Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 290

Thread: Another Amelia Theory of Disappearance

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet16b View Post
    If its true , its usually very easy to prove.
    With the exception of the very obvious; that they simply ran out of fuel, crashed in the open ocean and sank. That is almost certainly what happened and it is unlikely to ever be proven.
    Martin

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    Posts
    138
    Howard Carter ???

    Never said I was, Malcolm. No need to jump up .....easy now, try your armchair again....

    RPM...
    www.earhartsearchpng.com

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Beermat View Post
    Tom and Otis - if you draw out some rays you can see that there is a magnification effect, and what is more you get 'squishing' at the edges to make up. Take the extreme case of a swimming pool - look at it diagonally and you can see the sides don't look as deep as they really are. In a shallow basin the effect is near invisible, but it's there.

    HOWEVER if you trace the rays up through a shallow lagoon and then all the way up to a satellite you will see that they are near enough parallel to the rays you'd get if the lagoon was empty of water - the deflecton through diffraction of any rays converging on the 'eye' is near zero. Best draw it out to see it. Thus the magnification is near zero. It's to do with the relative distances the light has to travel through each medium.
    The key term in the argument is “near zero”. Nearly zero is not zero. The recording camera measure distance using the calibrated angle of arrival. While the angular field of view is fixed, the higher the satellite the greater the field of view is in terms of surface distance.

    Using one of the many friendly trig calculators available on line, we find that a refracted ray from the object being measured that enters the lens at .001º from the normal and lens height being 200 miles is 18.5 feet of surface distance. As the airframe is 39 feet nose to tail, the 18.5’ at nose end and 18.5’ at the tail end is more than required to match the GE measurement of 52’ so the angular increase due to refraction must be somewhat less than .001º. If .0004º is chosen, then about 7’ at each extreme of the object adds the necessary length we see (52').

    There is nothing in the literature that says refraction is null in a circumstance of great height or distance. The satellite is of course not directly overhead when the image was taken. It may be more or less over the center of the island, thousands of feet from the aircraft location but it is not zero dot zero degrees overhead. If it were the airframe location would be the center of the image. This offset-we can't determine exactly how much it is but apparently sufficient to allow the .0004º bending to occur.

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by RPM, FF, TGT... View Post
    Howard Carter ???

    Never said I was, Malcolm. No need to jump up .....easy now, try your armchair again....

    RPM...
    www.earhartsearchpng.com
    I just plain love that expression "armchair" - it implies that people like myself are incapable of anything but theorising. Not exactly true as I've probably done more feet on the ground fieldwork in archaeological work than most if not all the Earhart searchers put together - in fact I like many of my colleagues usually find the things we set to find. But what we don't do is spend time public theorising and debates which only serve to highlight the fact that we haven't actually as yet found anything to explain why we were doing the fieldwork in the first place.

    But it comes back to who are better trained to evaluate evidence or in the case of Earhart pure conjecture and make the hard decision whether it is worth following up or just some idle thought based on an obsession. Your mention of Howard Carter makes my point exactly - he had worked in Egypt for years, had examined the evidence presented by artifacts that had been found with Tutankhamen's cartouche on them and he also had a professional understanding of the archaeology of the royal burial sites knowing which areas had been investigated. He was able to pinpoint the location. So far not one of the Earhart investigators has found a single physical object which can be traced to Earhart provenance nor have they even actually managed to agree on where Earhart's aircraft may be. Carter knew where the tomb he sought would lie and also he had artifacts that proved that theory. At the very least if they did know something they would agree on the approximate location.

    It's all a bit like another quest (about buried aircraft) which has exercised our in interest in the past couple of years - much loud publicity, wonderful claims made in conflict with the material evidence and the expectation that we the observers form teams and barrack for the searcher of our choice. If you or one of the others are successful I will offer them my congratulations, as I will with that other search but please don't attempt to criticise people just because they see obsession and cherry picking of often unrelated or coincidental information as proof that one search is somehow more worthy than another. Science doesn't work that way.
    Last edited by Malcolm McKay; 28th September 2016 at 07:23. Reason: spelling

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    Tom, this is not a maths forum but you have things backwards. I would urge you to look at Snell's law. Draw the rays, working backwards from the GE image size, to see how much smaller the real object is. I think the misapprehension is to do with the misapplication of Snell's law. 1.33 times 0.001 degrees is 0.0013 degrees, yes, but that 0.0003 degrees difference is not the overall difference in the incidences of rays between the magnified and unmagnified case. It is just the difference between the angle of rays in air and the rays in water where the incidence on the air side is 0.001 degrees, and that's all. It is the complete path of the rays through both media that should be considered, and it is a vector made up of both incident angles and distances travelled.

    Use Snell's law to get the deflection. In fact it is impossible to draw to scale because you'd need a very long piece of paper and a very fine pencil to see the difference between the straight line and the deflected line.

    Don't make me put the maths here!

    Back-of-an-envelope calculation can give at most a 1.2cm enlargement with a satellite at 400,000m and water depth of 40m (overestimate)?

    Short version - the magnification through diffraction theory is, as we say in the UK, pants.

    The illustration shows exaggerated angles just to illustrate the principle. It roughly equates to a satellite height of 1,000m if the water depth is 40m. Imagine how much closer the lines would be, and how much smaller the angles, with a height of 400,000m

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Illustration.jpg 
Views:	433 
Size:	27.8 KB 
ID:	248573
    Last edited by Beermat; 28th September 2016 at 11:16.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,490
    I've watching this thread with some interest during my holiday and, to cut to the chase, I don't see anything even remotely aircraft shaped in the Google Earth imagery. Like the TIGHAR discussions and material, the analysis in this thread seems to approach everything from the wrong direction. It seems to me that this thread, and TIGHAR, start from the point of view that they have incontrovertible evidence that they have found the Electra, and that they simply have to work back from this grand proclamation to make the pieces fit; often using a bewildering mix of real science and astonishing mental gymnastics to fill the gaps (or cover over windows with aluminium sheeting... oh snap!). I think as creatures we love answers and simple solutions to complex problems. We also like to imagine things happen for a reason and that there is an underlying meaning or pattern to seemingly random events, or even random clusters of pixels in a raster image. I tend to favour chaos over conspiracy. In this case you are hunting for an aircraft that is smaller than most modern domestic buildings in an area of vast emptiness and open water, by second-guessing the actions of those on board the aircraft or by fortifying the patchiest and least reliable and demonstrable of evidence.

    Good luck! I love a good yarn as much as the next person, but I wonder about the general health of this forum when this thread can roll on for as many pages.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rochester, Kent
    Posts
    111
    I think some clue as to why this thread has gone on so long can be seen in post # 23

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    If I could get a knowledgable aviation expert to do a critical analysis of the Orona image, I might have some evidence. But so far, the experts have avoided doing so.

    I repeat myself: ................................
    Despite the immediate advice from dozens here, Tom still goes on.

    I don't mind him having a pet theory or fantasy, but what is starkly evident ( more evident than his pixels in a lagoon ), is the shaky maths and physics he is manufacturing to support his contrivance. Tom still is unable to provide another example of a similar magnified underwater object and still unable to show proof for his made up optical physics effects. Surprising as he has had since 2008 to prepare his pitch, and has come on this forum asking experts for questions. Contrast this with Beermat who has knocked down Tom's faux physics in a heartbeat with helpful links and diagrams.

    At least Tighar and the NG theory guys have put some actual evidence together (more than just an image of the face of Christ in a slice of toast ) and gone and put boots on the ground. Tom despite his literary flare for making up stories of Japanese pirates ( that no one saw ), a crash and firefight in a lagoon (that nobody saw), and an entire conspiracy theory as to how World War Two started, he is unable to write a convincing e-mail that will allow him permission to visit Orona ?

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    Posts
    138
    Criticism

    Criticism is fair when those that make the critical judgement, actually go out of "their" way to provide an alternative or provide concise papers on why a project solution is implausible or incorrect... Basically proving fiction is not fact, or fact is fiction. Evidence presented is not correct or evidence is a lie.

    Words uttered on the web can have devastating effects outside of a project because of the exponential effect, the broadcast effect, which didn't happen years ago, but now it does happen because now, the effect is instant.

    Fleet 16b

    There is also this Canadian, this "Fleet 16b", who is "so up himself" that he can come up and declare that he washes all evidence overboard and that he "also" has an opinion but has no discussion paper which will solve the mystery.... He appears to not read "pertinent facts" and so cannot know what he is speaking of.... How intelligent is that ?

    "Too good to be true" from Fleet 16b. What does that mean ? Well, faced with a statement like that in regard to the New Britain evidence, I have to shake my head. It implies we are liars. Despite and "for", what we have is the only evidence that we actually do have as to Earharts's and Noonan's demise. What is it about the evidence that Fleet cannot get his two heads around ? Does Fleet 16b have an alternative hypothesis or evidence ? No, he does not , he just wants to monkey around.... He was an "Aircraft Wrangler" for Ted Waitts Movie "Amelia" and Fleet 16b thinks he is famous.... (and his opinion counts). Oh Dear. Take a good look at yourself "Fleet".

    What about Malcolm McKay ?

    Well, Malcolm, you are definitely in an armchair, you are one of Stepwilks armchair people. You can claim what you like , but you come over as a disgruntled old busybody left behind somewhere...... in Melbourne...of all places... Ava Gardner put it very well.
    You are also a person who has a lot to say and very little to say because you are always negative, never positive.
    You spend your time ripping apart theoretical (TIGHAR) and actual participants with evidence (New Britain) [Me !] in this search for Earhart because you plain and simple do not want to believe that anything that you read can be the approach that will solve the mystery. For a start you look for ancient dead things, in aviation we look for people who are recently deceased and which are "some of us" that we want to get back, to return.... You believe that anyone else but one of your ilk cannot do it but you are not prepared to look at all that anyone else can produce, you are not able to listen and to digest what is put in front of you. You cannot believe it possible. In short, there is no official discussion paper or website for your negative view which is what members of your profession normally do...

    I am surprised at you because you know my thoughts and my needs from previous correspondence.. That said, the kinship ends.

    Wow ! I never have wished myself to be as famous or opinionated as these two people think they are.

    Regards to all who read this,

    RPM...
    www.earhartsearchpng.com
    Last edited by RPM, FF, TGT...; 29th September 2016 at 13:53.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Aerodrome of Democracy
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by RPM, FF, TGT... View Post
    Criticism

    Fleet 16b

    There is also this Canadian, this "Fleet 16b", who is "so up himself" that he can come up and declare that he washes all evidence overboard and that he "also" has an opinion but has no discussion paper which will solve the mystery.... He appears to not read "pertinent facts" and so cannot know what he is speaking of.... How intelligent is that ?

    "Too good to be true" from Fleet 16b. What does that mean ? Well, faced with a statement like that in regard to the New Britain evidence, I have to shake my head. It implies we are liars. Despite and "for", what we have is the only evidence that we actually do have as to Earharts's and Noonan's demise. What is it about the evidence that Fleet cannot get his two heads around ? Does Fleet 16b have an alternative hypothesis or evidence ? No, he does not , he just wants to monkey around.... He was an "Aircraft Wrangler" for Ted Waitts Movie "Amelia" and Fleet 16b thinks he is famous.... (and his opinion counts). Oh Dear. Take a good look at yourself "Fleet".



    Iwww.earhartsearchpng.com
    Really ??? LOL...This is your response? .....tsk tsk tsk .......well it cant get more childish than that. Do you have a problem with me being Canadian ?
    It appears that once again we have once again touched a raw nerve in David Billings.
    Sorry not sure what "up on himself : means. As for being famous . I am not and don't think I am so stop the jealousy , there is no need.
    Never have I tried to say I am an expert in this topic due to a role I had in making a movie or otherwise .
    I merely choose to listen to what she said at the time thru authenticated broadcasts,not rumoured later ones or unsubstantiated claims of an alternate plan
    The truth is you have no more pertinent facts than TIGHAR or anyone else as to what happened but your egocentric tunnel vision will not allow you to accept anything but your theories.
    Besides a statement in a book by an author that was child at the time, you have absolutely no evidence of an alternate plan and that is fact.
    Show me documentation of this plan if it exists

    Never once have I criticized you or your theories , just stated my opinions but not conforming with your opinions , you now decide to insult me, judge me and pretend to know what type of person I am all because I dare to question your opinion. I am afraid its YOU that needs to check his ego at the door.
    It's all very amusing but sad at the same time.
    Perhaps you should ask yourself "why is nobody is coming forward with substantial support to fund or assist me ."
    Please try to be an adult (something I notice over the years of these discussions you have found hard to do)
    In reality you and your theories will most likely just disappear into obscurity like all the rest but like I said earlier, I will the first to admit my opinion was wrong if it indeed is .
    Last edited by Fleet16b; 30th September 2016 at 17:38.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by RPM, FF, TGT... View Post
    Criticism is fair when those that make the critical judgement, actually go out of "their" way to provide an alternative or provide concise papers on why a project solution is implausible or incorrect... Basically proving fiction is not fact, or fact is fiction. Evidence presented is not correct or evidence is a lie.
    That is basically the 'burden of proof' logical fallacy in a nutshell. Tom Maxwell asserts that the Electra is in location X; what work can I honestly carry out to disprove this assertion? Why is it my job to do so and provide 'an alternative or provide concise papers' to the contrary to Tom's claims? Surely his job is to prove his assertion?

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by RPM, FF, TGT... View Post
    Criticism

    Criticism is fair when those that make the critical judgement, actually go out of "their" way to provide an alternative or provide concise papers on why a project solution is implausible or incorrect... Basically proving fiction is not fact, or fact is fiction. Evidence presented is not correct or evidence is a lie.
    What about Malcolm McKay ?

    Well, Malcolm, you are definitely in an armchair, you are one of Stepwilks armchair people. You can claim what you like , but you come over as a disgruntled old busybody left behind somewhere...... in Melbourne...of all places... Ava Gardner put it very well.
    You are also a person who has a lot to say and very little to say because you are always negative, never positive.
    You spend your time ripping apart theoretical (TIGHAR) and actual participants with evidence (New Britain) [Me !] in this search for Earhart because you plain and simple do not want to believe that anything that you read can be the approach that will solve the mystery. For a start you look for ancient dead things, in aviation we look for people who are recently deceased and which are "some of us" that we want to get back, to return.... You believe that anyone else but one of your ilk cannot do it but you are not prepared to look at all that anyone else can produce, you are not able to listen and to digest what is put in front of you. You cannot believe it possible. In short, there is no official discussion paper or website for your negative view which is what members of your profession normally do...

    I am surprised at you because you know my thoughts and my needs from previous correspondence.. That said, the kinship ends.

    Wow ! I never have wished myself to be as famous or opinionated as these two people think they are.

    Regards to all who read this,

    RPM...
    www.earhartsearchpng.com
    Well thanks for the complement David - I'm glad to be known as opinionated when I point out that these obsessive quests are never based on real unambiguous evidence that can be seen or held. That's all I and other sceptics like myself ask for. In the matter of Earhart TIGHAR has failed to produce anything that meets the test; you are working from a note scribbled on a map made in an active campaign area. The Saipan/spy theorists conveniently had Earhart killed by the Japanese and the Electra burnt by US troops apparently acting on Presidential orders while the subject of this thread is a pixellated image of coral and weed in the lagoon at Hull Island which was inhabited at the time.

    The common features in all these obsessions is the name Earhart and that after years of theorising and searching there is no demonstrable evidence to prove any of them are correct. Now if anyone of the protagonists comes up with the goods I'll happily congratulate them and say I was wrong. For the moment I will stick with the only answer which fits all the available data and doesn't resort to deus ex machina arguments which is simply that Earhart and Noonan ran out of fuel and splashed and sank somewhere in a radius running north to south east of Howland Island.
    Last edited by Malcolm McKay; 30th September 2016 at 00:00.

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Beermat View Post
    Tom, this is not a maths forum but you have things backwards. I would urge you to look at Snell's law.....
    Yes, you are correct, the Snell's law does not allow significant bending at the zenith. And yes, refraction cannot be used to show that the airframe (or coral rocks depending on your visualization) is magnified. I am working to see how much bending can be achieved if the satellite is over the center of the island. That's about 10,000 feet away from the airframe. That doesn't create a big angle, but maybe enough to add some magnification. The other aspect of magnification is the GE scale of the island in general. The Wkipedia says the island is 8.8 Km but the GE ruler allows 10.55 from the village Ariaki to the far western beach. That could be an added 20% magnified image overall. If the image is in reality a aerial photo taken from 10,000' at the island center that would allow a 45º look down and maximum magnification of 1.33. The possibility of a convex lens (dome of water) above the object exists as ocean swells interact through the numerous channel openings. Anyhow, I am working to explain the magnification. Doesn't really mean much if I could explain the magnification as critics think it's just a pile of rocks. Wow, the skeptics are angry. Is this a discussion forum or a trial for heretics? Chillout friends, it's just a theory.

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    Now, Google getting the scale of an island wrong - that IS possible!

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    10,014
    OK, lets play nicely please.

    Everybody here is entitled to their OPINION, whether it is for or against a theory. We are also entitled to post reasonable doubts in the hope that our concerns may be answered by other than scorn.

    I have no dog in the fight - I don't care if the ladies remains are ever found (sorry), and don't really understand the obsession in locating her.

    There have been some interesting theories posited over the years - not one has been proven; one way or the other. For those that do wish to find the lady, the burden is on you to prove your ideas, but you shouldn't be surprised if others attempt to shoot you down.

    I genuinely wish you well in your endeavours.


    Bruce

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    I was serious, not sarcastic!

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    Anyhow, I am working to explain the magnification.
    Why? Accept that you are probably wrong and move on.

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Meddle View Post
    Why? Accept that you are probably wrong and move on.
    Move on? Does that mean you prefer I leave your forum?

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    10,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Beermat View Post
    I was serious, not sarcastic!
    I wasn't referring to you old chap..

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    Move on? Does that mean you prefer I leave your forum?
    Does your interest in historic aviation begin and end with proving that random pixels in Google Earth imagery and unequivocally a Lockheed Electra?

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    yes Meddle, mostly. I quit flying 45 years ago. For the safety of everyone including myself. I wasn't much of a pilot and have never flown a historic aircraft.

    The 2017 search for AE's plane has ended. Nauticos strikes out again. Millions over the side. TIGHAR tourists strike out no surprise. PNG strikes out or I haven't heard any good news. However, Mili atoll did find a picture that tells a lot. Les Kinney and the history channel are on the wrong track but at least they are in the ball park and it's another clue in the mystery.

    But maybe the 2017 explorations are not totally complete.The Schimdt Oceanographic team is going to be in the Phoenix Islands in the Fall and I wrote to them suggesting the crew of RV Falkor could take a look at the Orona lagoon. They ask for ideas for the expeditions. In this case, they said no thanks. They will be so close but so far away. Others have come close. I may have earlier posted this image of a NEA dive in 2012 near the planes location.

    Snell's law does allow the bending required for magnifying the planes dimensions. Think small angle approximation when (sine ø=ø ).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DiveLocation.png 
Views:	48 
Size:	147.3 KB 
ID:	255167

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,017
    Martin

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote the Beermat argument...

    "Don't make me put the maths here!

    Back-of-an-envelope calculation can give at most a 1.2cm enlargement with a satellite at 400,000m and water depth of 40m (overestimate)?

    Short version - the magnification through diffraction theory is, as we say in the UK, pants."

    I can find nothing in the literature that says the refraction magnification disappears with increasing height. While the height of the satellite above the earth surface are not astronomical, the small angle approximation sine ø= ø that astronomers and surveyors use to measure distant objects can be employed. Where ø1 is angle in water and ø2 is angle in air; sin ø1 (n1)=sin ø2(n2) becomes ø1(1.33)=ø2(1.00). Cameras measure size by the angle at which the light enters the lens. If the refracted light always enters 1.33 greater than normal the magnification remains. There must be something wrong with Beermat's back of the envelope calculations. I'm checking to fined a trig calculator with lots of 0's right of the decimal. I don't know another way to explain it.

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    I entered the following figures into an online trig / right triangle calculator in order to check refraction bending: height =400Km; angle to the normal in water 0.0015 (lookup 89.9985. Refraction bends this light to .002 (reference the normal) in air in accordance with Snell’s law. The base of the right triangle(s) using .0015 is 10.46 meters and using .0020 the base is 13.97. The difference 3.5 meters is the added magnification due to the refraction. So Beermat’s back of the envelope math is wrong. For me this measurement(s) by Google Earth is a good clue that this object is indeed the Electra. Once again the image of the Electra in the Orona lagoon.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Amelia'splanenosetotail.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	32.0 KB 
ID:	255964

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,347
    Thank heavens that's settled then. We can send someone to collect it and then get on with the serious business of digging up boxed fighters.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On your six
    Posts
    1,948
    I must admit when I squint I can kind of see Taurus, or orion, or even an escort or fiesta.......
    Why be your own worse critic, that's what the forum is for.

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    2,456
    Seriously, answering a post from 10 months ago and kicking off the same old pixellated rubbish again..?

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    Ah, wait, I can see Taurus as well. Or is it just plain bull?

    I shouldn't rise to it, but here goes..

    Tom, put down the scientific calculator and imagine if you will a dead rat at the bottom of a swimming pool. Standing on the edge of the pool it's a dead rat that looks a bit closer to you than it really is, say a foot, because of refraction. Now, if you looked down on the pool from a tenth floor window, it wouldn't suddenly look the size of a cow. It will still look like a dead rat. If viewing from the same angle it would still look a foot closer to you than it really is.

    Think about where your triangles should be.

    The refractive index refers to deflection within the medium - that's where the angular difference is, and where any magnification occurs - not along the entire distance between object and eye. The deflection happens at the water surface, and all it does is alter the angle of a ray's path by that factor. If the eye is looking vertically downwards from a great height, we are agreed that the angle from the surface of the water to the eye of any ray travelling from the edge of the object is tiny. Now apply the deflection to it - but only between the water surface and the object. Work in reverse so that the ray now touches the edge of the object, while keeping the ratio of angles constant. Now you will have drawn the actual path of photons (probably ) between the edge of the object and your eye.

    As a final step continue the line drawn in the air on without deflection down through the water. Where that ray intersects the sea bed is where you'll 'see' the edge of the object, and that will define the object's apparent size.

    It seems you are applying that angular deflection at the eye, not at the interface between media (sea surface) and your triangle base is therefore much larger than it should be?
    Last edited by Beermat; 26th September 2017 at 18:19.
    www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
    It's all good. Probably.

  28. #268
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,338
    erm.... seeing as Google has a feature that allows you to view images of the same exact spot going back decades, can we assume that the exact same pixels are in the exact same spot?

    no, probably not... case dismissed...
    If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: It's all balls. RJM.

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    What do you mean by "while keeping the ratio of angles constant"? I have checked with university physics/optics department and they agree with me that magnification by refraction does not change with height. We can resolve this by your checking with a university physics department. If you can't do that then can you show me the math?

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    Draw it on a piece of paper, no need for maths, not even one math. As your physic / physics department say, magnification does not change with height. Hence the dead rat example. Now, with that established..

    The ratio of angles is a number related to the refractive index. If you change the angle of the light approaching the interface, in this case the water/air boundary, you change the angle at which it leaves. Dividing the sines of one into the other will always give the same result for the same media. That is how you draw the 'bend' of the rays traced from object to eye, and it is at the heart of how refraction works.

    Yours is a very shallow angle of incidence indeed when looking vertically down from space - a triangle with a twenty foot base with an adjacent side the height of a satelite.

    Apply Snell's law to that.

    You will see that to make the traced rays travel from object to eye while obeying the rules you will have to minutely adjust the 'projected' size on the surface. That is your magnification right there. It is TINY.

    I am not going to contact a university (even my own university physics tutor) asking them to confirm a simple principle that is learned here pre-university to some bloke on a forum!

    Ask the Physics/optics people to draw you a diagram. You will understand better when you see it. Currently I believe you are drawing a simple cone from eye to object, widening it using the refractive index of water. This will give you results that increase the apparent size of the object with height, and shows an incomplete understanding of refracrion.

    Even better, simply ask your own academic contacts whether you have it right about the apparent size of the Electra. I am signing off here.
    Last edited by Beermat; 28th September 2017 at 11:22.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES