Contents

Talk:Rock City (attraction)

I have researched the topic of lines of sight extenstively, see [1]. The view from Lookout Mountain (near to Rock City) is here.

Take the claim about Virginia. The distance to the nearest point in Virginia is 150 miles (240 km) and rises to about 800 metres. The height of Rock City is about 700 meters; the height of the relevant intervening terrain is about 200 meters. To get the horizon distance (in km), multiply the square root of the height difference in metres by 3.85.

For Rock City in the direction of Virginia, that's sqr(700-200)*3.85 = 86 km. For Virginia in the direction of Rock City, that's sqr(800-200)*3.85 = 94 km.

Total 180km. Line of sight to Virginia? No way. Even North Carolina is marginal. The fact that they want us to believe that seven states are visible does not alter the terrestrial facts. Viewfinder 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the argument is that, from the lookout, you can see mountains that are in the particular states. This may be possible by use of a telescope or similar device.--Bedford 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telescopes make no difference. It is the curvature of the earth that is the issue. You cannot see below the horizon even with a telescope. There are higher mountains in Virginia than the one I mentioned but they are also further away. Apparent height loss due to curvature varies with the square of distance. The article [2] admits that the distance claims made at the site of the telescopes are way out. Viewfinder 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, closer examination of my SRTM and USGS relief models shows that the relevant intervening terrain contains several intervening ridges rising to 350m which would obstruct the line of sight. But the amusement park has been selling the "seven states" theme for decades. If there were a line of sight it would have been found and illustrated, but the professor cited in the article specifically denies any knowledge that this has been done. Viewfinder 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your research is irrelevant. The article you point to doesn't even make the claim that the "Seven States" claim is a myth. If the math is as elementary as you say it is, it should be easy to find someone with a reliable source saying so. But until then, this stuff can't go in the article. Wikipedia =/= Snopes.com. 64.126.24.11 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I have been on Wikipedia for two years and have accumulated more than 4,000 edits. I am well aware of WP:OR and WP:RS. There is a distinction between OR and fact that can be verified. The mathematics is not original research, the horizon formula is at Horizon. I made the claim that "no scholarly survey supports the claim" and cited an article that quotes an expert. I don't oppose your rewording of the main sentence, but the citation should be restored, together with the footnote, which states nothing that is not verifiable. That it is claimed at Rock City that Virginia is 120 miles away is hard fact. That it is 150 miles away can be verified by anyone with an atlas and a ruler. Still, we can discuss the wording of the footnote. Viewfinder 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, regarding your point about Snopes, see V-sign#supposed_origins, where Snopes is used to debunk a myth. We at Wikipedia are here to inform, and if that includes debunking myths, so be it. Deleting facts that challenge myths is censorship. Viewfinder 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cited yourself as far as I can tell; that's bad form in any case. Whether or not the formula is available in another article is largely irrelevant; if the math is that easy to do, someone will have done it and published it, and then we can post it. Until they do, the debunking remains unverifiable (I'm not talking about the distance miscalculations, although ideally that should be sourced as well). The Snopes reference you point out is not what I'm talking about; that's Snopes' job, not ours.

I've got thousands of edits myself when I'm logged in, but if I fail to follow the policies and guidelines, I expect to be called to account on it. Since this is a fairly low-traffic page, shall we ask for a third opinion or ask for someone from a relevant WikiProject to stop by? 64.126.24.11 18:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distance miscalculations are sourced, read the article, by a neutral party, that I have cited. As I have said, we can argue about the wording of the footnote, but I do not see why we should not cite the horizon distance formula and state other verifiable facts about the topography between Lookout Mountain and Virginia. Anyone interested in this subject should be able to see that the intervisibility between two points cannot exceed the sum of the two hotizon distance. The horizon article point outs that atmospheric refraction extends the horizon by increasing the effective radius of the earth, and from this statement the 3.85 formula can be verified. Variations in atmospheric refraction, and some freak visibility claims are discussed on my site at [3]; we could mention such freak claims, but no photographs in support of any freak claims have been published. We can leave the readers to make up their own minds about the visibility claim, just like the article I cited does, and like we do at Turin Shroud. Get more opinions if you wish, but I stand by my claim that I am stating relevant and verifiable fact and not my own original research. Incidentally, (i) responding to what we don't want to hear or read by calling it "irrelvant" is a stock response, and (ii) if Snopes debunk a myth, then we can cite Snopes. Viewfinder 21:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding what I'm saying; if Snopes had a debunking of this claim, we could link to it. But as far as my search could determine, they don't. The expert you're quoting on viewfinderpanoramas.com doesn't give a conclusive answer that it *must* be false, and you can't just "extrapolate", it's not how things are done here. The measurements being wrong? Sure, we mention that that is wrong. But you have to find someone else who has described the maximum visible distance on the earth's surface, not your own calculations, sorry. -- nae'blis 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]