Would like to know why its described as a 4.5inch reflector, but no mention of the focal length?, where does the oval frame come from, its not the view you get through a Newtonian reflector, why can she get a better zoom on a 400mm lense on her camera?This I cannot answer, I only posted the original page/photograph as they were published in 2007.
Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky-Hepburn is the best known photographer in Grimsby, that is where all of the photographs were taken.
Now, I have debated this photograph for years here.
I repeat: had I not produced the original link to the photograph nobody would have entered any debate with me.
This alone is proof that I posted the original photographs.
So, you are going to have to deal with this:
You keep repeating this stupid line, as if the standard refraction formula is the only possible case, despite it being repeatedly explained that it’s only an estimate based on common conditions.Not my line, but yours. I never commented on anything else other than the claims and information brought up by you, the RE.
If the vertical temperature gradient is +12.9 °C per 100 meters (where the positive sign means temperature gets hotter as one goes higher) then horizontal light rays will just follow the curvature of the Earth, and the horizon will appear flat.Obviously, this is the first time you have ever encountered these issues concerning the terrestrial refraction.
Do you understand what you have just posted? YOU HAVE POSTED THE INFORMATION FOR K>=1, DUCTING, THE MOST SEVERE ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION POSSIBLE.
It takes place at the poles, since you need at least a five degree difference between the observer and the visual target.
Now, 13°C per 100 m is 130 °C per kilometer: not even the worst enemies of the FES, the folks at metabunk, will ever claim something like this. They use the 30°C per kilometer figure for these kinds of discussion.
So you have never debated these issues before, this much is obvious.