Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Elation · 02-04-2002, 07:04 AM

Continuing from the El Capitan dispute...

Here is Vernal falls in Yosemite in California, (according to nature books, it is 317 feet tall)-

And here is the ride known as Goliath at Six Flags Magic Mountain in California (also described as beoing 300 feet tall)-

Now tell me...doesn't Goliath look so much taller than Vernal falls? They are both referred to by the relevant sources as being about 300 feet tall--but look at the picture! The ride looks far higher than the waterfall.

Take that for perspective!

Ism Schism. · 02-04-2002, 09:53 AM

Here is another -- which block is the tallest?

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ism Schism. ]

MortalWombat · 02-04-2002, 10:57 AM

Well, you see, water always travels downhill, so the waterfall looks shorter because the water is washing some of the photons downhill before they reach your eyes, or in this case, the camera. A rollercoaster, on the other hand, must first travel uphill, then downhill, so the two forces cancel each other out, and the roller coaster looks like its actual height.

Secular Elation · 02-04-2002, 11:41 AM

That the biggest B.S. explanation I've ever read.

The uphill side of the roller coaster doesn't matter. When you compare the peak of the ride to the ground, and then compare the top of the waterfall to the ground, the ride looks significantly higher.

Amen-Moses · 02-04-2002, 11:48 AM

It's one of those perspective things, like when you look down at your dick it looks tiny compared to your beer gut whereas the guy in the next urinal looks bigger, or maybe that's just me.

Amen-Moses

tronvillain · 02-04-2002, 12:40 PM

It obviously wasn't supposed to be a good explanation. Anyway, the rollercoaster does look far taller than the waterfall, but then the picture appears to have been taken from much closer.

StrongMan · 02-04-2002, 02:38 PM

Who fucking cares that the rollercoaster looks bigger!

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: jcgr81 ]

The Naked Mage · 02-06-2002, 05:41 PM

And now, a few more <a href="http://www.laughthisoff.com/essays/illusions.shtml" target="_blank">optical illusions</a>!

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: The Naked Mage ]

babelfish · 02-08-2002, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
It's one of those perspective things, like when you look down at your dick it looks tiny compared to your beer gut whereas the guy in the next urinal looks bigger, or maybe that's just me.

Amen-Moses

LOL!

I love a man with a sense of humor about his physical attributes!

MortalWombat · 02-12-2002, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
That the biggest B.S. explanation I've ever read.

The uphill side of the roller coaster doesn't matter. When you compare the peak of the ride to the ground, and then compare the top of the waterfall to the ground, the ride looks significantly higher.

(sigh) Geez, do I have to explicitly declare when I am making a joke? I thought it was fairly obvious.

02-04-2002, 07:04 AM	#1
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Another "Nonsense" Continuing from the El Capitan dispute... Here is Vernal falls in Yosemite in California, (according to nature books, it is 317 feet tall)- And here is the ride known as Goliath at Six Flags Magic Mountain in California (also described as beoing 300 feet tall)- Now tell me...doesn't Goliath look so much taller than Vernal falls? They are both referred to by the relevant sources as being about 300 feet tall--but look at the picture! The ride looks far higher than the waterfall. Take that for perspective!

02-04-2002, 09:53 AM	#2
Ism Schism. Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 320	Here is another -- which block is the tallest? [ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ism Schism. ]</p>

02-04-2002, 02:38 PM	#7
StrongMan Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Bumblefuck Posts: 488	Who fucking cares that the rollercoaster looks bigger! [ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: jcgr81 ]</p>

02-06-2002, 05:41 PM	#8
The Naked Mage Veteran Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Execution State, USA Posts: 5,031	And now, a few more <a href="http://www.laughthisoff.com/essays/illusions.shtml" target="_blank">optical illusions</a>! [ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: The Naked Mage ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2002, 10:57 AM	#3
MortalWombat Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: St Louis area Posts: 3,458	Well, you see, water always travels downhill, so the waterfall looks shorter because the water is washing some of the photons downhill before they reach your eyes, or in this case, the camera. A rollercoaster, on the other hand, must first travel uphill, then downhill, so the two forces cancel each other out, and the roller coaster looks like its actual height.

02-04-2002, 11:41 AM	#4
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	That the biggest B.S. explanation I've ever read. The uphill side of the roller coaster doesn't matter. When you compare the peak of the ride to the ground, and then compare the top of the waterfall to the ground, the ride looks significantly higher.

02-04-2002, 11:48 AM	#5
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	It's one of those perspective things, like when you look down at your dick it looks tiny compared to your beer gut whereas the guy in the next urinal looks bigger, or maybe that's just me. Amen-Moses

02-04-2002, 12:40 PM	#6
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	It obviously wasn't supposed to be a good explanation. Anyway, the rollercoaster does look far taller than the waterfall, but then the picture appears to have been taken from much closer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.