Is there any way to verify that?
On Jun 13, 11:57 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > Apparently, one of my replies got lost in the ether. > It referenced the fact that the atmosphere does not magnify the moon's > appearance. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > On Jun 13, 6:40 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 13, 11:24 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 13, 6:17 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 11:39 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The farther away things are, the smaller they get. > > > > > That's why the moon gets smaller up high than down low. > > > > > Are you serious? > > > > Sometimes. > > > > > If the moon were at a constant distance from the earth, then when it > > > > was directly above it would be nearer that if you were viewing it > > > > nearer the horizon, as you would have to add a good proportion of the > > > > earth's radius to the viewing distance. SO the complete converse is > > > > actually true compared to your statement. > > > > Darn. > > > > > > Also, the higher up things get, > > > > > the heavier they get. > > > > > Both false and irrelevant. > > > > You hate me, don't you? > > > Actually I had not realised that you are the dolt that posted that > > dumb link on 'democracy', or the one that posted daft responses to my > > thread of democracy. But now that I have looked back I realise that I > > do have a view about you - but it is not hate. > > It might be pity. > > > > > > You can prove this by dropping a one pound weight from ten feet up. > > > > > onto a scale. > > > > > It will weigh more than one pound when it lands. > > > > > But it will still be weighed at the point it touches the scale proving > > > > that a moving body weights more, > > > > Is this because of the Lorentz contraction? > > > Weight is related to position. Mass is absolute. A stationary object > > has the same mass where ever it is. But you must have heard of things > > being weightless in space?? They are ipso facto higher up. Think about > > it! > > > > > the distance has nothing to do with > > > > it, as if you weighed it at 10feet it would weight the same as a > > > > ground level. Using the same scales it would also relatively weigh the > > > > same on the moon as the scales would show the same reading. > > > > You think you know everything. > > > Is that the best you can do? > > > > > > Then, it will lose weight when it settles down, and weigh only one > > > > > pound. > > > > > Yes, i.e. nothing to do with its height. > > > > Oh yeah? Then how come tall people weigh more than short people? > > > ha > > > > > > Logic is a wonderful thing. > > > > > It can be used in so many ways. > > > > > Yes, but not it seems by you. Try agains! > > > > > > In my next episode, I will prove to you that you are not where you > > > > > are. > > > > > Then you can prove that black is white and get run over on the next > > > > zebra crossing. > > > > Aha! I KNEW you hate me! > > > > > > Until then, keep them logic wheels a turnin. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ----- > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:23 am, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On the margin of the sempiternal "qualia" quarrels I'd like to > > > > > > mention > > > > > > that moon appears larger at the horizon, than up in the sky. > > > > > > IMO it shows that the moon one perceives is entirely the construct > > > > > > of one's mind, but I'll shelve for the moment the proof. > > > > > > Any other opinions? > > > > > > > Georges- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
