Value of Thought

Originally posted by twhitehead
Presenting facts to a mad man makes no headway. You have been presented with facts. You ignored them.

That's an excellent sequitur; unfortunately, it is rendered a non sequitur on the basis that you have not presented facts.
You've presented many claims, but no real facts.

Confronted with facts, not a one of you has been able to respond with anything remotely resembling a cohesive argument.
Instead, there've been a couple claims which have been demonstrated to be wrongReveal Hidden Content, or the like.
Otherwise, it's been--- simply--- claims.

Although, I acknowledge that in the absence of actually responding to the challenges offered, a couple have tried to sidestep them and come up with other 'helpful' examples to prove their point(s).

My challenge remains the same as it has from the beginning of this side topic, but the name-calling crowd contents itself to focus their efforts on l'il ol' me.
Flattering, to be sure, but completely irrelevant to the topic.

I would only request to stay on topic, if at all possible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I put this to you, googlefudge, but have yet to see a response...

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

......The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).

The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or 0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent.

To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile. .....

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html

It is true that Harley showed quite correctly that the earth curves approximately 8 inches in one mile. The solution presented then goes on to find out over how many miles does the earth curve 72 inches or 6 feet. Then this distance is doubled which is required (and would be easy to forget), because each man looks this distance to his horizon, where the line of sight is tangent to the earth's surface midway between them. All of this reasoning is correct so far.

However, it turns out that while the earth does curve 8 inches in one mile, it does not take 9 miles to curve 72 inches. To show this, let us return to the Pythagorean Theorem method used by Harley, but using 6 feet for the curvature. Here is a copy of Harley's diagram with the 1 in the diagram replaced by x, since in this case the distance is unknown.

Again, using the theorem of Pythagoras

a2 = 39632 + x2 = 15705369 + x2

Solving for x,

x2 = a2 - 15705369

a must be 3963 miles + 6 feet (Let's say the men are actually 6'3", so their eyes are six feet above ground.). Thus
a = 3963.001136 miles

x2 = 15705378 - 15705369 = 9
x = 3 miles

Now, remember that each man looks 3 miles to the horizon, giving their distance from each other as 6 miles.

This shows that at eye level of 6 ft. the horizon is 3 miles (at sea or on a level plain).

A rule-of-thumb for line of sight problems such as this, where the distance is small in comparison to the size of the earth is

c = (2/3) times x2, where x is distance in miles and c is curvature in feet.

For the problem at hand, we then have x2 = (3/2)c

x2 = (3/2) 6 = 9
x = 3

This is the same result that the more lengthy solution yielded.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'll give you a clue. Don't bother defending people who argue for a flat Earth, whatever their motive. While empiricism cannot answer all questions it can answer this one. The World is an oblate spheroid. We just have too much evidence for this to be worth arguing with.

And I'll return the favour by giving you a 'clue'. You said, "We just have too much evidence for this to be worth arguing with." That's why I haven't bothered to get involved in this particular debate. And hopefully this also answers FMF's follow up question after my answer to his first silly question.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And I'll return the favour by giving you a 'clue'. You said, "We just have too much evidence for this to be worth arguing with." That's why I haven't bothered to get involved in this particular debate. And hopefully [b]this also answers FMF's follow up question after my answer to his first silly question.[/b]

So in the context of this thread, who are the "self defined intellectuals" you mentioned in your first post?

Originally posted by FMF
So in the context of this thread, who are the "self defined intellectuals" you mentioned in your first post?

Was that a rhetorical question? (is this a retorical '?'😉



if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok you pea-brained moron.

Here we go.

1: Google image search for pictures from Mount Everest.


2: Observe the horizon near the top of some images, and near the bottom of others, and near the
middle of most.

3: Conclude that placement of the horizon in the images is dependent on the angle of the camera
with respect to the horizontal, and ...[text shortened]... nderstand photography or bother to check his own supposed proof.

You are wrong, and an idiot.

I see.

So the person who took the shot which is the very first image which crops up is standing below the subject in frame, or... what, exactly?
Or the second picture which populates, is that photographer standing above or below?

Clearly, you cannot be trusted to analyze even a controlled situation, let alone one which involves multiple sensory cues.

In the first ten pictures, nine of them are of a person or of multiple people.
In pictures four, five and ten, the photographer is in a position above the subject, as can be ascertained in the case of two of the subjects angling their heads up to the camera in pictures five and ten, as well as the overall angle of the photographer to the subjects in all three.
In picture three, the photographer is below the subject, again evidenced by the angle.
The same is true for picture eight, although the photographer is only slightly below the subjects given the angle.
In all other pictures, the subjects are looking directly at the photographer as evidenced from the lack of angle of their heads.


In all of the photographs, the horizon is in the direct line of sight of the photographer, almost exactly dissecting each of the frames (two exceptions: pictures eight and ten with the sky covering more in the former and less in the latter, with the subjects above and below, respectively).

In the landscape photograph, the photographer is clearly aiming his lens across the tops of the mountains directly in his line of sight, and there it is, far behind all of those mountains: the horizon at eye level.

If I am a pea-brained moron, I'm at least a pea in front of you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

......The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters ...[text shortened]... 3/2) 6 = 9
x = 3

This is the same result that the more lengthy solution yielded.

So you've proven you can cut and paste.
Care to put your new-found smarts to use and tell us at what point distance-wise a 6' person standing on the shore of a calm body of water would no longer be able to see a 6' person standing on the water?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Your two hidden comments contradict each other.

Huh?
How so?
I'm saying the horizon stays at eye level regardless of height.
He claims the horizon is dependent upon height.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I see.

So the person who took the shot which is the very first image which crops up is standing below the subject in frame, or... what, exactly?
Or the second picture which populates, is that photographer standing above or below?

Clearly, you cannot be trusted to analyze even a controlled situation, let alone one which involves multiple sensory cues ...[text shortened]... s: the horizon at eye level.

If I am a pea-brained moron, I'm at least a pea in front of you.

Define what YOU mean by 'at eye level'

I am defining it as "the light rays incident on the eye are at 90 to local vertical".

As such, to tell if the horizon is at 'eye level' in any given photograph you MUST
know the angle of the camera with respect to local vertical.

As a human just holding the camera can hold it at any old angle such pictures
are completely useless in determining whether the horizon is at 'eye level'.

The pictures I see for a google image search for "images from top of Mount Everest"
show the horizon variously near the top, bottom, and middle of the picture.
Demonstrating the different angles the pictures are being taken at.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Your two hidden comments contradict each other.

Of course they do. If there was no contradiction there would be no argument.

I haven't talked to Freaky so I don't know this for a fact, but I think the thrust of his argument has less to do with the argument itself and more to do with some other point he's attempting to get across here. I have an idea as to what that might be, but I don't want to spoil the fun if I happen to be right about this... so I won't. 😀

Originally posted by lemon lime
Was that a rhetorical question?

No. Not rhetorical. You used the term "self defined intellectuals" in your first contribution to this thread. I don't remember FreakyKBH ever having 'defined' himself as an "intellectual", nor have any of the people he's been in discussion with on this thread. So I am wondering who you are referring to when you mention "self defined intellectuals" and when was it you think they "self-defined" themselves in that way?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you've proven you can cut and paste.
Care to put your new-found smarts to use and tell us at what point distance-wise a 6' person standing on the shore of a calm body of water would no longer be able to see a 6' person standing on the water?

You mean can I answer the question I just posted a complete worked example for?

Yeah, I could do that. Or I could tell you to learn to read.

I see no reason to expend any effort to deal with your dribbling madness.

I will jump through precisely zero hoops for you.

Please remember I despise you and everything you stand for, before you think that I might do stuff
for you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Of course they do. If there was no contradiction there would be no argument.

I haven't talked to Freaky so I don't know this for a fact, but I think the thrust of his argument has less to do with the argument itself and more to do with some other point he's attempting to get across here. I have an idea as to what that might be, but I don't want to spoil the fun if I happen to be right about this... so I won't. 😀

IF he has some other point, He is utterly and completely failing to convey it.

The only thing he is currently conveying is his own ignorance and stupidity, as well as
lack of basic communication skills.

I don't personally believe he has the intellect to have an underlying point. Certainly not
one that is in any way worth while or interesting.

Should he actually wish to make some other point, he should just get it over with and make it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Define what YOU mean by 'at eye level'

I am defining it as "the light rays incident on the eye are at 90 to local vertical".

As such, to tell if the horizon is at 'eye level' in any given photograph you MUST
know the angle of the camera with respect to local vertical.

As a human just holding the camera can hold it at any old angle such picture ...[text shortened]... and middle of the picture.
Demonstrating the different angles the pictures are being taken at.

Define what YOU mean by 'at eye level'
Don't overthink it, son.

In those pictures wherein the subjects are looking directly at (not up or down) the photographer, their line of sight must be nearly identical to the photographer's.
It can safely be assumed that their line of sight will be the same as the photographers, albeit in the exact opposite direction, as can be seen in these photographs.

In these photographs, the line of sight is simply straight out toward the horizon... and that horizon is eye level in them.

Face it: your claims of the horizon depressing or elevating in accordance of one's altitude are rubbish.
My claim of the horizon always being at eye level is confirmed.

Don't fret too much, though.
You've been wrong many, many times before and you'll be wrong many, many more times in the future.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You mean can I answer the question I just posted a complete worked example for?

Yeah, I could do that. Or I could tell you to learn to read.

I see no reason to expend any effort to deal with your dribbling madness.

I will jump through precisely zero hoops for you.

Please remember I despise you and everything you stand for, before you think that I might do stuff
for you.

You are totally free to disguise your inability to perform the function behind the shrubbery of your disdain for me.
I get why you would feel the need to, given your fragile psyche and compliant world-view.

I am merely offering what I claim to be proofs of your position's untenable nature.
I am further challenging your ability to express the information you cut and paste in a cohesive manner which would adequately and accurately solve the equation.