Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

The point of it is to find out if you agree with the concept.

The concept.

The concept of what?

 

[Nobby]

I see someone trying to tell me they can find a normal in a circle by drawing a line at 90 degrees to the tangent.

This, do you agree with the basics if a geometry of a circle, which is pertinent to discussing geometry of a globe.

You want things from first principles, this is the how it is done

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This, do you agree with the basics if a geometry of a circle, which is pertinent to discussing geometry of a globe.

You want things from first principles, this is the how it is done

Explain it. Explain the normal.
Explain the 90 degrees on a circle.

It's easy to use a central point in a circle and a tangent external to its edge but explain the 90 degrees and the normal.
Don't look it up and copy and paste it. I can do all that.
Simple terms just explain it from your own immediate typing from your very own immediate mind from seeing this post.

 

[What A Waster]

Explain it. Explain the normal.
Explain the 90 degrees on a circle.

It's easy to use a central point in a circle and a tangent external to its edge but explain the 90 degrees and the normal.
Don't look it up and copy and paste it. I can do all that.
Simple terms just explain it from your own immediate typing from your very own immediate mind from seeing this post.

Someone's had their weetabix

 

[Nobby]

Explain it. Explain the normal.
Explain the 90 degrees on a circle.

It's easy to use a central point in a circle and a tangent external to its edge but explain the 90 degrees and the normal.
Don't look it up and copy and paste it. I can do all that.
Simple terms just explain it from your own immediate typing from your very own immediate mind from seeing this post.

To make it easy for you, do you see anything in his diagram that does not look right?

 

[DaveH]

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.


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

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

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.

Still not got round to it.

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

. . madness

 

[Nukehasslefan]

To make it easy for you, do you see anything in his diagram that does not look right?

It depends how it's looked at.
I could argue you could never make a 90 degree angle out of a circle and we could go right down the name calling, trolling and whatever else arguments.

Or I can simply ask someone to explain what they're trying to convey as a reality rather than just looking up finding a central point on a circle by use of geometry.
Explain it to the retard that I'm portrayed to be. That's what I want.

. . madness

Anything is madness if it's outside of the accepted narrative.

 

[What A Waster]

It depends how it's looked at.
I could argue you could never make a 90 degree angle out of a circle and we could go right down the name calling, trolling and whatever else arguments.

Or I can simply ask someone to explain what they're trying to convey as a reality rather than just looking up finding a central point on a circle by use of geometry.
Explain it to the retard that I'm portrayed to be. That's what I want.

Anything is madness if it's outside of the accepted narrative.

The right angle is made from the intersecting straight lines

 

[payne]

Quality gymnastics this morning.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The right angle is made from the intersecting straight lines

Of course but the right angle is within the circle, not external to it with these two intersecting lines.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It depends how it's looked at.

I just looked at it with my arse, you're right, it does.

 

[Nobby]

There is nothing to be explained, it's a simple question, do you accept the basics of the geometry of a circle.

Your absolute refusal to answer the question and increasingly desperate attempts to deflect are simply making you look like a petulant child.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I just looked at it with my arse, you're right, it does.

There you go.

 

[What A Waster]

Of course but the right angle is within the circle, not external to it with these two intersecting lines.

The right angle would still be there without the circle. The right angle isn't being made by the circle.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There is nothing to be explained, it's a simple question, do you accept the basics of the geometry of a circle.

No.

Your absolute refusal to answer the question and increasingly desperate attempts to deflect are simply making you look like a petulant child.

There you go.

 

[DaveH]

This is why people get frustrated matey

it’s a simple question to answer but you know what’s coming so even refuse to answer a simple request

Fair played to him. Although his daily ramblings look like the desperate paranoid dribblings of a moron, he is bright enough to see where a line of reasoning is going.

There are a few times I’ve set out to demonstrate something like @fyl2u has, picturing it as 6 steps in my head. Step 5 really tied the concepts together and is a little more advanced, 6 is the killer blow with absolute proof. At the other end, steps 1 and 2 are the basic concepts. I usually fail to get past step 1 and have never got passed step 2. I neven tried keeping it to a single question or point per post because more than one gets a bit much. But that strings it out over days and I’ve ended up with him disagreeing with something he agreed to two days earlier.

 

[legend7]

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

You seem to have managed to spend a lot of time with a lot of replies yet this single very quick sketch may help us all understand and then there wouldn't be so many questions, it could be our gotcha moment when we all join your movement and begin seeking the truth.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The right angle would still be there without the circle. The right angle isn't being made by the circle.

Correct but the circle is being used to emphasise something. What is it?
If you want to show a right angle then don't use a circle.

But the circle is obviously pertinent to the argument with this normal and tangent to the external to make your supposed 90 degree within that circle....right?

 

[legend7]

No.

You don't accept geometry of circles even though maths proves it and can be tested and measured?

 

[DaveH]

What exactly do I have to agree or disagree with?

What comes after is very relevant, so let's see the point being made.
Do you know it?
Does anyone know it?

Comes down to geometry for what?
For a diagram or for a supposed globe and stars and what not?

What is the point?

You get so far into explanations and then wave the maths away as magical concepts we are schooled into believing. He is taking the really basic concepts from the start to show it comes down to simple geometry. But you onow that don’t you, and are backing away early on this one.