• 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:
What does predicting movement actually do?
Give me an example of what it proves?
Click to expand...
The movements of the planets and exactly (and I mean exactly) where they will appear in the sky. All based on the geometry of circles of the planets moving around the sun. They used to think that the earth was the centre of the solar system, but the retrograde motion of the outer planets disproved this.

If the planets are not real and are some kind of projection, can you explain how they move relative to the stars, and how their positions in the sky are exactly predictable in your fantasy world?
 

Nukehasslefan said:
Maths has not been described as fictional.
How maths is used in a scientific pretence is what is fictional.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
There is no horizon line, it's a blend of atmospheric conditions that give you a theoretical line perception.

It doesn't.
Click to expand...
The horizon is only a "theoretical line perception" in the sense that it's not quite a line because the planet is round.

If you can circle it on a photograph, it's not "theoretical," nor can you dispute its existence. You can try to dispute what it is, but you're now asserting that something that can be seen constantly by everyone with their naked eyes does not exist.
 
fyl2u said:
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?
Click to expand...

You do realise that you are trying to have an intelligent conversation with a man who thinks by pushing a spirit level on a plank across Mowbray Park pond proves the the earth is not a globe, don’t you?
 
fyl2u said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are on to a loser with this one. Ages ago he agreed with me that if you were up a tower on a globe, then you could look up and see sky and you could look down and see ground at your feet. However he disagreed that there would be a horizon line. At no point could you see both ground and sky at the same time and a line between them.

I asked him to picture the scenario of looking down, can see ground, look up slowly, can still see ground, keep looking up slowly and at some point you will see sky enter the top of your vision. I think he tried to claim, bang no more ground only sky. At that point I realised all logical conversation was impossible.

When you have someone with that mentality and IQ level, who can not visualise a simple concept there is no hope.
 
DaveH said:
You are on to a loser with this one. Ages ago he agreed with me that if you were up a tower on a globe, then you could look up and see sky and you could look down and see ground at your feet. However he disagreed that there would be a horizon line. At no point could you see both ground and sky at the same time and a line between them.

I asked him to picture the scenario of looking down, can see ground, look up slowly, can still see ground, keep looking up slowly and at some point you will see sky enter the top of your vision. I think he tried to claim, bang no more ground only sky. At that point I realised all logical conversation was impossible.

When you have someone with that mentality and IQ level, who can not visualise a simple concept there is no hope.
Click to expand...
:lol: incredible
 
legend7 said:
Is everyone looking forward to being enlightened by "the sketch"
Click to expand...

He's too clever so we wouldn't understand it.
why are the even bothering as it isn't real

You must be logged on to see external links
how on earth they supposed to see beyond the carbon arc ice dome?

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
DaveH said:
The movements of the planets and exactly (and I mean exactly) where they will appear in the sky. All based on the geometry of circles of the planets moving around the sun. They used to think that the earth was the centre of the solar system, but the retrograde motion of the outer planets disproved this.

If the planets are not real and are some kind of projection, can you explain how they move relative to the stars, and how their positions in the sky are exactly predictable in your fantasy world?
Click to expand...
So what are you proving?
fyl2u said:
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?
Click to expand...
So what are you trying to tell me about a spinning globe ?
Lonz said:
How is this the case? Provide some evidence of this, please.
Click to expand...
Provide something that shows maths to be correct for a global spinning Earth in a space vacuum with planets and stars.
 
Last edited:
SYB_DC said:
The horizon is only a "theoretical line perception" in the sense that it's not quite a line because the planet is round.
Click to expand...
No. It's because it's a convergence of atmospheric density over distance that changes reflected light back to our eyes, below and above which converge over distance to create a theoretical line.
Nothing at all to do with any curvature.
SYB_DC said:
If you can circle it on a photograph, it's not "theoretical," nor can you dispute its existence.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking drawing circles on a photograph. We are talking view of horizon.
SYB_DC said:
You can try to dispute what it is, but you're now asserting that something that can be seen constantly by everyone with their naked eyes does not exist.
Click to expand...
It doesn't exist as a line.
What exist is convergence of atmospheric mass and light ability to reflect back to our eyes.
DaveH said:
You are on to a loser with this one. Ages ago he agreed with me that if you were up a tower on a globe, then you could look up and see sky and you could look down and see ground at your feet. However he disagreed that there would be a horizon line. At no point could you see both ground and sky at the same time and a line between them.

I asked him to picture the scenario of looking down, can see ground, look up slowly, can still see ground, keep looking up slowly and at some point you will see sky enter the top of your vision. I think he tried to claim, bang no more ground only sky. At that point I realised all logical conversation was impossible.

When you have someone with that mentality and IQ level, who can not visualise a simple concept there is no hope.
Click to expand...
You missed the whole premise of level view. This was the argument.
You tried to use the old eyes to the ground and to raise them so you'd see a supposed edge of a globe to sky.
It's fine on a drawing but you'll never achieve it by doing a level view set up on that drawing and you'd certainly never do it on a supposed globe because even if everything was magically was we see on a globe, you'd have atmosphere taking out any chance of bringing your head up and trying to marry up a solid with the sky.

You believe you would based entirely on you stood on a circle with a line drawn from your eye to the circle edge.
It's not reality and never would be.
legend7 said:
Is everyone looking forward to being enlightened by "the sketch"
Click to expand...
Still not got round to it.
Nobby said:
It will never happen unfortunately 🤪🤪🤪🤪
Click to expand...
It will. It's just a sketch and it will happen, just not when I predicted.
 
Last edited:
Nobby said:
Carbon arc ice dome, that's just stupid. It's a hydrogen helium ice dome that self heals. Do pay attention
Click to expand...
No. not a carbon arc ice dome. Pay attention.
Nobby said:
I think the crayons were his tea
Click to expand...
Don't mock it till you try it.
fyl2u said:
Nothing, I'm asking if you agree with the statements I made about a circle and the two lines known as the tangent and the normal.
Click to expand...
What are you getting at?
Kevj said:
Not the first time one of your predictions wasn’t correct.
Click to expand...
Won't be the last, either.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
What are you getting at?
Click to expand...

Nothing more than that right now.

Just asking if you understand the terminology used in maths for a straight line that passes through the very centre point of a circle and continues beyond the boundary of the circle, i.e. the "normal", and the terminology for another line at right angles to the first line at the exact place that it meets the edge of the circle, i.e. the tangent.

And whether you acknowledge that it doesn't matter which direction the "normal" takes through the centre, a line can always be drawn at right angles to it where it meets the edge of the circle, which is called the "tangent".
 
fyl2u said:
Nothing more than that right now.

Just asking if you understand the terminology used in maths for a straight line that passes through the very centre point of a circle and continues beyond the boundary of the circle, i.e. the "normal", and the terminology for another line at right angles to the first line at the exact place that it meets the edge of the circle, i.e. the tangent.
Click to expand...

It would help if you are telling me something that is pertinent to the Earth being what you believe it is or at least tell me why I'm supposed to be arguing for a circle a tangent and a normal for a centred line.
fyl2u said:
And whether you acknowledge that it doesn't matter which direction the "normal" takes through the centre, a line can always be drawn at right angles to it where it meets the edge of the circle, which is called the "tangent".
Click to expand...
So what exactly are you getting at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top