The sky: a revisionist examination

Think about it. What are the properties of this supposed object, "the sky"?

It is blue during the day, when the sun moves through it from east to west.
During the night it is black, since there is no Sun to allow us to see its blue color. But at these hours, it has millions of stars.
Clouds move through it, as do "winds" (another mythical object, but one which I have to time to debunk).
A variety of living beings and machines are claimed to "fly" through it: birds, airplanes, balloons, gliders, bats, etc. (But note that not all things that fly do so in the sky; have you ever seen a fly in the sky? I don't believe so.)

What object could meet these criteria? No such thing could exist.

But what about the atmosphere?

My partner almost seemed half worried, half dismissive when I put words to these thoughts. "Oh come on," she said. "The sky is the atmosphere." To which I proceeded to give some serious thought.

It seemed for a few moments a recomforting thought. There was a sky after all-- it is our atmosphere, that mass of air around our planet, held there by gravitation, which contributes so much to making life on Earth possible, and thus the bliss of having my lover in my arms. And it is true that the sky has many of the above-mentioned properties. The clouds indeed are in the atmosphere, and the above-mentioned living beings and machines fly through it (if what an airplane does can truly be called "flying"; does a submarine "swim"?).

But consideration of the further properties sent a shiver to my spine. Is the Moon in our atmosphere? No. If it were, the gravitational pull between it and the Earth would be such that they would collide into each other, possibly eliminating all life on Earth, and ending this happy moment in the grass and under the Sun along with it.

The thought of having the smallest part of the Sun or any star, much less millions of them, inside our atmosphere, and the horrible fate this would entail for personkind, proved too painful, and I had to seek comfort by hiding my head in the breast of my loved one and her delicious aroma for a few minutes.

Once I regained my composture, I took some courage and decided to examine the rest of the implications of the already discredited enough idea that the sky is the atmosphere:

Is the atmosphere blue? Certainly not, I thought. If it were, there would be a blue tint to everything we see.
But this proved to be more problematic. What is "blue", after all? So-called "color" may be biologically-constrained, but is ultimately a cultural construction. Saying that the "sky" is "blue" is "true" because of the categories our culture provides us for constructing percepts out of our sensory experience. Other cultures have no such concept as "blue"; thus, it can't be an objective fact about the "sky", or anything for that matter, that it is "blue".
Somebody might object about this last point, and bring up the issue of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. My girlfriend, a chemist, did so: "you could actually measure the wavelengths of light in question, and that's an objective fact." No, it isn't, I said. These instruments have to be tuned and adjusted to produce the "right" answers; and the tuning procedure involves using our cultural categories of color. They point the instrument at something blue, and then they adjust a dial until it reads "475 nm". This is circular.
Thinking about how some exotic culture removed from ours, say in the mountains in Papua New Guinea, may experience the "sky" and its "color", I decided to ask myself some progressively more hypothetical questions: what if I were aboard the Space Shuttle, looking down at the Earth? Would I be able to see the Earth's "sky"?
Certainly not. But I could indeed see the atmosphere, by all the debris and crap and suspended chemical substances that our "industries" put there. If the atmosphere were the "sky", then I would have been seeing the "sky". But this experience is as far removed from "seeing the sky" as you could ask for.
Certainly, all of the living beings and machines mentioned above, plus the clouds, are in the atmosphere. But these are not the only objects in our atmosphere. I, with my increasingly distressed lover in my arms, occupy space in the atmosphere. But I am certainly not in the sky (my beloved, impatiently, begins to make noises about my head being firmly in the clouds, but this is merely metaphor, which I ignore).
Let us retake the case of insects, briefly mentioned above. The fly that my partner idly swats at while we revel in the park is certainly flying, but it is not in the "sky". It's simply not high enough. How far high would be "enough", then? I ask the nearest skyist, my partner, who just gives me a funny look, evidently uncapable of answering my question. How can there be a "sky", if its limits can't be delineated?

Is the "sky" the refracted solar rays in the atmosphere?

A "friend" (who after this incident, I have decided to distance) suggested that the "sky" consists of "refracted sunlight", which gives it its "blue" "color".

This clearly won't do. First of all, then it would mean that there is no sky at nights; no sunlight to refract. Second, it again mentions that faux property, "color", which as we saw above, is highly questionable.

There are bigger problems with this nonsensical identification of the "sky" with "refraction of sun rays". The "sky" is, supposedly, an object or area, occupied by other objects, as discussed near the beginning of this essay. "Refraction of sun rays" is a process, thus a very different sort of entity. Think about it. Would anybody take you seriously if one were to walk up to them, and tell them "Look at that big white cloud in the big refraction of sunlight above us"? No. I tried it with my girlfriend, and she said something about me beginning to freak her out or something; I was too deeply in thought to listen to her.

But why?

It became clearer and clearer; I was dragging around an ages-old myth, intellectual baggage from an age long dead, which our culture has refused to rid itself of.

This was the pressing question. Go out to the closest fashionable mall in full Christmas shopping frenzy, stand in the middle of the crossing of two busy corridors, and look around you. Dozens of people walk around you, all of them, skyists. How could this be, that in this day and age all these people walk around with caveperson ideas? What force makes them all believe in a "sky"?

Who benefits from this widespread belief? Could it be the liberals with their "science", trying to keep the full knowledge of their discipline of "heliocentrism" from us? I really don't know. I will think harder about this, and report my conclusions later on.

Right now, I just wish my girlfriend would return. I wonder why she left in the first place...

	The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
	by theR on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 09:01:12 AM PST

	The sky must exist. Otherwise, how could it be falling? It's all right to cry, Crying takes the sad out of you. -- Rosey Grier

	Why does it have to fall? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
	by kwsNI on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 09:48:17 AM PST

	Geez, you simple minded fool. If there really was a sky, why do you have to force your silly pseudo-intellectual ideas on its behavior? Why do you assume that if there was a sky, it would have to follow your preconceived notion that if it were to go somewhere, it would be down? Obviously, if there was a sky, it can already defy gravity (which we know is impossible), so why wouldn't it just float off? In reality, it is much more likely that this would happen - if there really was a sky. kwsNI

	How I know the sky is falling (none / 0) (#14)
	by theR on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 07:28:23 PM PST

	I am a firsthand eyewitness observer, and I am reporting and relating the factual evidence I have discovered -- that there is a sky and it is falling. A piece of it bonked me on the head, silly. It's all right to cry, Crying takes the sad out of you. -- Rosey Grier

	I thought that once. (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 08:31:20 PM PST

	It turned out to be fecal matter ejected from a United flight.

	The sky: a definition (5.00 / 2) (#5)
	by Nsxxs on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 09:48:14 AM PST

	I think your quest for the definition of the sky is hindered by the fact you think it has to be an object or be limited spatially. Let me try: "The abyss within the radial limits of the horizon and beyond a distance where perceptual information becomes blurred, as perceived by an observer on a planet's surface" I think this covers all of your properties neatly. To refine your 4th property, an observer on the ground will say an aeroplane is in the sky, but i don't think someone on the aeroplane will. The definition fits this. As for the atmosphere - we don't say it's in the sky because we don't directly perceive it on an everyday basis, and a lot of it's based down here near the surface anyway. it may be possible to scientifically prove it's existance there through perception of measurements by instruments (in which case we might say we 'see' it in the sky), but on a day to day basis, it's not necessarily something we'd 'notice'. There exists a range of electromagnetic radiation from radiowaves to microwaves, and somewhere in between, occupying a relatively tiny range, is what's known as visible radiation. It's called this because this is the range of wavelengths for which our eyes send electical impulses to our brain. It should come as no surprise that the peak power output from the sun also comes in this range (it came first, evolution, etc). The wavelength coming from the sky during the day is objective whether we make an attempt to measure it or not. It has a value, no matter how we define the units. If blue is defined, say for a range of wavelengths, and the wavelength is measured and found to be within the limits, then it is said to be blue. The fact that this range might be called 'blue' is completely arbitrary. It is purely subjective to wonder what blue would look like through someone else's eyes and wonder what sort of emotions the colour might stir up for example. It's still blue (to an indefinately high probability).

	No. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by em on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 08:43:24 PM PST

	I think your quest for the definition of the sky is hindered by the fact you think it has to be an object or be limited spatially. I'm sorry, but a materialistic philosophy such as that embodied by science can't accept any other sort of object as existing. "The abyss within the radial limits of the horizon and beyond a distance where perceptual information becomes blurred, as perceived by an observer on a planet's surface" This doesn't define the sky, it defines a sky; it has to be parametrized by location on planetary surface, by planet, by countless parameters which affect sensory performance (e.g. amount of light, pollution), by culture (perception makes irreducible use of cultural categories, as the example of color shows), by countless physiological variables (the individual characteristics that make my visual system different to everybody else), and who knows what else. It has as a consequence that when you and I look at "the sky", we're not seeing the same thing, and in fact, it is impossible for that to be the case. Which makes this "sky" it absolutely subjective. Not to mention that instead of eliminating the existence of a doubtful object, you've multiplied it endlessly. There exists a range of electromagnetic radiation from radiowaves to microwaves, and somewhere in between, occupying a relatively tiny range, is what's known as visible radiation. If you're gonna be patronizing and talk to me as if I'm a poor ignorant guy who doesn't know what electromagnetic radiation is, at least try and get it right. The wavelenght range of visible radiation is not between microwaves and radio waves, it is between microwaves and ultraviolet. It's called this because this is the range of wavelengths for which our eyes send electical impulses to our brain. It should come as no surprise that the peak power output from the sun also comes in this range (it came first, evolution, etc). I think I've made it clear before that evolution by Natural Selection has not satisfactorily been established. The wavelength coming from the sky during the day is objective whether we make an attempt to measure it or not. It has a value, no matter how we define the units. No. The concept of "wavelength" is essentially tied up with measuring it. If we make no attempt at measuring, there is no wavelength, and what wavelengths are depends on the all-too-human concept of measuring. Anyway, you don't even challenge my point about the circularity of such measures: a ray of blue light is blue supposedly because it is at 475nm, but we know it is at 475nm ultimately because it is blue. It is purely subjective to wonder what blue would look like through someone else's eyes and wonder what sort of emotions the colour might stir up for example. It's still blue (to an indefinately high probability). There are anthropologists and cognitive scientists who have built careers around such "wondering", whose work you dismiss in these lines. Also, I can see past your rhetorical trick, the mention of "emotions", the ideological diametric opposite of "scientific knowledge". Please if you are going to discuss, debate the issues and do not attempt to surreptitiously portrait me as being deluded from the very beginning (and in such a way that reveals you to be deluded by that post-enlightenment monster, the ideology of scientism). --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	A silly is you (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 03:01:25 AM PST

	The sky is what you see when you go outside and look up. Dictionary.com definition: "the upper atmosphere as seen from the earth's surface". The sky manifests itself as an empirical sensory phenomenon: the color you see when you go outside and look up. At night the sky is visible because the atmosphere makes stars twinkle. Contrast this with unicorns, which cetrainly don't exist. Unicorns cannot be seen, touched, ridden, etc. Only pictures of unicorns on airbrushed t-shirts and breathtaking CGI unicorns in that terrific new Harry Potter movie and unicorn statues and plays by gay southern writers in which glass unicorns are owned by intoverted young women exist. There. The sky exists. IWYL.

	A cardinal sin (none / 0) (#22)
	by First Incision on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 10:23:12 AM PST

	You have stated something using only a dictionary as your evidence. This is a typical tactic of shifting an argument about science or philosophy to an argument about words. Shame on you. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Not quite (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 12:25:03 PM PST

	I used the dictionary merely to define the term I was disucssing: "the upper atmosphere as seen from the earth's surface". My evidence is given in the exposition: when you are outdoors and look upwards, the color field that manifests itself (and which is described in the english language an being "blue", I mention this only for convenience and make no assertions about the unversal nature of the subjective experience of "blue", which in any case is beside the point) is by definition the "sky". The upper atmosphere is visible from the earths surface, therefore the sky exists.

	sorry (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 03:36:28 AM PST

	but your claim to being educated on the matter of electromagnetic radiation seems to have come far too hastily. " The wavelenght range of visible radiation is not between microwaves and radio waves, it is between microwaves and ultraviolet." you cant see microwaves, because their wavelength is too small. Just as well, you can't see ultraviolet either, because, once again, their wavelength is too small. visible light falls inbetween red(which has a shorter wavelength than infrared) to violet(which has a longer wavelength than ultraviolet). before you claim to be educated, try actually being educated.

	Killed? So what. Death is inevitable. (none / 0) (#13)
	by elenchos on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 07:18:58 PM PST

	I'm glad someone mentioned dying, because few Adequacy articles or posts give due consideration to the basic fact of mortality. Look. Let's say that we somehow don't die from lack of oxygen or an atmosphere, regardless of the existence of this "sky" or "space" idea that gets bandied about so wantonly in these degenerate times. So what? The fact is that whether those modernist notions ever find factual support or not, we shall all most assuradly die. And when we do, we will be utterly anihiliated, leaving nothing behind. So look at all our grand ideals and all the hubris of our mighty nations, our sublime art, or the foolhardy egocentricism of our passionate loves and hates. What will any of that come to? Nothing. Not a single thing. Just give it engough time, and it will all fade from memory, and not even a trace will be left on the ever-changing face of the Earth. An Earth, I should add, that is destined to be swallowed up by the sun anyhow. It's just pointless to pretend otherwise and I'm glad you were thinking of this enough to bring it up. If only we didn't have to try so hard to remind the public of the overarching importance of this fact. Remember everyone: you WILL die sooner than you think. Get used to the idea, and quit fooling yourselves. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	You sure? (none / 0) (#39)
	by DieForYourGovernment on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 07:41:08 AM PST

	I mean, I don't know...I havn't died yet.

	You sure? (none / 0) (#42)
	by fluffy grue on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 04:14:03 PM PST

	Not even for your government? Hypocrite. -- meep

	Let me think (none / 0) (#26)
	by Majin on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 12:25:48 PM PST

	A little birdie told me -.-;; Seriously, I seen fanaticism before, but you guys have to be joking here. This like a religious version of the x-files without the aliens and crime, just a bunch of people looking at the sky making false claims. (Oh yes, and I was the person who posted "Dear sweat god, are you people dense?" I swear, how can you people look into the sky say "There's no such thing" and call it a tool used by Liberals? Are you people insane or paranoid?

	omg (none / 0) (#36)
	by em on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 06:52:11 PM PST

	visible light falls inbetween red(which has a shorter wavelength than infrared) to violet(which has a longer wavelength than ultraviolet). before you claim to be educated, try actually being educated. Eh, "between" can be intepreted both as including and excluding the limits, so your statement is no more correct than mine. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	No, no (5.00 / 1) (#38)
	by Wavicle on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 12:25:08 AM PST

	I'm sorry, but a materialistic philosophy such as that embodied by science can't accept any other sort of object as existing. Odd, I haven't heard any scientists arguing that the sky doesn't exist. I think the box you put science in is a bit smaller than science is. This doesn't define the sky, it defines a sky I'm going to bet you don't even realize that if you have accepted "a sky" then some "the sky" must exist (some languages do not even have definite or indefinite articles by the way) No. The concept of "wavelength" is essentially tied up with measuring it. If we make no attempt at measuring, there is no wavelength, and what wavelengths are depends on the all-too-human concept of measuring. What are you saying? If a photon falls in the forest and strikes nobody's retina does it really exist? The radiation exists whether we experience it or not. The radiation has a wavelength whether we measure it or not. Photons didn't pop into existence at the moment they were conceived. A hot dog has length whether you measure it or not. Anyway, you don't even challenge my point about the circularity of such measures: a ray of blue light is blue supposedly because it is at 475nm, but we know it is at 475nm ultimately because it is blue. No, we don't need to use that circular reasoning. We can use more objective methods for determining the wavelength of blue light. A prism for a very simple example. You could determine the wavelength of visible radiation even if you were completely colorblind and saw only black and white.

	em's girlfriend. (4.00 / 1) (#7)
	by kwsNI on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 10:13:14 AM PST

	Em, I'd be willing to bet that your girlfriend left because she couldn't deal with the concept of there being no sky. I'm sure she had to run indoors to feel the security of knowing that there is something above her. Give her a little while to become comfortable with the notion that her protective security blanket doesn't exist and she'll come around. She'll recognize your brilliance and come running back to you. In the mean time, hang in there. kwsNI

	Dear sweat god, are you people dense? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 03:30:02 PM PST

	OK, this is clearly the most ignorant thing I have read within the last hour: She left him because he is a loon, not because she is afraid there is no sky. Jesus people, who cares if there is a sky or not, as long as you're not thrown off into "space" (which I doubt most of you believe in) or killed by a lack of an atmosphere.

	How did you Know? (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 11:20:55 AM PST

	How did you know we worshiped his high and glandular majesty, the Sweat God?

	I'm serious (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 01:22:58 PM PST

	The "sky" is one of those myths like "god" that humans use to falsely assert a special place for humanity. It is a destructive myth that must be overcome for the sake of the planet. See my "Humanocentric Chauvinism" post above for details.

	Not likely (none / 0) (#41)
	by Biff Cool on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 02:23:20 PM PST

	It's my experience that that kind of response is reflective of a person not willing to deal with these kinds of realizations. More often then not these people have become so used to the "security-blankets" of society that they are incapable of dealing with anything but. Not to be too harsh em but even if you're lady friend does come back expect this kind of reaction to be the norm, and not a one-shot kind of thing. Expect to have to water down alot of these theories if you want to maintain a relationship with her. And definately don't expect to be able to talk with her as any kind of intellectual equal. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I doubt it.

	Ummm... (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 10:51:02 AM PST

	The sky is an area of atmosphere. You can't see it at night for the exact reason you quoted of there not being any refracted sunlight, which is why there is no blue sky when looking from space. Or do you mean that when its night and you can't see the earth from space(ignoring the cities :-) )that the earth is not there?

	Humanocentric Chauvinism (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 12:41:00 PM PST

	Mr. em is quite correct about the nonexistence of the sky. The "sky" is nothing more than a myth whose purpose is to reinforce the false idea that humans are the center of the universe. The myth there is this thing called the "sky" located somewhere above our heads like a big blue ceiling allows humans to ignore the reality that the earth is surrounded by an atmosphere (which we are fouling with pollution and excess CO2), and diverts attention from the fact that the earth is a tiny planet alone in the vastness of space (and whose fragile environment and finite resources are irreplacable). Is it any wonder that the most oppressive and chauvinistic religions of history (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are centered around the idea of a "sky-father"? Hardly. The only way to preserve the environment for future generations is to accept the fact that humans are simply children of earth just as animals and plants are, and that we therefore have a responsibility to perpetuate and sustain our precious ecosystems and resources. A good way to start would be to reject the destructive myth of the existence of a "sky". `The terms "the air" or "space" should be substituted for "sky", depending on context. E.g., "I saw an owl flying though the air last night", "the sun is shining warmly out there in space today"`.

	*sigh* (none / 0) (#31)
	by Majin on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:20:34 PM PST

	Well, it doesn't really mater what a sky is, but here is a dictionary definition "the upper atmosphere or expanse of space that constitutes an apparent great vault or arch over the earth" Anyway, I don't see why you people insist on making the world know that the sky is some 'myth'. After all, what is a sky really? The air above you, yet below the atmosphere? Anyway, while we are on the topic of calling things myths, how would some of you feel if I called god a myth that must be shown to the world doesn't exist? Not too happy I am sure, but that is not the point I am trying to make. You must actually know what the person refers to as the sky to be able to debunk it. Plus where do you get the idea that: "The "sky" is nothing more than a myth whose purpose is to reinforce the false idea that humans are the center of the universe. The myth there is this thing called the "sky" located somewhere above our heads like a big blue ceiling allows humans to ignore the reality that the earth is surrounded by an atmosphere " Cause this all seems like a large exaggeration. The sky does not make people forget about a large ass hole in something known as the ozone layer.

	OT: The importance of good spelling, demonstrated (none / 0) (#32)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:34:34 PM PST

	...first-hand: ..a large ass hole in something... Did you mean "a large-ass hole in something", or "a large asshole in something"? See, proper spelling is vital. Really. Don't forget, this is a general rule to live by. -- Peace and much love...

	jesus (none / 0) (#33)
	by Majin on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:45:00 PM PST

	Ok that is just ignorant you know what I meant. I am sorry I can't conform to your 'perfect' grammar. Jesus, it isn't necessary to correct someone unless you can't tell what he or she is saying.

	I beg to differ. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
	by nathan on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 03:10:47 PM PST

	Careless writing is: the mark of an undisciplined mind, and an act of disrespect toward the reader. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Seconded. (none / 0) (#40)
	by hauntedattics on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 12:38:40 PM PST

	When I first read your post, I really thought you were referring to a "large asshole" in the ozone layer, but were just spelling asshole wrong. Be a pal and bother to spell correctly and use correct grammar, please...

	It's not "perfect grammar". (5.00 / 1) (#37)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 09:59:19 PM PST

	It's just a set of very simple courtesy rules. God knows I'm not the best speller in the world, or even here at adequacy; I simply take the time to format my posts properly, unlike some people I could name. -- Peace and much love...

	Adequate Formats (none / 0) (#49)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 04:24:35 AM PST

	HooRAY! for being cool and formatting posts properly!!!

	I told you so... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 01:00:06 PM PST

	I predicted it would come to this. -- Peace and much love...

	Haha (none / 0) (#35)
	by First Incision on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 03:34:13 PM PST

	I knew that his story and the ensuing discussion would have tkatchev rolling over in his grave. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Ah geez... (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 04:57:48 PM PST

	It's clear that you people are crazy... There is a sky. The sky HAS a depth and yes, the sky is a term for the collection of things above our heads when we are outside. From atmosphears above our heads, to clouds, to the blue color, to everything else. The sky is a term used to talk about what is there. The moon is not in the sky. But we can say the moon is in the sky as a sense that we are talking about the image we see. There is a sky.

	Odd ideas. (none / 0) (#43)
	by nx01 on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 09:45:33 PM PST

	First, you say this: There is a sky. Then, you go on to this: the sky is a term for the collection of things above our heads when we are outside And then this: The moon is not in the sky. I submit that you are an idiot who wouldn't know logical thought if it came up to you and gave you a blowjob. If there somehow is this thing called "Sky", and it is everything above us, then it would include airplanes, the stars, satalites, and the "Moon". But how, praytell, would the "Moon" be a part of the sky? The Moon, if we are to believe that the NASA space-mission there wasn't faked (a subject for another time), is an enormous ball of rock. If the "Moon" was in the "Sky" then the friction would cause the oxygen in the "Sky" to ignite! Obviously, either the "Moon" or the "Sky" doesn't exist. Now, obviously we can see the "Moon". Therefore, the "Moon" must exist. So, by deductive reasoning, we find that the "Sky" must not exist! QED "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling