Size does matter

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
At latitude 48d north, the closest to overhead is 90-(48-23)=65d;
probably not "pretty darn close."

Again, "dumb and pointless" are coming to mind here. Do you seriously think
you are adding anything whatsoever to this thread?

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:41:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
At latitude 48d north, the closest to overhead is 90-(48-23)=65d;
probably not "pretty darn close."

Again, "dumb and pointless" are coming to mind here. Do you seriously think
you are adding anything whatsoever to this thread?


I think he is being relevant. However, to be fair. the minimum angle
from 48N would be 25 degrees. Not exactly straight up and down!

Mike Weller

"Mike Weller" wrote in message
s.com...
I think he is being relevant.

He is not being relevant. My comment was simply relative to the potential
position of the sun, regarding the consistency with other objects in the
image, and regarding where the shadow of the airplane would wind up.
Whether the sun is 90 degrees above, 80 degrees above, or 70 degrees above
is irrelevant, and it has nothing to do with this particular thread.

His comment was that of an idiotic pedant who has nothing real to
contribute, so instead chooses to try to pick apart casual comments that he
sees lying around.

However, to be fair. the minimum angle
from 48N would be 25 degrees. Not exactly straight up and down!

I don't know what you mean. His math regarding the precise angle of
elevation of the sun was basically correct. In the winter at the 48th
parallel, the angle of elevation is in the neighborhood of 20 degrees, while
in the summer it's in the neighborhood of 60 degrees.

20 degrees isn't very close to directly overhead at all, but you try to walk
around with your eyes pointing up 60 degrees and tell me it doesn't feel
like "darn close to overhead", even if it's not literally directly overhead.

If Mr. Fry had his way, I guess only someone in the tropics would be allowed
to use the term "high noon", or talk about when the sun is "overhead".

What is particularly idiotic is that anyone would think it makes any sense
whatsoever to act like there's some sort of official definition of phrases
like "nearly so" and "darn close".

Pete

"Peter Duniho" writes:

He is not being relevant. My comment was simply relative to the potential
position of the sun,

yelps deleted

The relevance of the sun's angle is the angle of the shadows in the
picture. Perhaps you missed all that discussion?

Always amusing how greatly offended some people get when their
exaggerations and misinformation are pointed out.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
The relevance of the sun's angle is the angle of the shadows in the
picture. Perhaps you missed all that discussion?

That discussion does not change depending on whether the sun is 90 degrees
above or 70 degrees above or 60 degrees above or whatever. Your comments
are completely irrelevant to that discussion.

Always amusing how greatly offended some people get when their
exaggerations and misinformation are pointed out.

I'm still waiting for you to point out an exaggeration or misinformation.
You obviously think you did, but nowhere in your posts have you done so.
What offends me is people like you who have nothing better to do than to
make up your own interpretations of perfectly reasonable statements, and
then engage in a lame effort to tear them apart.

Pete