Recent Posts
Nice idea using Bislin's tool to model the difference between FE and GE calculations. Could add a 2nd distant target to visualize how the hill (Mt Helix) appears in the background relative to the hotel, and see how it compares.
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.There is nothing wrong with your method. But it does assume a flat earth.
If the earth isn’t flat (spoiler: it isn’t) then you will get a very different result. I don’t even know if it’s possible to calculate the distance to the sun with your method on a globe earth.
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.There is nothing wrong with your method. But it does assume a flat earth.
If this experiment is so GLOBAL already, why not take sun's altitude (the vertical angle between horizon and sun) also from "timeanddate", instead of measuring this angle from the height of a pole and the length of it's shadow.
Advantage: You only need your PC and Internet connection, to "repeat" this experiment for any place and any time on earth.
Date: 9/21/2018
Time: 1200 PDT (1900 UTC)
Location: 32°43'26.9"N 117°14'36.5"W
Y - Object Height: 67.5"
X - Shadow Length: 45.75"
Ratio Y:X = 1.4754:1
Sun location at 2000 UTC: 0° 30'N, 106° 45'W
X' - Ground Distance: 2329 miles
Y' - Height of Sun: 3436 miles ?
Alternate calculation
arctan (67.5/45.75) = 55.87°
(2329 miles)*tan(55.87°) = 3436 miles ?
I have never said the method you posted isn't a way to measure the height. My statement as been there are other methods for doing so. But since you suggested it, I've sent an email to a surveying company to inquire as to what methods are currently being used for measuring heights and similar.The angle of elevation of the sun is not required, that is correct. But you can use it to find the altitude of the sun in the exact same manner as you have described.No, you cannot.
Surveyors have been using the method I describe for thousands of years and there is nothing required about the angles of the top of the object(s) being measured.
You have no clue about what you are writing.
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.
Not even sure where to begin with this. Are you claiming that with triangle ABC, you can't figure out the height of side a by knowing angles A and C, and the length side b?With the 90 degree angle from sun to Earth, and the distance to this point know, the angle of the sun up from the horizon will allow one to find the distance to the sun. Do you dispute this? If not I'd be more than happy to run some numbers, but I'm not going to waste my time if we can't agree on the base principles at work, and I have my doubts at present when you claim your experiment and the one done by Eratosthenes have 'nothing to do' with one another.Yes, I do.
Surveyors do not use this method to determine the height of objects.
One does not need to know the angle of the hypotenuse.
One need only know the baseline distance from the object being observed to the vertex and the distance of the interceding pole to vertex.
This establishes a precise ratio of right triangles formed without any conjecture.
