Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are using "eye level" and "line of sight" interchangeably to support your argument, as though they are the same thing, when they are not.
That is no equivocation at all, consistently and repeatedly explained every time it was used.
A person looking straight ahead while standing or sitting without tilting their head either forward or backward will see the horizon in their line of sight at eye level.
You even quoted where I am saying this exact same thing.
You posted a wiki link pages ago which nicely explained the trigonometry of the astronomical horizon, true horizon and visible horizon. You seem to have ignored what was in that link and continued this rather strange argumentation using terminology which does not support your case.
Astronomical horizon - a horozontal plane at 90 degrees from local perpendicular at eye level of the observer.
True horizon - the illusion of where the earth meets the sky. Because of the curvature of the earth, this is geometrically lower than the astronomical horizon. Clear line of sight is required to see this.
Visible horizon - where line of sight of the true horizon is blocked by an object, the visible horizon becomes the point at which the sky appears to meets the top of the blocking object.
This is primary school stuff, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horizons.svg
[i]Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/b]Are you saying that your point is to not be clear?
Divegeester to Googlefudge
I'm not clear if he's just being a bit oblique about the flat earth thing or wether he actually believe that the earth is flat
FreakyKBH to divegeester
That's kind of the point, don't you think?
19 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOr is what you are saying that it is too difficult for you to understand basic science and that is the foundation for your belief in God?
[b]I'm not clear if he's just being a bit oblique about the flat earth thing or wether he actually believe that the earth is flat
That's kind of the point, don't you think?[/b]
Originally posted by divegeesterI think LemonJello has him pegged. Freaky sees himself as a sort of teacher leading the forum through a lesson by means of the Socratic method. He is not the first poster to see himself that way. The problem however is that effective use of the Socratic method requires the teacher to actually make some sense as well as the students doing what they are told - ie it works best in fictional dialogues rather than in real life. When everyone went off script and what Freaky thought was general ignorance of a subject turned out to be a case of just his own ignorance of the subject he found himself trapped in a situation he does not know how to get out of. He is therefore left with hinting at some master point to be made but no way to actually make a point and still maintain his dignity.
Or is what you are saying that it is too difficult for you to understand basic science and that is the foundation for your belief in God?
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeNobody else agrees with you. Everyone else thinks that you are wrong.
Nobody else agrees with you. Everyone else thinks that you are wrong.
So you are either deluded enough to think that everyone else is wrong and you alone
in all the world is right. Or you are simply lying.
Regardless, the fact that I/we/everyone doesn't agree that your so called proofs are anything of the sort.
And that is a fact. Means that ev ...[text shortened]... n, and said, is utterly unconvincing, and fails
as proof for anything you are trying to prove.
What does that clearly unsupported claim have to do with anything?
So you are either deluded enough to think that everyone else is wrong and you alone
in all the world is right.
I am the first person on earth to make any of the claims found herein?
I am the only one who sees them this way?
Are you sure of this claim?
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by divegeesterIn every instance of my use of "eye level" and "line of sight," I have made very clear my intention of the terms.
You are using "eye level" and "line of sight" interchangeably to support your argument, as though they are the same thing, when they are not.
You posted a wiki link pages ago which nicely explained the trigonometry of the astronomical horizon, true horizon and visible horizon. You seem to have ignored what was in that link and continued this rather s ...[text shortened]... t.
This is primary school stuff, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horizons.svg
Their use was so clear, in fact, that others have consistently argued against the intended claim, i.e., the true horizon remains at eye level.
You seem to have ignored what was in that link and continued this rather strange argumentation using terminology which does not support your case.
The astronomical horizon
The position of the astronomical horizon is independent of and not affected by any mountains or other obstructions visible from the observer's position. At The Solar Almanac, calculations of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, etc. ignore local obstructions and so are defined in terms of your astronomical horizon.
is and has been used interchangeably with the true horizon, although I have used mostly the true horizon.
Some have erroneously attempted to use the term in a manner which gives an appearance of distinction when none exists.
From the beginning of this portion of the conversation, I have not vacillated in my description of the horizon in consideration.
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI was merely reminding you that your quote contradicted your claim, as the words within pointed to the very thing I was claiming.
I didn't quote you because I agree with you. Do you think that every time someone clicks "reply and quote" that they are by default agreeing to what the poster said?
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadGreat summary, except for the content.
I think LemonJello has him pegged. Freaky sees himself as a sort of teacher leading the forum through a lesson by means of the Socratic method. He is not the first poster to see himself that way. The problem however is that effective use of the Socratic method requires the teacher to actually make some sense as well as the students doing what they are tol ...[text shortened]... some master point to be made but no way to actually make a point and still maintain his dignity.
Freaky sees himself as a sort of teacher leading the forum through a lesson by means of the Socratic method.
You literally have no idea how I see myself; claiming otherwise is sheer arrogance, nothing more.
The origination of the thread was an underlying basic question: what difference does it make for a man to believe something which otherwise has no bearing on his life or well-being?
When everyone went off script and what Freaky thought was general ignorance of a subject turned out to be a case of just his own ignorance of the subject he found himself trapped in a situation he does not know how to get out of.
Off script, as in response number one, when Ghost of a Duke referenced the coming alien invasion of June 08, 2089?
The general ignorance of the subject has been gloriously on display by those supposedly all in agreement: replete with many false claims; self-contradiction; outright refusal to accept obvious facts; attacks on the person; and other follies too numerous to name.
He is therefore left with hinting at some master point to be made but no way to actually make a point and still maintain his dignity.
The "master point" is the 600 plus posts to the thread.
Although there were a few posts (less than a handful) which actually addressed the question, the lot of you who were in such disagreement with the hypothetical (however poorly understood and pathetically supported), you became so embroiled with the hypothetical you couldn't address the first question.
By doing so, you (in my opinion) accidentally answered the question even though you're unable to show your work.
It is very important, we just don't know why.
20 Nov 15
Originally posted by divegeesterThere is no question that I have been very clear: folks wouldn't be arguing the very points I am making if they didn't understand them and/or their implications.
Are you saying that your point is to not be clear?
The point was: what does it matter what I believe?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know what you were saying but you seem to misunderstand the purpose of quoting someone and are pretending that it means they agree with what you say.
I was merely reminding you that your quote contradicted your claim, as the words within pointed to the very thing I was claiming.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat is clear is that you are arguing an indefensible position and making yourself look silly. Even your own wiki link to horizon explanations is at odds with how you are using the terms.
There is no question that I have been very clear: folks wouldn't be arguing the very points I am making if they didn't understand them and/or their implications.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy are you pretending that the astronomical horizon and the true horizon are the same thing and therefore you have been incorrectly using them interchangeably? Your own wiki link demonstrates they are different. I think you have dismantled yourself and your credibility in this thread.
In every instance of my use of "eye level" and "line of sight," I have made very clear my intention of the terms.
Their use was so clear, in fact, that others have consistently argued against the intended claim, i.e., the true horizon remains at eye level.
[b]You seem to have ignored what was in that link and continued this rather strange argumentation ...[text shortened]... on of the conversation, I have not vacillated in my description of the horizon in consideration.