Value of Thought

Originally posted by twhitehead
If 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 all take that as a grudging admission that saying 'grudgingly admitted' is essentially meaningless.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I think we can all take that as a grudging admission that saying 'grudged admission' is essentially meaningless.

No, you cannot.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't doubt that's what you were thinking, but if I were you and wanted to make a living as a mind reader...

Never mind. I forgot how 'receptive' you are to accepting good advice.

No mind reading necessary. You are what you post. You can't use migratory birds to illustrate what is "consequential" and "non-consequential" about 'the value of human thought'. I think you simply dropped a clanger when you mentioned migratory birds when asked about humans, pilots, planes and navigation, and this stuff about 'mind reading' is mere deflection.

Originally posted by FMF
No mind reading necessary. You are what you post. You can't use migratory birds to illustrate what is "consequential" and "non-consequential" about 'the value of human thought'. I think you simply dropped a clanger when you mentioned migratory birds when asked about humans, pilots, planes and navigation, and this stuff about 'mind reading' is mere deflection.

I said nothing about 'consequential' or 'non-consequential', this is just you and others here attempting to alter the parameters of this discussion with clever(?) wordplay. I'm aware of what I've been saying, so if you continue putting words in my mouth I'll spit them out and point out your error.

Originally posted by FMF
No mind reading necessary. You are what you post. You can't use migratory birds to illustrate what is "consequential" and "non-consequential" about 'the value of human thought'. I think you simply dropped a clanger when you mentioned migratory birds when asked about humans, pilots, planes and navigation, and this stuff about 'mind reading' is mere deflection.

Stop for a moment, take a deep breath and THINK about what 'non-consequential' means.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I said nothing about 'consequential' or 'non-consequential', this is just you and others here attempting to alter the parameters of this discussion with clever(?) wordplay. I'm aware of what I've been saying, so if you continue putting words in my mouth I'll spit them out and point out your error.

How migratory birds fly has nothing to do with the "Value of Thought" and has nothing to do with the claim FreakyKBH has made. The question you have been dodging for several pages is: "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 lemon lime
Stop for a moment, take a deep breath and THINK about what 'non-consequential' means.

Do you think that the notion that the earth is flat is "non-consequential"? Presumably not, as you have already conceded that you would not board a flight piloted by someone who assumed the earth is flat.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wings generate lift by forcing air downwards.

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 mai ...[text shortened]... res.
As shown in this picture.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8740/17333177356_f9e0547a81_b.jpg

God, that's some really great stuff.

Now, back to the question.
If the FAA tells pilots to maintain level flight by adjusting their position relative to the horizon, why would you suggest they do anything different?

"The pitch attitude for level flight (constant altitude) is usually obtained by selecting some portion of the airplane’s nose as a reference point, and then keeping that point in a fixed position relative to the horizon."
"The pitch information obtained from the attitude indicator also will show the position of the nose relative to the horizon and will indicate whether elevator pressure is necessary to change the pitch attitude to return to level flight. However, the primary reference source is the natural horizon."
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-2of7.pdf

Again, the horizon is supposed to be kept in the direct line of sight--- eye level--- with the pilot.
But of course, I'm just spitballin' here...

Originally posted by Green Paladin
If someone offered FreakyKBH a penny for his thoughts they would be robbed blind.

That means I have a lot of them.
Am I right, guyz?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think that the notion that the earth is flat is "non-consequential"? Presumably not, as you have already conceded that you would not board a flight piloted by someone who assumed the earth is flat.

Pilots definitely don't consider the curvature: they simply fly the plane along the routes given.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It occurs to me that there is one more detail that needs to be made explicit given FKBH's ability to
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"

Eye level is to mean what I've said it means from the beginning: looking straight ahead.
Take the human eye out of it and insert a camera; you'll get the same results.
The horizon is straight ahead, at all elevations.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
God, that's some really great stuff.

Now, back to the question.
If the FAA tells pilots to maintain level flight by adjusting their position relative to the horizon, why would you suggest they do anything different?

[i]"The pitch attitude for level flight (constant altitude) is usually obtained by selecting some portion of the airplane’s nose as a r ...[text shortened]... irect line of sight--- eye level--- with the pilot.
But of course, I'm just spitballin' here...

Line of sight and eye level are not the same thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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).

As a point of information, C.A.A. rules have one relying first on dead reckoning with GPS as backup. In practice people tend to rely on GPS too much, the idea of the rule is that one doesn't want pilots to lose track of where they are due to a failure in a single system, so if they lose the airspeed indicator they have GPS and if they lose GPS they can work out where they are using traditional techniques.

I think it is worth mentioning that natural methods of navigation would have evolved (or for that matter been designed) in the context of the actual geometry of the Earth, so it's no more surprising that they can navigate in an accomplished fashion than it is that we can walk at a very early age when there is no way we could understand it scientifically.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Eye level is to mean what I've said it means from the beginning: looking straight ahead.
Take the human eye out of it and insert a camera; you'll get the same results.
The horizon is straight ahead, at all elevations.

In that case you are using eye level to mean what we have been saying it means.

That 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"

And the horizon is NOT always [seldom] at eye level. It is NOT always strait ahead.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What made you think I was a baggage handler?

[b]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 ...[text shortened]... ght, right at eye level for the pilots.
Nope, I will not be able to see that. Nor will you.[/b]

What made you think I was a baggage handler?
Sorry.
Stewardess.

FAIL. What made you think I have never seen a cockpit or the instruments used to fly a plane?
You might have seen them, my mistake.
You just don't know what they do.

I take it you have exactly zero pilot training.
You betta check yo'self b'fo you wreck yo'self.
My zero pilot training trumps your complete lack of common sense and logic.
As a primer, I suggest you read the FAA manual, which supports what I've said from the beginning.

No, what you quoted did not say exactly what you have been saying and didn't support what you have been saying.
Yes, it did.

As I already stated, I have worked in the airline industry.
As I am now stating, handing out your little bag of nuts to strangers does not qualify your opinion.

Nope, I will not be able to see that. Nor will you.
You won't because you won't look; I will because I have looked.