[QUOTE=rudy235;482782]You know what?
If light did not have different speeds for different media there would be no twilight, no telescopes, no cameras and even no eyesight. So, be thankful. LOL[/QUOTE]Are you sure of that claim?

Ever heard of the phenomenon of "reflection"? My Newtonian appears to work just fine as a telescope.

There are even more obscure imaging techniques, including diffraction, obscuration and gravitational lensing. AFAIK all of these do not depend on a non-constant speed of light.

[QUOTE=xilman;482805]Ever heard of the phenomenon of "reflection"?[/QUOTE]

Is that where you sit in a quiet place, meditate, and think?

[QUOTE=chalsall;482807]Is that where you sit in a quiet place, meditate, and think?[/QUOTE]

Now we [i]know[/i] you aren't from the US. :grin:

[QUOTE=xilman;482805]Are you sure of that claim?

Ever heard of the phenomenon of "reflection"? My Newtonian appears to work just fine as a telescope.

There are even more obscure imaging techniques, including diffraction, obscuration and gravitational lensing. AFAIK all of these do not depend on a non-constant speed of light.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am. Your Newtonian [U]still[/U] needs a lens in the eyepiece! Not to mention the lens behind your cornea!:smile:

[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Technically, you can have a pin hole camera viewed by a Mooninite who every one knows have eyes with pin holes instead of lenses.

[QUOTE=rudy235;482814]Yes, I am. Your Newtonian [U]still[/U] needs a lens in the eyepiece! Not to mention your the lens behind your cornea!:smile:[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me for this. I'm speaking somewhat "out of school".

Isaac Newton suffered from mercury poising, because of his mirrors. He used lots of them.

There is little evidence that he ever made lenses (of glass nor diamond). More than happy to be proven incorrect.

[QUOTE=a1call;482815]Technically, you can have a pin hole camera viewed by a Mooninite who every one knows have eyes with pin holes instead of lenses.[/QUOTE]

Did you know that a true pin hole camera has perfect focus at all distances?

Bad exposure, though.

[QUOTE=rudy235;482814]Yes, I am. Your Newtonian [U]still[/U] needs a lens in the eyepiece! Not to mention the lens behind your cornea!:smile:[/QUOTE]No it does not. A refracting lens eyepiece is undoubtedly very useful but the prime focus image is entirely viewable. Have you ever looked into a Newtonian without an eyepiece? I certainly have, for telescopes up to 46cm aperture.

Give me time and I could design an eyepiece which uses no refractive elements whatsoever.

I concede [b]I[/b] need a refractive lens behind [b]my[/b] cornea if I am to look into it and see anything. Not all organisms are so constrained. Neither are all observers interested in images. Lots of astronomers are into photometry (which needs only a spatial array of photon detectors) or spectroscopy (almost entirely diffraction gratings these days).

Anyway, it might help remove your blinkers if you were to start reading up on gamma-ray, X-ray and radio astronomy. None of them use refractive media to any significant degree.

There are more things in heaven and earth, rudy235,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[QUOTE=xilman;482826]None of them use refractive media to any significant degree.[/QUOTE]

Some of them use direct observation. For example, Charge Coupled Devices (CCD) or Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductors (CMOS).

Hit the kit with photons, and measure the results.

It's a bit like taking a "raw" picture on your camera.

But different.

[QUOTE=xilman;482826]No it does not. A refracting lens eyepiece is undoubtedly very useful but the prime focus image is entirely viewable. Have you ever looked into a Newtonian without an eyepiece? I certainly have, for telescopes up to 46cm aperture.

Give me time and I could design an eyepiece which uses no refractive elements whatsoever.

I concede [b]I[/b] need a refractive lens behind [b]my[/b] cornea if I am to look into it and see anything. Not all organisms are so constrained. Neither are all observers interested in images. Lots of astronomers are into photometry (which needs only a spatial array of photon detectors) or spectroscopy (almost entirely diffraction gratings these days).

Anyway, it might help remove your blinkers if you were to start reading up on gamma-ray, X-ray and radio astronomy. None of them use refractive media to any significant degree.

There are more things in heaven and earth, rudy235,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.[/QUOTE]

Ohh really? what about sunsets? and lunar eclipses and, mirages and.... eyeglasses.:smile:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;482797]And I'm slightly surprised to learn that Romanian retains case inflections as well, I had previously assumed it was like the more western romance languages, which lost their inflections long ago. Maybe in the next 500 years its cases too will go the way of the dodo (they are already highly simplified from Latin).[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about man? Which western romance languages? Spanish is one of the most inflected languages in the world, and Portuguese follows closely with its 11 inflection modes or so... Except for the case there is a more western romance language which I don't know about, hehe.... However, the fact that the old PG languages were inflected is news to me, I always assumed that the modern languages got this from Latin, which was an extremely-high inflected language (and Romanian kept most of it).