![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Interesting as it is..
It is very misleading.. Comparing surface area to a volume is like comparing percentages to counts.. Sadly both are typically done to either get a rise out of people or emphasize the point (their agenda) they are trying to make.. If they wanted to do a fair and honest job of 'spear' comparisons they should have shown a spear of the ground above sea level (livable area).. Which would have been about 1/4 the size of the water spear.. Better yet, instead of a top down view of the spear, which only masks it size, show how high the spear would reach into the sky.. Where the top of the spear would be at 4540,800.00 FEET Four Thousand, Five Hundred, and Forty point Eight THOUSAND FEET! In short, comparing the volume of water to the volume of the earth is very misleading. It implies that we can make use of (aka live) anywhere 'inside' the earth, where as every drop of water 'inside' that water spear can be made use of. Comparing the surface area of the land to the surface area of the water is a more honest comparison IMHO.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 08-24-2012 at 01:41 PM. |
|
|