Message from @jeremy
Discord ID: 635541465933676545
are you guys still on the same topic?
Where do u get the refraction number from
and other is 0,0,0 where u stand
No we r on Rowbotham
i did not put a refraction number just a height at which its less
and its from the article
Where do u get the number on how high to have the poles to account for refraction
hm
i got it somehwere let me look
Ok
I have to lead the globers of not inget taken down a road of nonsense
If not I get
ok didnt find it in the article it just emntions the refraction effect
gym u understand coriolis?
otherwise i can explain u like i did to jeremy first and u can then judge
the reference frames make all just more complicated anyway but he really wanted em
ahj i foudn it it was 4 meter not 3
errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet.[5][6] The crucial steps were to
Set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby reduce the effects of atmospheric refraction, and
Add a pole in the middle that could be used to see the "bump" caused by the curvature of the earth between the two end points.[1]
U don’t understand coriolis lol
yes and i want to see if if someone else says the same afterwards
or if its just you not understanding
basically a test for myself to see if i talk nonsense
DM me memes
For meme review 👏👏👏
No I understand coriolis implicitly
i dont think so
cause u try to go with reference frames so strongly and then dont accept em
U think a reference frame is the center of earth you r the one who doesn’t understand the coriolis effect
i mean u think reference frames are start and end point as far as i understnad u which is not quite what i means
Reference frames are necessary 2 of them
again i think u think u have point where u shoot as 1. frame and point where it hits as second
is this what u think?
No I know earth based coriolis is not real and u aren’t declaring where the reference frames are
u neither
Are u on he ground shooting and shooting into the ground ?
no
u shoot a target far away
That is attached to the ground ?