Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scombrid · 01-23-2002, 09:12 AM

Actually if you consider vertical rise above the base. Kilamanjaro is much taller than Everest.

Re the originia comparison photos of El Capitan and the Empire State Building. What lenses were the respective photos taken with?

Coragyps · 01-23-2002, 09:30 AM

<a href="http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=11&n=4179392&e=267643&s=25&size=m" target="_blank">Here's a map.</a> 7569-3953= 3616. The government would never lie to us.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]

Undercurrent · 01-23-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christopher Lord:

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.

Not to rain on your parade, but this is covered on <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/moonbig.html" target="_blank">Bad Astronomy</a> as a specific myth.

The best reason for the moon illusion that I've heard is that we don't really precieve the sky as a hollowed out sphere, but rather as a flattened ellipsoid, i.e. we don't precieve that the sky above us is as "high" as the sky at the horizon is "far away". Therefore, even though the moon subtends the same solid angle (actually a little bit less) at the horizon that it does in the middle of the sky, the brain prceieves that part of the sky as being father away, therefore the same solid angle is precieved as "bigger".

m.

P.S. As someone who's climbed a mountain or two, I can definitely say that the mountain is always higher than you think it is from the bottom.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Michael ]

Mageth · 01-23-2002, 10:39 AM

Michael's right. You see the same "big" moon on the horizon at sea or on a plain, where there's no trees etc. for reference. (BTW, this applies to the sun as well).

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Secular Elation · 01-23-2002, 12:02 PM

Monkeybot-

The problem with comparing the two mountains is that they are massive land shapes. However, El Capitan and the Empire State building are tall physical entities with a distinct cliff. When we compare them, it looks to me like they would be the same height, even though nature books lie

about El Capitan being 3,500 feet tall.

Secular Elation · 01-23-2002, 12:04 PM

The government would never lie to us.

BULLS***!

Kachana · 01-23-2002, 02:27 PM

You guys are all tripping, there's no WAY El Capitan is 3,500 feet, it's way higher; just look how small the trees look in the picture above, and they're BIG trees. Plus, if you look carefully you can make out Jesus' face in the rock face, would something with Jesus' face on it only be 3,500 feet high?

Prince Ashitaka · 01-23-2002, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
Those "trees" look like bushes.

They are so obviously trees, and BIG ones at that. Are you pulling our leg on this thread, or what?

- Prince Ashitaka -

Mageth · 01-23-2002, 03:12 PM

Kachana:

That's not Jesus, it's John Muir:

Christopher Lord · 01-23-2002, 04:20 PM

LMAO

Anything with Jesus must be amazingly huge in size and scope.

Just look at the internet!

01-23-2002, 09:30 AM	#42
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	<a href="http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=11&n=4179392&e=267643&s=25&size=m" target="_blank">Here's a map.</a> 7569-3953= 3616. The government would never lie to us. [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>

01-23-2002, 10:39 AM	#44
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Michael's right. You see the same "big" moon on the horizon at sea or on a plain, where there's no trees etc. for reference. (BTW, this applies to the sun as well). [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

01-23-2002, 04:20 PM	#50
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	LMAO Anything with Jesus <b>must</B> be amazingly huge in size and scope. Just look at the internet!

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

01-23-2002, 09:12 AM	#41
scombrid Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,759	Actually if you consider vertical rise above the base. Kilamanjaro is much taller than Everest. Re the originia comparison photos of El Capitan and the Empire State Building. What lenses were the respective photos taken with?

01-23-2002, 12:02 PM	#45
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Monkeybot- The problem with comparing the two mountains is that they are massive land shapes. However, El Capitan and the Empire State building are tall physical entities with a distinct cliff. When we compare them, it looks to me like they would be the same height, even though nature books lie about El Capitan being 3,500 feet tall.

01-23-2002, 12:04 PM	#46
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	The government would never lie to us. BULLS***!

01-23-2002, 02:27 PM	#47
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	You guys are all tripping, there's no WAY El Capitan is 3,500 feet, it's way higher; just look how small the trees look in the picture above, and they're BIG trees. Plus, if you look carefully you can make out Jesus' face in the rock face, would something with Jesus' face on it only be 3,500 feet high?

01-23-2002, 03:12 PM	#49
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Kachana: That's not Jesus, it's John Muir:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.