16 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExcept I didn't suggest you need support.
Unlike your group of idiots, I don't need support.
You falsely claimed that everyone in the world agreed with you. You then changed your statement to include only those people you judge 'reasonable'.
Can you find one such reasonable person? I thought not.
The only support I need is what has been given: proof from various sources showing the exact same thing I've put forth.
Except all you have put forth is your false claims including the false claim that everyone else agrees with you. Are you now admitting that nobody else agrees with you? Can you name anyone that agrees with you whose opinion we can independently verify?
I've given you several examples of my claim,
No, you haven't. You presented several links to images that quite clearly did not support your claim.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWings generate lift by forcing air downwards.
I have flown a Cessna before as well as been a passenger on one.
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?
They do this by being at an angle to the on coming air flow.
This angle is called the angle of attack.
It's vital to retain the correct angle of attack [for your speed/weight/etc] to retain enough
lift to maintain altitude.
If the plane is flying nose pointed at the horizon, then if you were maintaining altitude you
would have zero [or more likely negative] angle of attack and thus would not be generating
that all important lift.
What actually happens when you fly like that is you start descending which changes the angle of attack
so your wings are still generating some lift, so you don't just drop like a stone. But you will not maintain
altitude flying like that.
This is why [and how] you can tell on a commercial flight when the plane is starting it's descent,
you can [or I can, you seem impervious to reality] feel the plane drop the nose to level to start the descent.
You can see this principle very clearly in air displays, particularly when fighter jets make slow passes
by the crowd. You can see the planes at a high angle of attack, their noses pointed up in the air, to generate
enough lift at those slow speeds to maintain level flight.
Similarly in flights where they have flown Spitfires and Eurofighter Typhoons together you will see the Typhoon
at a high angle of attack as it tries to fly slow enough to keep with the Spitfires.
As shown in this picture.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8740/17333177356_f9e0547a81_b.jpg
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt occurs to me that there is one more detail that needs to be made explicit given FKBH's ability to
[b]DEFINE EYE LEVEL
Because WE are defining it as being the horizontal plane 90 degrees from local vertical.[/b]
misunderstand and misconstrue...
Eye level is being defined as "The horizontal plane [90 degrees from local vertical] that intersects the
optical system [eye or camera] viewing the scene"
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFThat's right, birds are not the topic of discussion. So if they are NOT the topic of discussion, then what point do you THINK I may have been making by reminding you (because I assume you already know) that migratory birds are able to travel long distances without knowing even a small fraction of what people know about the earth and air travel?
The 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.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeMy best guess would be that it is a rather ridiculous argument that if birds can navigate without the use of GPS and a map then nobody really needs them to navigate and we should tell pilots and ships captains to stop being such dunces and just do it like the birds and the bees (which also have awesome navigating skills).
That's right, birds are not the topic of discussion. So if they are NOT the topic of discussion, then what point do you THINK I may have been making by reminding you (because I assume you already know) that migratory birds are able to travel long distances without knowing even a small fraction of what people know about the earth and air travel?
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think we can take that as a grudgingly admitted 'it can be done'.
My best guess would be that it is a rather ridiculous argument that if birds can navigate without the use of GPS and a map then nobody really needs them to navigate and we should tell pilots and ships captains to stop being such dunces and just do it like the birds and the bees (which also have awesome navigating skills).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeYes. before accurate navigation was invented lots of people travelled long distances by sea.
I think we can take that as a grudgingly admitted 'it can be done'.
Would you like me to point out all the ship wrecks from where they ran into various rocks
because they didn't know where they were?
Originally posted by lemon limeIf you mean navigating, then yes, I have no doubt that it can be done without knowing the earth is spherical (and no, there is nothing grudging about it, I never claimed otherwise). It would however not be very accurate. In the case of flights such as the routes Freaky brought up, there is no chance that they would get to their correct destinations without either such knowledge or instructions from someone who had such knowledge.
I think we can take that as a grudgingly admitted 'it can be done'.
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeBirds do not even know how to fly. They just do it by God given instinct. 😏
That's right, birds are not the topic of discussion. So if they are NOT the topic of discussion, then what point do you THINK I may have been making by reminding you (because I assume you already know) that migratory birds are able to travel long distances without knowing even a small fraction of what people know about the earth and air travel?
Originally posted by lemon limeI think you were just trying to avoid my question which was about humans, about flying airplanes, and about whether a belief that the earth was flat was "non-consequential".
That's right, birds are not the topic of discussion. So if they are NOT the topic of discussion, then what point do you THINK I may have been making by reminding you (because I assume you already know) that migratory birds are able to travel long distances without knowing even a small fraction of what people know about the earth and air travel?
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?
Now, were you going to talk about the subject or follow the usual tack and take potshots from the sideline?
What could I possibly add here, given your comprehensive mastery of the topic on display? I keed, I keed.
Regarding "the subject", your original question was this:
"But outside of this, what possible bearing do those thoughts unrelated to the preservation of life have on anything for a person?"
And by "outside of this", you are excluding epistemic concerns and ends, like truth, as well as excluding constitutional concerns, such as how beliefs or thoughts, etc, partially constitute a person. Gosh, those are some pretty big concerns to just brush aside....
Regardless, I would think the answer to your question is "Potentially a great deal, depending on the specifics." Beliefs or thoughts -- even theoretical ones unrelated to practical or immediate personal concerns -- are not held or introspected upon in isolation. It's not like one can just remove a belief of this sort without significant ramifications for his inferential activity and belief structure in total. After all, one's beliefs have to "hang together" in a more or less cohere whole (barring some irrationality, which we need to allow), and some beliefs are built on others, depending for their justification on others, etc, etc. Changing even one belief can send many ripples and disturbances through a person's noetic structure, not to mention their inferential patterns. If you think beliefs or thoughts of this sort can just be ripped out of one's head without causing any such disturbances, then your views on belief structure and topology are probably extraordinarily naive. If you're actually interested in a constructive dialogue on this topic, you would do well to start there: with belief structure and topology. Perhaps you would care to educate us all on the relative merits of different views on that topic (e.g., whether our mental representations are in map-like form or just linguistic)?
16 Nov 15
Originally posted by FMFI don't doubt that's what you were thinking, but if I were you and wanted to make a living as a mind reader...
I think you were just trying to avoid my question which was about humans, about flying airplanes, and about whether a belief that the earth was flat was "non-consequential".
Never mind. I forgot how 'receptive' you are to accepting good advice.