20 Jul '17 19:09>
Originally posted by @sonhouseNo, I am pretty certain that you haven't.
H, I think I figured out which 90 Degree he is talking about, ...
Originally posted by @sonhouseNo, I am pretty certain that you haven't.
H, I think I figured out which 90 Degree he is talking about, ...
Originally posted by @twhiteheadWhat else? Surely he wouldn't mean the 90 degree angle of the sun, where light would be going mainly 90 degrees away from centerline?
No, I am pretty certain that you haven't.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYour confidence of what is on the other side of the fence is based on guesswork, nothing more.
No, why would I do that?
[b]Insist the programmer somehow doctored the results?
Seriously. You need a programmed model to figure this out?
Forget what I am claiming and simply look at a model of it.
I don't need to look at a model of it. You are talking nonsense and everybody but you knows it. (OK, you probably also know you are talking nonsense)[/b]
Originally posted by @freakykbhOr rather it is based on having a brain (something you clearly lack).
Your confidence of what is on the other side of the fence is based on guesswork, nothing more.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadI'm not sure why you wish to complicate it with unnecessary equations, when modeling of the phenomenon paints the picture exactly.
Or rather it is based on having a brain (something you clearly lack).
[b]The modeling of a light source from varying distances either reveals a change in the angle of the light as it hits the object, or it doesn't.
It doesn't.
You "don't need" to see the model in order to know whether or not such a thing happens.
I have seen the model.
Th ...[text shortened]... source were 2m from the object.
What is the formula for this angular relationship to distance?
Originally posted by @freakykbhNo, I am fishing at that fact that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You don't even know what the word 'angle' means. Its hilarious.
I'm not sure why you wish to complicate it with unnecessary equations, when modeling of the phenomenon paints the picture exactly. The inverse-square law (I'm guessing) is what you're fishing at here.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYou first!
No, I am fishing at that fact that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You don't even know what the word 'angle' means. Its hilarious.
[b]Whether it's that or some other formula is unimportant.
Simply model a light source at different distances from an object and the claim is supported by what you see.
So, what did you see in your ...[text shortened]... nces would you get say 89 degrees or 45 degrees?
Please go check your model and get back to me.[/b]
Originally posted by @twhiteheadOut of curiosity, how did Eratosthenes consider the light from the sun?
Just desperate for the last word I see.
Originally posted by @freakykbhSounds reasonable.
Out of curiosity, how did Eratosthenes consider the light from the sun?
"He correctly assumed the Sun’s distance to be very great; its rays therefore are practically parallel when they reach Earth."
-
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes/
Originally posted by @twhiteheadSo you're at a loss.
Sounds reasonable.
Of course not the same as the nonsense you have been spouting.
You do know the meaning of the word 'practically'?
And you clearly don't know the meaning of the word 'angle'.
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhat gave you that ridiculous idea? You do speak English do you not?
So you're at a loss.