Yep. I'm married. She's a high school math teacher. We're both getting a great laugh from you. Keep going. This stuff is comedic gold.
Is Max Eberle as big as a goof as I now think?
- Thread starter BmoreMoney
- Start date
Yep. I'm married. She's a high school math teacher. We're both getting a great laugh from you. Keep going. This stuff is comedic gold.
If you ignore the facts, anything is possible.
Round enough to be considered "not flat":thumbup:
So far, I haven't seen you provide one bit of evidence or math to demonstrate that what is in the guy's video is not accurate. But it's okay, I have nothing vested in one side or the other. I just like to see people fall all over themselves trying to debunk something that likely can't be debunked. So far, any actual math hasn't been provided to dispute anything that the guy says. Only accusations that he made errors, that nobody has actually proved were errors.
I've done my own math. You're relying on dolts posting videos on YouTube.
Btw, if you're a chemist, have you ever worked with gear made by Hewlett Packard or Agilent Technologies? That's who Bob worked for. He's pretty good at math and physics. Took a few math and science courses himself.
pssssshhhhh facts? those don't exist anymore
Come on. We all know that the firmament is a curved dome. We're talking about the earth under the firmament.
It's actually stunning how you are not understanding something so simple. I'm starting to think you're trolling us.
If each peak is aprox. 5400 feet in height, and they are separated by 34 miles, then due to the curvature of the Earth, the peak of the observed mountain will appear to be 770 below that of the peak of the first mountain. Resulting in a view of (5400 - 770) 4630 feet of mountain to see.
You seem to be under the impression that the peak of the second mountain should "drop" out of sight, which would mean it "dropped" below the horizon, which would require a "drop" of (5400 + 770) 6170 feet.
Seriously, are you trolling us?
Of course. I could tear those instruments apart and replace the piston seals on my own (that's of course for an HPLC).
No. What you wrote above is exactly what I have been saying all along. The second mountain would NOT drop out of sight, but it would drop below the terrain in front of the guy. Instead, there is the second mountain, completely visible and as tall as the other mountains of the same height that are different distances away from him. That was the entire point of his experiment.
Last edited:
And yet 3 plane geometry escapes you. Fascinating.
Um.........what???
Let me restate. The second mountain would not drop completely below the horizon as viewed from the ground. It would drop 770 feet and would be obscured by the terrain in front of him. (This is what the other poster was asking -- so this restatement should cover your question).
Yes, I did, I was very clear about his fundamental error. You chose to ignore this because you aren't understanding how the math works here.
See the diagram, this is taken from the website he used to "calculate" the "drop" of the second peak. In the "h0" field (eye level) he entered "0" (zero) feet. The diagramed instructions clearly explain that he should have typed in 5400 feet, which is where he was.
When you enter the correct value for "h0" (eye level, 5400 feet), you get the correct answer. That the horizon at that altitude is 90 miles. So the observed mountain being only 34 miles away is fully visible.
It's honestly shocking that you aren't understanding this.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yet another ad hominen attack that has nothing to do with anything.
He has to be trolling. No other explanation.
No, what he was demonstrating was that at 34 miles and 770 feet of drop, the peak of the mountain shouldn't be visible from his vantage point. Only 4630 feet would be above the horizon, which just happens to not be high enough for him to see it above the terrain in front of him.
This isn't even about math anymore. You frankly just don't want to understand what he was trying to show in the first place.
Oh, I do think that Bob understands now what the experiment was about. But he's just saying that the topographical map wasn't provided.
Last edited:
I used to think that people like this had to have severe cognitive deficits, but that's clearly not true. They aren't all wards of the state, wearing special helmets, and so forth. Most of the navigate the rest of their lives basically normally.
Now, it's clearly true that none of them are particularly bright either, they aren't doctors or engineers or whatever. But still, most of them seem to be more or less average to slightly below average intelligence.
Which is why I'm interested in neuroscience now, I really want to understand how otherwise normal people can completely short circuit when they think about their pet nonsense issue.
Read the instructions in the diagram! He's putting in ZERO when he should be putting in 5400.
Look at the picture, it's right there!
I think you have a diagnosable delusion, I'm not even joking.
Last edited: