• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


Nukehasslefan said:
Ok then let's get back to it, without the protractor.
Are you able to show how you get the right angle?
Click to expand...
A point moving in a straight line has one direction only. A point which describes a circle points in every direction as it returns to the starting point.
Continued in any straight direction that becomes a tangent to the circle.
If the straight line passes through the centre of the circle then the point at which it intersects the circle will make a 90 degree angle to the tangent.
If it isn't then either the line missed the centre or the circle isn't a circle.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
A point moving in a straight line has one direction only.
Click to expand...
Ok no problem.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
A point which describes a circle points in every direction as it returns to the starting point.
Click to expand...
Ok no issues.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Continued in any straight direction that becomes a tangent to the circle.
Click to expand...
Ok no problem.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
If the straight line passes through the centre of the circle then the point at which it intersects the circle will make a 90 degree angle to the tangent.
Click to expand...

No, it won't.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
If it isn't then either the line missed the centre or the circle isn't a circle.
Click to expand...
You can't guarantee a right angle from that alone.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Shut what down?
I was still waiting on the answer. It wasn't me that shut it down.

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

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.

Ok I've drawn the circle.

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

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.

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.

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

Nahhh.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
A drawing would definitely help me understand what you're trying to explain as it makes no sense.
My globe doesn't need to look flat as the water is all around the globe surface at a very shallow depth.
And the highest altitude on land some 5 or 6 miles.
So to scale these are negligible on a scale globe but the globe is still round.
Your map shows an absolutely huge variance from high to low points.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Ok.

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.


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.

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.

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, I do but it seems you don't.

My drawing?
That's not my drawing.

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

Then don't engage. Why are you bothering?
Click to expand...
So you are now just stating zero life on a globe 🤷‍♂️
Wow😳😂
 
legend7 said:
A drawing would definitely help me understand what you're trying to explain as it makes no sense.
My globe doesn't need to look flat as the water is all around the globe surface at a very shallow depth.
Click to expand...
You call miles deep shallow?
legend7 said:
And the highest altitude on land some 5 or 6 miles.
So to scale these are negligible on a scale globe but the globe is still round.
Your map shows an absolutely huge variance from high to low points.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
DPTT said:
So you are now just stating zero life on a globe 🤷‍♂️
Wow😳😂
Click to expand...
Considering we do not walk upon a spinning globe I'd say there would be zero life on the fictional globe.
The one you believe in is full of life.
payne said:
Even bog standard flat earthers think he's on another planet
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter what people think of me, seriously.
I'm not debating in order to get some kind of gold star awards or something or to make pals for life...etc.
I'm just answering questions and debating them. That's it.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
You call miles deep shallow?

No it doesn't.

Considering we do not walk upon a spinning globe I'd say there would be zero life on the fictional globe.
The one you believe in is full of life.

It doesn't really matter what people think of me, seriously.
I'm not debating in order to get some kind of gold star awards or something or to make pals for life...etc.
I'm just answering questions and debating them. That's it.
Click to expand...
you aren't debating in any sense of the word.
 
payne said:
you aren't debating in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...
Of course, to people like yourself. That's because you already believe everything I'm questioning and for that you don't need to debate, you can just say "no, you're wrong" and I can say " how?" and you can say " because I've looked it up" and the debate for you is over.
For me it's only just carrying on looking for proof which you can't offer.

No proofs equal debate. All proofs kill off all debates.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course, to people like yourself. That's because you already believe everything I'm questioning and for that you don't need to debate, you can just say "no, you're wrong" and I can say " how?" and you can say " because I've looked it up" and the debate for you is over.
For me it's only just carrying on looking for proof which you can't offer.

No proofs equal debate. All proofs kill off all debates.
Click to expand...
Except that I've told you proof I didn't look up. You still rejected it without even thinking it through.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
What proof?
Click to expand...
this shite gain
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course, to people like yourself. That's because you already believe everything I'm questioning and for that you don't need to debate, you can just say "no, you're wrong" and I can say " how?" and you can say " because I've looked it up" and the debate for you is over.
For me it's only just carrying on looking for proof which you can't offer.

No proofs equal debate. All proofs kill off all debates.
Click to expand...

books. pointless. burn them all.

prooooooooooooooooof
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Well it depends how you look at it
Click to expand...
1 + 1 is 3 when I looked at it differently. What a new world I've been exposed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top