eric8476 wrote:ah, but what are the compensatory adjustments that an airplane pilot does?

It's pretty simple: If you follow a great-circle course, you end up back where you started. Review your geometry and describe for me how that's possible on a flat (not curved) 2D surface. The compensatory adjustments a pilot makes to do that anywhere but on the equator involve changes of heading. It's trivial to work out that a great circle that starts out headed northwest must eventually head southwest. And so on. The surface curvature model that explains this is the (approximately) spherical one. In real life, the earth's magnetic poles do not coincide with the geographic ones, and you need maps to tell you the meaning of compass-north. A lot of this shit has been known for a few centuries and is on the books, as we say. Catch up, please.

eric8476 wrote:i tried googling this once and i didnt get into it in detail but when an airplane flies around the earth does it adjust its altitude to compensate for the circumference of the earth or not?

So, you didn't get into it in detail. Like spoon-feeding much? The practice of trying to work things out from first principles includes mathematics and philosophy. One of these two actually works, in real life. That's a puzzle, innit?

eric8476 wrote:ah, but what are the compensatory adjustments that an airplane pilot does?

There are probably none. An airplane doesn't have enough power to escape the earth's gravity. Thus, it need no to do any compensatory adjustments. Gravity keeps it going "in circles".

Any "adjustments" would only mean not flying too high from the pilot's perspective. which they have to do anyway.

Scar wrote:

eric8476 wrote:ah, but what are the compensatory adjustments that an airplane pilot does?

There are probably none. An airplane doesn't have enough power to escape the earth's gravity. Thus, it need no to do any compensatory adjustments. Gravity keeps it going "in circles".

Any "adjustments" would only mean not flying too high from the pilot's perspective. which they have to do anyway.

"Maintain thy airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee!"

Arthur Methoxy wrote:You are quite right. I can no longer give any arguments as adjudication on my post was made many posts back.

Stop lying Arthur. There's nothing preventing you from giving arguments for your position, in fact people have repeatedly asked you to do so.
There's nothing in the FUA against it.

Arthur Methoxy wrote: I have no reason to continue on this thread.

Yes you do.
You can either:
A. Admit you cannot rationally defend your position.
or
B. Present evidence and rational arugments for your position.

Arthur Methoxy wrote: I would like my readers to stay however, to argue the finer points of that adjudication if they so wish. Goodbye, and have fun.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Update: Readers please note that I was, and still am, unable to respond to any questions on my original post as the final adjudication on it was made when it was put into pseudophilosophy.

I started a thread about a year ago which was moved to one subforum, then another, so the movement of a thread to a subforum does not constitute a final adjudication. Thus, if you successfully defend the OP I'm sure the thread will be moved again. However, we will have no way of knowing whether the 'final adjudication' was justified or wrong unless and until you do defend the OP.

It would have been better for arguments to be presented on either side before adjudication was made,

This has already been done, about 500ish years ago.

I would strongly advise everyone to respect that decision.

No. Only sheep accept 'final adjudications'. Indeed, if humanity as a whole adopted your attitude, The Renaissance and Enlightenment would have been impossible.

I think it's time to stop with the lame excuses for your silence. Otherwise, stop with the extraordinary claims.

Cito di Pense wrote:

eric8476 wrote:ah, but what are the compensatory adjustments that an airplane pilot does?

It's pretty simple: If you follow a great-circle course, you end up back where you started. Review your geometry and describe for me how that's possible on a flat (not curved) 2D surface. The compensatory adjustments a pilot makes to do that anywhere but on the equator involve changes of heading. It's trivial to work out that a great circle that starts out headed northwest must eventually head southwest. And so on. The surface curvature model that explains this is the (approximately) spherical one. In real life, the earth's magnetic poles do not coincide with the geographic ones, and you need maps to tell you the meaning of compass-north. A lot of this shit has been known for a few centuries and is on the books, as we say. Catch up, please.

eric8476 wrote:i tried googling this once and i didnt get into it in detail but when an airplane flies around the earth does it adjust its altitude to compensate for the circumference of the earth or not?

So, you didn't get into it in detail. Like spoon-feeding much? The practice of trying to work things out from first principles includes mathematics and philosophy. One of these two actually works, in real life. That's a puzzle, innit?

well, if an airplane needs to adjust its heading to compensate for the curvature of the earth then the earth is round. whats the next topic.

eric8476 wrote:
well, if an airplane needs to adjust its heading to compensate for the curvature of the earth then the earth is round. whats the next topic.

On why straight headings are in fact curved.

jamest wrote:

eric8476 wrote:
well, if an airplane needs to adjust its heading to compensate for the curvature of the earth then the earth is round. whats the next topic.

On why straight headings are in fact curved.

If Arthur comes back and successfully defends and proves the OP then perhaps we could have the thread moved to the "Miracles" subforum?

MrFungus420 wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Update: Readers please note that I was, and still am, unable to respond to any questions on my original post as the final adjudication on it was made when it was put into pseudophilosophy.

Seeing that it has been explained to you that the topic of a thread, regardless of where it ends up, is dictated by the OP, that is a lie.

You are choosing not to respond to avoid having to address any criticisms of your OP.

This is like raising the dead. I repeat, I cannot argue against a topic on which an adjudication has already been made. If you wish to retract that adjudication then you will get a response.

If you do not retract that adjudication then any response to your questions will not be significant, by your own definition. This is a situation of your own making.

Other readers please note that as some of your names are self-inflammatory I cannot use them.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Other readers please note that as some of your names are self-inflammatory I cannot use them.

What?

The Big Bang. That's self-inflammatory.

jamest wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Other readers please note that as some of your names are self-inflammatory I cannot use them.

What?

For example Ha*******sh.
I regret I cannot use a less inflammatory version of this name as it causes offense.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

jamest wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Other readers please note that as some of your names are self-inflammatory I cannot use them.

What?

For example Ha*******sh.
I regret I cannot use a less inflammatory version of this name as it causes offense.

No, you just need to spell it properly. I know spelling is hard, but do try.

Arnold Layne wrote:

jamest wrote:

eric8476 wrote:
well, if an airplane needs to adjust its heading to compensate for the curvature of the earth then the earth is round. whats the next topic.

On why straight headings are in fact curved.

If Arthur comes back and successfully defends and proves the OP then perhaps we could have the thread moved to the "Miracles" subforum?

Hell, I think we should do that if he manages to form a coherent post.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Update: Readers please note that I was, and still am, unable to respond to any questions on my original post as the final adjudication on it was made when it was put into pseudophilosophy.

Seeing that it has been explained to you that the topic of a thread, regardless of where it ends up, is dictated by the OP, that is a lie.

You are choosing not to respond to avoid having to address any criticisms of your OP.

This is like raising the dead. I repeat, I cannot argue against a topic on which an adjudication has already been made.

You will find no need to repeat yourself if you try actually reading and comprehending what others have said. This point has been addressed over and over again, but I will give you the Reader's Digest version: your above assertion is bullshit. If you have a defense of your OP, present it. Otherwise one can safely assume it's the bullshit it appears to be.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Update: Readers please note that I was, and still am, unable to respond to any questions on my original post as the final adjudication on it was made when it was put into pseudophilosophy.

Seeing that it has been explained to you that the topic of a thread, regardless of where it ends up, is dictated by the OP, that is a lie.

You are choosing not to respond to avoid having to address any criticisms of your OP.

This is like raising the dead. I repeat, I cannot argue against a topic on which an adjudication has already been made.

You will find no need to repeat yourself if you try actually reading and comprehending what others have said. This point has been addressed over and over again, but I will give you the Reader's Digest version: your above assertion is bullshit. If you have a defense of your OP, present it. Otherwise one can safely assume it's the bullshit it appears to be.

I reported that post. I could have reported many others like it, but I am interested in the response I will get.
I expect that you will be interested too, as it may confirm your idea that insult is not inflammatory.

In the meantime, I repeat, yet again, that because you have judged my post to be pseudophilosophy then asking me to justify it is mere harassment, and can't merit any significant response.

What a load of bull. Pathetic dodging at its finest.

stijndeloose wrote:What a load of bull. Pathetic dodging at its finest.

I disagree. It's not even good pathetic dodging.

I'm tempted to ask the mods to move this out of pseudoscience to see how AM will react. That said, he seems to be confusing science and philosophy. Hardly a good sign.