Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan

  • 123 Replies
  • 31797 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 1938
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan
« Reply #120 on: May 23, 2015, 09:08:46 AM »
Your doing your calculations wrong.  You are calculating the height of the bulge correctly but that's not how you calculate visibility distance.  You have to find out the arc distance at which your line of sight is tangent to the sphere of the Earth for both objects in question and add them together to get the maximum distance at which those two objects can see each other given their altitude and the size of the Earth.  If you are going to pretend like you care about math then at least do a bit of research first.

Maybe you have missed this part:

A very striking illustration of the true form of the sea horizon may be observed from the high land in the neighbourhood of the head of Portsmouth Harbour. Looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the base or margin of the island, where water and land come together, appears to be a straight line from east to west, a length of twenty-two statute miles. READ MORE : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm
From a vantage point in Portsmouth Harbor the Isle of Wight is only about 12 miles across.  One would have to be in the Fawley area to even be perpendicular to the island's 22 mile length.

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan
« Reply #121 on: May 23, 2015, 09:46:07 AM »
Yes, I looked at those images already.  Portsmouth Harbour is the small harbour to the right where it says 'Portsmouth'  Spithead is the area of water pretty much directly between that harbour and Isle of Wight.  From that direction, the shoreline that is being faced it only about 12 miles.

Re: Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan
« Reply #122 on: May 23, 2015, 11:30:49 AM »
Yes, I looked at those images already.  Portsmouth Harbour is the small harbour to the right where it says 'Portsmouth'  Spithead is the area of water pretty much directly between that harbour and Isle of Wight.  From that direction, the shoreline that is being faced it only about 12 miles.

So Rowbotham was mistaken about the basic facts, not just the conclusion. Did the man do anything right?

If the island is 12 miles wide in his view, not 22 as stated, the "bow", grossly exaggerated in Fig. 20., is only about 24 feet, not 80 as claimed. In that case, it would amount to only 0.04% of the 12-mile FOV in the theodolite, not the 0.07% previously estimated using the incorrect length for the island from the observation point.

Fig. 19. is a much, much better representation of (as in "indistinguishable from") the actual view. Fig. 20. is willful misrepresentation to dupe the ignorant. cikljamas falls for stuff like this every time. What does that say?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan
« Reply #123 on: May 25, 2015, 02:34:27 AM »
Yes, I looked at those images already.  Portsmouth Harbour is the small harbour to the right where it says 'Portsmouth'  Spithead is the area of water pretty much directly between that harbour and Isle of Wight.  From that direction, the shoreline that is being faced it only about 12 miles.

So Rowbotham was mistaken about the basic facts, not just the conclusion. Did the man do anything right?

If the island is 12 miles wide in his view, not 22 as stated, the "bow", grossly exaggerated in Fig. 20., is only about 24 feet, not 80 as claimed. In that case, it would amount to only 0.04% of the 12-mile FOV in the theodolite, not the 0.07% previously estimated using the incorrect length for the island from the observation point.

Fig. 19. is a much, much better representation of (as in "indistinguishable from") the actual view. Fig. 20. is willful misrepresentation to dupe the ignorant. cikljamas falls for stuff like this every time. What does that say?

How can you have so much patience trying to explain stuff to these guys? It is amazing and admirable. It is clear they are wrong all the time. They probably know it too. Not sure why they insist they are right, but if they are serious it only shows how ignorant they are. It is one thing to get confused, because you don't care about the subject or you wish the world to be different, but it is totally different to ardently believe the unreal is true even though all facts point in the opposite direction. I am just curious when Cikljamas would give up on his crazy "mission". He must be exhausted by now. I think the whole thing is a very elaborate joke. No one can be so confused for such a long time...Anyway, I don't know of any flat Earther who hasn't completely discredited himself, so apparently, it is something they really enjoy. But probably what they enjoy the most is confusing people who are prone to believing in conspiracies due to being more skeptical than average.