Rainbows!

[juvenissun]

I don't know about constant on Earth but rainbows will definitely form in any other planet where light can refract due to atmospheric gases, such as methane.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that they are more likely on Earth than on any other planet in the Solar System and let's move on.

Liquid methane has density 0.4. I don't think it allows two refractions. It probably will not make a rainbow visible on the ground.

In fact, you touched one of the key point. The air must have some water or ice drops, but not too little nor too much. So, the condition of atmosphere is quite strict for a rainbow to be seen on the ground.

Now, you probably know that the conditions of the earth was different from what she is now. For example, the temperature was quite higher during the time of dinosaurs. Right?

 

[CabVet]

Rainbows on Titan - NASA Science

 

[sandwiches]

Liquid methane has density 0.4. I don't think it allows two refractions. It probably will not make a rainbow visible on the ground.

You probably should've read the link in my post. It's the same one CabVet posted above this post.

In fact, you touched one of the key point. The air must have some water or ice drops, but not too little nor too much. So, the condition of atmosphere is quite strict for a rainbow to be seen on the ground.

Now, you probably know that the conditions of the earth was different from what she is now. For example, the temperature was quite higher during the time of dinosaurs. Right?

As far as I understand, yea.

 

[The Nihilist]

I can't believe we're still having this stupid conversation

 

[Vanderhaust]

Everything is changing all the time. Right?

Not quite. The laws of physics that control how the universe works are constant. Even though we dont fully understand them doesn't mean they change. Meaning, the physical laws of the universe that allow us to see a rainbow today would have been present 100,000 years ago as well.

 

[juvenissun]

Rainbows on Titan - NASA Science

Thanks. I forgot I should use n instead of G.

It is important to read the sentence after the explanation: we probably will not see rainbow on Titan due to its hazy atmosphere. That is a very critical recognition.

 

[juvenissun]

You probably should've read the link in my post. It's the same one CabVet posted above this post.


As far as I understand, yea.

So, in most time of the Mesozoic era, the mean annual temperature of the earth was about 10°C higher than now. Then it is very likely that the air temperature was at least 20°C higher than now. Can you imagine how much moisture could be stored in the air if that was the case? Do you still expect to see rainbow in that atmospheric condition? If you can not imagine, then recall the situation of a summer muggy day. Do you ever remember to see rainbow in that weather before the moisture in the air is cleaned up by rain?

 

[juvenissun]

Not quite. The laws of physics that control how the universe works are constant. Even though we dont fully understand them doesn't mean they change. Meaning, the physical laws of the universe that allow us to see a rainbow today would have been present 100,000 years ago as well.

I guess you are a firm believer of the uniformitarianism. I am not.

 

[Vanderhaust]

I guess you are a firm believer of the uniformitarianism. I am not.

Maybe, maybe not. I will never discount anything as impossible, but I do believe that even the impossible must still follow the laws that govern the universe. That's one of the fascinating parts of science, as long as you understand the rules the outcome is predictable.

To defend your position somewhat, all you have to do is consider the human conscience. Today we still don't know exactly what it is. It has no matter, it has no form, it does follow any rules of the universe that we know of and yet no one will deny we all have one. With that said, I do think that one day, far into the future, scientists will unlock all the secrets of the mind.

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe, maybe not. I will never discount anything as impossible, but I do believe that even the impossible must still follow the laws that govern the universe. That's one of the fascinating parts of science, as long as you understand the rules the outcome is predictable.

I am afraid your world is too simple. Given one well-understood rule but 10 variables, you probably can not predict anything any more.

 

[Vanderhaust]

I am afraid your world is too simple. Given one well-understood rule but 10 variables, you probably can not predict anything any more.

Only one? Hardly. Just imagine how many scientific principles went into creating the computer you use to type your post and then try to imagine building a computer based on variable rules. In a universe with variable laws we'd still be living in the past ages.

 

[juvenissun]

Only one? Hardly. Just imagine how many scientific principles went into creating the computer you use to type your post and then try to imagine building a computer based on variable rules. In a universe with variable laws we'd still be living in the past ages.

You have problem. If not improved, I may quit.

 

[Vanderhaust]

My intention was not to offend you. If I did then I apologize. My argument, has been from the beginning, that even if God mad the universe, that the laws of the universe are constant and I was trying to illustrate that point. I hope this helps.

You stated that I have a problem. It's not clear to me what you're trying to say. Where exactly do I have a problem? You implied that we only have one well founded rule or understanding of the laws of the universe today and I illustrated why I disagree.

 

[juvenissun]

My intention was not to offend you. If I did then I apologize. My argument, has been from the beginning, that even if God mad the universe, that the laws of the universe are constant and I was trying to illustrate that point. I hope this helps.

You stated that I have a problem. It's not clear to me what you're trying to say. Where exactly do I have a problem? You implied that we only have one well founded rule or understanding of the laws of the universe today and I illustrated why I disagree.

Here is your problem I saw:

You said: given the understanding of natural laws, we can predict.
I said: No we can not. Given 1 law and 10 variables, we can hardly predict.
You said: One law only? How about 5 laws?

Do you see your problem?

 

[Vanderhaust]

Here is your problem I saw:

You said: given the understanding of natural laws, we can predict.
I said: No we can not. Given 1 law and 10 variables, we can hardly predict.
You said: One law only? How about 5 laws?

Do you see your problem?

Nope. I think were talking about two different ideals. I'm talking about what scientists have discovered in reference to understanding how the universe works. Simply put, the more we understand about how the universe works (of course most of what we know is limited to our own planet) the more we advance as a civilization.

You made the statement of one law and ten variables. Can you give an example to illustrate your point?

 

[juvenissun]

Nope. I think were talking about two different ideals. I'm talking about what scientists have discovered in reference to understanding how the universe works. Simply put, the more we understand about how the universe works (of course most of what we know is limited to our own planet) the more we advance as a civilization.

You made the statement of one law and ten variables. Can you give an example to illustrate your point?

a + b + c + ... = x

How do you predict x if all a, b, c, ... are variables?

 

[Vanderhaust]

a + b + c + ... = x

How do you predict x if all a, b, c, ... are variables?

Well, first you need to define your variables. If you wanted to, for example, send a rocket to the moon, how many variables do you think NASA would need to consider? Only 1? Only 10? A 100? I think you see my point. Just because you have a lot of variable doesn't mean something can't be calculated.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, first you need to define your variables. If you wanted to, for example, send a rocket to the moon, how many variables do you think NASA would need to consider? Only 1? Only 10? A 100? I think you see my point. Just because you have a lot of variable doesn't mean something can't be calculated.

I guess I want to quit. Your logic thinking is quite messy. I don't know how to deal with it.

 

[Non sequitur]

Don't quit.

This is, simultaneously, the most stupid and interesting thread, I've read.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't quit.

This is, simultaneously, the most stupid and interesting thread, I've read.

If so, what else to say?