Value of Thought

Originally posted by lemon lime
I looked through the first page, and it's just as I suspected. In his OP Freaky asks about thoughts (right or wrong) that have no overtly harmful consequences, and simply uses a belief about the globe as an example.

In which post of FreakyKBH's do you think he presented his strongest argument that the notion that the earth is flat is "non-consequential"?

Originally posted by DeepThought
There's a few sunspots, but one needs special equipment to look at the sun directly.

And yet every time there is an eclipse nearly every person in Zambia manages to find some 'special equipment' and looks directly at the sun. I found floppy disks were my favourite 'special equipment'.
Sunspots can be safely observed by projecting the image of the sun onto a piece of paper with a pair of binoculars.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Are you here claiming that the true horizon is not always at eye level?

Are you having trouble understanding English? I already answered that and clearly stated that I do not accept your claim that the horizon is always at eye level.

Thus far, only googlefudge has had the temerity to hoist the ridiculous notion that the horizon falls below the eye level of a person's perspective.
The rest of those offering their opinions are offering them on other topics related to the whole.
Although no credit to his cause, he is nonetheless the sole holder of that opinion.
Not true. Every other poster in this thread holds that opinion and some (like me) have already stated as such.
Once again, I challenge you to get someone to state otherwise.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh my! How did mankind manage to survive all those thousands of years not knowing the truth about the globe?! 😲

Luck?

🙄
Something can be harmful without being instantly fatal to all that encounter it.

And for pretty much all of human history, people knew that the Earth was [roughly] spherical.
Only a deluded minority ever thought it was flat.
Any civilisation that travelled [or fished] at sea could see ships/boats/rafts slowly sink over
the horizon. Indeed the very existence of the horizon, meaning you could see [for example]
distant mountains far off demonstrates to most people that the world must be a ball.

The fact that the moon in the sky is also clearly a ball provides another hint.

Originally posted by googlefudge

A person (sitting or standing) holds their head straight (skull tilted neither up or down at the point of its connection with the cervical vertebrae) and looks to the furthest point possible in their direct line of sight.

I don't.

And I know of nobody that does.

[quote]Or if you want to take the human element out of it, set up a c ...[text shortened]... no. Nobody else but you believes this bull****

You are living in your own personal delusion.

I don't.
And I know of nobody that does.
Get out of your basement and you'll be able to see what everyone on the face of this thing called earth is able to see.
Barring that, ask yourself why every single picture from the top of Mt. Everest all show the exact same phenomenon, i.e., the photographer's line of sight with the horizon at eye level.
Ask yourself how pilots are trained to use the horizon for orienting themselves spatially.
Ask yourself how all of the images from a Google search "images of horizon from airplane" which include the horizon ALL have the same at eye level--- even those pictures which are tilted right or left off center.
You don't even have to leave your basement for any of these exercises, either, since, clearly, your personal observations are crap.

I do astro-photography. The farthest stuff I take pictures of is ~2.5 million ly away. [and I can see stuff that far with the naked eye]
Of course you do, dear.
Of course you do.
But we're not talking about fantasy here, we're talking about reality.
If you actually have a camera, you can easily run the experiments I've highlighted within this thread.
Set your camera up on the shore, and track a ship as it leaves.
When you "see" it disappear under the horizon, move to your camera set for distance and see the camera come back into view.
You see, that's an actual experiment which has been conducted hundreds and hundreds of times which can be replicated by anyone with the equipment.
It's what you call verifiable.
Give it a shot!

The point of a tripod is not to level the camera, it's to steady it.
Thanks for the lesson, professor.
😲😲
The point of using the tripod was to enable the user to keep the camera level.
Really rudimentary stuff we're going over here.
Perhaps I should type things slower to allow you to keep up?

Nope. Not true. Not even a little bit.
Yeah.
You keep saying that, but the problem here, son, is that you've been shown that what I am saying is true.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the argument sits you, fingers in ears without a shred of proof to support your claims otherwise.
I've given you picture after picture which demonstrate exactly this point, while you've offered one... which also demonstrates my point.
Then you come back with a load of hot crap claiming we can't know the angle--- as though knowing the precise angle of the camera had ANY bearing on it whatsoever!
The picture you offered, "Skyscape" is CLEARLY angled up as it is pointed to capture the clouds and sky above the skyline.
And even in that picture--- which is angled up--- one can CLEARLY see the true horizon to the left of center, beyond the immediate obstacles... and CLEARLY at eye level with the photographer.
If your assertions were true, her angled shot would have eliminated the true horizon completely.
You're just not very good at this, are you?

Here's yet another example for you, which I'm certain you will cry foul again, claiming the angle of the camera isn't apparent:
http://www.celestronimages.com/details.php?image_id=10893
What is apparent, however, is that the camera is pointed out to the horizon, and that horizon is directly in the line of sight and at eye level.
You will get the same results by searching for views from cockpits, as well.

Or maybe it's all just a big conspiracy...

You are living in your own personal delusion.
Well, of course I am!
Me and every other person who can see the obvious truth right in front of them, demonstrated repeatedly from multiple sources, proven every day by airline pilots who keep the horizon directly in front of them when flying using VFR instead of their instrumentation.

Or maybe it's all just a big conspiracy...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you having trouble understanding English? I already answered that and clearly stated that I do not accept your claim that the horizon is always at eye level.

[b]Thus far, only googlefudge has had the temerity to hoist the ridiculous notion that the horizon falls below the eye level of a person's perspective.
The rest of those offering their opin ...[text shortened]... me) have already stated as such.
Once again, I challenge you to get someone to state otherwise.

You have stated that you hold that same position once, and that is when I asked you if you did.
As in, the post before this one on the topic.
You hadn't stated you hold that position as well until I challenged you.

I don't see anyone else chiming in saying they do not see the horizon at eye level as seen in the many pictures offered as evidence... until now, with your statement.

So it is on either one of you to demonstrate how the pictures--- ANY pictures--- show something other than the true horizon remaining at eye level regardless of altitude or elevation.

Furthermore, your absurd position will also be required to explain how ALL of the pictures thus far referenced this exact named phenomenon.

Best of luck.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You hadn't stated you hold that position as well until I challenged you.

Actually I did, but your English comprehension is nearly as bad as your geography. This is not the first time in this thread you are denying something was posted even though anyone can actually go back and check and see that you are either lying or blind.

I don't see anyone else chiming in saying they do not see the horizon at eye level as seen in the many pictures offered as evidence... until now, with your statement.
Not too many people take you seriously enough to bother. I do notice however that nobody has yet been foolish enough to actually agree with you.

So it is on either one of you to demonstrate how the pictures--- ANY pictures--- show something other than the true horizon remaining at eye level regardless of altitude or elevation.
None of the pictures I have seen show the horizon at eye level. All we have is your word for it that they do. And as pointed out before, your word is worthless.

Furthermore, your absurd position will also be required to explain how ALL of the pictures thus far referenced this exact named phenomenon.
They do not show the phenomenon. Not one single one of them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I did, but your English comprehension is nearly as bad as your geography. This is not the first time in this thread you are denying something was posted even though anyone can actually go back and check and see that you are either lying or blind.

[b]I don't see anyone else chiming in saying they do not see the horizon at eye level as seen in t ...[text shortened]... d this exact named phenomenon.
They do not show the phenomenon. Not one single one of them.[/b]

Actually I did, but your English comprehension is nearly as bad as your geography.
Then it shouldn't be too hard of a task for you to find the post you made on this thread wherein you unequivocally state your agreement about the horizon and eye level.
You know, since you made it.
EDIT: I went looking through your posts to this thread and cannot for the life of me find even one time wherein you stated you agree with the ridiculous notion that the horizon doesn't follow the observer's direct line of sight.
Maybe it was just a thought you had, but were afraid to put your hat over the fence...

Not too many people take you seriously enough to bother. I do notice however that nobody has yet been foolish enough to actually agree with you.
This is what your diminished capacity puts forth as an argument?
Rich.
The point was that no one besides him was stupid enough to contest the claim that the horizon remains at eye level.
And until you recently piped in saying you agree with his ridiculous challenge, no one had shown agreement with the absurd statement.
You may have noticed, in your esteemed observational skills, that I am fielding all comers on the topic.
You may have also noticed how all comers in this particular case, as is the same with all cases of the opposing view, is a field of anti-religionists who conform to the hive mentality, regardless of the topic.
Silly little fish, all swimming in fear never stopping to think what their movements commit them to do.
Kinda like you on this one.

None of the pictures I have seen show the horizon at eye level. All we have is your word for it that they do. And as pointed out before, your word is worthless.
Well, I suppose when everything else you've offered has been demolished by reality, the only thing left is to paint it a different picture.
Here is the first picture which populates in a Google search of "pictures from top of mt everest" only on the original website:

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Everest2011-JPG.jpg

Please tell me how this picture depicts anything BUT the horizon at eye level.
Below the climber's elbow and above his armpits, or, in other words, right in the line of sight straight on from the photographer.
As far as the eye can see, there for all to see.

Here's another one from the cockpit of a Cessna 172:
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/83409/ok-dsr-dsa-delta-system-air-cessna-172-skyhawk-all-models-except-rg/
Again, horizon, straight ahead in the line of sight... at eye level.

They do not show the phenomenon. Not one single one of them.
Only an idiot would argue they don't.
Only a troll would insist another person is wrong on the point and not offer a single shred of support for evidence.
Guess that's two strikes against ya, huh.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Every single image of the Earth reportedly taken from space shows it perfectly round.

No, every photo from space shows the Earth to be close to being perfectly spherical.

Which it is.

Forgot about this little nugget of your moronic claims.

I claim the "pictures" from space all show the earth as perfectly round, as seen in this fantasy from NASA:

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=55418

You counter with:

No, every photo from space shows the Earth to be close to being perfectly spherical.

Dictionary says this of a sphere:
Geometry.
a solid geometric figure generated by the revolution of a semicircle about its diameter; a round body whose surface is at all points equidistant from the center. Equation: x 2+ y 2+ z 2= r 2.
the surface of such a figure; a spherical surface.

Your encyclopedia of all knowledge, wikipedia has it as this:
A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball, (viz., analogous to a circular object in two dimensions).

Or, as I originally put it, every single image of the Earth reportedly taken from space shows it perfectly round.

Got anything better, son?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I did, but your English comprehension is nearly as bad as your geography. This is not the first time in this thread you are denying something was posted even though anyone can actually go back and check and see that you are either lying or blind.

[b]I don't see anyone else chiming in saying they do not see the horizon at eye level as seen in t ...[text shortened]... d this exact named phenomenon.
They do not show the phenomenon. Not one single one of them.[/b]

And, just to compound your idiocy on the matter, here's a little more insult to injury, courtesy of the FAA.
This is taken from the organization's regulation policies, chapter seven "Flight Instruments."
Just because I know you're a little stink pot who likes to play games, I took the liberty of italicizing the important parts below.

Attitude Indicator
The attitude indicator, with its miniature aircraft and horizon
bar, displays a picture of the attitude of the aircraft. The
relationship of the miniature aircraft to the horizon bar is
the same as the relationship of the real aircraft to the actual
horizon. The instrument gives an instantaneous indication of
even the smallest changes in attitude.
The gyro in the attitude indicator is mounted in a horizontal
plane and depends upon rigidity in space for its operation.
The horizon bar represents the true horizon. This bar is
fixed to the gyro and remains in a horizontal plane as the
aircraft is pitched or banked about its lateral or longitudinal
axis, indicating the attitude of the aircraft relative to the true
horizon. [Figure 7-23]

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, just to compound your idiocy on the matter, here's a little more insult to injury, courtesy of the FAA.
This is taken from the organization's regulation policies, chapter seven "Flight Instruments."
Just because I know you're a little stink pot who likes to play games, I took the liberty of italicizing the important parts below.

[b]Attitude Indic ...[text shortened]... inal
axis, indicating the attitude of the aircraft relative to the true
horizon. [Figure 7-23]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/true+horizon


"true horizon
1. The boundary of a horizontal plane passing through a point of vision.
2. In photogrammetry, the boundary of a horizontal plane passing through the perspective center of a lens system."


The artificial horizon in an aircraft represents a mathematical abstract, the 90 degree from local vertical
horizontal plane.

It's not something you can see. The world doesn't have a convenient line magically floating in space
that is always at 90 degrees to local vertical.

What you can see is not a mathematical construct, it's the boundary between light rays that go to infinity and
those that bound on the surface of the Earth.

The skyline, or VISIBLE horizon. ie the one you can actually see.

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

The horizon or skyline is the apparent line that separates earth from sky, the line that divides all visible directions into two categories: those that intersect the Earth's surface, and those that do not. At many locations, the true horizon is obscured by trees, buildings, mountains, etc., and the resulting intersection of earth and sky is called the visible horizon.

......

Historically, the distance to the visible horizon at sea has been extremely important as it represented the maximum range of communication and vision before the development of the radio and the telegraph. Even today, when flying an aircraft under Visual Flight Rules, a technique called attitude flying is used to control the aircraft, where the pilot uses the visual relationship between the aircraft's nose and the horizon to control the aircraft. A pilot can also retain his or her spatial orientation by referring to the horizon.

In many contexts, especially perspective drawing, the curvature of the Earth is disregarded and the horizon is considered the theoretical line to which points on any horizontal plane converge (when projected onto the picture plane) as their distance from the observer increases. For observers near sea level the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is imperceptible to the naked eye[dubious – discuss] (but for someone on a 1000-meter hill looking out to sea the true horizon will be about a degree below a horizontal line).

In astronomy the horizon is the horizontal plane through (the eyes of) the observer. It is the fundamental plane of the horizontal coordinate system, the locus of points that have an altitude of zero degrees. While similar in ways to the geometrical horizon, in this context a horizon may be considered to be a plane in space, rather than a line on a picture plane.

What people actually see, is the visible horizon. The 'True horizon' is a mathematical construct most accurately
approximated by the oceans surface horizon. And neither the 'true horizon' nor the 'visible horizon' are always
'at eye level'.

We are well aware of artificial horizons, and what they do.

I for one use them both when plying flight simulator games, and when I went on a gliding course [where we absolutely
used visual flight rules.].

Your lack of comprehension of these subjects is truly mind-boggling.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
EDIT: I went looking through your posts to this thread and cannot for the life of me find even one time wherein you stated you agree with the ridiculous notion that the horizon doesn't follow the observer's direct line of sight.

Not surprising given that I never claimed to have agree to that. You do know there is a difference between 'eye level' and 'line of sight' don't you?

The point was that no one besides him was stupid enough to contest the claim that the horizon remains at eye level.
And now that the 'point' has failed what then?
Now the ball is in your court, find one person that sides with you on this. Not even lemon lime is willing to be that dumb.

You may have noticed, in your esteemed observational skills, that I am fielding all comers on the topic.
And failing abysmally.

You may have also noticed how all comers in this particular case, as is the same with all cases of the opposing view, is a field of anti-religionists who conform to the hive mentality, regardless of the topic.
Or perhaps you are just wrong and everyone knows it.

Please tell me how this picture depicts anything BUT the horizon at eye level.
It depicts the horizon at 3.59628 degrees below the horizontal. Clearly not at eye level.

Below the climber's elbow and above his armpits, or, in other words, right in the line of sight straight on from the photographer.
Once again, line of sight and 'eye level' are not the same thing.

Tell me where the horizon is in this picture:
http://atextures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Soil-Ground-Background-2-625x468.jpg
Is it also 'right in the line of sight'?

Only an idiot would argue they don't.
That's the best you've got?
No counter argument? No actual evidence?

Only a troll would insist another person is wrong on the point and not offer a single shred of support for evidence.
Yes, I agree. So why haven't you provided any evidence for any of your claims so far? Troll much?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, just to compound your idiocy on the matter, here's a little more insult to injury, courtesy of the FAA.
This is taken from the organization's regulation policies, chapter seven "Flight Instruments."
Just because I know you're a little stink pot who likes to play games, I took the liberty of italicizing the important parts below.

[b]Attitude Indic ...[text shortened]... inal
axis, indicating the attitude of the aircraft relative to the true
horizon. [Figure 7-23]

I have flown in light aircraft. I have had control of a plane. I am no expert pilot, but I know enough to know that you do not know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just because I know you're a little stink pot who likes to play games, I took the liberty of italicizing the important parts below.

Yet nothing that you italicized supports your claim. All it basically says is that there is an aircraft instrument that shows where the horizon is. It says nothing whatsoever about that horizon being at 'eye level' or even 'in line of sight'.
I am not a pilot but I have used flight simulators and I have worked in the airline industry.

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

Just had a quick scan through some of this thread, apologies for not reading all of it. GoAD asked you earlier if you believe the earth is flat but you didn't respond, probably because you didn't take the question seriously. I'm trying it understand your point, would you mind posting a very brief précis.

I've had a look at what you are saying about the horizon being at eye level and I'm not sure everyone in this discussion is talking about "level" in the same way. Nor "horizon" in fact.

Eye level can mean a number things. The reason the horizon always appears subjectively to be at "eye level" is because the observer is looking at it. Anything one looks at appears to be at "eye level" in terms of the line passing from the point of origin, through the centre of the cornea, the pupil and to the fovea, creating a straight line. Level therefore is relative to the what one considers to be local perpendicular. From 500 miles (or sufficient height to be able to see the entire earth's circumference) up the horizon is circular to the observer and therefore cannot be at "eye level" by that understanding.

Perhaps I'm missing or misunderstanding your point though.