Value of Thought

Originally posted by LemonJello
And I take it that this thread is yet another epic failure by FreakyKBH to employ the Socratic method with effect.

Great announcement.
Could have used a little more trumpet, but otherwise, two snaps up and a circle.

That's the usual tack for the dodge gang: avoid answering the question(s) and declare the victory.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's all well and good (except for the errors), but what does that have to do with the quoted text?

No one is debating the impact imperfect conditions have on the ability to see over great distances.

However, the quoted text to which your post is attached referred to how far one can see to their elevation-dependent horizon and how much the earth is ...[text shortened]... d that point--- so the dividing line is representative of a surface that is below his eye level.

You've got the geometry wrong. You've confounded the astronomical and the true horizon. Your argument won't work. At 10,000 feet the difference is about 1 degree, at six feet it's almost nothing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The position of using the visible horizon for spatial orientation?
Have you not been reading the quotes provided--- from their website?

When flying it is good for the aircraft to be the right way up.

Ensuring that the ground is down, and the sky is up, and that your aircraft is roughly
level is all possible with the visible horizon in good [enough] visibility.

However, that doesn't mean you point your nose AT the horizon. Either the real one or the
artificial horizon.

Generally in level flight you will point the nose slightly above the artificial horizon.

How much will depend on your speed/weight/altitude/etc.

None of this contradicts what we are saying. It does contradict your arguments however.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think he believes in a flat earth, he's producing arguments to attempt to show it's empirically reasonable. The problem is he's got the phenomenology of a flat earth, a spherical earth, and the actual earth wrong and the argument isn't viable.

It's not absolutely clear to me what he means by "eye level", which should simply mean the height of ...[text shortened]... sfired as the whole thing's got lost in this failed defence of evidence for a flat earth theory.

There is no trick intended or employed.
I have not equivocated on my use of the term 'horizon' or the phrase 'eye level' at any point in this part of the discussion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Great announcement.
Could have used a little more trumpet, but otherwise, two snaps up and a circle.

That's the usual tack for the dodge gang: avoid answering the question(s) and declare the victory.

It is undeniably true, that whatever point you were trying to make, [IF you were trying to
make any point] you have failed utterly to make it.

Whether you blame us, or accept it being your own fault, is irrelevant.

You have spent most of the thread failing to write posts that were even comprehensible, let
alone convincing. As evidenced by our myriad responses asking for clarification, explanation,
and generally disagreeing with you.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You've got the geometry wrong. You've confounded the astronomical and the true horizon. Your argument won't work. At 10,000 feet the difference is about 1 degree, at six feet it's almost nothing.

You've got the geometry wrong.
Do tell.
I'm using a calculator which relies on the assumed curvature of the earth to determine the drop off, dependent upon the distance from a given point.

At 10,000 feet the difference is about 1 degree, at six feet it's almost nothing.
What in the world are you trying to say here?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It is undeniably true, that whatever point you were trying to make, [IF you were trying to
make any point] you have failed utterly to make it.

Whether you blame us, or accept it being your own fault, is irrelevant.

You have spent most of the thread failing to write posts that were even comprehensible, let
alone convincing. As evidenced by our myriad responses asking for clarification, explanation,
and generally disagreeing with you.

That's rich coming from a person who has been demonstrably wrong on literally every point, exampled in one of my previous posts.

The only blame lies with those who refuse to acknowledge actual, indisputable facts--- such as the horizon remaining at eye level, as shown repeatedly.

Originally posted by googlefudge
When flying it is good for the aircraft to be the right way up.

Ensuring that the ground is down, and the sky is up, and that your aircraft is roughly
level is all possible with the visible horizon in good [enough] visibility.

However, that doesn't mean you point your nose AT the horizon. Either the real one or the
artificial horizon.

Genera ...[text shortened]... /etc.

None of this contradicts what we are saying. It does contradict your arguments however.

I've given links to several references backing my claims, related to flight.
I've quoted several times from the FAA manual as well as other flight instruction websites.
All of these support my claim of keeping the horizon at eye level during normal flight.
You claim this is not the case.
Please offer references or quotes which support any of the gobbledygook you spew out, desperately trying to sound relevant and informed.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is no trick intended or employed.
I have not equivocated on my use of the term 'horizon' or the phrase 'eye level' at any point in this part of the discussion.

All other opinions to the contrary.

You talk about a horizon that you can SEE in photographs. [or in reality]

The ONLY horizon you can actually see is the visible horizon.

The visible horizon will approximate to the true horizon on liquid surfaces.

Where the visible horizon approximates a true horizon it will always be below
the astronomical horizon that is a horizontal plane that passes through the observers
eye/optics. [it can be at, or higher than that, where obstacles {incl mountains} obstruct
the true horizon, raising the visible horizon]

This is because on a spheroid the surface curves down away from you in all directions
and thus a tangent plane will always be higher than the true horizon.

as demonstrated in this picture.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Horizons.svg

As you can see from this picture, where the visible horizon approximates the true horizon [over water]
you can see an object of equal height as the observer at an equal distance away from the horizon as
the observer. So a 6ft observer can see a 6 ft subject at a maximum distance of twice the distance to
the horizon for a 6 foot person ~3*2 miles = ~6 miles.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's rich coming from a person who has been demonstrably wrong on literally every point, exampled in one of my previous posts.

The only blame lies with those who refuse to acknowledge actual, indisputable facts--- such as the horizon remaining at eye level, as shown repeatedly.

No, you merely claimed I was wrong on very point.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that any of us are wrong.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You've got the geometry wrong.
Do tell.
I'm using a calculator which relies on the assumed curvature of the earth to determine the drop off, dependent upon the distance from a given point.

At 10,000 feet the difference is about 1 degree, at six feet it's almost nothing.
What in the world are you trying to say here?[/b]

Read the WHOLE wiki page on the horizon and find out.

Originally posted by googlefudge
All other opinions to the contrary.

You talk about a horizon that you can SEE in photographs. [or in reality]

The ONLY horizon you can actually see is the visible horizon.

The visible horizon will approximate to the true horizon on liquid surfaces.

Where the visible horizon approximates a true horizon it will always be below
the astronomica ...[text shortened]... ximum distance of twice the distance to
the horizon for a 6 foot person ~3*2 miles = ~6 miles.

Wrong.

So a 6ft observer can see a 6 ft subject at a maximum distance of twice the distance to the horizon for a 6 foot person ~3*2 miles = ~6 miles.
A person who's eye level is at 6' above the sea when standing on the shore will see to a maximum of ~3.00 miles.
~3.00 miles away from his position, a curved earth will have dropped 72" below that first person's position.
72" / 12 = 6'.
This means if I am on the shore and you are 3.00 miles out standing in a boat (assuming my same height), I'd be lucky to see your mullet.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, you merely claimed I was wrong on very point.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that any of us are wrong.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Q.E.D.
However, what I have said has been demonstrated and is supported by simply reading any of the thread and/or the sources I've referenced.
What you have said is also readily available, complete with the contradictions to yourself... as I have pointed out in an earlier post.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You've got the geometry wrong.
Do tell.
I'm using a calculator which relies on the assumed curvature of the earth to determine the drop off, dependent upon the distance from a given point.

At 10,000 feet the difference is about 1 degree, at six feet it's almost nothing.
What in the world are you trying to say here?[/b]

The "drop off" you are calculating is relative to the point at infinity if one looks at right angles to the line to the earth's centre, in other words the astronomical horizon. The point where the earth meets the sky is not where the astronomical horizon is. This is explained perfectly well on the Wikipedia page titled "Horizon". Incidentally, because both observers are above the ground at 6 ft above sea level each, they can just see each others' heads at about 6 nautical miles.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There has been no equivocation in the use of the terms [line of sight and eye level].

Yes there was; here is what you said that I was referring to:

"Again, the horizon is supposed to be kept in the direct line of sight--- eye level--- with the pilot."

These [eye level and line of sight] are not the same thing.