Originally posted by josephwIf objects are beyond or below the horizon and are still visible to the observer, then there must necessarily be a reason and a plausible scientific explanation.
[b]".., how can distant objects be visible when they are supposedly beyond the horizon to the observer?"
If objects are beyond or below the horizon and are still visible to the observer, then there must necessarily be a reason and a plausible scientific explanation.
"That doesn't take sophistication other than the ability to multiply measured d ...[text shortened]...
Am I light years ahead? Am I, am I? Please say I'm light years ahead of everyone. PLEASE! 😉
Only one has been offered: superior mirage.
Closer inspection reveals that offering insufficient and unsatisfactory.
Beyond my sophistication. Perhaps someone can explain it to me in layman's terms.
Easier than it sounds.
The globe has a measured (calculated) diameter, radius and circumference.
From any point on that globe (with all things being otherwise equal), the distance will curve downward from the observer; everyone is the north pole, for lack of a better description.
If the ground around the observer is relatively the same elevation in all directions (such as the ocean or the Bonneville Flats, for instance), the observer's horizon is ~3 miles away.
After that distance, the field of vision is lost to the curvature as the ground "falls away" from view.
The specific formula is the distance multiplied by the distance multiplied by eight inches.
To find how much "fall away" occurs from the observer's position, one uses that formula then divides the result by 12 (for inches in a foot) to determine how much less the observer can see from the original position.
Here's a calculator that does the heavy lifting:
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html
I believe the default on the calculator is ten feet for the eye of the observer, with a target distance of 30 miles.
The horizon from the ten foot mark is nearly four miles away.
The distant object (30 miles away) should have at least 455' lost to the curvature.
So, if the observer can see (telescope, high-powered binoculars) a 500' object which is known to be 30 miles away in excess of the top 45' something is wrong.
Originally posted by sonhouseHere's my request to the kooky guys and gals doing all those c r a z y experiments and nutty things on the ISS: show the effing world an hour of uninterrupted streaming.
Freak has apparently not seen the people aboard ISS and their experiments with near zero gravity. Like the one done by Hatfield where he just ran water over his hand and it crept around his hand like an alien life form crawling up his fingers slowly.
I wonder how Freak would rationalize THAT one away.
Or the men and women traveling up and down the ISS ...[text shortened]... hey get their land legs back. Guess that was all part of the vast international conspiracy also.
Sixty minutes of no-loss transmission.
16 years into it...
Originally posted by sonhouseYou and I were right the first time. I'm pretty sure he's just agitating everyone here for the giggles. No one's that stupid.
Freak has apparently not seen the people aboard ISS and their experiments with near zero gravity. Like the one done by Hatfield where he just ran water over his hand and it crept around his hand like an alien life form crawling up his fingers slowly.
I wonder how Freak would rationalize THAT one away.
Or the men and women traveling up and down the ISS ...[text shortened]... hey get their land legs back. Guess that was all part of the vast international conspiracy also.
Originally posted by SuzianneDo you accept that there are tens of thousands of Americans who insist the earth is flat?
You and I were right the first time. I'm pretty sure he's just agitating everyone here for the giggles. No one's that stupid.
I could not believe it at first but youtube is full of them - and their conviction is as impressive
as their stupidity. And they discuss this like 16th Century scientists (albeit poor ones).
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNutty things they do on ISS. So you admit ISS exists. A crack appears in your little fantasy world but then we all knew you were just pulling our chains, getting a good belly laugh at the same time. Bringing in yet more strawman arguments. You get more irrational each passing day. Seriously.
Here's my request to the kooky guys and gals doing all those c r a z y experiments and nutty things on the ISS: show the effing world an hour of uninterrupted streaming.
Sixty minutes of no-loss transmission.
16 years into it...
Originally posted by sonhouseGo to the supposed live feed of ISS.
Nutty things they do on ISS. So you admit ISS exists. A crack appears in your little fantasy world but then we all knew you were just pulling our chains, getting a good belly laugh at the same time. Bringing in yet more strawman arguments. You get more irrational each passing day. Seriously.
Without exception, the feed's transmission consistently 'lost' or dropped every single day for long periods of time.
How can that be?
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know which one you watched but the entire interviews with every astronaut I saw interviewed went by 100% with no dropouts.
Go to the supposed live feed of ISS.
Without exception, the feed's transmission consistently 'lost' or dropped every single day for long periods of time.
How can that be?
So you figure a space station going around Earth at 18 thousand miles an hour, 5 miles a second, should have 100% coverage using radio waves or laser beams, 24/7 eh.
I gather you don't know much about radio waves or digital transmission of radio waves through the atmosphere.
Ever do any kind of study on that subject? My guess is no, you just see some kind of disruption and jump to the conclusion "Must be a conspiracy to keep me from seeing the truth" rather than just electronic glitches which happens in ANY electronic or photon based transmission of information.
The only way we can get 100% reliability would be to use neutrino's as the information carrier. Good luck getting someone to engineer that one. (they would transmit through the planet as if it were not there so you could in theory keep your antenna pointed at a satellite by aiming it at the ground, keeping a direct line to the satellite) Weather, volcano's, earthquakes, nothing would stop a neutrino if you had a way to actually modulate them and could demodulate them at some distant point. RF and photons, not so lucky. One problem for communications with a satellite is solar wind from the sun, solar storms that have been known to knock out power grids will effect a satellite much more severely than something on the ground.
So you might want to study your material before making blanket statements about linking conspiracy theories to electronic communications systems.
I KNOW what I am talking about, been in that field for 60 years.
Do you even know an OUTLINE of what it takes to communicate reliably to a satellite?