Put a flat earthier into space

[monkeytassle]

Hmm, I was going to do a proof by calculus, which is the definitive proof of it, but it is clear that is going nowhere.

I think we need to put circles and tangents as things you don’t understand. It is a basic mathematical concept and the rest of the world does not have that wrong and there is no cover up.

At least I see now why my other proofs failed to get anywhere. I kind of skip ahead and assume some level of understanding and geometry basics, that people can see the basics of the diagrams I have posted, but I think I was wrong with that assumption. I don’t think I can do any proofs without starting from basic mathematics upwards, and that gets lengthy.

Calculus is made up nonsense from people that want you to believe

 

[Nukehasslefan]

We're only using a protractor because you wanted to know how it's a right angle.

I want to know how it's a right angle by what you used to argue the diagram for a right angle. No protractor was used. I simply wanted an explanation on how the right angle was shown to be just that.
Nobody's shown it and are now going into, get a protractor and what not.
This isn't the query.

It's just a case of making sure that the line you've drawn as a "tangent" doesn't intersect the circle (and still wouldn't intersect the circle if it were infinitely long).

It doesn't matter how long or short the line is. It's all about knowing the angle.

If you look closely, in the diagram used, the "supposed" right angle is:

1: just a label that you could put inside OR OUTSIDE the circle and it wouldn't make a difference.
2: clearly showing the angle between the normal and the tangent.

It isn't necessarily a right angle until shown to be that. The diagram does not show it.

You do realise that if you have two straight lines that cross over each other, where ONE of the four angles between the two lines is a right angle, then ALL THE OTHER THREE of the four angles will also be right angles*.

You can draw two straight lines that intersect and none have to ever make a right angle.

(*assuming we're drawing our two lines on a regular flat piece of paper and not onto a curved plane like a ball or a horse's saddle.)

And this is another conundrum which I'm sure was going to be argued or why use it in the first place.

You only needed a protractor because of your remedial-level grasp of mathematics.

Or maybe you can't show how the right angle is a given on this circle..

Everybody else in the world over the age of 11 would have just said "yes, I agree with the labels on the diagram - I understand what a tangent and a normal are in relation to a circle" twenty pages ago.

Of course. Why does anyone need to disagree unless they want to go a bit deeper and use it as a thinking piece?
It's easier to go with the flow on anything.
The argument is always, why.

You haven't debated a single point on the entire thread.

That's up for debate.

It's way beyond bizarre at this point. You have to wonder how he manages to survive from day to day.

Just like any other. We just do.

 

[DaveH]

By the look of the diagram you appear to be choosing your horizon as a angled look to an outside skim of your circle line, basically saying you would be doing that when looking out to sea but in your case it would be looking down into the sea and so negates any horizon you thought you had in the first place.

Try level sight.
Here's what happens with level sight and you can try this from a mountain or a hill or the seaside. Just look out to sea and you will see the horizon line which is a theoretical line based on convergence of light shades in atmosphere due to the density of it below and less dense above over distance.
Basically it hinders reflected light back to the eyes from below and allows reflective light to be more apparent, above.
Basically it gives your eyes a central (theoretical) line. Your horizon line.

You can only get this from level sight into distance.
If you set up a small scope of binoculars with a crosshair and set them level from the ground, so they're horizontally level, then look through them, you'll see your horizon.

If you were on a globe as you think you are, you would have no horizon, at all. Only sky.

Why?
Because you're already stood above your downward curve and the only way your curve goes from that point on, is downward, meaning your scope could never bring any horizon into line....only sky.
This does not happen and is another clear reason why Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk/sail upon.

Of course, if you want to argue 1+1=3 then you're entitled to argue it.
I accept 1+1=2. I accept it because I use addition like we all do in life.
If you have a case for it being 3 then you are welcome to argue it.


Yep we have all been schooled into a belief of this.
It's all about using it and accepting it, or not. I accept it because I use it in real life as I know it.

It depends on what you see as proof. If you think you live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum then maybe 1+1=3 to you. I have no issue with you for you thinking thinking that but I just don't agree with either.

Maybe they are. If you can argue otherwise then you may be on to something.

I can prove it to myself. It's up to others to decide if it fits their everyday life as a reality in use.

This is about knowing a surety and how it gets to be. That's it. Use them as mind exercises.

The curve of the earth is not greater than the field of view of most telescopes or binoculars.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The curve of the earth is not greater than the field of view of most telescopes or binoculars.

But it would be greater than the level view of a scope and crosshair.
This is the key.

 

[Nobby]

But it would be greater than the level view of a scope and crosshair.
This is the key.

Have you verified this by experiment and data collection, if so do share

 

[DaveH]

But it would be greater than the level view of a scope and crosshair.
This is the key.

Work is out then. Use your approximation rule, 8” per mile squared. Think about that as a triangle, 1 mile long, 8” at the base. What is the angle formed? Very small. Then find out what the field of view is for most binoculars or telescopes. You will find out it is considerably larger.

No need to sit on the bog making this stuff up. One simple bit of trigonometry will show what to expect and if it is realistic or not.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Have you verified this by experiment and data collection, if so do share

Unfortunately I don't have a massive globe to try it on so I have to go by the simple logic of it.
However, if people want to try stuff out they can pick out any gradient/hill/mound over as big a distance as it spreads and go and find the peak of it, whether the mound is raised 2 feet over distance or 10 feet or 100 feet.

Either way a scope with a crosshair and levelled at the peak of the mound will never show any of the mound in that crosshair horizontal line.

Now all that needs to be done with the globe mindset being told it's 24,000+ miles in circumference is to simply understand that each millimetre of view in that same context would offer a drop, always and could never offer up any line on or above the horizontal line of the crosshair.

It's the simple stuff that is enough to annihilate a globe we supposedly walk/sail upon...especially a spinning one.

Is that proof to you? Of course not. Your water stays on your spinning globe so you're hardly going to bother to think on those lines...and you're welcome to it.

Work is out then. Use your approximation rule, 8” per mile squared. Think about that as a triangle, 1 mile long, 8” at the base. What is the angle formed? Very small. Then find out what the field of view is for most binoculars or telescopes. You will find out it is considerably larger.

No need to sit on the bog making this stuff up. One simple bit of trigonometry will show what to expect and if it is realistic or not.

It doesn't matter how little the drop is. We can use millimetres if you want to but it would always drop from your level sight. Always.

 

[Nobby]

Unfortunately I don't have a massive globe to try it on so I have to go by the simple logic of it.
However, if people want to try stuff out they can pick out any gradient/hill/mound over as big a distance as it spreads and go and find the peak of it, whether the mound is raised 2 feet over distance or 10 feet or 100 feet.

Either way a scope with a crosshair and levelled at the peak of the mound will never show any of the mound in that crosshair horizontal line.

Now all that needs to be done with the globe mindset being told it's 24,000+ miles in circumference is to simply understand that each millimetre of view in that same context would offer a drop, always and could never offer up any line on or above the horizontal line of the crosshair.

It's the simple stuff that is enough to annihilate a globe we supposedly walk/sail upon...especially a spinning one.

Is that proof to you? Of course not. Your water stays on your spinning globe so you're hardly going to bother to think on those lines...and you're welcome to it.

It doesn't matter how little the drop is. We can use millimetres if you want to but it would always drop from your level sight. Always.

Strange how your "proofs" you haven't verified yourself by experiment and measurement, but really on what you think it would like to the naked eye.

But on the other hand won't accept two perpendicular lines firm a right angle even though it can as easily be seen by the naked eye. You then go on to question the validity of using a protractor to measure the angle.

The level of proof required by the two sides of the debate seems very unbalanced

As Dave has suggested do the maths to show how your argument stands up and present them for review. That's how science works

 

[DaveH]

Unfortunately I don't have a massive globe to try it on so I have to go by the simple logic of it.
However, if people want to try stuff out they can pick out any gradient/hill/mound over as big a distance as it spreads and go and find the peak of it, whether the mound is raised 2 feet over distance or 10 feet or 100 feet.

Either way a scope with a crosshair and levelled at the peak of the mound will never show any of the mound in that crosshair horizontal line.

Now all that needs to be done with the globe mindset being told it's 24,000+ miles in circumference is to simply understand that each millimetre of view in that same context would offer a drop, always and could never offer up any line on or above the horizontal line of the crosshair.

It's the simple stuff that is enough to annihilate a globe we supposedly walk/sail upon...especially a spinning one.

Is that proof to you? Of course not. Your water stays on your spinning globe so you're hardly going to bother to think on those lines...and you're welcome to it.

It doesn't matter how little the drop is. We can use millimetres if you want to but it would always drop from your level sight. Always.

If the horizon drop is millimetres then you would barely be able to notice it in your field of view, you could certainly be able to see it. Most telescopes and binoculars do not have a crosshair on them, only if they are used as a surveying tool, known as a theodolite.

But people with these devices have done the test you said and found:

Logon or register to see this image

Logon or register to see this image

There are many others, all showing the drop you predicted would happen if we lived on a globe.

Well done, you have successfully proved we live on a globe. Finally time to put this thread to rest and for you to have a quiet pint tonight to rest easy and realise they are not all out to get you, not all out to con and trick you, it is just the world doesn't always match our imaginations.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Strange how your "proofs" you haven't verified yourself by experiment and measurement, but really on what you think it would like to the naked eye.

I can't verify a globe because we don't live on one.
I can verify that it isn't by what I've said.

But on the other hand won't accept two perpendicular lines firm a right angle even though it can as easily be seen by the naked eye.

Prove it's perpendicular on the circle that was presented.

You then go on to question the validity of using a protractor to measure the angle.

No. I ask why it is used now when the diagram shown to me was set up to supposedly show me the right angle without any further assistance..

The level of proof required by the two sides of the debate seems very unbalanced

There is no level to a proof. A proof is just that. All the rest of it is theory or circumstantial evidence.
The debate is only unbalanced because it's me against you and many others.

As Dave has suggested do the maths to show how your argument stands up and present them for review. That's how science works

Do the maths for what?

 

[nahwee]

I agree with the 1-2-3 rule, yes. I actually use it.

Honest question, what is the “1-2-3” rule?

 

[Nobby]

I can't verify a globe because we don't live on one.
I can verify that it isn't by what I've said.

Prove it's perpendicular on the circle that was presented.

No. I ask why it is used now when the diagram shown to me was set up to supposedly show me the right angle without any further assistance..

There is no level to a proof. A proof is just that. All the rest of it is theory or circumstantial evidence.
The debate is only unbalanced because it's me against you and many others.

Do the maths for what?

Do the maths to support your argument
Try level sight.
Here's what happens with level sight and you can try this from a mountain or a hill or the seaside. Just look out to sea and you will see the horizon line which is a theoretical line based on convergence of light shades in atmosphere due to the density of it below and less dense above over distance.
Basically it hinders reflected light back to the eyes from below and allows reflective light to be more apparent, above.
Basically it gives your eyes a central (theoretical) line. Your horizon line.

You can only get this from level sight into distance.
If you set up a small scope of binoculars with a crosshair and set them level from the ground, so they're horizontally level, then look through them, you'll see your horizon.

If you were on a globe as you think you are, you would have no horizon, at all. Only sky.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I can't verify a globe because we don't live on one.
I can verify that it isn't by what I've said.

Steady on there, sounds a lot like presenting as fact.

 

[What A Waster]

I can't verify a globe because we don't live on one.
I can verify that it isn't by what I've said.

Prove it's perpendicular on the circle that was presented.

No. I ask why it is used now when the diagram shown to me was set up to supposedly show me the right angle without any further assistance..

There is no level to a proof. A proof is just that. All the rest of it is theory or circumstantial evidence.
The debate is only unbalanced because it's me against you and many others.

Do the maths for what?

More clutching at straws than at a scarecrow masturbation contest.

 

[taipeisafc]

Honest question, what is the “1-2-3” rule?

We used to use the 1-2-3 rule for tanks 1 inch liquid in needed a 2 inch overflow and 3 inch vent, stopped using.it now as it is bollocks

 

[BigPete]

Work is out then. Use your approximation rule, 8” per mile squared. Think about that as a triangle, 1 mile long, 8” at the base. What is the angle formed? Very small. Then find out what the field of view is for most binoculars or telescopes. You will find out it is considerably larger.

No need to sit on the bog making this stuff up. One simple bit of trigonometry will show what to expect and if it is realistic or not.

Feels like back in year 5

 

[nahwee]

We used to use the 1-2-3 rule for tanks 1 inch liquid in needed a 2 inch overflow and 3 inch vent, stopped using.it now as it is bollocks

Thank you sir

 

[taipeisafc]

Thank you sir

I suspect it is something else entirely to others on this thread

 

[payne]

If the horizon drop is millimetres then you would barely be able to notice it in your field of view, you could certainly be able to see it. Most telescopes and binoculars do not have a crosshair on them, only if they are used as a surveying tool, known as a theodolite.

But people with these devices have done the test you said and found:

Logon or register to see this image

Logon or register to see this image

There are many others, all showing the drop you predicted would happen if we lived on a globe.

Well done, you have successfully proved we live on a globe. Finally time to put this thread to rest and for you to have a quiet pint tonight to rest easy and realise they are not all out to get you, not all out to con and trick you, it is just the world doesn't always match our imaginations.

fake news. Trump towld me

 

[DaveH]

Honest question, what is the “1-2-3” rule?

It is like the 3-4-5 rule but wrong I suspect.

3 squared plus 4 squared equals 5 squared. So basically if you have 3 lengths of wood and mark them in 3,4 and 5 feet or 30,40,50cm lengths (or multiple of) and stick them together, you will end up with a pretty accurate right angle triangle.
(Forgot to click post reply, sorry if the conversation has moved on)

We used to use the 1-2-3 rule for tanks 1 inch liquid in needed a 2 inch overflow and 3 inch vent, stopped using.it now as it is bollocks

I think a standard sponge cake can follow that rule.

But I was talking about the equation for a circle so neither apply.

If you were on a globe as you think you are, you would have no horizon, at all. Only sky.

That is a discussion I had with him in another thread ages ago. Basically claimed that if the person was on a tower of any height (I suggested a small box), on a globe they would not see a horizon line. They could only see sky, so if you live on a globe and step on a box you feel like you are flying. This doesn't happen so not a globe and anyone who says otherwise is part of the conspiracy.

Being so badly wrong and not seeing the viewpoint as completely insane did not enter into the it.