Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

As for a right angle. I was asking how it's made on a circle and have had no answer.

Morning.

It was explained to you. I explained to you, as did others that the right angle was independent of the circle. The right angle was made by the two straight lines. Take the circle away and the right angle is there. Add the circle the right angle is still there.

I think you deliberately misunderstood because that drawing looked a bit like a globe and the line through the centre looked like it was tilted 23.5°... if you started accepting any of that, without you knowing where it was heading you may have inadvertently acknowledged something to do with the earth being a spinning globe. So shut it down at source and deny right angles can exist if a 3rd line is present

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I never bothered finishing the conversation because you spent 8 pages stalling rather than accept what a circle, a normal and a tangent were.

I asked you how you arrived at the right angle. You never answered.

Literally the kind of maths any 11-year old can accept because they can do it themselves with a pair of compasses, a protractor and a pencil.

Do what?
We can all draw a circle with a compass.
We can all draw straight lines.
We can all use a pencil.
You used a normal and a tangent with the circle and went on about right angles.
I asked you what the reference was to gain it and you simply didn;t answer.

I was told I was the one that sneaked out. Not so.
I'm asking you to show me.

There's no hope for you outside medication and a psychiatric care home. At this point, talking with you is like kicking a kitten.

Fair enough but if you think that why do you even bother to try and show me stuff? Why not just pretend I don't exist and ignore me.
If that's your mindset then you're not doing yourself any favours, unless you're just wound up and frustrated because I won't bow to your posts and question them so use attempted ridicule in order for you to believe you gain traction.
You don't gain anything by going down this route.

Your level of intellect is so far below remedial special needs, that it is borderline bullying to prove you wrong any more times than we already have.

And here you are actually trying to reason with me.
I wonder what's really what here?

Still you keep your fingers in your ears shouting "la la la there's no proof, la la la I know 100% for a fact that the earth isn't a globe, la la la none of you who say otherwise know anything, la la la I don't have to prove my ideas because I'm not presenting them as a fact, except the one where I say that the earth definitely isn't a globe and I don't have to prove that "fact" because reasons, la la la not listening."

Because there is no proof and things can be questioned and do not have to be accepted without proof, nor believed.

If you're doing this as an act, it's just sad and I'm done with it.

You know it's not an act and you are sure I'm retarded and mentally ill and should be in a care home...etc....etc....etc. Are you now doubting that?
Is this just you being frustrated because I simply won't back down on my stance?

If your intelligence is genuinely this impaired then there's no point talking to you about this stuff either, because you'll never get it.

That's entirely your choice.
My advice to you is to blank me completely. Don't just say it and then come back in for more. If you genuinely believe I'm retarded or whatever then blank me.
If you believe I'm playing games then blank me.
If you're just frustrated and are trying all ways to get me to bow down then come back in as and when you see fit to do so and maybe find a way to get me to accept. Just remember you will not do it by using the mindset you are using with your ridicule attempts..

Either way...

Either way. Your choice.

 

[What A Waster]

It's irrelevant as to what I've done or not done. Nothing will make any difference to people like yourself.
Those that want to do experiments can easily do many of what I've put forward; for themselves.
That's the beauty of it.
I'm not required to prove anything and nor do I need to.

This is all down to those who wish to question the narrative and if not, no issue here.
You don't but some will.

You say I haven't done any experiments and I'd be more than happy for you to keep that mindset.
To do experiments you have to know what you're going against and once people understand that then they can actually see that their own observations and tests laugh in the face of the set narratives offered for a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

The issue is in people actually being bothered. Most people are just getting on with their lives to bother to argue what Earth may or may not be and I fully get that.

Those who have an inquisitive mind in terms of going over it all may just get a bit more enlightened. However, it makes no difference to me if nobody does. It's not to appease me. It's not to make me feel any better. It's for them who are bothered to check stuff out.

It's all about peeling off all the layers to reveal what's really under it all and start from that rebuild of potentials.

7 paragraphs to say "I've done nothing and everything else is wrong because I said so".

You've completely fell for their stories.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it isn't. To you it's about peeling everything back that can be proven, coming up with bizarre false experiments that prove nothing but claiming they do, and closing your ears to anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

What my Earth mindset is does not have to have any bearing on anyone. It's mine.
If people want to know what my mindset is I'll tell them.
If they want to argue against it by using the model they were schooled into, they can.
If they want to tell me mine doesn't fit their model, they can.

However, if I want to see the schooled model in a different light and realise how absurd it all it, I will do that. It's not personal unless someone decides they wish to make it personal, which, unfortunately I'm not in control of.

Morning.

It was explained to you. I explained to you, as did others that the right angle was independent of the circle. The right angle was made by the two straight lines. Take the circle away and the right angle is there. Add the circle the right angle is still there.

No. You have a circle and two lines. You have no reference point for either of the lines on that circle to verify a right angle.
There is an easy way to do it but a circle alone will not solve it.

I think you deliberately misunderstood because that drawing looked a bit like a globe and the line through the centre looked like it was tilted 23.5°...

Of course that wasn't lost on me but the situation still stands and even more so because I knew it was referring to a globe and titlted angle.

if you started accepting any of that, without you knowing where it was heading you may have inadvertently acknowledged something to do with the earth being a spinning globe.

You see, this is the issue. You're trying to go around in circles to somehow show a sphere. Pun intended.
If there's an argument for a proof then offer it.

So shut it down at source and deny right angles can exist if a 3rd line is present

Show me a right angle and how it got to be by using the circle.
Don't argue two lines or now another line. Show me how the lines intersect to become a right angle.

You can't just draw two lines and simply say they're a right angle without showing why.
As was said before, all angles can be made and only one can be a right angle.
The issue is in ensuring that all other angles are not reality and only one is. The right angle.

7 paragraphs to say "I've done nothing and everything else is wrong because I said so".

You've completely fell for their stories.

It seems I'm wrong because everyone else said so.
Guess what?
This is why this debate is still ongoing.
The minute I accept I'm wrong on anything it kills one part of a debate in terms of my acceptance. The same would be of you and others.

However, just one thing alone can drop the entire pack of stacked cards if the answer was proven to be wrong.
As it stands it's all about people arguing for proof's without knowing if there are any.
Just because people are of a mindset of, ask the audience and going with the majority....does not make the answer correct. It does not offer a proof.
It does offer a massive peer pressure to the questioned to go with the majority or choose their own potential.

This is all this forum debate is about.

Until proof is offered so there's no chance of it being anything other; only then will the debate cease in any normal way.
It can cease only in two other ways.
1. All parties just give up.
2. The topic is shut down.

 

[What A Waster]

What my Earth mindset is does not have to have any bearing on anyone. It's mine.
If people want to know what my mindset is I'll tell them.
If they want to argue against it by using the model they were schooled into, they can.
If they want to tell me mine doesn't fit their model, they can.

However, if I want to see the schooled model in a different light and realise how absurd it all it, I will do that. It's not personal unless someone decides they wish to make it personal, which, unfortunately I'm not in control of.


No. You have a circle and two lines. You have no reference point for either of the lines on that circle to verify a right angle.
There is an easy way to do it but a circle alone will not solve it.


Of course that wasn't lost on me but the situation still stands and even more so because I knew it was referring to a globe and titlted angle.


You see, this is the issue. You're trying to go around in circles to somehow show a sphere. Pun intended.
If there's an argument for a proof then offer it.

Show me a right angle and how it got to be by using the circle.
Don't argue two lines or now another line. Show me how the lines intersect to become a right angle.

You can't just draw two lines and simply say they're a right angle without showing why.
As was said before, all angles can be made and only one can be a right angle.
The issue is in ensuring that all other angles are not reality and only one is. The right angle.

It's just what happens. It hasn't been made up. It occurs naturally.

Where the normal line crosses the circle we will call the point A.

The tangent only touches the circle at point A.
This always makes a right angle.
Try it yourself and try and prove it wrong.

What my Earth mindset is does not have to have any bearing on anyone. It's mine.
If people want to know what my mindset is I'll tell them.
If they want to argue against it by using the model they were schooled into, they can.
If they want to tell me mine doesn't fit their model, they can.

However, if I want to see the schooled model in a different light and realise how absurd it all it, I will do that. It's not personal unless someone decides they wish to make it personal, which, unfortunately I'm not in control of.


No. You have a circle and two lines. You have no reference point for either of the lines on that circle to verify a right angle.
There is an easy way to do it but a circle alone will not solve it.


Of course that wasn't lost on me but the situation still stands and even more so because I knew it was referring to a globe and titlted angle.


You see, this is the issue. You're trying to go around in circles to somehow show a sphere. Pun intended.
If there's an argument for a proof then offer it.

Show me a right angle and how it got to be by using the circle.
Don't argue two lines or now another line. Show me how the lines intersect to become a right angle.

You can't just draw two lines and simply say they're a right angle without showing why.
As was said before, all angles can be made and only one can be a right angle.
The issue is in ensuring that all other angles are not reality and only one is. The right angle.

It seems I'm wrong because everyone else said so.
Guess what?
This is why this debate is still ongoing.
The minute I accept I'm wrong on anything it kills one part of a debate in terms of my acceptance. The same would be of you and others.

However, just one thing alone can drop the entire pack of stacked cards if the answer was proven to be wrong.
As it stands it's all about people arguing for proof's without knowing if there are any.
Just because people are of a mindset of, ask the audience and going with the majority....does not make the answer correct. It does not offer a proof.
It does offer a massive peer pressure to the questioned to go with the majority or choose their own potential.

This is all this forum debate is about.

Until proof is offered so there's no chance of it being anything other; only then will the debate cease in any normal way.
It can cease only in two other ways.
1. All parties just give up.
2. The topic is shut down.

Numerous proofs have been offered. You won't accept anything. You've already illustrated how closed minded you are by saying you will never accept it.

 

[DPTT]

It's irrelevant as to what I've done or not done. Nothing will make any difference to people like yourself.
Those that want to do experiments can easily do many of what I've put forward; for themselves.
That's the beauty of it.
I'm not required to prove anything and nor do I need to.

This is all down to those who wish to question the narrative and if not, no issue here.
You don't but some will.

You say I haven't done any experiments and I'd be more than happy for you to keep that mindset.
To do experiments you have to know what you're going against and once people understand that then they can actually see that their own observations and tests laugh in the face of the set narratives offered for a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

The issue is in people actually being bothered. Most people are just getting on with their lives to bother to argue what Earth may or may not be and I fully get that.

Those who have an inquisitive mind in terms of going over it all may just get a bit more enlightened. However, it makes no difference to me if nobody does. It's not to appease me. It's not to make me feel any better. It's for them who are bothered to check stuff out.

It's all about peeling off all the layers to reveal what's really under it all and start from that rebuild of potentials.

Again much waffle without any substance

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It's just what happens. It hasn't been made up. It occurs naturally.

Where the normal line crosses the circle we will call the point A.

The tangent only touches the circle at point A.
This always makes a right angle.
Try it yourself and try and prove it wrong.


Numerous proofs have been offered. You won't accept anything. You've already illustrated how closed minded you are by saying you will never accept it.

There's no proof of the right angle.
It's fine saying one line runs through normal and the other runs on the outer edge of a circle. It does not offer a right angle.

Again much waffle without any substance

If you can prove that then you'll have something.

 

[What A Waster]

There's no proof of the right angle.
It's fine saying one line runs through normal and the other runs on the outer edge of a circle. It does not offer a right angle.

If you can prove that then you'll have something.

Use a protractor once you've done the two straight lines.
All you need is a compass, ruler, pencil and protractor. It's very easy to do.

 

[DPTT]

There's no proof of the right angle.
It's fine saying one line runs through normal and the other runs on the outer edge of a circle. It does not offer a right angle.

If you can prove that then you'll have something.

Ok for one minute think we live on a globe.
What would you expect to see in your bath tub experiment which you don’t see now?

 

[DaveH]

There's no proof of the right angle.
It's fine saying one line runs through normal and the other runs on the outer edge of a circle. It does not offer a right angle.

If you can prove that then you'll have something.

Do you agree with the standard mathematical technique to calculate the tangent to any line? That is if you graph a function of x, then at any point on that line the tangent can be given by the derivative of the function of x?
The technique is described here and is one of the first things most students do in calculus.

You must be logged on to see external links

Do you also agree that the function of a circle (if you want to graph it) can be given by r^2 = x^2 + y^2, where r is the radius? This is essentially Pythagoras's theorem.

 

[nahwee]

There's no proof of the right angle.
It's fine saying one line runs through normal and the other runs on the outer edge of a circle. It does not offer a right angle.

If you can prove that then you'll have something.

And....

off we go again “la la la there’s no proof”

 

[legend7]

It didn't show any seas to be hundreds of miles deep. You decided that for whatever reasons, even after I explained.
You took the map on absolute face value as simply a tiny scale and you attributed that entire map to my set up.
You're welcome to do that of course but it doesn't show anything to you in terms of what you think should happen.

Yep but I don't think that would appease you.

Wrong about what? Your hundreds of miles deep oceans?

They have to be that deep at the lower end to form your lemon squeezer world OR the land mass is pretty much flat and on a scaled drawing would look flat.
You don't understand scale though unfortunately.
And it's impossible for you to draw both a lemon squeezer shaped world like your drawing but with only 6 miles deep seas.
That's why you won't draw it, 100% because you're going to prove yourself wrong as everyone else on here fully knows.
You trawl around for nonsense videos and write long winded nonsense posts to "prove" your musings but can't do a 30 second or 1 minute rough sketch that would prove many of us wrong, absolute horseshit.

Do you agree with the standard mathematical technique to calculate the tangent to any line? That is if you graph a function of x, then at any point on that line the tangent can be given by the derivative of the function of x?
The technique is described here and is one of the first things most students do in calculus.

You must be logged on to see external links

Do you also agree that the function of a circle (if you want to graph it) can be given by r^2 = x^2 + y^2, where r is the radius? This is essentially Pythagoras's theorem.

Haway mate that might as well be in Chinese to him, his concept of maths is primary school level at best.

 

[fyl2u]

Of course that wasn't lost on me but the situation still stands and even more so because I knew it was referring to a globe and titlted angle.

Actually the tilt of the line on the diagram of the circle had absolutely nothing to do with what I was going to show you. Hilarious that's why you shut it down.

You don't care about proofs, you care about your own little stories that have no basis in reality.

If this example shows anything, it's that even the slightest hint that someone might be about to give you a proof that you're wrong about something, you stall and stall until you shut it down entirely with no proof of why you're shutting it down.

You see, this is the issue. You're trying to go around in circles to somehow show a sphere. Pun intended.
If there's an argument for a proof then offer it.

Show me a right angle and how it got to be by using the circle.
Don't argue two lines or now another line. Show me how the lines intersect to become a right angle.

You can't just draw two lines and simply say they're a right angle without showing why.
As was said before, all angles can be made and only one can be a right angle.
The issue is in ensuring that all other angles are not reality and only one is. The right angle.

It seems I'm wrong because everyone else said so.
Guess what?
This is why this debate is still ongoing.
The minute I accept I'm wrong on anything it kills one part of a debate in terms of my acceptance. The same would be of you and others.

However, just one thing alone can drop the entire pack of stacked cards if the answer was proven to be wrong.
As it stands it's all about people arguing for proof's without knowing if there are any.
Just because people are of a mindset of, ask the audience and going with the majority....does not make the answer correct. It does not offer a proof.
It does offer a massive peer pressure to the questioned to go with the majority or choose their own potential.

This is all this forum debate is about.

Until proof is offered so there's no chance of it being anything other; only then will the debate cease in any normal way.
It can cease only in two other ways.
1. All parties just give up.
2. The topic is shut down.

Proving there's a right angle between the tangent and the normal isn't hard, you can draw it yourself.

Step 1. Take a pair of compasses and a pencil, and use them to draw a circle.

Step 2. Take a rule and draw a line that ONLY JUST touches the outer edge of the circle, with no intersection.

Step 3. Use the rule again to draw a line from the middle of the circle (where the hole from the point of the compasses is) to the edge of the circle where the line you drew in Step 2 meets the edge of the circle.

Step 4: Measure the angle with a protractor.


That's it. There's no secret, no trick. Just draw a proper circle with a pair of compasses, a line that only just touches that circle, and a line from the middle of the circle to that point. And measure it with a protractor.


Do the test again and again and again with your line from Step 2 in different places on the edge of the circle. You'll quickly see that it doesn't matter whether your "tangent" is at 12 o'clock on the circle, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, or quarter to whatever, it will always make a right angle with a "normal" drawn from the centre of the circle to the point where the tangent you've drawn meets the circle.

 

[SYB_DC]

Try doing that with your Earth.

It is funny when you're looking up a curvature on your b all to get your so called horizon line but you seem to think you can stick a huge head on a big 24,000+ mile globe and drop your eyes until you see some kind of line.

You really have trouble with the scale of things, don't you? The clue should be in the "24,000 mile" bit. I'll take your dismissal - based on the pure circular logic that it won't work and therefore you shouldn't try (despite the fact that this is precisely what anyone standing on a beach and looking out to sea is doing) - as an admission that the experiment produces a result that you don't like.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Use a protractor once you've done the two straight lines.
All you need is a compass, ruler, pencil and protractor. It's very easy to do.

I didn't see any protractor in the drawing.
I was shown a circle and two lines.
Why all of a sudden does a protractor come into it?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I didn't see any protractor in the drawing.
I was shown a circle and two lines.
Why all of a sudden does a protractor come into it?

HAHAHAHAHAHA
You're just having a laugh now man, behave.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ok for one minute think we live on a globe.

Ok.

What would you expect to see in your bath tub experiment which you don’t see now?

Nothing.
No bathtub, no water, nothing.
Just as I'd expect if the bathtub was on a big wheel or a rolling ball.
I also wouldn't expect life and especially oceans to be on it.

Do you agree with the standard mathematical technique to calculate the tangent to any line? That is if you graph a function of x, then at any point on that line the tangent can be given by the derivative of the function of x?
The technique is described here and is one of the first things most students do in calculus.

You must be logged on to see external links

I was shown a circle with two lines running through a central point.
First of all I want to know how the central point was arrived at and then how a line (the normal as it's told) runs through To another line the tangent, to become a right angle.
I was shown the diagram in that set up so get the diagram and explain how it was arrived at.

Do you also agree that the function of a circle (if you want to graph it) can be given by r^2 = x^2 + y^2, where r is the radius? This is essentially Pythagoras's theorem.

I agree with the 1-2-3 rule, yes. I actually use it.
Now back to the circle.
Let's deal with the circle that was put forward and concentrate on that, only.

They have to be that deep at the lower end to form your lemon squeezer world OR the land mass is pretty much flat and on a scaled drawing would look flat.

In your mind, yes. Because your mind has water to landmass up the top of a mountain with the idea that landmass in the trough is hundreds of miles below it. This is how I know you have no real clue as to how my orange squeezer works on the large scale.

You don't understand scale though unfortunately.

Well, I do but it seems you don't.

And it's impossible for you to draw both a lemon squeezer shaped world like your drawing but with only 6 miles deep seas.

My drawing?
That's not my drawing.

That's why you won't draw it, 100% because you're going to prove yourself wrong as everyone else on here fully knows.

Not at all. What I do draw will be on the large scale look, not the small scale look you see in the diagram.

You trawl around for nonsense videos and write long winded nonsense posts to "prove" your musings but can't do a 30 second or 1 minute rough sketch that would prove many of us wrong, absolute horseshit.

Then don't engage. Why are you bothering?

 

[legend7]

In your mind, yes. Because your mind has water to landmass up the top of a mountain with the idea that landmass in the trough is hundreds of miles below it. This is how I know you have no real clue as to how my orange squeezer works on the large scale.

Well if the landmass at the bottom was only say 10 miles deeper than at the top of your squeezer it wouldn't look like a squeezer it would look flat even to scale.
10 mile drop over 9 to 10 thousand miles distance you would see no raised centre

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Actually the tilt of the line on the diagram of the circle had absolutely nothing to do with what I was going to show you. Hilarious that's why you shut it down.

Shut what down?
I was still waiting on the answer. It wasn't me that shut it down.

You don't care about proofs, you care about your own little stories that have no basis in reality.

Then don't waste another second on me after this. Why would you bother?

If this example shows anything, it's that even the slightest hint that someone might be about to give you a proof that you're wrong about something, you stall and stall until you shut it down entirely with no proof of why you're shutting it down.

I'd love a proof. I'm just not getting any proof's. I'm getting plenty of digs and people being frustrated and what not but no proof's.
If you have some then offer them.

Proving there's a right angle between the tangent and the normal isn't hard, you can draw it yourself.

Step 1. Take a pair of compasses and a pencil, and use them to draw a circle.

Ok I've drawn the circle.

Step 2. Take a rule and draw a line that ONLY JUST touches the outer edge of the circle, with no intersection.

Ok I've drawn a line like the one in the diagram at an angle as shown on here..

Step 3. Use the rule again to draw a line from the middle of the circle (where the hole from the point of the compasses is) to the edge of the circle where the line you drew in Step 2 meets the edge of the circle.

Ok I've drawn a line from the centre to the edge of the circle which meets the line running just on that outer edge.

Step 4: Measure the angle with a protractor.

Ahhhh, so we are using a protractor now.
Let's not use a protractor and do it like you showed me with the drawing. Because a protractor was not mentioned.
If you want we can go into how the protractor was made to enable us to use it if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

That's it. There's no secret, no trick.

No trick, I agree.
It's just a case of arriving at the right angle.

Just draw a proper circle with a pair of compasses, a line that only just touches that circle, and a line from the middle of the circle to that point. And measure it with a protractor.

Nahhh.

Do the test again and again and again with your line from Step 2 in different places on the edge of the circle. You'll quickly see that it doesn't matter whether your "tangent" is at 12 o'clock on the circle, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, or quarter to whatever, it will always make a right angle with a "normal" drawn from the centre of the circle to the point where the tangent you've drawn meets the circle.

Here's what I did alternate to that.

I drew a circle with a compass and placed a square around that circle so the lines of the square touch the outer edges of the circle and measure exactly the same distance between each line of that square.
I now have 4 right angles.
I can now draw two lines intersecting each other inside the circle so they touch the points of the right angle of the square on the 4 sides.
This gives me 4 equilateral triangles to the squares alone.
It offers me nothing to the inner circles they run through.

In the diagram used, the supposed right angle is placed inside the circle. Can you see anything wrong with that?

You really have trouble with the scale of things, don't you?

I suppose I would when I don't have access to the entire Earth view in a reality.

The clue should be in the "24,000 mile" bit.

No clue needed. I know what I'm told to accept. It's a tad over of you want to go into more detail as you are told.

I'll take your dismissal - based on the pure circular logic that it won't work and therefore you shouldn't try (despite the fact that this is precisely what anyone standing on a beach and looking out to sea is doing) - as an admission that the experiment produces a result that you don't like.

The thing is, even though your Earth is on that supposed scale it still offers you a consistent drop below level sight for every millimetre over miles. You lose your horizon immediately if your Earth was a globe.
It really is impossible and does not offer any reality for anyone observing. It only offers a coaxed pretence of a reality by the story tellers.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
You're just having a laugh now man, behave.

I was offered a drawing and a reasoning for a right angle. I asked for the set up and was not told about any other tools needed to show it.
I thought the entire point was to show me how it works without the aid of something like a protractor.

Well if the landmass at the bottom was only say 10 miles deeper than at the top of your squeezer it wouldn't look like a squeezer it would look flat even to scale.
10 mile drop over 9 to 10 thousand miles distance you would see no raised centre

Does your globe look flat?
You argue for it looking flat until you need to argue for it looking a bit curved but then are happy to also argue it looking like a super ball from a few hundred miles up.
And yet you're trying to argue against what I'm saying because you have a mountain in your mind and a big trough/moat and a outer curve and can't imagine it not being 100 miles deep of water.

I know I know. Where's the drawing.
Clearly a drawing isn't going to pacify you.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I was offered a drawing and a reasoning for a right angle. I asked for the set up and was not told about any other tools needed to show it.
I thought the entire point was to show me how it works without the aid of something like a protractor.

You don't need a protractor, just thought. The protractor only came into it because you didn't, wouldn't or couldn't think it through.