The Problem with Storm/Clouds Calculations

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Also the fact that we have some normal users actually wanting this so to wank pretty much everyone who dissipates or makes a storm ever intro Country level or higher is pretty bad. People don't care for accuracy, just for what can make their characters stronger.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Like I said. I don't care where stuff ends up so long as it ends up at the right place.

I would like DontTalk's view on this. More than likely he is more qualified than the rest of us to make, as it were, an informed decision.

 

[Ugarik]

Also I find the notions that the clouds would continue moving in a straight line until beyond the horizon rather than bending along with the curvature of the Earth (Which is what the OP is suggesting) utterly ridiculous.

Where did I suggest it. Just look at the pictude abovr or below. Clouds DO folow the Eanth curvature

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Your saying that to a cloud going up and covering the horizon as far as the human eye can see wouldn't be enough because of the curvature which is frankly just... odd?

 

[Ugarik]

What exactly do you now understad here?

 

[BlackeJan]

Well if we were to not suggest this then we have to tell the others who already use this new standard to get rid of it

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

A cloud doesn't need to go past the horizon ignoring the earth's curvature to make it so that a human can't see its end. Just reaching the horizon and bending with it would make it that humans wouldn't be able to discern its limit.

We as a species aren't exactly very good at discerning detail from such long distances. Hell, a storm could be smaller than the horizon but shaped in such a way that we wouldn't be able to tell where it ended and would think it's larger than it really is.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Well if we were to not suggest this then we have to tell the others who already use this new standard to get rid of it

People who decided to jump on this waggon for the sake of biggatons should have their calcs disconsidered.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Wouldn't the second part of your comment still disvalidate the use of horizon storms?

Not that I disagree with the logic, just saying.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Not really, which is why we just go with a simpler assumption.

What the OP is suggesting:

Because the storm goes all the way to the horizon, it could still be going in a straight line and be visible because of Earth's curvature.

What can actually happen:

The storm would simply bend along with the curvature obscuring our view of its limit. No need to make such an assumption that literally doubles the diameter of the storm.

 

[DMUA]

That actually does make quite a bit more sense honestly

Mostly because it means I won't have to edit a ton of stuff

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Of course it makes more sense. It's simple, it's more logical and in line with gravity, and it's naturally intuitive. This new proposed method is something I literally have never seen anywhere on the internet and strikes me as pseudoscience..

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Well if we were to not suggest this then we have to tell the others who already use this new standard to get rid of it

On close inspection only two calcs with the new method have been made, neither one is accepted to or even applied.

So disaster can still be averted.

 

[Kaltias]

What the OP is suggesting:

Because the storm goes all the way to the horizon, it could still be going in a straight line and be visible because of Earth's curvature.

What can actually happen:

The storm would simply bend along with the curvature obscuring our view of its limit. No need to make such an assumption that literally doubles the diameter of the storm.

He is saying the latter, actually.

The thing going in a straight line is the line of sight, not the cloud

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

No? The reason this new method inflates things to much is that he's saying that cloud must go all the way to the line of sight to cover it completely. Making the diameter over two times larger than what we currently use.

A cloud absolutely does not need to follow his formula to cover our field of view to the horizon.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

To be honest, with that image, the only reason against using that would be the eye's inability to see that far.


The two main problems with that are that we rarely see through the eyes of the characters in fiction, and that "bad eyesight" can still aply to the current metod.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Visual Fiction is still depicted in a way akin to the human eye view. If we are watching a movie or tv show, the camera recording the scene won't magically make our eyes able to see that far.

And neither will a drawn scene in an anime or cartoon.

 

[Kaltias]

And I don't really see what's wrong with that statement?

It's the same thing that makes you able to see a mountain even if it's more than 5 km away

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Because of its size, yes. Its a static thing rising up.

Clouds which stretch to the horizon can absolutely obscure your field of view by turning along with the curvature. It doesn't need to go in a straight line because of how tall they are in the sky in relation to us.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

And yet that logic can be aplies to saying how the storm wouldn't need to go as far as the horizon regardless then.

Plus, I doubt that the eye would suddenly see something hundreds of meters above sea level as part of the horizon right above it.

 

[Kaltias]

They can. But they need to interrupt your line of sight to do that

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yes, exactly. Which is why the assumptions the OP make for the new method are ridiculous. A cloud doesn't ned to stretch that far to obscure our field of view and make us impossible to discern its end.

The proposed change literally has the cloud going in a straight line as opposed to following the curvature which would obscure the end there.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

They can. But they need to interrupt your line of sight to do that

So why is the proposed change going with the highest possible assumption as opposed to something more normal and reasonable?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

The blue line is supposed to be where the storm is. The straight line is what our sight would supposedly show.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I know that. I just don't agree with the diagram at all. Why are you thinking I'm merely misunderstanding it?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

People who decided to jump on this waggon for the sake of biggatons should have their calcs disconsidered.

What's wrong with biggatons?

That said, what Matt said later down the line makes sense.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Because it's not assuming that the storm is going in a straight line like you said.

 

[Ugarik]

No? The reason this new method inflates things to much is that he's saying that cloud must go all the way to the line of sight to cover it completely. Making the diameter over two times larger than what we currently use.

Of course they do. And even if this method is wrong we should never use distance to the horizon to determine storm raduis

 

[Kaltias]

It isn't using the highest possible assumption, It's calculating the minimum distance for a cloud big enough to interrupt line of sight.

If there is a better method, i'm willing to listen, but the OP isn't using assumptions out of nowhere to justify its position. They are using formulas, and the math checks

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

No, they absolutely don't need to for reasons already repeatedly stated.

The supposed "scientific accuracy" of your method is akin to suggesting that every matter creation feat in fiction should be calculated through mass-energy conversion.

Or Vacuum Energy lol, remember that stuff?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

The number leading to an obvious outlier does not matter in any form matt.

 

[Kaltias]

No, they absolutely don't need to for reasons already repeatedly stated.

The supposed "scientific accuracy" of your method is akin to suggesting that every matter creation feat in fiction should be calculated through mass-energy conversion.

Or Vacuum Energy lol, remember that stuff?

That's a huge false equivalence

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It's not the minimum needed distance, I explained why. The cloud simply following along with the horizon would be enough to obscure our line of sight.

Nevermind that humans aren't good at discerning such details from faraway distances.

And yes, the number discrepancy is obviously something to be considered.

 

[Ugarik]

It's not the minimum needed distance, I explained why. The cloud simply following along with the horizon would be enough to obscure our line of sight.

Can you make a drawing like I did to explain how it works? Because I have no idea

 

[DMUA]

Endless Mike already did:

http://i.imgur.com/3SOLTG4.png

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It's not just that. I can try making a simple one with paint or something.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

But again, that logic also counters saying that it goes up right up to the horizon and then gets blocked.

It can get that far apart, and it can be not even half of it. So why should it being right above the horizon used again?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

That's not the logic that I'm using. That was a counter to the notion that a storm on a flat plain would have to stretch forever for us to not see its end.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yeah.

But beyond me disagreeing to using the human eye as an average for fictional rapresentations, it could end before the horizon. So why would we assume it goes that far?

 

[AguilaR101]

Yeah but unless you're dealing with a literal flat earth the bottom of the clouds will still need to be much farther away than the distance to the horizon in a normal planet with curvature.