Value of Thought

Originally posted by googlefudge

Looking straight ahead, your line of sight will be along the plane of the earth and will eventually terminate at that point where the earth appears to meet the sky.
That line is called the horizon.

Wrong.

You are talking gibberish.

EDIT: Here is a picture of a sky scape.

http://orig14.deviantart.net/13bf/f/2011/024/6/f/skyscap ...[text shortened]... land meets the sky.

Not some magical imaginary line that is always at 90 degrees to vertical.

Very cool shot.
Thanks for that.

As I have repeatedly labored at teaching you (and what you should already know by this point in your education), the true horizon is that which lies beyond the obstacles, either natural (as is the case in this example) or man-made.
In the example I gave, anyone gifted with vision is able to clearly see the true horizon directly in the line of sight of the photographer, nearly evenly dissecting the picture.

In the example you gave (appropriately entitled "Skyscape," the majority of the true horizon is obscured by natural obstacles, i.e., when one has an line of sight without obstacles they are able to see the true horizon; otherwise, they will only have a skyline), it is obvious the photographer has these natural obstacles between her and the true horizon.
Despite that blockage, the undulating hills give way just left of center and there, in the distance, clearly visible: true horizon... you know, that point where the earth meets the sky at what appears to be the vanishing point, surprisingly at eye level.

Go figure.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think if a person is going to put good money down for some drugs, they ought to be very careful in how they handle it.

Now, were you going to talk about the subject or follow the usual tack and take potshots from the sideline?

Anyone with two functioning eyes has binocular vision. This can work to determine whether an object you're looking at is a sphere or flat disk. But since our eyes are very close together this only works at relatively close distances. When looking at the moon all I can literally 'see' is a flat disk. But an interesting fact about the mind is once something is known it can literally affect what we are 'seeing'. I 'see' a sphere because I know it's a sphere... so I wonder how many people viewed the moon as a sphere before anyone guessed or discovered the moon is not a flat disk.

But there are other visual clues suggesting the earth or moon (when viewed even by a single lens from one point in space) are actually spheres and not flat disks. However, if you're only looking at it as a shape (taking no note of the landscape) then all you will 'literally' see is a flat disk.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Very cool shot.
Thanks for that.

As I have repeatedly labored at teaching you (and what you should already know by this point in your education), the true horizon is that which lies beyond the obstacles, either natural (as is the case in this example) or man-made.
In the example I gave, anyone gifted with vision is able to clearly see the true horizon ...[text shortened]... eets the sky at what appears to be the vanishing point, surprisingly at eye level.

Go figure.

You are talking gibberish, as per normal, however you are apparently happy accepting that the horizon is
where the sky meets the land in that picture.
Even given that you apparently only think the horizon is where the sky meets the land a long way off. 🙄

I happily accept that the horizon is where the sky meets the land.

But I have absolutely no reason to suppose that that horizon is at 'eye level'.

Because to know that you would have to know the angle of the camera with respect to the ground. Information
we do not have.

The camera appears to be tilted up as the horizon is in the lower third of the picture.

But we have no idea by how much.

So the line representing 90 degrees from vertical could be anywhere in the picture.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Anyone with two functioning eyes has binocular vision. This can work to determine whether an object you're looking at is a sphere or flat disk. But since our eyes are very close together this only works at relatively close distances. When looking at the moon all I can literally 'see' is a flat disk. But an interesting fact about the mind is once something ...[text shortened]... t as a shape (taking no note of the landscape) then all you will 'literally' see is a flat disk.

Whether the moon is a sphere or a disc has not been established.
What has been established is that the earth does not adhere to the expectations of a sphere on many fronts.
For instance, if the earth were a sphere roughly 25,000 miles in diameter, we would see eight inches per mile--- squared--- from the position of perspective.
One would not be able to see directly across any significant level area without that declination impacting.
One would certainly not be able to see, for instance, an entire city skyline from 60 miles away.
Nor would one be able to see an object 200 miles away on the open ocean.
The horizon would always be down the line of sight from the perspective of the observer in all directions (much like googlefudge is valiantly but miserably trying to attest), as opposed to always at the line of sight of the observer (which I have given countless examples of).

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are talking gibberish, as per normal, however you are apparently happy accepting that the horizon is
where the sky meets the land in that picture.
Even given that you apparently only think the horizon is where the sky meets the land a long way off. 🙄

I happily accept that the horizon is where the sky meets the land.

But I have absolutely no ...[text shortened]... how much.

So the line representing 90 degrees from vertical could be anywhere in the picture.

Your stupidity is nearly painful--- and not solely from laughing, although that represents a good portion of the pain.

The true horizon you can see (left of center on either side of the knoll), is completely and totally in the line of sight of the photographer.
This is made even more emphatic by the knowledge that the photographer clearly focused her lens at an upward trajectory.

And you're still stumped by all of those pesky shots from the tallest mountain in the world, I see.

Just admit your defeat and move on, son.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Whether the moon is a sphere or a disc has not been established.

I dare you to say that to Buzz Aldrin.

EDIT: just let me know before hand so I can get the popcorn

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your stupidity is nearly painful--- and not solely from laughing, although that represents a good portion of the pain.

The true horizon you can see (left of center on either side of the knoll), is completely and totally in the line of sight of the photographer.
This is made even more emphatic by the knowledge that the photographer clearly focused her l ...[text shortened]... shots from the tallest mountain in the world, I see.

Just admit your defeat and move on, son.

Woo, and you move the goalposts.

Line of sight basically just means you can see it.

Which is not the same thing as eye line which is what you have said up until now.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Woo, and you move the goalposts.

Line of sight basically just means you can see it.

Which is not the same thing as eye line which is what you have said up until now.

Say what? Line of sight is self explanatory. It does not mean you can see an object through a slice of the earth simply because that line happens to be pointing to the object. Eye liner on the other hand is a cosmetic, and has nothing to do with this discussion...

Originally posted by lemon lime
Really. You don't recall someone claiming a refrigerator is more complex than the human body?

Option 1 had nothing whatsoever to do with refrigerators. I did not dispute your refrigerator comment nor comment on it in any way. To suggest otherwise it a lie on your part.

What I responded to was this:
Originally posted by lemon lime
For example, what does it mean if a scientist says evolution is a fact because:
1. It couldn't have happened any other way
2. It's a fact because most scientsts say so, and...
3. as science progresses it will (someday) be proven

Sound familiar? These are the sort of 'arguments' I've seen here and at the science and debate forums.

I've been in debates with twhitehead and sometimes he will abruptly stop and go silent for awhile... then later I'll remind him of our discussion and he will claim it never happened.
I have been in debates with you where you lie in every single post from beginning to end. I suppose I could present proof of this fact but I couldn't be bothered. Go find them yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Option 1 had nothing whatsoever to do with refrigerators. I did not dispute your refrigerator comment nor comment on it in any way. To suggest otherwise it a lie on your part.

What I responded to was this:
Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]For example, what does it mean if a scientist says evolution is a fact because:
1. It couldn't have ha ...[text shortened]... I suppose I could present proof of this fact but I couldn't be bothered. Go find them yourself.

Oh good grief, you arrogant insufferable narcissist... what makes you think I was only talking about you?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh good grief, you arrogant insufferable narcissist... what makes you think I was only talking about you?

The fact that your post was addressed to me? And the pronoun 'you' in the post addressed to me.

You said:

But there's a huge problem when you [my emphasis] make this kind of assertion, because you [my emphasis] must either assume 1. no one else has seen what I've reported seeing or 2. everyone else shares your [my emphasis] inability to remember and take note of repeating themes.

It seems perfectly reasonable for me to think you were talking about me.

And when Deep Thought suggested option 1. was the case, your response was to talk about refrigerators, something I have made no assertions about, and I am pretty sure nobody else had up to that point either.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The fact that your post was addressed to me? And the pronoun 'you' in the post addressed to me.

You said:
[quote]But there's a huge problem when [b]you [my emphasis] make this kind of assertion, because you [my emphasis] must either assume 1. no one else has seen what I've reported seeing or 2. everyone else shares your [my emphasis ...[text shortened]... g I have made no assertions about, and I am pretty sure nobody else had up to that point either.[/b]

I only addressed posts to you after you jumped in spouting off with your usual nonsense and accusations, and now lo and behold you expect me to believe this is all about you? I don't think so.

Get over yourself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Every single image of the Earth reportedly taken from space shows it perfectly round.
Aren't plates perfectly round?

Your argument may have some footing when looking at still photographs, but breaks down completely when we see moving footage from crafts, showing the curvature of the Earth. Do you just cover your eyes when such footage is shown?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Your argument may have some footing when looking at still photographs, but breaks down completely when we see moving footage from crafts, showing the curvature of the Earth. Do you just cover your eyes when such footage is shown?

And who keeps moving the continents around on the plate? And why do none of the plate photos show the flat earth layout of the continents that Freaky has been promoting all along?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Your argument may have some footing when looking at still photographs, but breaks down completely when we see moving footage from crafts, showing the curvature of the Earth. Do you just cover your eyes when such footage is shown?

I can't shake the feeling there's something else going on here, like some underlying point he's waiting for us to discover(?) As things stand right now there's no reason I can see for even having a fat earth vs round earth debate... I mean really, what could be fatter than a sphere?