gerrydandridge Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 It read to me the observer was looking towards the top of a 50 foot high ship, not looking at a nearly 900 foot tower. I had the units correct, I could only get a distance of 78Km using your method until i put in the missing nearly 900 feet above sea level for the observer, So am I correct that "the top of the 50 foot ship can bee seen from a distance of 78Km when the observer is nearly 900 feet above sea level" See the way you presented (in my opinion) was a little deceptive, it also shows the Douglas head to great orme, with observer 35m above sea level and the target being approx 165m above sea level visible to less than 70km, whereas the distance is 98KM. Is this where mirages come in now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Try these words "Yeah sorry, I read it wrong" It's going to save time . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 It read to me the observer was looking towards the top of a 50 foot high ship, not looking at a nearly 900 foot tower. Are you a Bugblatter Beast of Traal? Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 Saying: The top of 50 foot high ship would be visible about 78 km away under normal atmospheric conditions and vice versa and omitting the 871 ft is deceptive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Gerry, Manxie raised how far out at sea can the top of the tower at Notre Dame Antwerp be seen. A reasonable estimate is 78km under usual atmospheric conditions and if the bridge of the ship is 50 ft off the ground. Someone at the top of the tower would also be able to see the bridge of the ship - though the rest of it would be hull down. All I have done is answer Manxie's question, I am not being deceptive in what I've done. Manxie gave the information Eric Dubay provided I used those figures to work out my calcs. Also, I think you will only be able to see the Great Orme Head from Douglas head with a temperature inversion or other atmospheric effect - those things are pretty common so it's not impossible, but generally it is too far to be seen. Have you got a Gotcha on me for saying this ... gosh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 If we change the constant from 3.68 to just over 5, it works, hooray we can now see it. Perhaps this can be our new equation for really bad days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 You do realize the factor is based on well established optical physics? I've already tried to link to explanations of it for you - link. I've also linked to this site that looks at how different lapse rates etc will change things. It is explained here and you can actually go and put in your own figures based on met office reports and see how accurately it fits - here. These are models - simplifications of reality the output from which can then be compared to reality to see how well they work. It's called science. It's hard work and you have to go out and take measurements to see how well your theories fit with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 Yes, so therefore on the day we can see the Orme, then we should agree to use the constant of 5.26...on that day for the general area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 I've not checked your maths but if the water is cold creating an inversion it is perfectly possible to see the Great Orme - there are multiple well attested reports of seeing hundreds of km, and when you look at the physics there is no discrepancy - light bends when moving through media of different densities. That isn't something we don't know, really. Again look at third link in my post above - it will not let you put in figures that do not fit with the known behaviour of the atmosphere. With science you can't just make things up - you have to be grounded in observation, and have repeatedly verified and looked at issues which can confound your models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 I made up a little app to check it, I would attach it for you to check it is as per the formula but the forum might not like app attachments, I don't know what the rules are on things like this..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Fuck off, Gerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 another non believer mojo! x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Smackhead Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 All this asswipe has got to support his flat earth belief is a tenuous argument from his own incredulity and ignorance. BUMP for the flat head society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 ive seen the iss on a good clear night more than once ... its definitely moving...fast and in a curved way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.