Message from @mineyful
Discord ID: 598034434112880672
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
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