|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 02, 2016, 12:45
|
||
|
I take your lies about me seriously . That's why I proffered the challenge , which you keep evading , as well as avoiding the issue of the referees etc . IF you really believe that " You have clearly lost this challenge, and your wording has seen to that !!" You are even thicker than I thought . Odd that there is no quote of the "wording " . There is no "top secret method " ,that's all part of your fevered imagination . Here is the challenge yet again , keeping reading it until you understand it then let's see if you can comply , instead of evading it . ""What I will gladly do for you ,is take a bet ,you suggest a site and I will tell you where the sun will rise or set as seen from the site or the alt ,to the same tolerance as is usually expected from astro calc. A referee can hold the £100 and check the test ." You nearly managed a start , at least there was a site mentioned , if not your garden as you had originally said , and it's co-ordinates eventually provided but you made no attempt at including the all important referee . Pity that the author you mention failed to use the the old alt formula correctly at Bryn Celli Ddu , and got it spectacularly wrong .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited Jul 03, 2016, 13:36
Jul 03, 2016, 13:34
|
||
|
As well as all the problems related to the challenge which you keep evading or pretend to misunderstand ,you have also managed to shoot yourself in the foot with your daft attempt at providing an alternative to the challenge i.e. another evasion . The pics , of post medieval walls not a hillfort , proved that . Ironic and very funny that the pic of the book should be by an author who made a major error in calculating alts . Pity you didn’t do the calculation for the alt at the site , you might have discovered your error , but you would have got that wrong too . The altitude , like evidence is critical . It is directly related to distance from the observer .In most cases the distance to the horizon from a monument can be anything from less than a hundred metres and possible a few kilometres .The greater the distance the less an additional metre or so matters to the outcome . In a case where the horizon is close , a small change in the distance to the horizon can have a more marked impact on the calculation of the altitude . The same applies to a situation where the horizon is extreme .In this case we have a situation as extreme as it is possible to get , Unlike most examples in arcahaeoastronomy the horizon is not only very close it is also very high . This means that any change in distance to the horizon can have a significant impact in the resulting alt and declination . This means that to do the calc accurately we must have an accurate co-ordinate for the observing point . And that is the problem , by actually using alt calculations ,as opposed to giving them lip service , it is possible to calculate from the co-ordinates and date you supplied coupled with the pic that there was an error in the data . I am assuming that the date was correct in which case the error must be in the co-ordinates . Simply , the point where you took the pic is a different spot from the co-ordinates you supplied . The point you supplied would not see the sun rise as shown in the pic . This wouldn’t have mattered quite so much in a normal calculation , but as this was an extreme case it does .You attempting to be funny has only left you looking even dafter than usual . In the extremely unlikely event that you do face up to the challenge ,at least ensure you come up with the correct co-ordinates .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Jul 04, 2016, 07:27
Jul 04, 2016, 07:24
|
||
|
On Thursday you said "I will post the correct answer either tomorrow or next week". Was it your plan to entirely ignore what has been said and just post "the answer" today, and at the same time claim you've "won", and then disappear? (I thought I'd ask this morning, just to bugger your plan. You're great on the insults, BTW, but not on delivering. Which are the two qualities the woo-jobbers all share as this thread has shown once again. I wish I had back all the time I've wasted over many years hoping it wasn't true).
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited Jul 04, 2016, 08:05
Jul 04, 2016, 07:51
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: On Thursday you said "I will post the correct answer either tomorrow or next week". Was it your plan to entirely ignore what has been said and just post "the answer" today, and at the same time claim you've "won", and then disappear? (I thought I'd ask this morning, just to bugger your plan. You're great on the insults, BTW, but not on delivering. Which are the two qualities the woo-jobbers all share as this thread has shown once again. I wish I had back all the time I've wasted over many years hoping it wasn't true). Yes it was , but he got it all wrong . Another problem with the woo jobbers is avoiding providing evidence ,(as well as eveading challenges ) for once there was enough to provide enough rope . But it has all been recorded . Despite getting this wrong it was never part of the challenege , just another evasion . So I still await acceptance of the challenge , no breath held as always . The daft thing is that there are countless possibilities that would be easy for referees to confirm or otherwise at ancient sites providing a bit of info and interest as opposed to modern walls that only backfire .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
Jul 05, 2016, 12:02
|
||
|
Remember this All you have to do is supply co-ordinates , it's me who is doing the work .[/quote] You have the co-ordinates, where's the answer? Has your method been beaten by local knowledge George, or have you cocked up. Reread your challenge. That's what I accepted, nothing else.
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
Jul 05, 2016, 12:46
|
||
|
You still don't get all this, do you George. There is only one way to really know a "site", and that's to go there and see what it has to show you. You can't get that from a computer. That's the point I have been making all along. If you try and reduce the experience to some sort of an equation sooner or later you will come up against a brick wall. Take telling! There is more to these places than can be Googled. I have no further interest in this thread, or you.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 05, 2016, 12:48
|
||
|
You have got two things wrong . 1) The challenge was ""What I will gladly do for you ,is take a bet ,you suggest a site and I will tell you where the sun will rise or set as seen from the site or the alt ,to the same tolerance as is usually expected from astro calc. A referee can hold the £100 and check the test ." As has already been pointed out , I do the work and a refereee is required to double check and hold the dosh . What you came up with does not fit either criteria . Worse and where you shot yourself in the foot . 2) What you did come whilst attempting to evade the challenge was wrong . The co-ordinates you provided are not of the point where you took the pics . If you had taken the pics from the co-ordinates you provided you would not have seen the sun rise over the roof as depicted.This can be proved by a basic understanding of the alt from the co-ordinates provided and even looking at the pics . You not only evaded the challenge but by attempting to be clever /sneaky you still got it wrong .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited Jul 05, 2016, 13:49
Jul 05, 2016, 12:53
|
||
|
[quote="cerrig"] I have no further interest in this thread, or you.[/quote Lol . The usual flouncing off of the defeated . You not only avoided the challenge you attempted to be the devious , and even got that wrong . My superficail assesment "If the co-ordinates are correct , then the building blocks any view of the sun rise on May 17 . You would find yourself staring at that wall for a long time . Got to the back of the “ garden “ and you will catch a glimpse of the sun but that is a different set of co-ordinates . " was spot on .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
Jul 06, 2016, 11:26
|
||
|
You spelt superfishal wrong, but it was a good try, which is more than can be said for your answer to the promised co-ordinates. Only whinging and whining on that front, as expected, even though the photos prove there is a sunrise to be observed, just not on your computer. It's quite disappointing when things don't work out how you'd planned, isn't it, George ? Never mind, I will come flouncing back with a much meatier challenge for you. Far better than this childish nonsense. You will love it(not a lot) Arrogance, Conceit and Vanity will do you no good with that one.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jul 06, 2016, 11:53
|
||
|
The whining is all yours . Only laughter here . Yes the pics prove that there is sunrise to be seen just as I had said "If the co-ordinates are correct , then the building blocks any view of the sun rise on May 17 . You would find yourself staring at that wall for a long time . Got to the back of the “ garden “ and you will catch a glimpse of the sun but that is a different set of co-ordinates . " The sun rise is not seen from the co-ordinates you provided . You tried to be clever and sneaky but failed .I have a better idea of what's going on at that wall than you did with visiting it with your book and theodolite , pity you didn't or couldn't use them . It didn't work out as planned for you . You can have that one for free but you still keep evading the challenge . What's next a coal mine ? Such disappointments and errors probably lead you to imagine arrogance etc in others , it's actually pity and laughter .
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 31 32 33 34 35 36 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
