ego

we’re done @Shadow✓ so go ahead and get the last word i dont care, @mineyful let me simplify it for you, since you seem to enjoy copy and pasting: the “standard refraction” figure implies downward light refraction. all experimental data implies that light actually refracts upwards. the figure is an excuse, nothing more. yet another piece of math that happens to correlate with reality

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