Search results

Mick, I have one thing that's bothering me about polaris. If earth has a wobble how does polaris manage to stay directly above north pole trough the year?

wow! Even with Micks calc this comes out as 5km hidden! And the mountain is 4km high only and it's not only tops what we see there! There seems to be at least a few km's of missing curvature there

Thanks for all your responses.. lovely picture Henk! if some people from equator do not provide photographic evidence of this I agree.. case closed.

Yes.. I was just looking at stelarium for the past hour or so.. to put it more clearly, the claim is that from all meridians at the equator simultaneously you can see ursa minor, major and polaris when looking north, but when looking south you cannot see simultaneously from all of them the...

I heard a statement and not sure how to verify it, so asking here. So the statement is that from lets say 40 degrees north lat you can see all the northern constellations from any longitude, but the same is not true if you are at -40 degrees lat.. or southern hemisphere. So at south at that...

Wow! Never saw those elongated craters before.. thanks. I never believed moon was a disc.. I can clearly see through my p900 it is sphere/oval shaped because of crater angles. When it comes to refraction I found this interesting video. I think this mountain is the furthest object I found that...

So without the curvature plane would never set when moving away from us? Could be. But what about the moon craters? Are you honestly going to say that every single meteor that ever hit the moon did it at an 90 degree angle.. not a single 1-20 degree angle hit that would cause the crater to be...

These are all very interesting points and I certainly do consider them. I have followed many times heavy contrail leaving planes "set" over the horizon.. when it flies overhead after a while plane can't be seen, but the trail can. Logic tells me every time I look at a plane do that it didn't...

what do you make of the dry air area time-lapse footage's? Some claim that the lensing increases the sun size as it moves away from us, and that makes it appear about the same size when above since it's passing through more atmosphere while setting.. and since in dry areas lensing is reduced due...

Thanks for a detailed response. I was always interested in the shiny thingys above. Unfortunately this does not help me reach a final conclusion since airplane fliesover my head and sets on my horizon just like the sun and stars do. Moving south could be just setting much closer stars and rising...

Read my reply to Mick. Post number 289. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. Sorry. For the rest of the comments I know all these claims already but I'm interested in practical evidence of these. I don't have a firm standpoint on this subject because I don't want to base it on a belief...

So you think that different humidity, or different positions of humidity layers have no effect on it? It's always a constant? Could be.. but with magnifying glass the shape comes to play, thickness.. etc

Heheh.. yes exactly.. it's a bit of a braintwister because it includes multiple effects and each has variables.. but same goes for refraction index for example.. it can be higher or lower depending on atmospheric density, content, even positioning of different layers.. so it's hard to just spit...

Well this is assuming the humidity, precipitation/air density is not the highest just right above the sea level, but it is. This is why the greatest "blur" and distortion is in this very area, first meter or so above sea. Imagine a car driving away on a desert road.. after only few hundred...

I wanted to go today also.. sea was very peaceful and visibility good but as I was about to go out sun went behind some clouds so I gave up. The bottom goes the same place the bottom went in Rob Skibas experiment if you watched it in the video above. if using the reference closeup image, to...

Agreed. My mistake. I meant to say atmospheric lensing. Must have slipped because both start with L.. :oops: Anyway Rob claims that atmosphere in some conditions acts like a lens and enlarges objects and that's why their bottoms are cut off.

Higher refraction index is a plausable reason, but there is an experiment on looming, for scientific reasons, can we entertain the possibility that looming is responsible for obscuring lower part of land like experimentally demonstrated in this video? The experiment is demonstrated at 59th...

Hehe.. did visit Kali few times.. was in that exact place.. but don't have altimeter, so don't know how high I was.. pun unintended.. :D Bought many things recently.. not sure for how much they go for.. and if they are exact at this low increments.. since they go off air pressure I think they...

I guess the easiest way I can come up with is measure the height of the green line I drew here.. from sea level to top of the window.. then compare to my picture from sea level to top of the window.. but I have to sleep now.. very late here.

google earth is very unreliable when it comes to this.. for example there is a road above the place I took the pic from.. it reads 1m on google earth.. and in reality it's about 5m.. and many vice versa examples..