Value of Thought

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Watching it now.
I'm sure you can find even "crazier" people on YouTube.
The craziest thing, however, is your continued claims which fail to answer the challenge.

The entire support for your stance is routing based on the great circle, which presupposes travel on a sphere.
Nonetheless, even those claims are inconsistent.

You claimed latitude dista ...[text shortened]... hought, I chose these flights purposely because they confuse the issue) proved your claim wrong.

You claimed latitude distance from the equator dictated the angle of trajectory, i.e., the further in latitude, the greater the angle; the closer in latitude the shallower in angle.
The two original flights examined (according to Deep Thought, I chose these flights purposely because they confuse the issue) proved your claim wrong.

Imagine a sphere with two poles and an equator marked on it.

Now imagine a circle [a Great Circle, the same size as the equator] on the surface of the sphere that you can adjust to any angle. [it could say be a cover of clear plastic with an equator marked on it that you can move freely over the sphere]

If that adjustable Great circle goes through the poles it will intersect the equator at 90 degrees.

If that adjustable Great Circle aligns with the Equator it will intersect with the Equator at 0 degrees.

If the adjustable Great Circle peaks half way between the north pole and the Equator then it will intersect with the
Equator at 45 degrees.

The closer the top or peak of the Great Circle to the North pole, the higher the angle at which it will intersect the Equator.


The adjustable Great Circle can be defined by two points less than 180 degrees apart [by shortest route] and the arc
of the great circle that lies between these points will be the mathematically shortest route between those points.

If you are comparing multiple Great Circles then each can be defined by it's own set of two points.

If the Great Circles you are comparing are produced by sets of points that are an equal distance, or equal angle apart,
with both on equal latitudes, then the farther north those points are the farther north the peak of the Great Circle and the
greater the angle of intersection at the equator. And the closer to the equator those points are the closer to the
equator the peak of the Great Circle will be and the shallower the angle f intersection at the equator.

This does not hold true for sets of points that are not on equal latitudes and not at equal angular or distance separation.
Such as the points in your example.

However, it IS still true that the closer the PEAK of the Great Circle to the North pole, the greater the angle of intersection with
the equator.

The Earth is close enough to a sphere that the difference between a sphere and reality are trivial and not
important for the discussion we are having. [few tens of km difference at most]


The 'flights' that you posted do not prove me wrong, quite the opposite.

And I would point out that the flight data I was posting about does prove your claim that flights follow the shortest route
is wrong. As is your claim that those flights make sense on a flat Earth. They don't.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You observe a picture?
How about you observe the world around you, too?

Ever wonder why the horizon is always at eye level?
Ever wonder what the rate of curvature should be, were we actually on a sphere 25,000 miles around?

I think you are demonstrating, in relation to the thread title, that not all thought has value.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You observe a picture?
How about you observe the world around you, too?

Ever wonder why the horizon is always at eye level?
Ever wonder what the rate of curvature should be, were we actually on a sphere 25,000 miles around?

You observe a picture?
How about you observe the world around you, too?

Yes, unlike you I observe the world around me. I have watched ships disappear over the horizon.
One of the many proofs of a curved surface.

Ever wonder why the horizon is always at eye level?

No, because the Horizon is not always at eye level.

Ever wonder what the rate of curvature should be, were we actually on a sphere 25,000 miles around?

I posted a link to an article that flat out says what the curvature should be.

I have personally calculated it for various projects.

And there are man made flat structures large enough that the ends are higher than the middle because of
the Earth's curvature.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think you are demonstrating, in relation to the thread title, that not all thought has value.

These vapid and vacuous one-liners you continue trotting out do nothing more than underscore the weakness of your argument.
You make claims but fail to support them... and declare victory as a result!
Sounds like you've been influenced by politics at some point, but that is not how an argument is proved.

Originally posted by googlefudge

You observe a picture?
How about you observe the world around you, too?

Yes, unlike you I observe the world around me. I have watched ships disappear over the horizon.
One of the many proofs of a curved surface.

Ever wonder why the horizon is always at eye level?

No, because the Horizon is not always at eye level ...[text shortened]... ctures large enough that the ends are higher than the middle because of
the Earth's curvature.

I have watched ships disappear over the horizon.
You might want to try that experiment again.
Next time, bring high powered binoculars with you and watch a ship "disappear over the horizon" with your unaided eye.
Once the ship has 'disappeared,' use the binoculars and watch as the ship magically appears again, mysteriously floating above the horizon whilst sailing away on top of the water.

No, because the Horizon is not always at eye level.
You're high, clearly.

I posted a link to an article that flat out says what the curvature should be.
Humor me.
How many feet per mile, roughly?

And there are man made flat structures large enough that the ends are higher than the middle because of the Earth's curvature.
I'm all ears.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I have watched ships disappear over the horizon.
You might want to try that experiment again.
Next time, bring high powered binoculars with you and watch a ship "disappear over the horizon" with your unaided eye.
Once the ship has 'disappeared,' use the binoculars and watch as the ship magically appears again, mysteriously floating above the hori ...[text shortened]... gh that the ends are higher than the middle because of the Earth's curvature.[/b]
I'm all ears.[/b]

What The F%&$&%&?????????

Ships do not magically reappear over the horizon unless they get closer and come back over it.

The horizon can be below you, if you are high up, or way above if your down a valley.

You are certifiably bat s*** crazy.

Originally posted by FMF
The most interesting thing that goes on on this forum, for me, is the behaviour of religionists when they are called upon to process disagreement, dissent and questions they'd rather not address.

The most interesting thing that goes on on this forum, for me, is the behavior of anti-religionists when they are called upon to process disagreement, dissent and questions they'd rather not address.
That's just my opinion on the matter, of course, the "interesting thing" part.
The other part, the "behavior of anti-religionists" when faced with challenges they cannot answer but conclusions with which they do not agree?
That part is verifiable: they distract, detract, resort to ad hominem tactics and generally sidestep the issues at hand.

I think it's some type of defense mechanism: so loathe to admit their error, lest they come to the realization there are many other important things in their lives which they're wrong about, too.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]What The F%&$&%&?????????

Ships do not magically reappear over the horizon unless they get closer and come back over it.

The horizon can be below you, if you are high up, or way above if your down a valley.

You are certifiably bat s*** crazy.[/b]

Of course it isn't magic, silly.
Your eyes are only so powerful.
What appears to you to be a disappearing ship is nothing more than your unaided eyes only able to see so far.
That's why you're taking the binoculars with you next time.
Wait until you can't see the ship any longer, then pull out the binoculars.
You'll see that same ship still above the horizon, where your unaided eye lost track.
It didn't disappear over the horizon: it simply got too far for you to see.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]What The F%&$&%&?????????

Ships do not magically reappear over the horizon unless they get closer and come back over it.

The horizon can be below you, if you are high up, or way above if your down a valley.

You are certifiably bat s*** crazy.[/b]

The horizon can be below you, if you are high up, or way above if your down a valley.
You are certifiably bat s*** crazy.
You're going to feel like quite the nocturnal feces expert once you realize that the horizon is where the sky meets the land.
It is NEVER below you.
Go to Mt. Everest: where the sky meets the land?
That's the horizon.
And it's at eye level.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The horizon can be below you, if you are high up, or way above if your down a valley.
You are certifiably bat s*** crazy.
You're going to feel like quite the nocturnal feces expert once you realize that the horizon is where the sky meets the land.
It is NEVER below you.
Go to Mt. Everest: where the sky meets the land?
That's the horizon.
And it's at eye level.[/b]

I have been in an aeroplane that flies at the hight of Mount Everest and the horizon was most decidedly
below me.

It's event farther below you when you go up in a U2 spy plane and much farther still from the ISS.

It's less obviously so, but I look down to the horizon even from my local hill.

And you are avoiding my even more obvious point that from down inside a deep valley, the horizon is
most decidedly above you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Of course it isn't magic, silly.
Your eyes are only so powerful.
What appears to you to be a disappearing ship is nothing more than your unaided eyes only able to see so far.
That's why you're taking the binoculars with you next time.
Wait until you can't see the ship any longer, then pull out the binoculars.
You'll see that same ship still above the ...[text shortened]... ded eye lost track.
It didn't disappear over the horizon: it simply got too far for you to see.

I have watched ships through a telescope you blithering idiot.

Let alone binoculars.

And ships slowly disappear below the horizon, sinking down so that the hull disappears first, and the mast last.

Which is exactly what you expect with a curved Earth and is entirely inconsistent with a flat one.

Through either binoculars or a telescope you can make out significant details even as it disappears over
the horizon. Thus disproving the idea that it's simply shrinking to be too small to see.

In fact, I can still make out details with the naked eye that disprove that idiotic idea.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think you are demonstrating, in relation to the thread title, that not all thought has value.

It has a value... The trouble is it's a negative value.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think it's some type of defense mechanism: so loathe to admit their error, lest they come to the realization there are many other important things in their lives which they're wrong about, too.

If this whole thread is you attempting to convince us that we may be wrong and you may be right, then you are failing abysmally. All it has done is convince most of us that you are seriously in need of psychological help.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[bIt is NEVER below you.
Go to Mt. Everest: where the sky meets the land?
That's the horizon.
And it's at eye level.[/b]

If two people of different heights are standing next to each other looking at the horizon.

Whose eye-level is the horizon at?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The horizon can be below you, if you are high up, or way above if your down a valley.
You are certifiably bat s*** crazy.
You're going to feel like quite the nocturnal feces expert once you realize that the horizon is where the sky meets the land.
It is NEVER below you.
Go to Mt. Everest: where the sky meets the land?
That's the horizon.
And it's at eye level.[/b]

If you'd ever been on a mountain you'd have seen they way the Earth curves away from you. Why don't you make your underlying point instead of trying to show that the earth is flat when it patently isn't?

One last try, draw a straight line from 0N 0W on the map (dead centre) to the top left hand corner - 90N 180W. You've got to the same point as if you'd drawn a line straight upwards to 90N 0W. So there's a serious problem with the map as it represents a point on the Earth's surface as an entire line. What is more one line is longer than the other, but on the map they are both appear straight. So in the real world one of the lines cannot be straight (where straight means shortest distance).