19 Jul '16 20:35>
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, babe: I just happen to know far more about the topic than you do now, or likely ever will.
Is this where you claim to be an atmospheric physicist or engineer?
I figure that's gotta be next.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you figure if you see some distant object you would see it like tiny, if it was hundreds of miles away on a flat Earth how would you see it at all? You know about resolution? Since you claim to know more than anyone here, at 200 miles what would be the resolution of the human eye?
Seriously?
You have one?
That's a mind blowing revelation.
That it is large enough to have it sucked?
Now you're just wishful thinking, micro-pepe.
Don't get too far ahead of yourself, hon.
Originally posted by sonhouseOoøœ...
So you figure if you see some distant object you would see it like tiny, if it was hundreds of miles away on a flat Earth how would you see it at all? You know about resolution? Since you claim to know more than anyone here, at 200 miles what would be the resolution of the human eye?
Here is a little bit of optics you undoubtedly know since you undoubte ...[text shortened]... le to see stuff at LEAST 2000 miles way. You tell me ANYONE who has evidence of that. Good luck.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHProve me wrong with YOUR numbers. Good luck. Do you doubt for instance, 1 arc second cuts a circle into 1,296,000 parts? Or 60 arc seconds cuts a circle into 21,600 parts which is also one arc minute? Show me my mistake o optical maven. I just made big circles from a radius of 200 miles and 2000 miles read out in feet. If I am not mistaken there are 5280 feet per mile so for a 200 mile radius that would be 1,056,000 feet. Feel free to correct me here.
Ooøœ...
Numbers!
You bested me with numbers!
Too bad your math is wrong, but way to go on those numbers!
Originally posted by sonhouseDo you doubt, for instance, that water is nearly 800 times more dense than air?
Prove me wrong with YOUR numbers. Good luck. Do you doubt for instance, 1 arc second cuts a circle into 1,296,000 parts? Or 60 arc seconds cuts a circle into 21,600 parts which is also one arc minute? Show me my mistake o optical maven. I just made big circles from a radius of 200 miles and 2000 miles read out in feet. If I am not mistaken there are 5280 fe ...[text shortened]... y way, since you clearly have a Phd in several disciplines including optics so show me o master.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you are totally ignoring my post about resolution of eyeballs. Nice. You say my numbers are wrong and when I reiterate them you just move the goalpost again.
Do you doubt, for instance, that water is nearly 800 times more dense than air?
How about the fact that LIGHT refracts at measurable rates when there are temperature changes in the medium through which it passes?
Do you doubt that?
Now, account for the visibility of distant objects REGARDLESS of the temperature gradient of the air--- through which dista ...[text shortened]... ity of distant objects by replying on atmospheric refraction because it simply isn't applicable.
Originally posted by sonhouseAs soon as you can respond to the FACTS put to you, I'll humor yours.
So you are totally ignoring my post about resolution of eyeballs. Nice. You say my numbers are wrong and when I reiterate them you just move the goalpost again.
I just showed you at 200 miles you have to have an object 300 odd feet wide just to make out a dot. And 2000 miles on a clear day, you would need a good telescope which can give maybe 30 feet of ...[text shortened]... e of atmospheric refraction's and diffraction.
So prove my numbers wrong. You can't can you.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLook at this link about horizons and especially the paragraph on atmospheric refraction.
As soon as you can respond to the FACTS put to you, I'll humor yours.
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't know why you insist on returning to something so patently absurd and then attempt to use it as though it bolsters your position.
Look at this link about horizons and especially the paragraph on atmospheric refraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Effect_of_atmospheric_refraction
BTW, from ISS, about 240 miles up, the horizon is about 2500 miles. That is only 1/10th the way round the planet and if Earth were flat it would see the entire thing.
http://blogs.discoverm ...[text shortened]... usand miles so there would be some part of it visible almost all the time.
Prove THAT wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExplain your 'atmospheric convergence at the horizon'. Why would you not be able to see the RM's with a telescope even if they are not in view of eyeballs?
I don't know why you insist on returning to something so patently absurd and then attempt to use it as though it bolsters your position.
The further one moves away from ANY object, the decrease in appearance of said object: it continues to diminish until it merges with the convergence of the receding lines.
The Rocky Mountains don't fall from view on acc ...[text shortened]... the vision on account of atmospheric convergence at the horizon.
Are you even really trying?