Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Heart-shattered · 01-21-2002, 08:02 PM

So many nature books on Yosemite I have read claim that El Capitan (the cliff in the picture) is 3,500 feet high. Nonsense! When you look at the picture, it seems to be just about 1,000 feet to me. I mean, 3,000 feet would be twice as high as the highest building in New York! I can't picture that. If you placed the Empire State building next to the cliff face they would probably be of similar height. I think someone needs to do the measurements of height again. (Both pictures are the same cliff)

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Heart-shattered ]

Icky · 01-21-2002, 08:15 PM

Your picture doesn't show the deep valley at the base of the cliff. The 3K height is measured from there.

Heart-shattered · 01-21-2002, 08:20 PM

1)What do you mean "deep valley?" The valley floor? Well the pictures are taken from the valley floor so...

2)How do you know it is measured from the "deep valley?" What if it's measured from the base of the cliff to the tip at the top?

3)You were still unable to show that the cliff, even from the general view from the pictures, could even be near 3,000 feet.

Christopher Lord · 01-21-2002, 08:29 PM

I always mis-judge the height of big rocks too. For instance, mountains dont seem as tall as they are claimed to be.

I think there are two reasons for this. #1 is scale. Your typical building has many other buildings around it to give it scale. The same effect makes us think the moon is larger when its on the horizon versus the middle of the sky. its quite striking, but is still the same apparent size in both cases, just our impression changes because when its on the horizon we can see trees and stuff, making it look larger.

Another factor is distance. Cliffs and mountains are viewed from a distance, like your photo. Buildings are viewed from directly benieth most of the time. The curve of the earth and perspective conspire to make it look short. You really notice this hiking in the foothills and you decide to hike to the (what appears to be) near by mountains.

Thats life with a subjective brain I guess.

tronvillain · 01-21-2002, 08:38 PM

As far as I can determine, El Capitan is 3,593 feet from base to summit, though apparently its height can be deceiving in photographs. The problem seems to be with your imagination and not with the measurement.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Christopher Lord · 01-21-2002, 08:40 PM

If you where looking at it from this perspective you probably wouldn't think the same:

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]

Secular Elation · 01-21-2002, 08:41 PM

I try to imagine comparing the Empire State bulding to El Capitan and I agree that they would be of similar height. I simply cannot believe that the cliff in the picture is 3,500 feet high. No way!

Lord, even that picture doesn't convince me--how high up is the photographer in the first place?

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]

tronvillain · 01-21-2002, 08:45 PM

Also, how the hell are you estimating height from that photo? I don't see any point of reference.

Secular Elation · 01-21-2002, 08:47 PM

Here's another problem...

In the picture is El Capitan and to the left of it is Ribbon Fall. According to a couple of sources I read, Ribbon Fall is 1,600 feet high, and El Capitan is said to be 3,500 feet high. Look at the picture! They are so close together and they look the same height! Now I know that El Capitan isn't 3,000 feet.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]

LeftCoast · 01-21-2002, 08:50 PM

I take it you've never been to Yosemite.

Your problem, as someone pointed out is scale. You have nothing to compare El Capitan with so you are left with only the trees in the foreground. What you don’t realize is that El Capitan is probably almost a mile behind the trees you see in the foreground(referring to the first picture).

Take it from someone who as been there and stood at the base. It really is 3500 ft. tall. You cannot even begin to imagine the sheer size of that face, until you are there.

Edited to add:

SE,

The height of Ribbon Falls is measured by the free-fall distance of the water, not the absolute height of the top. The falls end just about at the top of that dead tree to the left in the fore-ground.

Surely you recognize the fallacy of personal incredulity?

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: LeftCoast ]

01-21-2002, 08:38 PM	#5
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	As far as I can determine, El Capitan is 3,593 feet from base to summit, though apparently its height can be deceiving in photographs. The problem seems to be with your imagination and not with the measurement. [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

01-21-2002, 08:40 PM	#6
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	If you where looking at it from this perspective you probably wouldn't think the same: [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>

01-21-2002, 08:41 PM	#7
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	I try to imagine comparing the Empire State bulding to El Capitan and I agree that they would be of similar height. I simply cannot believe that the cliff in the picture is 3,500 feet high. No way! Lord, even that picture doesn't convince me--how high up is the photographer in the first place? [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

01-21-2002, 08:47 PM	#9
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Here's another problem... In the picture is El Capitan and to the left of it is Ribbon Fall. According to a couple of sources I read, Ribbon Fall is 1,600 feet high, and El Capitan is said to be 3,500 feet high. Look at the picture! They are so close together and they look the same height! Now I know that El Capitan isn't 3,000 feet. [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

01-21-2002, 08:50 PM	#10
LeftCoast Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: San Diego, CA, USA Posts: 913	I take it you've never been to Yosemite. Your problem, as someone pointed out is scale. You have nothing to compare El Capitan with so you are left with only the trees in the foreground. What you don’t realize is that El Capitan is probably almost a mile behind the trees you see in the foreground(referring to the first picture). Take it from someone who as been there and stood at the base. It really is 3500 ft. tall. You cannot even begin to imagine the sheer size of that face, until you are there. Edited to add: SE, The height of Ribbon Falls is measured by the free-fall distance of the water, not the absolute height of the top. The falls end just about at the top of that dead tree to the left in the fore-ground. Surely you recognize the fallacy of personal incredulity? [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: LeftCoast ]</p>

01-21-2002, 08:02 PM	#1
Heart-shattered Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: USA Posts: 43	Nonsense So many nature books on Yosemite I have read claim that El Capitan (the cliff in the picture) is 3,500 feet high. Nonsense! When you look at the picture, it seems to be just about 1,000 feet to me. I mean, 3,000 feet would be twice as high as the highest building in New York! I can't picture that. If you placed the Empire State building next to the cliff face they would probably be of similar height. I think someone needs to do the measurements of height again. (Both pictures are the same cliff) [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Heart-shattered ]</p>

01-21-2002, 08:15 PM	#2
Icky Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Bangkok & Hong Kong Posts: 55	Your picture doesn't show the deep valley at the base of the cliff. The 3K height is measured from there.

01-21-2002, 08:20 PM	#3
Heart-shattered Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: USA Posts: 43	1)What do you mean "deep valley?" The valley floor? Well the pictures are taken from the valley floor so... 2)How do you know it is measured from the "deep valley?" What if it's measured from the base of the cliff to the tip at the top? 3)You were still unable to show that the cliff, even from the general view from the pictures, could even be near 3,000 feet.

01-21-2002, 08:29 PM	#4
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	I always mis-judge the height of big rocks too. For instance, mountains dont seem as tall as they are claimed to be. I think there are two reasons for this. #1 is scale. Your typical building has many other buildings around it to give it scale. The same effect makes us think the moon is larger when its on the horizon versus the middle of the sky. its quite striking, but is still the same apparent size in both cases, just our impression changes because when its on the horizon we can see trees and stuff, making it look larger. Another factor is distance. Cliffs and mountains are viewed from a distance, like your photo. Buildings are viewed from directly benieth most of the time. The curve of the earth and perspective conspire to make it look short. You really notice this hiking in the foothills and you decide to hike to the (what appears to be) near by mountains. Thats life with a subjective brain I guess.

01-21-2002, 08:45 PM	#8
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Also, how the hell are you estimating height from that photo? I don't see any point of reference.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.