Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

books. pointless. burn them all.

prooooooooooooooooof

Not pointless at all. Some are great fiction and a great read. Some are acceptable facts.
It's about sorting out what books actually go where because I believe there's a lot on the fact shelf that should be on the fiction shelf.
Do you believe everything you read if it's called fact?

What about auto biographies or biographies...etc?

 

[SYB_DC]

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.

Mixed units aside, the curvature of something 24,000 miles in diameter is only about 8 inches over a mile. That's not something you can see with your naked eye, and only becomes perceptible when you're seeing very distant objects. The math on this is not difficult and has been provided to you. The fact that you can't or won't do it isn't anyone's problem but yours.

 

[DaveH]

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?

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.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

1 + 1 is 3 when I looked at it differently. What a new world I've been exposed to.

You could look at it like that if there's a reason to do so. I simply accept 1+1=2 as and acceptable fact.
This is where we differ.

 

[payne]

No such thing as 3

i didn't read it in a book and thought of the concept all myself so it's valid and i'm not putting it up as proof and it's not what I was told and it's provable, repeatable and testable that 1 + 1 is not two as dense pressure removes the even outcome and prooffs odd numbers are real numbers in carbon arc areas under domes of ice melting helium hydrogen vacuum less projector crystals reflections

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Mixed units aside, the curvature of something 24,000 miles in diameter is only about 8 inches over a mile.

24,000 miles in diameter?

That's not something you can see with your naked eye, and only becomes perceptible when you're seeing very distant objects.

How distant?

The math on this is not difficult and has been provided to you.

What maths?

The fact that you can't or won't do it isn't anyone's problem but yours.

I don't have a problem.

 

[SYB_DC]

24,000 miles in diameter?

How distant?

What maths?

I don't have a problem.

Sorry, circumference. That should solve the remainder of your issues. Give it a shot. Post your calculations as to what it would look like.

Here's how it looks in miles, with metric at the end:

You must be logged on to see external links

Choose your units and go for it.

 

[DaveH]

Very well.

Here's a circle with a tangent and a normal drawn on it.

Logon or register to see this image

The normal always passes through the centre of the circle regardless of where on the circle it intersects.

The tangent is always at a 90 degree angle to the normal.

Do you agree?

Do you realise it has been nearly a week and 25 pages you have been on with just this diagram and no progress has been made.

Anyone who has anything to do with geometry are clearly in on the conspiracy. That angle could easily be 85 degrees.

I think that now puts the likely percent of the global population who are in on the conspiracy and keeping stum, at about 63%. We don’t want to let on to the other 37% - there will be hell on.

 

[legend7]

You call miles deep shallow?

As a % or ratio to the size of the earth or even a large continent extremely shallow, barely covers the surface.
9000 miles from alaska to South America, 6 mile height variance wouldn't even be noticeable on a scale cross section.
As I say you obviously don't understand scale or ratios.

 

[DaveH]

You could look at it like that if there's a reason to do so. I simply accept 1+1=2 as and acceptable fact.
This is where we differ.

But is 1+1=3 not thinking alternatively? We have all been schooled into thinking 1+1=2, so when we have an apple and add another we just think we see 2 apples. There are many who may think like you do, but after years of realising the truth, they know 1+1=3 and there is zero proof it comes to 2.

1+1 is 3, and anyone who thinks it is 2 is just following the narrative like a religion, claiming madness or conspiracy theorists about those who know it is 3.

Can you prove 1+1=2?

 

[legend7]

Do you realise it has been nearly a week and 25 pages you have been on with just this diagram and no progress has been made.

Anyone who has anything to do with geometry are clearly in on the conspiracy. That angle could easily be 85 degrees.

I think that now puts the likely percent of the global population who are in on the conspiracy and keeping stum, at about 63%. We don’t want to let on to the other 37% - there will be hell on.

I think he suggested protractors had been invented as part of the lie to keep us in line earlier, I may have misread though

But is 1+1=3 not thinking alternatively? We have all been schooled into thinking 1+1=2, so when we have an apple and add another we just think we see 2 apples. There are many who may think like you do, but after years of realising the truth, they know 1+1=3 and there is zero proof it comes to 2.

1+1 is 3, and anyone who thinks it is 2 is just following the narrative like a religion, claiming madness or conspiracy theorists about those who know it is 3.

Can you prove 1+1=2?

That's true, or if we have an apple and add another apple who can prove we don't now have a banana.
Bananas are curved, not good.

 

[payne]

I think he suggested protractors had been invented as part of the lie to keep us in line earlier, I may have misread though

That's true, or if we have an apple and add another apple who can prove we don't now have a banana.
Bananas are curved, not good.

it's the spirograph people trying to make some extra money since the computer era took off. had to branch out into maffs

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I think he suggested protractors had been invented as part of the lie to keep us in line earlier, I may have misread though

That's true, or if we have an apple and add another apple who can prove we don't now have a banana.
Bananas are curved, not good.

Bananas only appear curved because of refraction, which doesn't exist, except for on bananas, and possibly some cucumbers.

 

[payne]

I think he suggested protractors had been invented as part of the lie to keep us in line earlier, I may have misread though

That's true, or if we have an apple and add another apple who can prove we don't now have a banana.
Bananas are curved, not good.

apples are flat and don't fall off bananas

 

[legend7]

Bananas only appear curved because of refraction, which doesn't exist, except for on bananas, and possibly some cucumbers.

If you built miniature skyscrapers for ants on bananas they would be miles apart at the top.
And from a distance they look round.
I'll draw a sketch maybe by tea time but that means a few weeks/never.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

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

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

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).

Nahhh.

smh

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.

What the actual fuck are you doing right now? Got bored of the actual maths and started drawing pretty pictures instead?

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

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.

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*.

(*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.)

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

Ok no problem.

Ok no issues.

Ok no problem.


No, it won't.

Jesus f***ing wept.

You can't guarantee a right angle from that alone.

Yes, you can.

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.

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

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.

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

When he puts on his pants in the morning, he must need someone else to do it for him or he'd take one look at the complex curvature of the underwear manifold and start "debating" with himself whether underwear can actually exist. It would take a year before he'd get one leg in.

He'd eventually get down to the kitchen and try to pour some cereal into a bowl, except it isn't a bowl at all, it's a CD, so the cereal goes all over the floor. He then proceeds to try and eat the little bit that stuck to the surface of the CD using a spoon, but he's holding the spoon upside down because he doesn't know the difference between concave and convex, so in the end he gets no food at all.

He'd try to leave the house but get as far as the door and start questioning how it could possibly be that you turn the handle in a circular motion and the lock moves in a straight plane. That doesn't make sense. Clearly the entire idea of door locks are part of the conspiracy. And the hinges on doors and windows. How can something straight turn in a curved motion? Wait, there's tangents and normals involved in the motion of doors and windows, and I can't prove those exist, so windows are part of the conspiracy too! "Oh my god, that means I can't get out! I'm locked in!"

You have to feel sorry for his carers.

 

[payne]

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



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).


smh


What the actual fuck are you doing right now? Got bored of the actual maths and started drawing pretty pictures instead?



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.

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*.

(*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.)



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


Jesus f***ing wept.



Yes, you can.


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


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

When he puts on his pants in the morning, he must need someone else to do it for him or he'd take one look at the complex curvature of the underwear manifold and start "debating" with himself whether underwear can actually exist. It would take a year before he'd get one leg in.

He'd eventually get down to the kitchen and try to pour some cereal into a bowl, except it isn't a bowl at all, it's a CD, so the cereal goes all over the floor. He then proceeds to try and eat the little bit that stuck to the surface of the CD using a spoon, but he's holding the spoon upside down because he doesn't know the difference between concave and convex, so in the end he gets no food at all.

He'd try to leave the house but get as far as the door and start questioning how it could possibly be that you turn the handle in a circular motion and the lock moves in a straight plane. That doesn't make sense. Clearly the entire idea of door locks are part of the conspiracy. And the hinges on doors and windows. How can something straight turn in a curved motion? Wait, there's tangents and normals involved in the motion of doors and windows, and I can't prove those exist, so windows are part of the conspiracy too! "Oh my god, that means I can't get out! I'm locked in!"

You have to feel sorry for his carers.

It seems he believes a debate is simply disagreeing with anything no matter the merit. So a debate for him could be just disagreeing with any norm. i.e. humans have a central nervous systems. no they don't........................it's a DEBATE!

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



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).


smh


What the actual fuck are you doing right now? Got bored of the actual maths and started drawing pretty pictures instead?



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.

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*.

(*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.)



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


Jesus f***ing wept.



Yes, you can.


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


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

When he puts on his pants in the morning, he must need someone else to do it for him or he'd take one look at the complex curvature of the underwear manifold and start "debating" with himself whether underwear can actually exist. It would take a year before he'd get one leg in.

He'd eventually get down to the kitchen and try to pour some cereal into a bowl, except it isn't a bowl at all, it's a CD, so the cereal goes all over the floor. He then proceeds to try and eat the little bit that stuck to the surface of the CD using a spoon, but he's holding the spoon upside down because he doesn't know the difference between concave and convex, so in the end he gets no food at all.

He'd try to leave the house but get as far as the door and start questioning how it could possibly be that you turn the handle in a circular motion and the lock moves in a straight plane. That doesn't make sense. Clearly the entire idea of door locks are part of the conspiracy. And the hinges on doors and windows. How can something straight turn in a curved motion? Wait, there's tangents and normals involved in the motion of doors and windows, and I can't prove those exist, so windows are part of the conspiracy too! "Oh my god, that means I can't get out! I'm locked in!"

You have to feel sorry for his carers.

quality

 

[fyl2u]

It seems he believes a debate is simply disagreeing with anything no matter the merit. So a debate for him could be just disagreeing with any norm. i.e. humans have a central nervous systems. no they don't........................it's a DEBATE!

quality

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[payne]

You must be logged on to see media items

change the no to proooof and it's him

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Sorry, circumference. That should solve the remainder of your issues. Give it a shot. Post your calculations as to what it would look like.

Here's how it looks in miles, with metric at the end:

You must be logged on to see external links

Choose your units and go for it.

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.

But is 1+1=3 not thinking alternatively?

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.

We have all been schooled into thinking 1+1=2, so when we have an apple and add another we just think we see 2 apples.

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.

There are many who may think like you do, but after years of realising the truth, they know 1+1=3 and there is zero proof it comes to 2.

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.

1+1 is 3, and anyone who thinks it is 2 is just following the narrative like a religion, claiming madness or conspiracy theorists about those who know it is 3.

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

Can you prove 1+1=2?

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

I think he suggested protractors had been invented as part of the lie to keep us in line earlier, I may have misread though
There's no lie about any of this.

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