PDA

View Full Version : The Summit



ElaineB
01-08-2007, 04:18 PM
Does anyone have a photograph from the summit of Mt. Washington showing the Twin Towers? I know it could be seen as I've been there (I grew up in Conway) and seen it but no one at work believes me. Thank you!!

Bill O
01-08-2007, 04:23 PM
As in the World Trade Center Twin Towers?

SDB777
01-09-2007, 04:57 AM
That would have been a long way off to see the city. Never mind being able to pick out the towers.
Concord, NH to New York, NY - 251 miles/404 kilometers

Is this Twin Towers a rock formation?



Scott (light-bending, wormhole-opened) B

Yankee
01-14-2007, 09:08 AM
Does anyone have a photograph from the summit of Mt. Washington showing the Twin Towers? I know it could be seen as I've been there (I grew up in Conway) and seen it but no one at work believes me. Thank you!!

The curvature of the Earth would prohibit you from seeing that far. Even on the clearest of days, the distance to the horizon from the summit is approximately 100 miles.

Google "earth curvature nomograph" and it will show you how far apart 2 objects can be and still be visible to each other. The World Trade Center Towers and Mount Washington would have to be no further than 150 miles (approx.) apart in order to be in "line of sight" with each other. Since Mt Washington is about 275 miles from NYC, there is no possible way for you could have seen see the Towers from the summit. :)

John_Calif
03-12-2007, 02:25 PM
Let's not dismiss Elaine's question too quickly! I too have heard that until the WTC towers were destroyed the 'longest line-of-sight' in the USA was from the top of Mt Washington to the top of the World Trade Centers in NYC.

The notion of 150 miles being the maximum line-of-sight distance due to the curvature of the earth is true for two UNELEVATED points. Mt Washington and the WTC were two elevated points and, most importantly, there was nothing in between them to block the view.

It would be great to have a definitive answer to this question- and to see a photograph of the WTC from the top of Mt Washington if it does in fact exists.

KD Talbot
03-12-2007, 03:46 PM
I'm thinking it is possible that they saw the John Hancock and Prudential buildings on the Boston skyline. About 150 miles +/-10. Not sure if it's possible, though, but it seems more likely to me.
KDT

Bill O
03-12-2007, 04:32 PM
Let's not dismiss Elaine's question too quickly! I too have heard that until the WTC towers were destroyed the 'longest line-of-sight' in the USA was from the top of Mt Washington to the top of the World Trade Centers in NYC.

The notion of 150 miles being the maximum line-of-sight distance due to the curvature of the earth is true for two UNELEVATED points. Mt Washington and the WTC were two elevated points and, most importantly, there was nothing in between them to block the view.

It would be great to have a definitive answer to this question- and to see a photograph of the WTC from the top of Mt Washington if it does in fact exists.

Its 270 miles from Mount Washington to NYC. Its not possible to look through 270 miles of the densest part of the atmosphere. I've heard that back in the 1800's people in Utah could see up to 300 miles through the atmosphere. I've heard...and its not the 1800's anymore.

The maximum line of site is about 7 miles for two un-elevated points. 150 miles already takes into account elevation. At 270 miles you'd have to be much higher. I'll also refer you to the problem I listed above.

Lastly, Between Mount Washington and NYC are hundreds of mountain peaks.

Boston is way over the horizon from Mount Washington, you can't see anything there.

One last point. The person who asked this question has had no interaction in the board in months. We have no idea if this was a joke.

I'm gonna put the nail in the coffin here. You cannot see New York buildings from Mount Washington.

John_Calif
03-12-2007, 07:32 PM
Ok, there are two concepts here and I have mixed them together due to the nature of the original posting. Sorry. Let me now be clearer:

What I actually heard was not that a person could actually SEE the World Trade Center from Mt Washington but rather that there was no obstacle (including the earth itself) along the 'straight line' from the top of Mt Washington to the top of the World Trade Center. And that this was the longest such 'straight line' in the whole US before the WTC came down.

Originally, the easiest way to express this concept was to say that:
1) If the atmosphere was not an issue and
2) The power of your telescope was sufficient
you could then see the top of the World Trade Center from the top of Mt Washington. This somehow got confused with accounts of people actually seeing it.

Any experts wish to now ring in on whether this 'topographical supposition' is true?

Bill O
03-12-2007, 07:51 PM
I found a horizon calculator here. (http://www.boatsafe.com/tools/horizon.htm)

In this case I made the eye height 7,658' (6,288' Mount Washington plus 1,368' WTC). The magic number is 118 miles.

John_Calif
03-13-2007, 12:43 AM
Thanks for the analysis. I concede that whatever I heard was wrong. Too bad, it was a great piece of trivia! The facts get in the way of some really cool tidbits. Now I'm going to set out to find the actual answer to the longest theoretical line of site in the USA. (Google hasn't helped on this one.)

I do, however, DISAGREE with your figure of 118 miles. I don't think you can add the two heights together and calculate the maximum horizon as if it were for one structure or peak. I believe you have to do the calculation for each elevation separately and then add the two figures for the answer.

Using the calulator you generously provided, the maximum horizon for Mt Washington is 106.7 miles and the maximum horizon for the WTC is 49.7 miles. These add to a maximum allowable distance of about 157 miles between the two in order for there to be any possible 'unimpeded straight line' between them. I know I'm just spinning the wheel here, but if Boston is 150 miles away and the John Hancock building is really tall then maybe...:D

Bill O
03-13-2007, 07:29 AM
Using the calulator you generously provided, the maximum horizon for Mt Washington is 106.7 miles and the maximum horizon for the WTC is 49.7 miles. These add to a maximum allowable distance of about 157 miles between the two in order for there to be any possible 'unimpeded straight line' between them. I know I'm just spinning the wheel here, but if Boston is 150 miles away and the John Hancock building is really tall then maybe...:D

That makes sense. You're still short though.

To find your answer look west. Start playing around with the 14'ers in Colorado or California or try Alaska.

Bill O
03-13-2007, 09:20 AM
How about Denali in Alaska to Mount Logan in Canada? 386 miles apart, with a theoretical maximum sight distance of 380 miles. Just 6 miles short.

hobbes
03-13-2007, 01:07 PM
Following site may be of interest: http://www.heywhatsthat.com/.

They also have an FAQ that discusses distance to horizon, including refraction, at http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

mk10
03-13-2007, 09:47 PM
I do, however, DISAGREE with your figure of 118 miles. I don't think you can add the two heights together and calculate the maximum horizon as if it were for one structure or peak. I believe you have to do the calculation for each elevation separately and then add the two figures for the answer.

Using the calculator you generously provided, the maximum horizon for Mt Washington is 106.7 miles and the maximum horizon for the WTC is 49.7 miles. These add to a maximum allowable distance of about 156.4 miles between the two in order for there to be any possible 'unimpeded straight line' between them. I know I'm just spinning the wheel here, but if Boston is 150 miles away and the John Hancock building is really tall then maybe...:D

Calculating maximum distance by this method is theoretically correct...but in practice is virtually impossible. Although two objects on top of their respective apexes may have a clear line of sight to each other, it cannot be assumed that those two objects would necessarily be able to "see" one another. If we are talking radio waves with microwave antennas, then yes. But a person on the summit of Mt.Washington being able to see only the topmost floor of the WTC (whilst the lower 109 stories are obstructed from view by the horizon) at a distance of 156.4 miles??? I hardly think so; the human eye definitely doesn't have the optical resolution necessary to resolve at that level of detail. Since 110 stories are much easier to resolve than just 1 floor, we can ignore the 49.7 figure and simply use 106.7 miles as a much more realistic distance.

Obviously, other factors such as atmospheric refraction will influence the final results, but that discussion is for another post...

Mark

Steve M
03-13-2007, 10:32 PM
Calculating maximum distance by this method is theoretically correct...but in practice is virtually impossible. Although two objects on top of their respective apexes may have a clear line of sight to each other, it cannot be assumed that those two objects would necessarily be able to "see" one another. If we are talking radio waves with microwave antennas, then yes. But a person on the summit of Mt.Washington being able to see only the topmost floor of the WTC (whilst the lower 109 stories are obstructed from view by the horizon) at a distance of 156.4 miles??? I hardly think so; the human eye definitely doesn't have the optical resolution necessary to resolve at that level of detail. Since 110 stories are much easier to resolve than just 1 floor, we can ignore the 49.7 figure and simply use 106.7 miles as a much more realistic distance.

Obviously, other factors such as atmospheric refraction will influence the final results, but that discussion is for another post...

Mark

You are riight also, the naked eye would never be able to see it but with the right magnification and perfect weather conditions I think it could be seen!!:D

John_Calif
03-13-2007, 11:59 PM
Mark & Mark: Please read the earlier posts. The question being discussed no longer has anything to do with 'vision'. This discussion began with the query of the WTC being 'visible' from Mt Washington. But that impossibility was discarded and the discussion then morphed into only talking about the 'theoretical line of sight' between these two places. i.e. Is it true that there was no obstacle, including the earth itself, in between the WTC and the top of Mt Washington? (The answer to that question is 'no' because of the curvature of the earth.)

Now the question is: What is the longest distance between any two places (structures, peaks, etc...) in the US that have nothing but empty space along the straight line connecting them? And what are those two places?
Hobbes, thanks for the links- some cool info there. Bizarre that those explorers reported seeing peaks ~450 miles away from Kazakhstan.

The answer to our question must lie out West. Bill, I agree, Denali is a good candidate.

WEMT
03-15-2007, 09:37 PM
Its 270 miles from Mount Washington to NYC. Its not possible to look through 270 miles of the densest part of the atmosphere. I've heard that back in the 1800's people in Utah could see up to 300 miles through the atmosphere. I've heard...and its not the 1800's anymore.

The maximum line of site is about 7 miles for two un-elevated points. 150 miles already takes into account elevation. At 270 miles you'd have to be much higher. I'll also refer you to the problem I listed above.

Lastly, Between Mount Washington and NYC are hundreds of mountain peaks.

Boston is way over the horizon from Mount Washington, you can't see anything there.

One last point. The person who asked this question has had no interaction in the board in months. We have no idea if this was a joke.

I'm gonna put the nail in the coffin here. You cannot see New York buildings from Mount Washington.

just wandered by, I will compute the horizon distance one of these days, but I'm quite sure that the distance for two unelevated points is 0.

At elevation = 0, you can only look along a tangent line (well, tangent plane on a sphere) and thus can see no other point on the surface

Bill O
03-15-2007, 10:30 PM
just wandered by, I will compute the horizon distance one of these days, but I'm quite sure that the distance for two unelevated points is 0.

At elevation = 0, you can only look along a tangent line (well, tangent plane on a sphere) and thus can see no other point on the surface

That's absolutely true. I was thinking un-elevated as in 6 feet, in which case I was still wrong. I think its only 3 miles at 6 feet.

This doesn't take into account atmospheric distortions that allow you to see farther than normal.

HikerBob
03-15-2007, 11:35 PM
Just out of curiosity I used Topo! to generate a rough point to point plot from Mt Washington to the the WTC site and ran an elevation profile of the plot. I then drew a line from the Summit to a point guestimated at around 1,300ft. If the world were flat...

5MB jpeg map (http://www.bobspics.com/other/nh2nyc/index.html)

Now, what happened to my math skills... :)

Bob

Patrad Fischroy
03-16-2007, 08:42 AM
Here is my stab at this.
Assume a spherical earth, therefore a circular cross-section through the center of the earth.
The distance between the points represents an arc of the circular cross-section. The chord, a straight line between two points on a circle, represents the geometric line-of sight, (disregards atmospheric refraction).
The arc distance divided by the circumference times 360 gives you the angle represented by the arc. Each leg of this arc is the radius of the earth. Take 1/2 the arc angle. the cosine of 1/2 arc angle times the radius gives the distance from the center of the earth to the chord line. The difference between this distance and the radius gives the height of the visual interference due to the earths curvature at its maximum.
Take the average elevation of the two endpoints, if this is greater that the maximum visual interference then the two points could be seen. This assumes no topography in between. To calculate that I would have to return to the drawing board.
This is reflecting on my geometry from 1972, so I am not guaranteeing anything. Just a good mental exercise.

John_Calif
03-16-2007, 11:50 PM
HikerBob- many thanks for the (huge) topo map.

Maybe the story about the WTC and Mt Washington was that if the earth were flat there would be no obstacle along the line connecting them. I'm not sure if that's a cool tidbit or not. It sounds cool. And it looks cool on the topo map. But this kind of situation would exist with many other sites I imagine. Taking away the curvature of the earth greatly compromises the geometry of the situation - kind of like saying I could lift a Hummer if gravity were way less...

Patrad, I'm afraid your geometrical prowess way exceeds mine. But it sounds like you had fun pondering this question. :)

Yankee
03-17-2007, 06:36 AM
http://www.tscm.com/rdr-hori.pdf (Earth Curvature Nomogram)

mk10
03-18-2007, 04:38 AM
Using the following formula for drop in Earth's surface as a function of distance due to the curvature of Earth:
drop = [1/cos(distance*360/circumference) - 1] * radius

where:
earth's mean radius = 3958.26 miles
equatorial circumference = 24901.55 miles
distance of Mt.Washington to WTC = 282.13 miles

We find that over a distance of 282.13 miles, the surface drops out approximately 10.0507 miles.

So the WTC would need to be on top of a mountain nearly 9 miles high for an unimpeded "line-of-sight".

John_Calif
03-18-2007, 05:08 PM
mk10: Though the issue was settled much earlier in this thread it is still interesting to see your calculations.

In the end, this whole thread distills down to the mildly interesting fact that, were it not for the curvature of the earth, there would have been an unimpeded line between the top of the WTC and the top of Mt Washington. A reflection of how topographically muted Southern NH/Mass/Ct is.

mk10
03-18-2007, 11:56 PM
mk10: Though the issue was settled much earlier in this thread it is still interesting to see your calculations.
I was merely showing how to calculate the drop in the earth surface due to curvature and simply used figures which seemed to be within the context of this thread. We all know that the original issue has been settled.


In the end, this whole thread distills down to the mildly interesting fact that, were it not for the curvature of the earth, there would have been an unimpeded line between the top of the WTC and the top of Mt Washington. A reflection of how topographically muted Southern NH/Mass/Ct is.
Yes, this thread evolved from a discussion of line of sight between Mt.Wash/WTC and applied theory to a discussion purely hypothetical in nature--and although interesting in its own right, a hypothetical finding is absolutely meaningless in any practical sense.

But to all of us who enjoy meaningless hypotheticals...

Ignoring the earth's curvature, oblate spheroid properties, optical refraction, MTF, plus various other physical laws, the longest distance between any two points would probably be: a clear sight line from Ellef Ringnes Island in Canada, through the Bering Strait, all the way down the Pacific south to Antarctica, ending at the top of Vinson Massif--a distance of 10,866.08 miles. And yes, boring a hole and looking at these points through the center of the "real" earth is shorter (7,903.03 miles) than the distance in this "flat" fantasy world.

Mark

Arthur Dent
03-19-2007, 02:15 PM
As much as I love to figure out problems like this to 3 decimal places, there is a simple way to get a reality check on the answer to this problem that uses only simple math.

Think of the radius of the earth (~3960miles) as the base (B) of a right triangle with the right angle formed where the radius hits the circumference. The hypotenuse (C) will be another line radiating from the center equal in length to the radius (3960 miles) plus the height of Mt. Washington (6288/5280=1.1909 miles). The third leg (A) is formed by the tangent and goes between the end points of ‘B’ and ‘C’, with the right angle at the end of ‘B’. Using the formula for right triangles, A squared +B squared=C squared, plug in 3960 for B, 3961.1909 for C and solve for A. Doing it quickly I get ~97 miles which is the distance you could see from the summit of Mount Washington to the horizon.

Repeat this procedure using 3960.259 for C which is the radius +WTC and calculate this new line to the horizon to be ~45 miles. Adding the two parts together gives ~142 miles which is a fair estimate of the maximum distance Mount Washington and the WTC could be separated to have theoretical line-of-sight between them. Stephen Hawking might want to include the bending of light as it passes close to a large mass and optical engineers might want to include refraction of light similar to what creates a mirage, but this is a simple answer.

These figures are close to the calculations presented by Yankee and John_Calif so I assume this is a good simple way to get an estimate.

mk10
03-19-2007, 05:51 PM
Think of the radius of the earth (~3960miles) as the base (B) of a right triangle with the right angle formed where the radius hits the circumference. The hypotenuse (C) will be another line radiating from the center equal in length to the radius (3960 miles) plus the height of Mt. Washington (6288/5280=1.1909 miles). The third leg (A) is formed by the tangent and goes between the end points of ‘B’ and ‘C’, with the right angle at the end of ‘B’. Using the formula for right triangles, A squared +B squared=C squared, plug in 3960 for B, 3961.1909 for C and solve for A. Doing it quickly I get ~97 miles which is the distance you could see from the summit of Mount Washington to the horizon.
Not quite correct, the tangent (A) isn't exactly the same as the distance (D) along the surface (see attached diagram). But if the angle between B and C relative to the lengths of those lines is small (as is the case in our example) then the error introduced is insignificant. So, although not entirely accurate, this method is close enough for our purposes. Now, seeing that we've done all these rudimentary calculations and we have a better idea of what is realistic and what is not...

I was on top of Mt Algonquin last week and tried to locate Mt Washington (133.55 miles at a bearing of 85°) and although the skies were fairly clear, an optimal view was still not to be had (photo attached with arrow drawn where MW would have been). So what is the furthest peak anyone has been able to see (aided or unaided) from atop the Rockpile?

Bill O
03-19-2007, 05:54 PM
Whoever thought there'd be so many different answers when adding 2+2.

Arthur Dent
03-19-2007, 07:55 PM
mk 10-"Not quite correct, the tangent (A) isn't exactly the same as the distance (D) along the surface (see attached diagram). But if the angle between B and C relative to the lengths of those lines is small (as is the case in our example) then the error introduced is insignificant."Ah, you are re-wording what I actually said. First I said "this is a good simple way to get an estimate" and I did specify that the answer would be an approximation of the line of sight, I never mentioned surface distance 'D' because that isn't where my line-of-sight travels. The scale in your drawing, although done for illustrative purposes, is quite distorted because the ratio of the radius to the summit elevation is about 4000:1.

If we were to be truly technical about this we would actually have to traverse the route along the surface. What we would find is that the surface isn't flat and so the true distance would not be the arc but some distance greater because of all the ups and downs. My point was simply, that the estimate could be done simply, without making this needlessly complex, and I tried to stress this point in my post.

As to what can be seen from the summit, I can tell you this past weekend it was nothing. On a clear day(or night) the land marks used might be Percy Peaks-35 miles N, Portland Light-65 miles E, and if I recall, Whiteface W, is about 135 miles.

Bill O
03-19-2007, 09:11 PM
Mount Marcy is 130 miles away and under normal conditions it cannot be seen from Mount Washington. Not because the air isn't clear enough, but because it lies below the horizon behind the Green Mountains.

Under the right conditions Mount Marcy can loom above the horizon due to temperature inversions and atmospheric distortions. And with a set of binoculars it can be seen from Mount Washington.

If it wasn't for the atmosphere the sun would rise approximately 7 minutes later than we see it rise. It would also set 7 minutes earlier.

HikerBob
03-19-2007, 10:25 PM
So what is the furthest ... anyone has been able to see (aided or unaided) from atop the Rockpile?

Ohhhh - about 93 million miles (http://www.bobspics.com/hike06/06-11-11/page17.html) :rolleyes: (Further at night)

More down to Earth - as an example of distant viewing of city scapes I have seen Boston downtown from Wachusett (http://www.bobspics.com/HIKE03/03-11-09/page14.html) at about 45 miles distant. It was a fairly clear November day and the taller buildings could be discerned with the naked eye.

Other than the curvature issue the biggest handicap to distant views is moisture in the atmosphere. Clear, cold winter days are best.

This thread has wandered some, but still very interesting.

Bob

mk10
03-20-2007, 01:35 AM
Ah, you are re-wording what I actually said. First I said "this is a good simple way to get an estimate" and I did specify that the answer would be an approximation of the line of sight, I never mentioned surface distance 'D' because that isn't where my line-of-sight travels. The scale in your drawing, although done for illustrative purposes, is quite distorted because the ratio of the radius to the summit elevation is about 4000:1.

If we were to be truly technical about this we would actually have to traverse the route along the surface. What we would find is that the surface isn't flat and so the true distance would not be the arc but some distance greater because of all the ups and downs. My point was simply, that the estimate could be done simply, without making this needlessly complex, and I tried to stress this point in my post.
When talking about straight line distance between two geographical points we typically use great circle distances. The distance between MW and WTC that we've been using is not the up and down distance traversed over the mountains (and through the woods, to grandma's house we go :) ), but the great circle distance. Your method merely left out a simple conversion from line of sight to surface distance, that's all. I should also point out that Patrad Fischroy's technique from several posts ago left out this conversion as well, where:

Take the average elevation of the two endpoints, if this is greater than the maximum visual interference then the two points could be seen.
should have read:
Take the average elevation of the two endpoints and multiply this figure by the cosine of 1/2 arc angle, if this is greater than the maximum visual interference then the two points could be seen.

Unless we are talking about extremely tall structures separated by great distances and we need pinpoint accuracy, it doesn't really matter. I'm just being a little bit anal-retentive here, just ignore me.

Art and Patrad, you both still get an A+ on your papers.

Arthur Dent
03-20-2007, 06:56 AM
mk10-"I'm just being a little bit anal-retentive here, just ignore me."Anal-retentive I understand and that's why I posted my reply!:D

A friend of mine had a tee shirt that said: "Is anal-retentive hyphenated?";)

John_Calif
03-20-2007, 03:30 PM
Yes, this thread evolved from a discussion of line of sight between Mt.Wash/WTC and applied theory to a discussion purely hypothetical in nature--and although interesting in its own right, a hypothetical finding is absolutely meaningless in any practical sense.
Mark

Interesting to see your interpretion of the topic of conversation in this thread. The original question was actually about seeing a photograph of the WTC taken from the top of Mt Washington. It was raising a question about a 'myth'. What I've tried to do in resurrecting this thread is to explore this 'myth'- and only part of that exploration involves geometry and actual visual observation. And I've done my best to participate in that part of the discussion.

An equally interesting topic is how this story came about. Was it nothing more than a simple hoax? Or was it a hypothetical illustration (e.g. ignoring the curvature of the earth) designed to shed light on the relative prominence of the Mountain in relation to its surroundings? (Something that was then twisted into the claim of an actual photograph of the WTC.) Perhaps the purpose of the original illustration was to point out something that is fascinating about Mt Washington but which is not readily apparent and has nothing to do with 'sense based' observation?

So when you say 'a hypothetical finding is absolutely meaningless in any practical sense' what kind of 'practicality' are you referring to? What are you trying to get 'accomplished'? Appreciating the topography of Mt Washington in relation to its surroundings by utilizing a hypothetical illustration is very 'practical'. It suites the purpose quite well!

There's nothing wrong with the intense geometry and field observations you guys are employing but just be clear that you're limiting the discussion to geometry and sight. You're missing, well... the bigger picture! Confucious say: Not all that can be seen is perceived by the eyes...

I mean, if I told you that it would take 500 billion basketballs to fill the Grand Canyon would you point out that no factory could possibly manufacture that many basketballs and that not enough trucks exists to possibly tranport them to the rim and that my notion was utterly impractical??? :p

Seems like we take different approaches to things. The 'Myers-Briggs Personality System' would say that you are a 'SENSOR', which is someone who relies upon data collected via the 5 senses to understand the world. And I am an 'INTUITOR', which is someone who values patterns, possibilities, interdependencies and abstraction to understand the world. Both methods are effective depending upon what a person is seeking to investigate, or in this case, appreciate.

mk10
03-21-2007, 02:00 AM
So when you say 'a hypothetical finding is absolutely meaningless in any practical sense' what kind of 'practicality' are you referring to? What are you trying to get 'accomplished'? Appreciating the topography of Mt Washington in relation to its surroundings by utilizing a hypothetical illustration is very 'practical'. It suites the purpose quite well!

I didn't mean to imply that the answer to every hypothetical question is completely useless. Seemingly esoteric studies often result in findings which can be generalized to practical applications far distant from the original area of research. But finding whether or not there is an unimpeded line of sight (sans curvature and other factors) from MW to WTC is only practical in the sense that an interesting and entertaining trivia question was answered. Yes, one can use this answer to help appreciate the area's topography, but a topographical map would probably be a better tool for that.

But enough of my babbling, let's focus on what's really important… the Grand Canyon has a volume of approximately 2500 cubic miles, a regulation sized basketball has a diameter of roughly 9 inches, a certain percentage of volume will obviously be occupied by the voids between the packed balls; and since the basketballs will simply be dumped into the canyon (instead of tightly fitted in a crystalline hexagonal lattice) we can use a conservative value of about 40 as the percentage of volume which will be occupied by those voids…

Brad
03-21-2007, 06:07 AM
If it wasn't for the atmosphere the sun would rise approximately 7 minutes later than we see it rise. It would also set 7 minutes earlier.
Now I know why I am always 7 minutes late to meetings.

John_Calif
03-22-2007, 01:03 AM
Ha! I knew you were going to write that about the basketballs:D

It would be interesting to have some old timer tell us what the heck the WTC myth was all about anyway. Not having the actual story detracts from our discussion and leaves me only theroetically searching for something cool about it. As you suggest, the topo map posted earlier in this thread shines the brightest light on the topography down to the Big Apple.

By the way, although I grew up in CT I have never been to the top of MW. I set out alone for the summit one summer day in 1988 just before I moved to California. As I got about 3/4 of the way up not only did the weather seem ominous but as I hiked above the tree line I suddenly felt earily 'exposed' and everything seemed downright spooky. Hard to descrrbe but a bit like 'The Twilight Zone'. :eek: That's when I decided to turn around. Gotta go back some time and face that demon. I'm going to a funeral in Ct in a few days but doubt I'll have time to get up to scamper up to NH to do so. If I do, however, I'll look for faraway buildings down in NYC- just to make sure all you guys are being straight with me... :)

Yankee
03-22-2007, 09:29 PM
Understand the science, but always back it up with real life observation.

John_Calif
04-07-2007, 01:11 PM
Understand the science, but always back it up with real life observation.

You, of course, miss the point. There is no 'observation' to be made here! How do you 'observe' the fact that IF THE EARTH WERE FLAT there would have been nothing but air in between the top of Mount Wahington and the top of the World Trade Center? You see, BECAUSE THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT you can't confirm this fact with 'observation'. I'm a little perpexed why you miss this simple point...

I mean, if I told you that if all the pennies in the world were stacked on top of each other that they would create a stack xx miles high- would you then respond that this couldn't be true because you don't 'observe' any such stack of pennies????