Nope. But the peak should have dropped 770 feet and been obscured by the mountain/terrain in from of him. That was the entire point of his experiment. Viewing the PEAK.
Is Max Eberle as big as a goof as I now think?
- Thread starter BmoreMoney
- Start date
And that what do you think is the correct diameter of the Earth?
If you don't draw out the topo on the line of sight you can't make any useful conclusion. Draw it out. Then maybe you will start to understand.
Smells like you got a unit problem. Autocorrect? Are you just the middleman and the funk is in the source?
I sooooo hate a basketball telecast where the shot clock and game clock have a differential. I've many a times thought the hoop was floating in a haze, but if time is racing itself, i best remain on the couch.
Bay City, MI is 10m higher in sea level elevation than Chicago, IL. And near the point that your "guru" conducted his tests from. Would you like me to do some math for you, again? You also know that "lake level" is different than "sea level", right?
This is getting old.....fast. Seriously. Please tell me where you got your degree from.
I am well aware of that. I used "sea level" in a generic sense. If you think 30 feet had a difference in the conclusions, you are deluded. Like I said, you are using minor technicalities, now in wording to try to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Here is a vid where that guy explains in more detail the calculations, if you're interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPWLqlGLVag
When I said "sea level", I meant from the ground. I believe that this guy took into account the height above sea level in his calculations, but I will need to watch the vid again.
Last edited:
So what kind of "scientist" are you again?
Because 10m (almost 33 feet) actually translates into an increase in horizon distance of over 7 miles (go to the website and do the math). Or about 260 additional feet of "stuff" that can be seen at the distance of 31 miles. (Go do the math yourself).
Did you notice that only the skyscrapers were visible? These are buildings that are like 700+ feet in height, given that the camera is held maybe 10 feet above water level (they're standing in the bow of the boat), about 350 feet of "stuff" should be visible at the distance of 31 miles, as they claimed to be at. So notice that you're only seeing the buildings that are over 30 stories in height in that video?
lol.
Last edited:
Well, Beaker, it's actually more than 30 feet. Most scientists know and embrace metric. But let's go with "non significant".
If I was just standing on the shore of Lake Michigan, "assuming" that the two elevations are equal, I could see the Willis Tower from a distance of roughly 80km. And that isn't the "peak", but the top. If you factor in that "insignificant" 10m elevation difference, I can see it for an additional 7 km.
But I guess I'm "deluded". I view an increase of 9% as "significant".
You guys are hilarious. Attack the person bringing you the information, instead of accurately reviewing the information. I used the word "sea level", but the guy doing the vid never said that and I am well aware that lake level is not equal to sea level.
Let's just say I've had a few advanced math courses (calculus and differential equations), I've had various physics courses (including thermodynamics and quantum mechanics), I have a degree in Chemistry and I've worked in R&D and various other technical and quality areas for over 25 years. But of course, none of that matters or is the point. The ad hominem attacks are quite immature and who "I" am is irrelevant.
Next you will point out a spelling error and say that I'm illiterate. All quite juvenile.
Right, but sea-level was my wording -- not the guy who did the vid. Keep trying....
I actually don't believe that for a second lol. Nobody starts of a statement of their credentials with "let's just say". XD
Also, I am making real points, that you are free to respond to.
Because 10m (almost 33 feet) actually translates into an increase in horizon distance of over 7 miles (go to the website and do the math). Or about 260 additional feet of "stuff" that can be seen at the distance of 31 miles. (Go do the math yourself).
Did you notice that only the skyscrapers were visible? These are buildings that are like 700+ feet in height, given that the camera is held maybe 10 feet above water level (they're standing in the bow of the boat), about 350 feet of "stuff" should be visible at the distance of 31 miles, as they claimed to be at. So notice that you're only seeing the buildings that are over 30 stories in height in that video?
Check my math. Your "guru" also fails to account for a 10m height difference from the viewpoints. That's pretty statistically relevant, to his experiment design. Leaving out little details like that make his observations "biased".
OMG, now I'm lying about my education! You guys are really too much.
Well, since Lost_His_Grip seems to have neither the time nor the ability to make a drawing, I went ahead and did one. Here are two 5400-foot peaks about 36 miles apart. The horizontal scale is compressed so that the curvature of what would be a plain at sea level is visible and amounts to a 250-foot bulge in the middle.
I think you can see one peak from the other.
Maybe someone would like to include the intervening features if they're important.
![CropperCapture[58].png](https://forums.azbilliards.com/data/attachments/322/322040-6fc82fbd5d1679ac3868c202fd529b78.jpg?hash=b8gvvV0Wea "CropperCapture[58].png")
You aren't being attacked. You're being discredited.
This would be false.
OK, so let's dispense with the condescending attitude if you really want to learn something. You don't realize it yet, but you are completely out of your depth on this subject. And, yes, I can back that up with real science.
This isn't really the place for such a debate, but when I see people throwing around suggestions that global warming/climate change is anything other than a political agenda, or just plain bad science (take your poison), I have to challenge it.
You said it is easy to admit when you are wrong. Let's test that hypothesis:
I'm making an assumption that you aren't intimately familiar with the sources below that I'm suggesting you take a look at (or else you would be questioning global warming). I realize going into this discussion that you probably won't take the time to follow through, but I guarantee you that if you do, and you allow the actual science to guide you, you will have a new opinion on the subject.
ClimateAudit.org - This site is operated by Steve McIntyre and was voted best science site on the internet a couple of years ago.
Homework assignment: Go to ClimateAudit.org and scroll down the left column to "Favorite Posts." Find the one on "McKitrick: What is the Hockey Stick Debate About?". Here is a link for your convenience:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Read this article and then search the website for articles containing Michael Mann and the hockey stick. As a bonus, read any/all articles McIntyre has written regarding temperature proxy reconstructions, including the one he did himself.
Can you answer the following questions:
1) What does "hide the decline" mean,
2) What is the IPCC and why did their first report show a medieval warm period with temperatures higher than current temps, and why was this graph "disappeared" in subsequent annual reports,
3) What is the significance of the phrase "upside down Tijlander" lake sediments,
4) Are bristlecone pine proxies critical to the hockey stick graph, yes or no, and why are they useless at temperature proxies?
Next, take a visit to RealClimate.org, run (illegally on taxpayer time) by Gavin Schmidt. Compare this site to RealClimate.org in terms of censorship and propaganda and report back.
OK, all kidding aside, take a look at the information above. The problem we have in this discussion is that most of climate change science is heavily wrapped up in politics and money. Even the name is political. It used to be "global warming." Even the co-founder of Greenpeace says climate change is a scam and it only exits because the media, politicians, and scientists all benefit from its existence.
You will be a bigger man than most if you are able to challenge your current belief system re climate change and really dig into the science instead of trusting others to tell you that the science is solid. Let me give you a heads up: What typically happens is that someone starts educating themselves on temp proxies, and then says, 'OK, well maybe proxies aren't that great, but boy look at the melting ice caps." Then the ice caps don't look so foreboding and they say, "OK, but look at the lake varve sediments, or Antarctica or the polar bears" and on and on. Eventually you come to realize that there is no good science buttressing the political movement. Even a nobel laureate in mathematics (I think that was his field) fell into the same trap.
I'll leave it at that. It'll be interesting to see how capable you are of admitting you were wrong when it really means something to you, rather than just bashing some misguided pool players.
Your choice to learn, or not...
Yeah, for a guy who supposedly knows quantum mechanics, you seem to have zero mathematical literacy. (Ex. calling 10 feet of altitude a "minor technicality" when calculating horizon distance.)
If you had any experience whatsoever in experimental design etc, you would realize this. This is simply not how people in the sciences talk (I spend all day reading research papers and listening to engineers). Your posts are like listening to the 40-year old virgin talk about boobs.
Last edited:
You guys are nuts. What don't you understand about the fact that I used the words sea level in a general sense, the guy that did the calculations didn't necessarily discount the 10 feet.Yeah, for a guy who supposedly knows quantum mechanics, you seem to have zero mathematical literacy. (Ex. calling 10 feet of altitude a "minor technicality" when calculating horizon distance.)
If you had any experience whatsoever in experimental design etc, you would realize this. This is simply not how people in the sciences talk (I spend all day reading research papers and listening to engineers). Your posts are like listening to the 40-year old virgin talk about boobs.
The bottom line is, there were 220 meters or ~722 feet of the buildings that could be seen from 40 miles that you shouldn't be able to see if the earth is really curved to the extent of 8 inches per mile squared.
That is the bottom line. You can discount that fact all you want, but the video demonstrates it.