Value of Thought

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh?

Exactly what I said when I read your post.
But I read it again and realized what you were trying to say.
Try that with mine!

Originally posted by DeepThought
It says "relative to", this does not automatically mean "at". To fly straight and level one needs the wings at some angle of attack which depends on one's airspeed, so where one needs the nose pointing depends on how fast one's flying and what the angle of the wings is relative to the direction of thrust.

Pilot use the horizon to keep themselves spatially oriented.
Their use of the horizon is dependent upon their ability to keep it at eye level.
Quit adding things to the mix that aren't under consideration.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Exactly what I said when I read your post.
But I read it again and realized what you were trying to say.
Try that with mine!

Naturally, that was the first thing I tried.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Pilot use the horizon to keep themselves spatially oriented.
Their use of the horizon is dependent upon their ability to keep it at eye level.
Quit adding things to the mix that aren't under consideration.

I'm now almost convinced the world is flat.
Just two questions.

At what height is your eye-level?
and
At what height is the horizon?

(Presumably your answer to both is the same because they are both at "eye-level"😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When the horizon is below the nose, the plane will be ascending.
When the horizon is beneath the nose, the plane will be descending.
When a pilot desires forward progress, he keeps his nose level with the visible horizon.
Just take a look at the supplied link to FAA, son.
It will clear up all of your confusion.
In figure 3-3, there is a spot for the p ...[text shortened]... to believe where it is!
Oh, darn it: you guess it!
Right on the horizon, exactly at eye level.

Stop calling me son you idiot. And I am not confused, you are.

Your statement that "When the horizon is below the nose, the plane will be ascending."
is disproved outright by watching a plane do a slow flypast at an air show.

As you can see in this video

YouTube

EDIT: Also...
WHAT IS ANGLE OF ATTACK

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/whatisaoa.pdf

Boeing on Angle of Attack. People who aught to know what they are talking about.


Wiki on the same subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because it is the usual crowd of those people who are arguing the wrong side of an obvious point.

But you aren't arguing on the right side of "an obvious point".

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm now almost convinced the world is flat.
Just two questions.

At what height is your eye-level?
and
At what height is the horizon?

(Presumably your answer to both is the same because they are both at "eye-level"😉

Here's what makes the eye level thing a thing.
With the curvature of the earth, the horizon ought not to extend indefinitely; at a certain point it would necessarily fall off any available view and below the horizon.
What we see instead, however, is that an increase in altitude only increases the depth of view to the horizon--- which is why it remains at eye level, even in planes traveling at 33,000 feet above sea level.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What we see......

Stop saying 'we' until you can actually find a single real live human being that doesn't think you are a lunatic.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's what makes the eye level thing a thing.
With the curvature of the earth, the horizon ought not to extend indefinitely; at a certain point it would necessarily fall off any available view and below the horizon.
What we see instead, however, is that an increase in altitude only increases the depth of view to the horizon--- which is why it remains at eye level, even in planes traveling at 33,000 feet above sea level.

With the curvature of the earth, the horizon ought not to extend indefinitely; at a certain point it would necessarily fall off any available view and below the horizon.

So, to summarize: if the earth were curved, the horizon should be expected to fall below the horizon; that is, we should expect the horizon to be below itself.

Make sense to anyone else besides FreakyKBH? I thought not....

Originally posted by googlefudge
Stop calling me son you idiot. And I am not confused, you are.

Your statement that "When the horizon is below the nose, the plane will be ascending."
is disproved outright by watching a plane do a slow flypast at an air show.

As you can see in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG1BmMaLgKQ

EDIT: Also...
WHAT IS ANGLE OF ATTACK

...[text shortened]... are talking about.


Wiki on the same subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

You are more than confused, brah.
You are completely discombobulated and out of touch with reality.

You claim the true horizon isn't something that can be seen...
even though it is very easy to see the true horizon in many situations experienced every day by humans all across the face of the earth.

You claim pilots don't use the horizon to keep themselves spatially oriented on their flights...
and yet everyday pilots are doing this exact same thing either via instrumentation or their own vision.

You claim flights closer to the equator require less angled trajectory than those flights further from the equator...
and yet every day we see flights which contradict this claim.

You claim the horizon doesn't rise and fall with the eye level of the observer...
and yet you've been shown literally hundreds of pictures which confirm just the opposite.

As you can see in this video.
Pretty sure the topic was normal patter of flight, not maneuvers executed at an air show!

Originally posted by LemonJello

With the curvature of the earth, the horizon ought not to extend indefinitely; at a certain point it would necessarily fall off any available view and below the horizon.

So, to summarize: if the earth were curved, the horizon should be expected to fall below the horizon; that is, we should expect the horizon to be below itself.

Make sense to anyone else besides FreakyKBH? I thought not....

No, you got it wrong again.
The amount of earth between the observer and the horizon would be limited, due to the curvature.
Instead, we see an extension of the amount of visible earth between the observer and the horizon--- far beyond where the curvature would come into play.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Stop saying 'we' until you can actually find a single real live human being that doesn't think you are a lunatic.

The only 'we' thought ought to be a concern is the 'we' herein who continues to argue the points which are completely supported by outside sources... including the FAA among other authorities.

But don't let that get in the way of your fun.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The only 'we' thought ought to be a concern is the 'we' herein who continues to argue the points which are completely supported by outside sources... including the FAA among other authorities.

But don't let that get in the way of your fun.

This HAS been fun. And a few days ago it occurred to me you can see the earths horizon from the moon... it can be seen as a nearly perfect circle. 🙂

Originally posted by lemon lime
This HAS been fun. And a few days ago it occurred to me you can see the earths horizon from the moon... it can be seen as a nearly perfect circle. 🙂

Now if only someone had already said something like that... Like, I don't know... Me for example.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, you got it wrong again.
The amount of earth between the observer and the horizon would be limited, due to the curvature.
Instead, we see an extension of the amount of visible earth between the observer and the horizon--- far beyond where the curvature would come into play.

No, you got it wrong again.

Oh, you mean I got it wrong when I simply summarized your own statement back to you? Apparently, not even you agree with your own claims.

Do you have a further meta-point to be made beyond this charade of pretending to present evidence that the earth is not well-approximated as an oblate spheroid?