Originally posted by lemon limeThe thread ~ "Value of Thought" ~ is about humans not birds or other animals. Is the belief that the earth is flat "non-consequential" for the human race? The 'beliefs' or 'thoughts' of "migratory birds" ~ such as they are ~ are not the topic of discussion.
Do migratory birds know the earth is a sphere? They seem to do a good job of getting where they want to go...
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot surprising given that I never claimed to have agree to that.
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?
[b]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, f ...[text shortened]... es, I agree. So why haven't you provided any evidence for any of your claims so far? Troll much?[/b]
First you said you did agree, now you're saying you don't.
Or maybe not.
Hard to tell with you, since you previously claimed you did agree with him.
Which is it, exactly?
Are you saying you agree that the horizon doesn't remain at eye level, regardless of elevation?
Or are you acknowledging that fact?
You do know there is a difference between 'eye level' and 'line of sight' don't you?
Really?
Are you sure you know there's a difference?
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.
See there? Now it sounds like you're back to agreeing with him that the horizon doesn't remain at eye level.
You really need to get your crap straight, son.
And failing abysmally.
Actually, the points are being made, but your group is too obstinate to admit any of them.
I've provided plenty of source-backed support for the painfully obvious truth that the horizon remains at eye level.
You have offered nothing except to deny what is plainly obvious.
It's not difficult to succeed when you deny an obvious fact: it's impossible.
I can only take solace in knowing you guys are simply trolls.
It depicts the horizon at 3.59628 degrees below the horizontal. Clearly not at eye level.
Funny.
The photographer is pointing his camera at the subject, and there's the horizon dissecting the background... at eye level, despite being over 25,000 feet above sea level.
Go freaking figure.
Is it also 'right in the line of sight'?
Yes, you moron, the dirt is in the photographer's line of sight.
However, in order for the photographer to capture this image, he must tilt his head and camera in a downward motion, instead of straight ahead.
Were he to simply point his camera in his natural line of sight, i.e., straight ahead, he could possibly capture the horizon right in front of him.
Yes, I agree. So why haven't you provided any evidence for any of your claims so far? Troll much?
You agree, yet you ignore all of the support offered up to this point.
Interesting.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI have flown a Cessna before as well as been a passenger on one.
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.
I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
I didn't write the FAA manual, I simply quoted it.
Since the FAA manual tells you to keep the plane pointed toward the horizon, why would you do anything different?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am guessing here that the only 'reasonable person' is you? You have failed to find a single other person that agrees with you on this. Not even lemon lime or RJ have voiced support both of which are normally quite happy to make fools of themselves in support of religion.
There is not a question in any reasonable person's mind that the horizon remains at eye level.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadHandling baggage is not the same as flying a plane, son.
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.
Since you have never seen a cockpit, or the instruments used to fly a plane, perhaps now would be a good time to acquaint yourself with that view.
The altitude indicator has a round display with either a picture of a plane or lines indicating center of the gauge, and the horizon dissecting the gauge in half.
The pilot is trained to keep the plane pointed toward the horizon, which will be directing in front of him--- neither up or down from eye level.
That gauge will tell him if he is doing it correctly.
What I quoted says exactly what I've been saying the entire time.
Since you're having a hard time comprehending that this is exactly what pilots do, take a few minutes and do your own research and find as many pictures as you can of the view from the cockpit.
If your observational skills are as keen as your trolling skills, you'll be able to see the horizon in nearly every shot... right in the direct line of sight, right at eye level for the pilots.
Maybe not, given your intransigence up to this point, but here's to hope.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you point the nose of your aircraft directly at the horizon you'd better keep an eye on the altimeter. What you have quoted says "the relationship of the nose of the aircraft to the horizon.". Before quoting FAA visual flight rules, you might want to look up concepts like "angle of attack", or better still find a light aircraft pilot and discover what they actually do. Further you should actually read the whole of the Wikipedia page about the horizon as it just plain disagrees with what you are trying to claim.
Do you even read the things you post?
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 ar ...[text shortened]... horizon remains constant regardless of the observer's altitude proves the earth is not a globe.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadUnlike your group of idiots, I don't need support.
I am guessing here that the only 'reasonable person' is you? You have failed to find a single other person that agrees with you on this. Not even lemon lime or RJ have voiced support both of which are normally quite happy to make fools of themselves in support of religion.
This isn't religious, you poor fool; this is just about facts.
The only support I need is what has been given: proof from various sources showing the exact same thing I've put forth.
How about you do everyone a solid and offer your "proof" of the horizon NOT at eye level from various altitudes?
I've given you several examples of my claim, so how about you offer examples of your claims to the contrary?
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat is your point, exactly?
If you point the nose of your aircraft directly at the horizon you'd better keep an eye on the altimeter. What you have quoted says "the relationship of the nose of the aircraft to the horizon.". Before quoting FAA visual flight rules, you might want to look up concepts like "angle of attack", or better still find a light aircraft pilot and disc ...[text shortened]... e Wikipedia page about the horizon as it just plain disagrees with what you are trying to claim.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf it's not about being "religious" why have you been dismissing arguments you disagree with as "anti-religious" or whatever the word is you have been using?
Unlike your group of idiots, I don't need support.
This isn't religious, you poor fool; this is just about facts.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat made you think I was a baggage handler?
Handling baggage is not the same as flying a plane, son.
Since you have never seen a cockpit, or the instruments used to fly a plane,[/]b
FAIL. What made you think I have never seen a cockpit or the instruments used to fly a plane?
[b]The pilot is trained to keep the plane pointed toward the horizon, which will be directing in front of him--- neither up or down from eye level.
That gauge will tell him if he is doing it correctly.
I take it you have exactly zero pilot training.
What I quoted says exactly what I've been saying the entire time.
No, what you quoted did not say exactly what you have been saying and didn't support what you have been saying.
Since you're having a hard time comprehending that this is exactly what pilots do, take a few minutes and do your own research and find as many pictures as you can of the view from the cockpit.
As I already stated, I have worked in the airline industry.
If your observational skills are as keen as your trolling skills, you'll be able to see the horizon in nearly every shot... right in the direct line of sight, right at eye level for the pilots.
Nope, I will not be able to see that. Nor will you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat for?
Unlike your group of idiots, I don't need support.
This isn't religious, you poor fool; this is just about facts.
The only support I need is what has been given: proof from various sources showing the exact same thing I've put forth.
How about you do everyone a solid and offer your "proof" of the horizon NOT at eye level from various altitudes?
I've ...[text shortened]... ou several examples of my claim, so how about you offer examples of your claims to the contrary?
Every 'example' YOU have given proves US right.
And I ask again.
DEFINE EYE LEVEL
Because WE are defining it as being the horizontal plane 90 degrees from local vertical.
Under THAT definition the horizon [true or visible] is NOT always [or hardly ever] at eye level.
And specifically it's at or below eye level when looking at an open water horizon and drops farther
below 'eye level' with increasing altitude. This is obviously demonstrated by increasing altitude
to [say] geostationary orbit, at which point you are looking nearly strait down at the Earth's horizon
which is now only a few degrees [or tens of degrees] from vertical.
You can see this in any full Earth photo taken from space. If your claim was correct, the two 'edges' of
the Earth must always appear to be 180 degrees apart. As this is obviously not the case, you are obviously wrong.
The reason we are using that definition for eye level [apart from it being the one that makes most sense]
is that this arguments started with you arguing for evidence that the world is flat.
And what is relevant to that argument is what angle the [visible or true] horizon is from the [local] horizontal plane.
If YOU are defining 'eye level' to simply mean 'line of sight' then you are simply making the tautological claim that
if the horizon is visible then the horizon is visible.
Which is both meaningless and irrelevant to discussions about whether or not the Earth is flat.