Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Well to be fair, you have written off tonnes of proof as invalid or just plain wrong. It is not correct to say that none has been offered. There are 230 pages of people offering proof, either direct from individuals such as myself or web links and evidence of lots of resources.

So basically it's offering what they and you believe to be a proof. That's not proof. Mass opinion and adherence to ideals is also not a proof.

It is not an issue of it not being there, it is an issue of if you have accepted it as a proof or accepted it as evidence.

I can accept a lot of stuff if it shows a potential to be correct. I won't believe something which I do not accept to be a truth unless there is absolute proof provided, not just possibles.

The fact that you think it does not prove anything does not negate it's existence it is completely your lack of acceptance.

Correct. In many cases there could be real proof and once I get real proof I will have a belief in whatever is shown to be that.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

There was no protractor mentioned.

It happens if you use measuring tools. The diagram offers none.

Not with that first diagram it doesn't.

I've looked at it many times and although on appearance is looks like a right angle, there's no proof of it.

Exactly what 'reference point' do you need for this circle?
You have the circumference and the centre, the normal and a tangent.
It all makes sense just as it is, what possible extra info is needed to prove the 90 degrees?
A name? Lets call the circle Clive, does that help?

 

[DaveH]

The hilarious part is that establishing that he understood what a tangent and normal were was supposed to just be step 1: the basic fundamentals from which I was going to start my actual analogy.

Little did I realise that the most basic geometry fundamentals and the use of a protractor to measure angles would cause a week's worth of controversy, denial and deflection and still we'd be no closer to him accepting the terms "normal" and "tangent" and the fact that they're at right-angles to each other.

It'd take a year to get through step 2, which involved imagining hypotheticals that utilised those fundamentals.

And then at some point in 2023, I might have actually got to the point of it all, applying the things we'd learned from that to a real world example.

But you know what? Bollocks to it. It's clear he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand any of it.

I'm off to try to teach a gorilla how to speak in sign language. Should take less time and be less frustrating, working with a creature whose brain is bigger than its eyeball.


Hundreds of proofs. Unfortunately you're just not bright enough to understand them.

Maybe try your hand at finger-painting instead?

I did warn you. Step 1 or step 2, never get any further. It is impossible.

You have been at it for over a week now (well played on your persistence). Usually when I have been trying to establish a few baselines over the course of 3 or 4 days, you agree something else and he starts rejecting what he agreed to 2 days ago.

I would not say it is impossible to explain anything, but it takes a very special skillset which I know I don't have and sorry, but I suspect you don't either.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Exactly what 'reference point' do you need for this circle?
You have the circumference and the centre, the normal and a tangent.
It all makes sense just as it is, what possible extra info is needed to prove the 90 degrees?
A name? Lets call the circle Clive, does that help?

Your supposed tangent line is the issue.

I did warn you. Step 1 or step 2, never get any further. It is impossible.

You have been at it for over a week now (well played on your persistence). Usually when I have been trying to establish a few baselines over the course of 3 or 4 days, you agree something else and he starts rejecting what he agreed to 2 days ago.

I would not say it is impossible to explain anything, but it takes a very special skillset which I know I don't have and sorry, but I suspect you don't either.

Aye it takes some deeper thought.

 

[DaveH]

So basically it's offering what they and you believe to be a proof. That's not proof. Mass opinion and adherence to ideals is also not a proof.

I can accept a lot of stuff if it shows a potential to be correct. I won't believe something which I do not accept to be a truth unless there is absolute proof provided, not just possibles.

Correct. In many cases there could be real proof and once I get real proof I will have a belief in whatever is shown to be that.

Yes, it is just like me saying "Australia does not exist" over and over again. I might see if I can get a thread up to 230 pages and have over 3000 counts of me saying that, and eventually Australia will not exist.

Any evidence it does exist I can dismiss as adherence to the mass ideals, people being schooled into thinking it exists and people just not being open free thinkers.

Your supposed tangent line is the issue.

Aye it takes some deeper thought.

Or sniffing glue

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Your supposed tangent line is the issue.

Then you fail to understand the terms.
At the point where the normal intersects the circumference, its angle to the tangent will be 90 degrees.
It's a fact, not just a claim or a trick, it's basic geometry.
No further reference point will make a difference.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, it is just like me saying "Australia does not exist" over and over again.

Nope.
You can get proof of it existing if you wanted.
Totally different to a lot of stuff that's obscure and out of reach for the average Joe.

I might see if I can get a thread up to 230 pages and have over 3000 counts of me saying that, and eventually Australia will not exist.

That's up to you.
This isn't my topic.

Any evidence it does exist I can dismiss as adherence to the mass ideals, people being schooled into thinking it exists and people just not being open free thinkers.

You could dismiss it if you have never been. It would then come down to you finding out for yourself or trusting someone to find out for you.

Or sniffing glue

If that's what you do then that's your business.

 

[fyl2u]

I did warn you. Step 1 or step 2, never get any further. It is impossible.

You have been at it for over a week now (well played on your persistence). Usually when I have been trying to establish a few baselines over the course of 3 or 4 days, you agree something else and he starts rejecting what he agreed to 2 days ago.

I would not say it is impossible to explain anything, but it takes a very special skillset which I know I don't have and sorry, but I suspect you don't either.

No, unfortunately I have neither been trained as a teacher of toddlers, special needs children nor in dealing with the mentally handicapped.

Sadly, when I taught maths it was to 16-18 year-olds, and while sometimes some of them were as disruptive and obstinate as you might expect from a classful of kids that age, in a one-on-one situation I never found a kid that wouldn't at some point go "oh yeah, I get it now!"

Still, even that was a long time ago, and I guess when my job doesn't depend on it, it seems I have less diplomacy and patience in the face of outright ignorance.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Then you fail to understand the terms.
At the point where the normal intersects the circumference, its angle to the tangent will be 90 degrees.

It's a fact, not just a claim or a trick, it's basic geometry.
No further reference point will make a difference.

If that line hits just a tiny degree out you do not have a right angle.

 

[fyl2u]

Yes, it is just like me saying "Australia does not exist" over and over again. I might see if I can get a thread up to 230 pages and have over 3000 counts of me saying that, and eventually Australia will not exist.

Any evidence it does exist I can dismiss as adherence to the mass ideals, people being schooled into thinking it exists and people just not being open free thinkers.

Or sniffing glue

Make it New Zealand instead and I can actually find numerous maps and articles to back up your position.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, unfortunately I have neither been trained as a teacher of toddlers, special needs children nor in dealing with the mentally handicapped.

Now you can add me to your experience.

Sadly, when I taught maths it was to 16-18 year-olds, and while sometimes some of them were as disruptive and obstinate as you might expect from a classful of kids that age, in a one-on-one situation I never found a kid that wouldn't at some point go "oh yeah, I get it now!"

It depends if the get it is pertinent to something.

Still, even that was a long time ago, and I guess when my job doesn't depend on it, it seems I have less diplomacy and patience in the face of outright ignorance.

And yet here you are still trying to deal with me.
If I was as frustrated as you I'd honestly ignore me. I'm serious.

 

[fyl2u]

If that line hits just a tiny degree out you do not have a right angle.

If that line hits just a tiny degree out then it intersects the circle, you raging buffoon.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If that line hits just a tiny degree out then it intersects the circle, you raging buffoon.

And here's where we have to find that actual pivotal point.
How do you find it. How do you be certain of it?

 

[fyl2u]

And here's where we have to find that actual pivotal point.
How do you find it. How do you be certain of it?

You find it by drawing it yourself, ANYWHERE on the outer edge of the circle AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INTERSECT.

Just like I said 25 pages ago.

I'm definitely done now, I'm going to bed.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You find it by drawing it yourself, ANYWHERE on the outer edge of the circle AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INTERSECT.

Just like I said 25 pages ago.

I'm definitely done now, I'm going to bed.

How thin does the line have to be to guarantee the line does create a correct right angle?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If that line hits just a tiny degree out you do not have a right angle.

But if the line is just a tiny bit out then you dont have a tangent.
You do have a tangent, as it was stated in the first place.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But if the line is just a tiny bit out then you dont have a tangent.

Hence the supposed.

You do have a tangent, as it was stated in the first place.

And this is what we're trying to establish.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Hence the supposed.

And this is what we're trying to establish.

No! This is NOT what we are trying to establish.
The fact that it is a tangent and a normal were explicit in the original.
It did not say "a line that might be somewhere close to a tangent" it said a tangent. No 'supposed' about it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No! This is NOT what we are trying to establish.
The fact that it is a tangent and a normal were explicit in the original.

Of course it was explicit. A normal and a tangent.
I disagreed with the outcome of a right angle which negates this if it cannot be shown how it came to be.

It did not say "a line that might be somewhere close to a tangent" it said a tangent.

Saying it and showing it to be are two different things.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Of course it was explicit. A normal and a tangent.
I disagreed with the outcome of a right angle which negates this if it cannot be shown how it came to be.

Saying it and showing it to be are two different things.

Being a Ford Cortina and a f***ing idiot are two different things but what of it?
If a maths problem states that there is a tangent and a normal, you're not going to get extra marks for questioning if the tangent is actually a tangent.