05 Apr 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is clear you don't WANT to know anything real about optics, about what is visible and what is resolvable and what the atmosphere does to images over the horizon. You just don't want to know any of that so you can continue in your out on the limb world. WAY out on that limb. You don't even know what an arc second is. Simple, multipy 60 seconds times 60 minutes times 360 degrees. See what you get. That would be the number of arc seconds in a circle. Very useful for figuring out what resolution a given scope gives you.
No.
It's another way of saying the conversation is--- again--- fruitless and pointless.
Each and every time--- and without fail--- [b]you refuse to answer the question or address the topic specifically directed to you, instead going off on irrelevant topics.
If you wish to have a conversation, you will need to follow certain accepted rules of enga ...[text shortened]...
Otherwise, you can continue throwing up a wall of text that I will continue to refuse to read.[/b]
Hubble gives 1/25th of an arc second but even that is not enough to see footprints on the moon, it is only good for about 400 feet at that distance.
But you don't care about any of that. So go back to sticking your head in the sand so far it is firmly embedded up your ass.
05 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonhouseThe salient part of optics as it applies here is one which you have been completely blanked on, so I don't know that any deficiency on my part has any bearing on the overall results.
It is clear you don't WANT to know anything real about optics, about what is visible and what is resolvable and what the atmosphere does to images over the horizon. You just don't want to know any of that so you can continue in your out on the limb world. WAY out on that limb. You don't even know what an arc second is. Simple, multipy 60 seconds times 60 m ...[text shortened]... of that. So go back to sticking your head in the sand so far it is firmly embedded up your ass.
You cannot explain the visibility of distant objects across a flat plane.
That is the long and short of it.
You have been allowed to bring your vast storehouse of information and/or knowledge to bear on the question, but, to date, you've been unable to explain that reality.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have plenty of times but you just refuse to believe it. You refuse to acknowledge the analysis of arguably the greatest scientist of all times on the issue of what happens to the apparent shape of an object close to the horizon if there were thousands of miles of flat atmosphere but since you are also a civilization changing mind you are way above such analysis, which you clearly don't even understand the slightest bit of his work. Newton's work. You can't even understand the idea of the arc second and its relation to optics so it is not a stretch for me to see clearly you don't understand Newton's argument at all.
The salient part of optics as it applies here is one which you have been completely blanked on, so I don't know that any deficiency on my part has any bearing on the overall results.
You cannot explain the visibility of distant objects across a flat plane.
That is the long and short of it.
You have been allowed to bring your vast storehouse of inform ...[text shortened]... /or knowledge to bear on the question, but, to date, you've been unable to explain that reality.
You do realize you are a joke to everyone here, don't you?
05 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonhouseI have plenty of times but you just refuse to believe it.
I have plenty of times but you just refuse to believe it. You refuse to acknowledge the analysis of arguably the greatest scientist of all times on the issue of what happens to the apparent shape of an object close to the horizon if there were thousands of miles of flat atmosphere but since you are also a civilization changing mind you are way above such a ...[text shortened]... erstand Newton's argument at all.
You do realize you are a joke to everyone here, don't you?
Excellent.
Since you have done it plenty of times, you can easily and readily do it again now.
Explain how an object 444’ in height can be seen in its entirety from a distance of 26.37 miles away, when that distance calculates the loss at 364.22’, leaving less than 80’ of the object visible.
That object is the Lincoln Electric wind turbine
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/post_74.html
which has its hub at 279’ putting it 85’ under the range of visibility due to curvature: only 80’ of any of the blades should be visible, and then only when they are in the vertical position pointing straight up.
But that’s not the case.
From the same vantage point, now 30.22 miles away
,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Eastlake_Power_Plant
the complete out buildings and stack towers of the Eastlake Power Plant are completely visible, despite the calculations of a loss of over 494’.
Even Wikipedia isn’t putting two and two together when they include this tidbit about the Rockport Generating Station…
“The central smokestack and two cooling towers can be seen from as far west as Evansville, 45 miles to the west, as far north as the U.S. 231-Interstate 64 Junction, and as far east as Lewisport, Kentucky and Tell City, Indiana. It can also be seen as far south as Owensboro, Kentucky as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockport_Generating_Station
What’s the significance?
With the plant sitting at 37° 55′ 32″ N, 87° 2′ 2″ W and an elevation of 423’, Evansville is 36’ below the plant and 29.24 miles away (as the crow flies), putting it at nearly 500’ of loss due to curvature.
You refuse to acknowledge the analysis of arguably the greatest scientist of all times on the issue…
One, I’m not arguing with Newton--- who was wrong on several things--- I am arguing with you on topics completely and totally different than the ones you keep bringing up regarding apparent shapes of objects.
Completely and totally..
You do realize you are a joke to everyone here, don't you?
You enjoy math, it appears, so let’s do some math to help illustrate my point.
100% of the items I bring to your attention and ask you to explain are ignored.
100% of the items you bring up have nothing to do with the items I bring to your attention.
100% of the time you bring an insult, your post has at least one spelling error.
As you can tell, the insults and derisive comments from people such as yourself who otherwise lack the firepower to send off even a significant attack on the arguments I have put forth simply don’t amount to anything, let alone ‘much.’
If and when you are able to break the 100% streak you have going, I will entertain your opinion of me otherwise.
Until then, respectfully, I remain in the position of caring as little as humanly possible.
05 Apr 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe will be flapping like an old budgie now !
[b]I have plenty of times but you just refuse to believe it.
Excellent.
Since you have done it plenty of times, you can easily and readily do it again now.
Explain how an object 444’ in height can be seen in its entirety from a distance of 26.37 miles away, when that distance calculates the loss at 364.22’, leaving less than 80’ of the object visib ...[text shortened]... se.
Until then, respectfully, I remain in the position of caring as little as humanly possible.[/b]
06 Apr 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRespond. Right, just like YOU respond. You don't think of anything but your little theories and you refuse to take the time to delve into actual specifics of optics and atmospheric effects, thinking you are such an incredible intelligence you don't need any analysis since you are a civilization changing mind.
So think about what has been put to you and respond.
06 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonhouseEither answer the questions put to you or the conversation is over.
Respond. Right, just like YOU respond. You don't think of anything but your little theories and you refuse to take the time to delve into actual specifics of optics and atmospheric effects, thinking you are such an incredible intelligence you don't need any analysis since you are a civilization changing mind.
06 Apr 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm fine with that. Answer to me why you think aircraft should be visible by camera's on ISS, I think you imply hundreds of them should be visible. Explain to me what resolution is, what an arc second is, why there are aurora in the south pole. Why the magnetic field of Earth converges on the south pole when a flat planet would have them converging on the edges.
Either answer the questions put to you or the conversation is over.
Explain to me how you refuted Isaac Newton's analysis of atmospheric effects on a flat planet showing distortion of objects like the sun which would look like a saugage instead of what we see, a sphere.
Explain to me why the star field in the northern hemisphere circles in one direction while those in the southern hemisphere circles in the opposite direction. How does that happen on a flat planet.
Explain to me why there is no such thing as Coriolis effect, since in your flatass fantasy, Earth cannot be spinning.
Explain how we have a one g gravity field since a flat planet would only be miles deep, 10,50 whatever.
You refuse to go into these fundamental issues because you can't. And, being unable to do so, you just take a stance of negation, thinking that will make the issues go away, hide your head in the sand, I'm covering my ears, I can't hear you, Nya nya nya.
These issues are WAY more fundamental than your 'why can I see X from Y distance'.
Explain to me how GPS can work with just ground stations when the system works just fine in the middle of the Pacific ocean.
In fact, why don't you explain to me what line of sight is, what frequecies line of sight is valid for.
Fundamental issues, not your strawman arguments.
06 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonhouseConversation is over.
I'm fine with that. Answer to me why you think aircraft should be visible by camera's on ISS, I think you imply hundreds of them should be visible. Explain to me what resolution is, what an arc second is, why there are aurora in the south pole. Why the magnetic field of Earth converges on the south pole when a flat planet would have them converging on the e ...[text shortened]... what frequecies line of sight is valid for.
Fundamental issues, not your strawman arguments.
You cannot answer the two basic questions, for whatever reason: I won't speculate, but the answer for your avoidance seems pretty clear.
Be courageous.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat a joke. You ignore fundamenal issued because you don't have the mental resources to even begin such analysis and now you claim that's MY problem.
Conversation is over.
You cannot answer the two basic questions, for whatever reason: I won't speculate, but the answer for your avoidance seems pretty clear.
Be courageous.
Just do ONE then. How would GPS systems work with only ground stations when it works just fine in the middle of the Pacific ocean?
I am just going by what YOU said. "GPS is not done by satellites but by ground stations'.
YOUR words. So YOU are the expert, tell me how it's done.
06 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonhouseYou do not understand the most basic of basics on the topic, and you wish to teach me.
What a joke. You ignore fundamenal issued because you don't have the mental resources to even begin such analysis and now you claim that's MY problem.
Just do ONE then. How would GPS systems work with only ground stations when it works just fine in the middle of the Pacific ocean?
I think the irony of the situation is lost on you.
I've told you before and I will repeat it just to be exceedingly clear: I will NOT answer a single one of your questions unless and until you answer either one of the ones put to you.
Or, barring that, explain how that football made its way to the ISS.
06 Apr 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGame over. You want to play just by your rules when I put out fundamental problems with your flatass fantasy, you can't even tell me why you think GPS is from ground stations.
You do not understand the most basic of basics on the topic, and you wish to teach me.
I think the irony of the situation is lost on you.
I've told you before and I will repeat it just to be exceedingly clear: I will NOT answer a single one of your questions unless and until you answer either one of the ones put to you.
Or, barring that, explain how that football made its way to the ISS.