Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

What does predicting movement actually do?
Give me an example of what it proves?

The movements of the planets and exactly (and I mean exactly) where they will appear in the sky. All based on the geometry of circles of the planets moving around the sun. They used to think that the earth was the centre of the solar system, but the retrograde motion of the outer planets disproved this.

If the planets are not real and are some kind of projection, can you explain how they move relative to the stars, and how their positions in the sky are exactly predictable in your fantasy world?

 

[fyl2u]

Maths has not been described as fictional.
How maths is used in a scientific pretence is what is fictional.

Very well.

Here's a circle with a tangent and a normal drawn on it.

Logon or register to see this image

The normal always passes through the centre of the circle regardless of where on the circle it intersects.

The tangent is always at a 90 degree angle to the normal.

Do you agree?

 

[Lonz]

How maths is used in a scientific pretence is what is fictional.

How is this the case? Provide some evidence of this, please.

 

[SYB_DC]

There is no horizon line, it's a blend of atmospheric conditions that give you a theoretical line perception.

It doesn't.

The horizon is only a "theoretical line perception" in the sense that it's not quite a line because the planet is round.

If you can circle it on a photograph, it's not "theoretical," nor can you dispute its existence. You can try to dispute what it is, but you're now asserting that something that can be seen constantly by everyone with their naked eyes does not exist.

 

[nahwee]

Very well.

Here's a circle with a tangent and a normal drawn on it.

Logon or register to see this image

The normal always passes through the centre of the circle regardless of where on the circle it intersects.

The tangent is always at a 90 degree angle to the normal.

Do you agree?

You do realise that you are trying to have an intelligent conversation with a man who thinks by pushing a spirit level on a plank across Mowbray Park pond proves the the earth is not a globe, don’t you?

 

[DaveH]

Very well.

Here's a circle with a tangent and a normal drawn on it.

Logon or register to see this image

The normal always passes through the centre of the circle regardless of where on the circle it intersects.

The tangent is always at a 90 degree angle to the normal.

Do you agree?

You are on to a loser with this one. Ages ago he agreed with me that if you were up a tower on a globe, then you could look up and see sky and you could look down and see ground at your feet. However he disagreed that there would be a horizon line. At no point could you see both ground and sky at the same time and a line between them.

I asked him to picture the scenario of looking down, can see ground, look up slowly, can still see ground, keep looking up slowly and at some point you will see sky enter the top of your vision. I think he tried to claim, bang no more ground only sky. At that point I realised all logical conversation was impossible.

When you have someone with that mentality and IQ level, who can not visualise a simple concept there is no hope.

 

[What A Waster]

You are on to a loser with this one. Ages ago he agreed with me that if you were up a tower on a globe, then you could look up and see sky and you could look down and see ground at your feet. However he disagreed that there would be a horizon line. At no point could you see both ground and sky at the same time and a line between them.

I asked him to picture the scenario of looking down, can see ground, look up slowly, can still see ground, keep looking up slowly and at some point you will see sky enter the top of your vision. I think he tried to claim, bang no more ground only sky. At that point I realised all logical conversation was impossible.

When you have someone with that mentality and IQ level, who can not visualise a simple concept there is no hope.

incredible

 

[legend7]

Is everyone looking forward to being enlightened by "the sketch"

 

[Nobby]

Is everyone looking forward to being enlightened by "the sketch"

It will never happen unfortunately

 

[payne]

Is everyone looking forward to being enlightened by "the sketch"

He's too clever so we wouldn't understand it.
why are the even bothering as it isn't real

You must be logged on to see external links

how on earth they supposed to see beyond the carbon arc ice dome?

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[legend7]

I can produce a sketch but as of yet I have not.That's it.
Feel free to keep me updated on not providing one.
I'll get one done by tea time or before, depending.

Having a late tea tonight are we
Or are your crayons blunt?

 

[Nobby]

how on earth they supposed to see beyond the carbon arc ice dome?

You must be logged on to see external links

Carbon arc ice dome, that's just stupid. It's a hydrogen helium ice dome that self heals. Do pay attention

Having a late tea tonight are we
Or are your crayons blunt?

I think the crayons were his tea

 

[legend7]

I think the crayons were his tea

Well he does like to wax lyrical

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The movements of the planets and exactly (and I mean exactly) where they will appear in the sky. All based on the geometry of circles of the planets moving around the sun. They used to think that the earth was the centre of the solar system, but the retrograde motion of the outer planets disproved this.

If the planets are not real and are some kind of projection, can you explain how they move relative to the stars, and how their positions in the sky are exactly predictable in your fantasy world?

So what are you proving?

Very well.

Here's a circle with a tangent and a normal drawn on it.

Logon or register to see this image

The normal always passes through the centre of the circle regardless of where on the circle it intersects.

The tangent is always at a 90 degree angle to the normal.

Do you agree?

So what are you trying to tell me about a spinning globe ?

How is this the case? Provide some evidence of this, please.

Provide something that shows maths to be correct for a global spinning Earth in a space vacuum with planets and stars.

 

[fyl2u]

So what are you trying to tell me about a spinning globe ?

Nothing, I'm asking if you agree with the statements I made about a circle and the two lines known as the tangent and the normal.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The horizon is only a "theoretical line perception" in the sense that it's not quite a line because the planet is round.

No. It's because it's a convergence of atmospheric density over distance that changes reflected light back to our eyes, below and above which converge over distance to create a theoretical line.
Nothing at all to do with any curvature.

If you can circle it on a photograph, it's not "theoretical," nor can you dispute its existence.

We aren't talking drawing circles on a photograph. We are talking view of horizon.

You can try to dispute what it is, but you're now asserting that something that can be seen constantly by everyone with their naked eyes does not exist.

It doesn't exist as a line.
What exist is convergence of atmospheric mass and light ability to reflect back to our eyes.

You are on to a loser with this one. Ages ago he agreed with me that if you were up a tower on a globe, then you could look up and see sky and you could look down and see ground at your feet. However he disagreed that there would be a horizon line. At no point could you see both ground and sky at the same time and a line between them.

I asked him to picture the scenario of looking down, can see ground, look up slowly, can still see ground, keep looking up slowly and at some point you will see sky enter the top of your vision. I think he tried to claim, bang no more ground only sky. At that point I realised all logical conversation was impossible.

When you have someone with that mentality and IQ level, who can not visualise a simple concept there is no hope.

You missed the whole premise of level view. This was the argument.
You tried to use the old eyes to the ground and to raise them so you'd see a supposed edge of a globe to sky.
It's fine on a drawing but you'll never achieve it by doing a level view set up on that drawing and you'd certainly never do it on a supposed globe because even if everything was magically was we see on a globe, you'd have atmosphere taking out any chance of bringing your head up and trying to marry up a solid with the sky.

You believe you would based entirely on you stood on a circle with a line drawn from your eye to the circle edge.
It's not reality and never would be.

Is everyone looking forward to being enlightened by "the sketch"

Still not got round to it.

It will never happen unfortunately

It will. It's just a sketch and it will happen, just not when I predicted.

 

[Kevj]

It will. It's just a sketch and it will happen, just not when I predicted.

Not the first time one of your predictions wasn’t correct.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Carbon arc ice dome, that's just stupid. It's a hydrogen helium ice dome that self heals. Do pay attention

No. not a carbon arc ice dome. Pay attention.

I think the crayons were his tea

Don't mock it till you try it.

Nothing, I'm asking if you agree with the statements I made about a circle and the two lines known as the tangent and the normal.

What are you getting at?

Not the first time one of your predictions wasn’t correct.

Won't be the last, either.

 

[fyl2u]

What are you getting at?

Nothing more than that right now.

Just asking if you understand the terminology used in maths for a straight line that passes through the very centre point of a circle and continues beyond the boundary of the circle, i.e. the "normal", and the terminology for another line at right angles to the first line at the exact place that it meets the edge of the circle, i.e. the tangent.

And whether you acknowledge that it doesn't matter which direction the "normal" takes through the centre, a line can always be drawn at right angles to it where it meets the edge of the circle, which is called the "tangent".

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nothing more than that right now.

Just asking if you understand the terminology used in maths for a straight line that passes through the very centre point of a circle and continues beyond the boundary of the circle, i.e. the "normal", and the terminology for another line at right angles to the first line at the exact place that it meets the edge of the circle, i.e. the tangent.

It would help if you are telling me something that is pertinent to the Earth being what you believe it is or at least tell me why I'm supposed to be arguing for a circle a tangent and a normal for a centred line.

And whether you acknowledge that it doesn't matter which direction the "normal" takes through the centre, a line can always be drawn at right angles to it where it meets the edge of the circle, which is called the "tangent".

So what exactly are you getting at?