Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

Is he asking me if a length is breadth at 160 x 32?

Strike 3.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Strike 3.

Is the strike ratio the angle of 32 x 180 over a ratio of 1 and 2 and 3 and 22?

 

[TheDataGuy]

Yep.
It also proves that water conforms to all of the gradients it flows against and ends up a level.

No, it doesn't. It works against a globe which is the reason a globe does not exist especially a spinning one...but that's just extra.

You can't. You can observe them anywhere you go towards water. Which is what we're dealing with.

The answer is, yes. A concave one and dome.
And within is the landmass which tapers or gradients into the oceans/seas....etc.

I'm far from muddled. I actually think you are muddled trying to understand it and fighting it with the global model mindset.

It offers you little chance to get to grips.
You may not want to but if that's the case then my advice would be not to try.

No I didn't.

I never offered the paddling pool as any flat Earth.
I offered it as a container with tapered rocks within to offer water level around all landmass.
You've decided to go all skewed and that's your issue.

So to be clear your planet is concave so the centre is lower than the edges, e.g. the UK is lower than Australia. Why is the water not all pooled in the centre of your world or to the north?

Logon or register to see this image

Is this a rough representation of what your world looks like? or is the centre not raised?

Like gravity and a whole host of other stuff.
It's a severe schooled in mindset and it's easy to see how it grips people.
I was once one who fell into that narrative.

The irony of saying "schooled in mindset" when you are just repeating stuff you have read somewhere about conspiracies. You have been taught to mistrust everything except for the thing telling you to mistrust things.

In science you are taught to test and question everything to try and get to an understanding of the natural world. This is the whole reason science exists. The key thing is that there are experiments and models that can be repeated and return the same results, these have been shared here e.g. the Eratosthenes experiment or tracking the shadow length throughout the day on and off the equinox. Shouting water level is not a valid response as this can be true in both case, no mater how much you mistrust the globe.

 

[fyl2u]

Is the strike ratio the angle of 32 x 180 over a ratio of 1 and 2 and 3 and 22?

You might be taking the piss, but that actually makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts. And is just as close to being correct as your "musings".

 

[SYB_DC]

No. I asked a question. I didn't answer your question.

Are you after me offering 180 degrees?

No. I can't be any more specific than what I asked. I can add three numbers together to confirm that the angles total 180, which I and anyone who knows basic geometry already knew the second I told you it was a triangle.

I asked for the lengths of the sides. I spotted you one to get us out of ratios and into actual numbers: the hypotenuse has length 1. The angles are 40, 50, and 90. How long are the other two sides?

 

[fyl2u]

No. I can't be any more specific than what I asked. I can add three numbers together to confirm that the angles total 180, which I and anyone who knows basic geometry already knew the second I told you it was a triangle.

I asked for the lengths of the sides. I spotted you one to get us out of ratios and into actual numbers: the hypotenuse has length 1. The angles are 40, 50, and 90. How long are the other two sides?

Are you asking what's longer, an orange or an avocado?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So to be clear your planet is concave so the centre is lower than the edges, e.g. the UK is lower than Australia. Why is the water not all pooled in the centre of your world or to the north?

Logon or register to see this image

Is this a rough representation of what your world looks like? or is the centre not raised?

The centre is raised over many thousands of miles ever so slightly.

The irony of saying "schooled in mindset" when you are just repeating stuff you have read somewhere about conspiracies. You have been taught to mistrust everything except for the thing telling you to mistrust things.

We're all schooled.
I include myself.
The key is to find out the reality from the schooled stories.

In science you are taught to test and question everything to try and get to an understanding of the natural world.

Agreed. The question is, how?
A teacher offers you access to the curriculum. Their set out a narrative for your memory and regurgitation.
The teacher can offer you many things to do as experiments and a lot of global offerings with pictures and even video to rubberstamp it into your brain.
It offers you a perceived truth that they themselves were offered but with no proof.

Your ability to bring to memory what that teacher pushed into it by following a narrative set out, now asks you to follow it and gain a certificate for regurgitating it from memory onto an exam sheet.

You may come out of school knowing some truths but not all.

This is the whole reason science exists.

Science exists because Earth and what's within it is that science.
It's up to us how we study it.

The key thing is that there are experiments and models that can be repeated and return the same results, these have been shared here e.g. the Eratosthenes experiment or tracking the shadow length throughout the day on and off the equinox.

The experiment does not offer you a spinning globe. It offers you the pretence of one.

Shouting water level is not a valid response as this can be true in both case, no mater how much you mistrust the globe.

The water level would never ever be valid on a spinning globe. It simply wouldn't.
The thing is it's just far too simple to be used as an argument and that's why it's crushed aside as being irrelevant and in its place, we are told water curves when we absolutely know fine well it does not when at rest.

 

[Kevj]

are told water curves when we absolutely know fine well it does not when at rest.

There is no ‘we’ here. Only you.

 

[payne]

The centre is raised over many thousands of miles ever so slightly.

We're all schooled.
I include myself.
The key is to find out the reality from the schooled stories.

Agreed. The question is, how?
A teacher offers you access to the curriculum. Their set out a narrative for your memory and regurgitation.
The teacher can offer you many things to do as experiments and a lot of global offerings with pictures and even video to rubberstamp it into your brain.
It offers you a perceived truth that they themselves were offered but with no proof.

Your ability to bring to memory what that teacher pushed into it by following a narrative set out, now asks you to follow it and gain a certificate for regurgitating it from memory onto an exam sheet.

You may come out of school knowing some truths but not all.



Science exists because Earth and what's within it is that science.
It's up to us how we study it.

The experiment does not offer you a spinning globe. It offers you the pretence of one.

The water level would never ever be valid on a spinning globe. It simply wouldn't.
The thing is it's just far too simple to be used as an argument and that's why it's crushed aside as being irrelevant and in its place, we are told water curves when we absolutely know fine well it does not when at rest.

Atmospheric crush?

 

[TheDataGuy]

The centre is raised over many thousands of miles ever so slightly.

So why is the water level across that map? Surely this follows the same issue as a globe but the other way around? If you made that and put water in it the countries in the centre would be flooded?

Agreed. The question is, how?
A teacher offers you access to the curriculum. Their set out a narrative for your memory and regurgitation.
The teacher can offer you many things to do as experiments and a lot of global offerings with pictures and even video to rubberstamp it into your brain.
It offers you a perceived truth that they themselves were offered but with no proof.

Your ability to bring to memory what that teacher pushed into it by following a narrative set out, now asks you to follow it and gain a certificate for regurgitating it from memory onto an exam sheet.

You may come out of school knowing some truths but not all.

No, there are practical experiments that you do to prove it. The idea of individual thought is more important in university where you are given tools and theory to help solve issues that you haven't seen before. You don't just regurgitate facts.

A good example of this is Pythagoras theorem. If I tell you that the length hypotenuse on a right angled triangle can be calculated by adding the squares of the other 2 sides and then taking the square root (sqrt).

C = sqrt(A^2 + B^2)

A concrete example of this

Logon or register to see this image

If one side (A) is 1cm and the other side (B) is 2cm then the hypotenuse (C) is sqrt((1x1) + (2x2)) = sqrt(1+4) = sqrt(5) which is about 2.24cm.

This is an example of what you could be taught.

So what is the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle where one side (A) is 4cm and the other side (B) is 4cm?

This is an example of me giving you the tools to answer the question but not providing you the answer to every question about right angle triangles. This is what science and maths does, it empowers people.

 

[SYB_DC]

A teacher offers you access to the curriculum. Their set out a narrative for your memory and regurgitation.
The teacher can offer you many things to do as experiments and a lot of global offerings with pictures and even video to rubberstamp it into your brain.
It offers you a perceived truth that they themselves were offered but with no proof.

Your ability to bring to memory what that teacher pushed into it by following a narrative set out, now asks you to follow it and gain a certificate for regurgitating it from memory onto an exam sheet.
You may come out of school knowing some truths but not all.

That's the difference between school and university-level education (and especially masters-level and above). What you describe is the most basic schooling, like primary school level.

That's not what you do when you work towards a master's degree or a PhD. Those aren't based on regurgitation. They're based on original research. They are based on the ability of the students to educate the professors, rather than the reverse. There aren't exam sheets. Often there are not exams. Instead, you have to provide original content that proves you can apply your mastery (whoo, note how that works!) of a field to novel problems.

Again, I can't blame you for not having a master's. But the fact that you don't understand how higher education works also means you don't understand how scientific research - across all disciplines - works. Not understanding how scientific research works means you can't see why the "conspiracy of 'knowledge'" (for lack of a better term) you posit is not a reasonable theory about the current state of the sciences. It'd be cracked into a zillion tiny pieces by the very first crop of post-graduate students everywhere across the world all at once.

We're all schooled.
I include myself.
The key is to find out the reality from the schooled stories.

How about the reality of the side lengths of a triangle? Can you provide that?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No. I can't be any more specific than what I asked. I can add three numbers together to confirm that the angles total 180, which I and anyone who knows basic geometry already knew the second I told you it was a triangle.

I asked for the lengths of the sides. I spotted you one to get us out of ratios and into actual numbers: the hypotenuse has length 1. The angles are 40, 50, and 90. How long are the other two sides?

Avocado.

There is no ‘we’ here. Only you.

Where?

Atmospheric crush?

No thanks, I have a slush puppy.

So why is the water level across that map?

For the reasons I explained.

Surely this follows the same issue as a globe but the other way around? If you made that and put water in it the countries in the centre would be flooded?

Not at all. It totally goes entirely different from the spinning globe.
This offers a container. Your globe offers no container.

No, there are practical experiments that you do to prove it. The idea of individual thought is more important in university where you are given tools and theory to help solve issues that you haven't seen before. You don't just regurgitate facts.

Aye for solavble things.
It does not include global spinning Earth and the nonsense that goes with it.

A good example of this is Pythagoras theorem. If I tell you that the length hypotenuse on a right angled triangle can be calculated by adding the squares of the other 2 sides and then taking the square root (sqrt).


A concrete example of this

Logon or register to see this image

If one side (A) is 1cm and the other side (B) is 2cm then the hypotenuse (C) is sqrt((1x1) + (2x2)) = sqrt(1+4) = sqrt(5) which is about 2.24cm.

This is an example of what you could be taught.

So what is the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle where one side (A) is 4cm and the other side (B) is 4cm?

This is an example of me giving you the tools to answer the question but not providing you the answer to every question about right angle triangles. This is what science and maths does, it empowers people.

I don't need your tools. I don't need to play mathematics and geometry lessons.
You can offer what you like but it offers no proof for the supposed spinning globe.
If I need to work out angles I'll work them out when required.
It's not required on a forum and especially for a global spinning Earth and so-called star distances....etc.

 

[Kevj]

Where?

FFS. ‘In this discussion’. That’s ‘where’.

You really have no problem with making a complete arse of yourself in public.

 

[SYB_DC]

Avocado.

In other words, you don't know and don't know how to know. The problem I gave you is a basic application of the law of sines. It takes less than a minute to answer correctly if you have even the most rudimentary knowledge because the numbers used are so simple.

Since (a/sinA) = (b/sinB) = (c/sinC), we plug in the values to get 1/(sin90)= x/(sin40)=y/(sin50). sin90 = 1, so we're just left with (x/sin40)=1 and (y/sin50)=1, or expressed differently, x=sin40 and y=sin50. I you want real values, those are ~0.643 and ~.766, respectively.

This is not difficult. If you can't do this (explain how a static, two-dimensional system fits together), you have no hope of explaining how a dynamic three-dimensional system works (or conceive of it as four dimensions if you must).

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That's the difference between school and university-level education (and especially masters-level and above). What you describe is the most basic schooling, like primary school level.

What is?

That's not what you do when you work towards a master's degree or a PhD.

Those aren't based on regurgitation.

That depends on what you're working for and what purpose it serves.

They're based on original research.

Like a spinning globe and stars and gravity which is what we're arguing?

They are based on the ability of the students to educate the professors, rather than the reverse.

Offer me an example.

There aren't exam sheets. Often there are not exams. Instead, you have to provide original content that proves you can apply your mastery (whoo, note how that works!) of a field to novel problems.

Offer me an example.

Again, I can't blame you for not having a master's.

Thanks.

But the fact that you don't understand how higher education works also means you don't understand how scientific research - across all disciplines - works.

And you're welcome to that thought.

Not understanding how scientific research works means you can't see why the "conspiracy of 'knowledge'" (for lack of a better term) you posit is not a reasonable theory about the current state of the sciences.

That depends on what is deemed to be studying the science or offering stories told to be the study of science but offers no reality..

How about the reality of the side lengths of a triangle? Can you provide that?

The internet is full of stuff on it. It's not difficult.

FFS. ‘In this discussion’. That’s ‘where’.

What?

You really have no problem with making a complete arse of yourself in public.

I don't feel I am. I'm quite content answering to what's put to me in a way I see that fits.
It's not a problem.

 

[TheDataGuy]

Not at all. It totally goes entirely different from the spinning globe.
This offers a container. Your globe offers no container.

Ok, yours offers a container but how does the water stay level down the gradient? (look back at the image to see the WHOLE world has a gradient and you said it does too)

 

[payne]

In other words, you don't know and don't know how to know. The problem I gave you is a basic application of the law of sines. It takes less than a minute to answer correctly if you have even the most rudimentary knowledge because the numbers used are so simple.

Since (a/sinA) = (b/sinB) = (c/sinC), we plug in the values to get (1/sin(90))= x/sin40=y/sin50). sin90 = 1, so we're just left with (x/sin40)=1 and (y/sin50)=1, or expressed differently, x=sin40 and y=sin50. I you want real values, those are ~0.643 and ~.766, respectively.

This is not difficult. If you can't do this (explain how a static, two-dimensional system fits together), you have no hope of explaining how a dynamic three-dimensional system works (or conceive of it as four dimensions if you must).

He can't do it and becaus3 of is brainwashing he's incapable of saying 'I don't know'.

Oddly enough the only things he ever has the humility to say he doesn't know is for his own theory. You'd think he'd know about that.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

In other words, you don't know and don't know how to know.

You're telling me.

The problem I gave you is a basic application of the law of sines.

That's great.

It takes less than a minute to answer correctly if you have even the most rudimentary knowledge because the numbers used are so simple.

You've already said I don't know so why are you puzzled?

Since (a/sinA) = (b/sinB) = (c/sinC), we plug in the values to get (1/sin(90))= x/sin40=y/sin50). sin90 = 1, so we're just left with (x/sin40)=1 and (y/sin50)=1, or expressed differently, x=sin40 and y=sin50. I you want real values, those are ~0.643 and ~.766, respectively.

Great. And what does this have to do with making the spinning globe story a reality?

This is not difficult. If you can't do this (explain how a static, two-dimensional system fits together), you have no hope of explaining how a dynamic three-dimensional system works (or conceive of it as four dimensions if you must).

So therefore your participation with me should cease or at least lead to you just having some fun at my expense, maybe.

You seem to know.

 

[SYB_DC]

Offer me an example.

Offer me an example.

Literally any masters or PhD thesis is an example.

The internet is full of stuff on it. It's not difficult.

It was too difficult for you, though.

 

[Kevj]

I don't need your tools. I don't need to play mathematics and geometry lessons.
You can offer what you like but it offers no proof for the supposed spinning globe.
If I need to work out angles I'll work them out when required.
It's not required on a forum and especially for a global spinning Earth and so-called star distances....etc.

This is critical. You have stated multiple times ‘we’ have not provided proof.

The only way everything works as described within our current understanding of the physical sciences is when the supporting mathematics correlates with observations, measurements and experiments.

If you’re lacking in the ability to interrogate and verify basic concepts using simple maths, then you have no chance tackling or understanding more advanced problems.

It’s this which makes your bold statements ‘you’re all wrong’ quite arrogant.