Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It did go well, I'll be studying aircraft maintenance in the autumn!
OMG hi Ski!
In relativistic models it would function as one might expect on a flat earth due to it being in a rotating reference frame.Indeed, it is difficult to deduce whether this motion is the result of frame dragging or some other application of Mach's principle to the celestial objects about us.
In actuality, its almost impossible to find (or make) a legitimate enough foucault pendulum such that it would actually be doing what a round earth model describes what it should be. This can be realized by noting the plethora of magnet guided Foucault pendulums in museums world wide.
You wanted more exact numbers, you got them.Your "best guess" is now an exact number? Is it any more reliable than your two previous best guesses, pray tell?
It's based on the height of the Himalayas and the curvature of the Earth. That works out to 156 miles.Oh, I thought it worked out to 100 miles. Or was that 200km. I can't keep up.
So it sinks completely below the horizon at 200 km now?QuoteYes, 36 thousand miles or 18 thousand miles is still far more than the 100 miles that the mountain completely sinks below the horizon at.QuoteHuh, did you forget all the times I used 200,000km in the math? That's 125 miles.
Doesn't exactly appear to be "completely sinking beneath the horizon" from 125 miles away, for starters. Can you pass a Turing Test?
Secondly, note the reason they give for not being able to see the range the last 30 years... Or perhaps the Punjab region grew closer to the Himalayas overnight.
Where to even start with this. You're really fixated on this picture, ...
Well you got me, I was lazy when I rounded down to 100 miles when I was converting 200km in my head. I'll make sure to use lots of significant digits when talking to you from now on.
lets see... my best estimate is 156 miles is when it will sink below the horizon.Oh, you've made up a new baseless number now... That was a quick couple sentences away. Perhaps you should spend less time doing math poorly and more time developing a coherent thought.
Do the Himalayas vanish due to angular resolution, or not?
It depends entirely on one's location. Am I a mile away? 200 miles? There are many reasons one might experience the Himalyas vanishing.
First, we know that objects closer to the eyeline recede more quickly than those apart from it. So, yes, I believe at a sufficient distance, the Himilayas may become indistinguishable from the horizon.
Second, even if I accept your endless droning about classical art school perspective being more reflective of reality, the answer would still be "yes" anywhere the optical horizon is obstructed by an object of a greater angular diameter than the Himalayas in the direction of the same (as it is in the vast majority of the locations we inhabit as humans).
Third, the most common reason one cannot see the Himilayas is the opacity of the atmosphere regardless of it's angular diameter at one's distance.
... that twice as much or half as much really doesn't change anything. Basic math.Your math is at least as vigourous as your logic.
Yes, 36 thousand miles or 18 thousand miles is still far more than the 100 miles that the mountain completely sinks below the horizon at.
Huh, did you forget all the times I used 200,000km in the math? That's 125 miles.
No, you complained about my "source's truism", ...I no where complained about the truism. In fact, I highlighted that even it was vastly more accurate than your following math.
So you're just going to ignore my question then?
How very flat earth of you, completely ignoring the entire post to focus on the part that doesn't matter.How true to form that you could haughtily volunteer to educate me and do the math for me, miss the true answer value by 100%, and then pretend that it "doesn't matter."
Yes, 36 thousand miles or 18 thousand miles is still far more than the 100 miles that the mountain completely sinks below the horizon at.You should probably notify all those Indians, that they cannot see the Himilayas in the right conditions from more than 100 miles away...
People in the northern Indian state of Punjab are reacting with awe at the sight of the Himalayan mountain range, which is now visible from more than 100 miles away due to the reduction in air pollution caused by the country's coronavirus lockdown.
You asked for the math, I gave it to youYeah, great job there. I cannot imagine the circumstances which would make me proud of that "answer" such as it were.
You complained about my source, so I reframed the example to not require the source that YOU didn't like.I never complained about your source... I pointed out your patronizing manner of answer and how badly you subsequently failed to educate me with your "new math".
You have yet to actually engage with the substance of my argument here.You would have to have substance to engage with.
Oh, your answer was only off by 100%, don't be too hard on your self. You were only trying to ... show how much smarter you were than everyone else...I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.Why don't you: A) Go try to see them, B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas
Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.
How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.
How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?
Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.
I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.
Lets clear this up right now since you're playing games. Simple question.
Do you think people see the Himalayas vanish from sight due to their angular distance becoming too small for the human eye to see?
Yes, no, or you don't know.QuoteOk, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.
Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)
The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.
Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away. (36,000 miles)
You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666
That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.
Might want to check that...
Spot your problem yet?
It would have been nice if you actually showed your math, but yes I do see my problem! My answer is twice what it should be,
No matter how you do the math, there is no way that an eight thousand meter tall mountain is going to get too tiny for our eyes to resolve at the distance where it vanishes from sight. It's not even close.Now you've reframed the discussion around where it disappears from sight? Okay, please demonstrate when the Himalayas disappear from sight.
Thank you for making that obvious for us.The “who do I work for quote” that is just a demonstration of paranoia imagining that anyone who does not believe in your “self proclaimed greatness” is somehow an agent of .... I’ll let you pick what best fits.Or, it was a joke with you appearing like governments and religions that want to hide all their bad parts and instead just focus on the good parts.
People give governments too much credit. They to have their fair share of fools and idiots.
Feel free to demonstrate your greatness, show me some examples of why we should put trust in you.I'd be hard pressed to find something I'd less like to do. Good heavens, trust is the last thing I'd ask you to do. You seem to find "trust" entirely too easy. I'd be far more likely to ask you to rediscover the sacred ability to doubt.
Here is a opportunity for you to demonstrate your “greatness”.Projection?
With all the scientists in the world taking an opposing view it’s all they are left with!That's not true at all. There are several scientists here who disagree. I know you trust Science, but nothing is monolithic, I'm afraid.
It is no more than the most blatant cherry picking, searching for those tiny morsels that suit their cause to try and undermine the very system that created it.
I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.Why don't you: A) Go try to see them, B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas
Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.
How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.
How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?
Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.
I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.
Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.
Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)
The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.
Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away. (36,000 miles)
You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666
That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.
If you are always at war with your neighbours you don't start handing tea and biscuits over the fence to each other and you certainly do not go on holiday together, nor have sleep overs.
However, if you're all in bed together then what happens in that bed, stays in that bed.
By that argument, Russia & China should have outed NASA decades ago. Strangely, that didn't happen.
To say nothing of the operations at Woomera and the influence of the Crown. You'd think nations never cooperate or keep secrets.Quote from: JJAYou seem to be trying to avoid directly addressing the issue here, that no country has ever admitted they faked their entire space program, and no country has accused anyone with a space program of having faked it.Why on earth would you expect them to?
You think if Australia discovered the entire space industry was fake and a massive worldwide fraud and conspiracy, they would just keep quiet about it? What possible reason would they have? Why on earth would you expect them to join the conspiracy? Do they get a gift basket for joining?
I'm ashamed to admit but Australia is just another arm of the USA. Everything our government does is at their behest
That's why our fat arse PM tried to be best buds with Trump. That's why our fat arse PM is antagonising our biggest and most important trading partner, China. Even talking about a war with them
Australia also has a facility 'Pine Gap' which is critical to Americas spying operations in the Pacific
God damn America
You seem to be trying to avoid directly addressing the issue here, that no country has ever admitted they faked their entire space program, and no country has accused anyone with a space program of having faked it.Why on earth would you expect them to?
He said if the Earth is flat, why can't he...
He is clearly setting up a logical test,
Not a single country has admitted their space program is fake.
exactly like go on a really tall mountain above the clouds and bring a telescope why couldn't you see them?if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas
The air is not 100% clear. Pollution fog, particulates all build up over the long distance.
That's just one reason to kick-start the conversation
The title says it all. You have 4 words at most to turn a potentially great first date into a train wreck. Go!