16 Nov 15
I'm afraid to leave my home now unless I'm armed with a globe and a microscope. I had no idea how dangerous it is to not be constantly aware of the earth being a sphere.
The microscope is for examining worrisome details and interesting minutia. I don't know why that's important or essential to my survival, but I'm not taking any chances... not anymore.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeWould you be happy to board a passenger plane navigated by someone who believed the earth is flat?
I'm afraid to leave my home now unless I'm armed with a globe and a microscope. I had no idea how dangerous it is to not be constantly aware of the earth being a sphere.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeFreakyKBH has been trying for 30 or so thread pages to argue his case. On which of those pages do you think he most convincingly argued that the belief the earth is flat is "non-consequential"?
The microscope is for examining worrisome details and interesting minutia. I don't know why that's important or essential to my survival, but I'm not taking any chances... not anymore.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFWhere does he say the earth is flat? I've read most of this thread, but I don't recall him saying he actually thinks it's flat.
FreakyKBH has been trying for 30 or so thread pages to argue his case. On which of those pages do you think he most convincingly argued that the belief the earth is flat is "non-consequential"?
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI think we can take that as a grudgingly admitted 'no'.
Yes, if I was drunk... and the pilot wasn't.
It is not critical for everyone to know that the earth is not flat at all times. It is however important that some people know it is not and the world will be better off if everyone knows it is not.
Over the course of history, the vast majority of people could not read or write. Some of them survived. They would have been better off if they had been literate.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe you are attempting to bring up an idiot strawman argument. 😏
I think we can take that as a grudgingly admitted 'no'.
It is not critical for everyone to know that the earth is not flat at all times. It is however important that some people know it is not and the world will be better off if everyone knows it is not.
Over the course of history, the vast majority of people could not read or write. Some of them survived. They would have been better off if they had been literate.
Originally posted by lemon limeYour answer to my question is very wide of the mark. FreakyKBH has suggested that the belief that the earth is flat is "non-consequential" and then set out to prove it through stuff about navigation. Do you think he convincingly argued that a belief that the earth is flat is "non-consequential"?
Where does he say the earth is flat? I've read most of this thread, but I don't recall him saying he actually thinks it's flat.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeDo you even read the things you post?
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 loc ...[text shortened]... d visual flight rules.].
Your lack of comprehension of these subjects is truly mind-boggling.
You know, those things which I have already posted to give you outside confirmation of the topic being covered?
Or do you think you can merely re-post them and claim they support your argument?
I get it that you don't read it and are having a hard time comprehending the words there, but you're clearly claiming an argument--- the only problem is, the "proof" you're offering alone shows you're wrong.
It's not something you can see.
You sure?
I guess what I'm seeing as I gaze out onto one of the Great Lakes here from the shore must be one of them optical illusion-thingies.
As I have stated now REPEATEDLY, the true horizon is often obscured by natural and man-made objects.
And, lo and behold, you quote nearly the identical information from wikipedia:
At many locations, the true horizon is obscured by trees, buildings, mountains, etc.,...
You do understand what the word "obscured" means, right?
I'll spell it out for you since you seem to be stumbling over it.
It essentially means that if the trees, buildings, mountains, etc., were not in the line of sight for the observer, said observer would be able to see the horizon.
So, if I'm getting it right (and I'm guessing at this point), I think it's pretty safe to say that in the right conditions, anyone gifted with sight will be able to see the horizon.
At least, I hope so!
Otherwise, this other part that you have re-posted is going to mean a whole lot of trouble for folks flying planes:
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.
But of course, the horizon can't be seen, right?
Or maybe you're still contending that not only can it not be seen, but it's also below eye level, as demonstrated in these photos:
http://www.badenaviation.com/
Or maybe these folks who have a website on flying ultralight aircraft have it all wrong when they tell people to keep their craft level with the horizon:
http://imfk.no/?Mode=Meny&HovedMenyId=727&UnderMenyId1=736&ThisMenyId=736&InnholdId=277
Your lack of comprehension of these subjects is truly mind-boggling.
What I am comprehending is that you are a total and complete idiot.
There is not a question in any reasonable person's mind that the horizon remains at eye level.
It has been demonstrated repeatedly within this thread.
It has been referred to with verifiable sources available for anyone to check, in addition to testing it themselves.
It is how pilots keep their planes level, as seen in the manual from the FAA.
You see (that's just a colloquial phrase, as it is clear you cannot see), you're only fighting this point because you know what acknowledging it means to your overall argument.
On a globe, it would not be possible to have the horizon always at eye level.
Changes in altitude would mean the horizon would drop off exponentially with the observer's altitude.
The fact that the horizon remains constant regardless of the observer's altitude proves the earth is not a globe.