Cycling UK Forum

TonyR wrote:But I saw it with my own eyes, not a camera so explain that away.

orraloon wrote:

661-Pete wrote:What fun we're all having here!

...

*I'm assuming that Manc33 is a 'he'. Have we any proof of that?

Do a google search on Manc33 and draw your own conclusions.

He has succeeded in drawing y'all into his strange world. Over on BR when these baits were dangled eventually discussion turned to frustration and then to mocking before he got shown the door. You seem to be more tolerant here. Mind you, there were 60+ pages of it there on the notorious Conspiracy Theory thread as well as multiple derailings of other threads.

Manc-watch over and out.

beardy wrote:Snaefel on the other hand is 620 metres. So you could probably see all of the Blackpool tower.

Even without the effects of refraction.

Manc33 wrote:

jochta wrote:I can turn it any angle I want.

Which is my point, the Earth itself can't do that. You have to keep it all straight because that's the reality.

jochta wrote:It doesn't make any difference to the maths. The vertical difference is still 2,200 feet for a tangential line from an observer's eyeball at sea level. The hump of water isn't 2,200 feet tall as you've said several times.

Yes it is because you're not stood on the middle of it, you're stood at the extreme left (in my image above).

If the guy on the left could dive down 2,200 feet then swim across, he would then reach the object. He will have had to drop 2,200 feet to do that.

What you're forgetting is that you can just turn a piece of paper, but the Earth itself does not and cannot physically do that.

Manc33 wrote:Turning it is cheating.

You have to have a horizontal line through the observer and a horizontal line through the object. The difference is the drop.

Manc33 wrote:You're putting the two dots at the same elevation there and they aren't if there's a curve.

Manc33 wrote:

Drop is 2,200 feet. Who knows what the other distance is (the smaller arrow) but I don't know why it is being measured or what it establishes.

The only point of contention is the two black dots. No fiddling about with numbers and measuring other parts of it can decrease the drop.

Manc33 wrote:You think waves moving around will not break light up?

Mick F wrote:

Manc33 wrote:........... 58 miles away when there needs to be a curve of water that is over 2,000 feet tall ............

Where do you get that figure from?

2,000ft in 58miles?

Manc33 wrote:

ddraver wrote:when you kept it in the one thread I did nt see the problem either - that was the power crazy mod's doing...

Again, we answered your questions on lighthouses many times. The response was basically "I'm not good enough at maths to understand it"

You don't have to be "good at maths" to understand how to work out the curve once you know how.

8 inches X the miles X the miles = the drop in inches.

There's nothing wrong with asking "How can something less than 250 feet tall be visible from 58 miles away when there needs to be a curve of water that is over 2,000 feet tall obscuring it, that isn't there?"

How can you have "answered" that, when on a curved Earth the answer doesn't work? All you gave me was an answer that physically/optically doesn't work out, light bends, but not to that extent.

People get angry when they can't answer it, or they just throw out the usual "refraction" answer as though just because refraction exists in the world, oh well then it has to account for all of it. The fact that light needs to bend to ridiculous extremes doesn't put you off. It puts me off, because it is bunk. Light refracts, but not like that.

Manc33 wrote:Its not my fault I ask questions that are either really hard or nearly impossible to answer.

aspiringcyclist wrote:Actually I'm fairly sure that the belief that people ( at least the educated) thought the Earth was flat is a myth. The Earth has been known to be round at least since Aristotle, when he showed that was the case.

Manc33 wrote:What about confirmation bias? Anyone going up in a plane expects to see a curve. Even if someone said "It looks flat" someone else would say "But we all know it isn't haw haw haw".

Vorpal wrote:

Manc33 wrote:Chicago, Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) = 1,730 feet tall, elevation is the same on the shore 60 miles away at the viewing spot, so doesn't matter for this example.

The tower can be seen from 60 miles away over Lake Michigan, practically to its base on a good day.

Have you seen this? Or do you have some evidence about the visibility from 60 miles away?

Yes, it was featured on a US news show where he just lied and said it is a mirage. A viewer had sent the photo in. A mirage - floating 2,400 feet above water without shimmering or breaking up anywhere, the correct way up. Alrighty then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8eIuT-nSAs

That guy can explain things waaaay better than I can.

Manc33 wrote:"The moon isn't transparent".

If you look at it in the daytime, it is, you can see the sky through it. Sorry, what do you want me to do about it?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=moon+ ... CAYQ_AUoAQ

I already cited one showing stars through the moon at night but I will post it again here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/c ... on.649569/