Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

A nice curvature in picture one as well.
Anyone can set up a crosshair higher than the horizon and pretend its eye level.

You know what?
You can do this yourself. Any person can and prove to themselves the horizon is at eye level.
Raising the crosshair is not proof of any globe, it's disingenuous.

I would've thought this kind of experiment would be up your street. Any time you fancy doing it you can see for yourself.

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

Yep. water level is a fact.

 

[legend7]

A nice curvature in picture one as well.
Anyone can set up a crosshair higher than the horizon and pretend its eye level.

You know what?
You can do this yourself. Any person can and prove to themselves the horizon is at eye level.
Raising the crosshair is not proof of any globe, it's disingenuous.

I would've thought this kind of experiment would be up your street. Any time you fancy doing it you can see for yourself.


Yep. water level is a fact.

You do know you could set it as level even using your magic water or spirit level and that's what it shows....

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You do know you could set it as level even using your magic water or spirit level and that's what it shows....

Yes it shows a level.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

Clearly starting with circles was too complex for you. Let's try starting with parallel lines instead.

Draw two perfectly parallel lines on your blank sheet of paper, then draw a line deliberately at a right angle to those lines.

Here's an image depicting that, that I just grabbed off Google:

Logon or register to see this image

Now, if you THEN grab your pair of compasses and draw a circle centred around one of those two right-angles, so that it ONLY JUST touches the other parallel line, it should look like this...

Logon or register to see this image

This will hopefully look familiar, as it is exactly the first drawing I gave you, straightened up so that there's none of that confusing "tilt" that was making you all suspicious, but with one extra line on it.

You can hopefully see from these diagrams that the literal definition of a tangent is "a line at 90 degrees to the normal that only just touches the edge of the circle".

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

I only put that disclaimer in the brackets so that you didn't come back with some abortion of a diagram that looked like this...

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

I was mistakenly assuming you knew some maths. Hopefully the above diagrams will show where the right angle came from.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Clearly starting with circles was too complex for you. Let's try starting with parallel lines instead.

Draw two perfectly parallel lines on your blank sheet of paper, then draw a line deliberately at a right angle to those lines.

Here's an image depicting that, that I just grabbed off Google:

Logon or register to see this image

Now, if you THEN grab your pair of compasses and draw a circle centred around one of those two right-angles, so that it ONLY JUST touches the other parallel line, it should look like this...

Logon or register to see this image

This will hopefully look familiar, as it is exactly the first drawing I gave you, straightened up so that there's none of that confusing "tilt" that was making you all suspicious, but with one extra line on it.

It's certainly not what you gave me in the first diagram.
This one still does not guarantee a right angle.
What are you using as a reference?

You can hopefully see from these diagrams that the literal definition of a tangent is "a line at 90 degrees to the normal that only just touches the edge of the circle".

Fine if the definition of a tangent is 90 degrees to the normal if it can be shown why it is.

I only put that disclaimer in the brackets so that you didn't come back with some abortion of a diagram that looked like this...





I was mistakenly assuming you knew some maths. Hopefully the above diagrams will show where the right angle came from.

This diagram although clearly skewed away from 90 degrees is exactly what I'm talking about.
You see 89.9 degrees is not 90 so you need to show how you get to a right angle using what you showed me in the diagram, only.

 

[fyl2u]

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

That's correct, you can. It is completely irrelevant to what I was talking about, but yes, granted, not all intersecting lines in the universe have to have right angles. Well done Little Jimmy, have a cookie.

Now back onto what I ACTUALLY said...

"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*."

How do we know this? Well, we can use the devil's angle measuring instrument, the protractor to prove it.

Take any two intersecting lines, and the four angles made between the two lines add up to 360 degrees:

Logon or register to see this image

In mathematical terms, a + b + c + d = 360 degrees regardless of how you draw those two lines.

You can measure it to prove it, but really it's just common sense. Everyone knows that "360 degrees" means "all the way back around to where you started".

It also also be plainly obvious that a + b = 180 degrees. You can see it without needing to measure it, but if you need to, grab a protractor and try it yourself.
And therefore that c + d = 180 degrees.
And also that a + c = 180 degrees.
And also that b + d = 180 degrees.

Now, let's say that in a diagram similar to this one, we know that a = 100 degrees.
From there we can then work out what the angles b, c and d all are, just by pure logic.

if a + c = 180 degrees
and a = 100 degrees
then c = 180 degrees minus 100 degrees
therefore c = 80 degrees.

If you do that same simple equation two more times you'll see that in this example,
a = 100 degrees
b = 80 degrees
c = 80 degrees
d = 100 degrees

Now, let's do that again but for an example where a = 90 degrees (aka a "right angle").

If a + c = 180 degrees
and a = 90 degrees
then c = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore c = 90 degrees

if a + b = 180 degrees
and a = 90 degrees
then b = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore b = 90 degrees

We already now know the values of both b and c as well as the original angle a, so we can use any of three methods to get the final angle:

The first two methods are the same as the one we've just used repeatedly:

If c + b = 180 degrees
and c = 90 degrees
then d = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees

or

If b + d = 180 degrees
and b = 90 degrees
then d = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees

or method 3, going back to the original 360 degrees equation:

a + b + c + d = 360 degrees
therefore:
90 + 90 + 90 + d = 360 degrees
therefore:
d = 360 - (90 + 90 + 90) degrees
therefore
d = 360 - 270 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees

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

No, again I was just protecting myself from you deflecting by saying something like "I've drawn my lines on the humps of a camel rather than on a piece of paper and the angles don't add up to 360 degrees like you say they should".

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

No, pretty sure I was right the first time.

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.

No, it's because they're happy to pick up a protractor and measure it. It's not a big con, it's a measuring tool for mathematics, something you claimed to believe in twenty-five pages ago.

It's certainly not what you gave me in the first diagram.
This one still does not guarantee a right angle.
What are you using as a reference?

Fine if the definition of a tangent is 90 degrees to the normal if it can be shown why it is.

This diagram although clearly skewed away from 90 degrees is exactly what I'm talking about.
You see 89.9 degrees is not 90 so you need to show how you get to a right angle using what you showed me in the diagram, only.

I f***ing give up.

Come back after you've done a year of senior school.

And tell your parents they should sue your junior school for incompetence.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That's correct, you can. It is completely irrelevant to what I was talking about, but yes, granted, not all intersecting lines in the universe have to have right angles. Well done Little Jimmy, have a cookie.

Thanks a lot.

Now back onto what I ACTUALLY said...

"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*."

How do we know this? Well, we can use the devil's angle measuring instrument, the protractor to prove it.

Take any two intersecting lines, and the four angles made between the two lines add up to 360 degrees:

But not necessarily equal.

Logon or register to see this image

In mathematical terms, a + b + c + d = 360 degrees regardless of how you draw those two lines.

Ok but not necessarily equal.

You can measure it to prove it, but really it's just common sense. Everyone knows that "360 degrees" means "all the way back around to where you started".

I agree. No issue with this.

It also also be plainly obvious that a + b = 180 degrees. You can see it without needing to measure it, but if you need to, grab a protractor and try it yourself.
And therefore that c + d = 180 degrees.
And also that a + c = 180 degrees.
And also that b + d = 180 degrees.

Nope. It's fine saying you can see it is but what reference point are you working from?

Now, let's say that in a diagram similar to this one, we know that a = 100 degrees.
From there we can then work out what the angles b, c and d all are, just by pure logic.

if a + c = 180 degrees
and a = 100 degrees
then c = 180 degrees minus 100 degrees
therefore c = 80 degrees.

Using your protractor I assume...right?

If you do that same simple equation two more times you'll see that in this example,
a = 100 degrees
b = 80 degrees
c = 80 degrees
d = 100 degrees

Now, let's do that again but for an example where a = 90 degrees (aka a "right angle").

If a + c = 180 degrees
and a = 90 degrees
then c = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore c = 90 degrees

if a + b = 180 degrees
and a = 90 degrees
then b = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore b = 90 degrees

We already now know the values of both b and c as well as the original angle a, so we can use any of three methods to get the final angle:

The first two methods are the same as the one we've just used repeatedly:

If c + b = 180 degrees
and c = 90 degrees
then d = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees

or

If b + d = 180 degrees
and b = 90 degrees
then d = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees

or method 3, going back to the original 360 degrees equation:

a + b + c + d = 360 degrees
therefore:
90 + 90 + 90 + d = 360 degrees
therefore:
d = 360 - (90 + 90 + 90) degrees
therefore
d = 360 - 270 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees





No, again I was just protecting myself from you deflecting by saying something like "I've drawn my lines on the humps of a camel rather than on a piece of paper and the angles don't add up to 360 degrees like you say they should".

To be honest I'm just trying to establish where your absolute reference point lies in order for you to gain your right angle.

No, it's because they're happy to pick up a protractor and measure it. It's not a big con, it's a measuring tool for mathematics, something you claimed to believe in twenty-five pages ago.

I'm fine with anyone using whatever tools but this is not the argument you hit me with.

 

[nahwee]

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

This is what I thought too, but he said he “actually uses” the 1-2-3 rule.

Guess I forgot who it was posting for a minute.

 

[SYB_DC]

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.

Mate, atmospheric conditions only serve to limit the distance of sight to the horizon. There's an outer bound beyond which you can't see further on a perfectly clear day (or night). That's defined by the shape of the earth.

And you still have a horizon from a mountain. My in-laws live on a mountain with a ocean water view in one direction. It's true that the horizon is further away than it would be if I were not higher than the land around me, but there's a distance beyond which it never goes - which is easy to see because there's a headland right there. That happens to also be the same distance at which ships always disappear, and they do so from the bottom up. None of that is what you would get with some atmospheric-density bounded horizon.

All you're doing is refusing to apply the mathematics I supplied to you and again failing to understand the scales involved here.

 

[payne]

That's correct, you can. It is completely irrelevant to what I was talking about, but yes, granted, not all intersecting lines in the universe have to have right angles. Well done Little Jimmy, have a cookie.

Now back onto what I ACTUALLY said...

"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*."

How do we know this? Well, we can use the devil's angle measuring instrument, the protractor to prove it.

Take any two intersecting lines, and the four angles made between the two lines add up to 360 degrees:

Logon or register to see this image

In mathematical terms, a + b + c + d = 360 degrees regardless of how you draw those two lines.

You can measure it to prove it, but really it's just common sense. Everyone knows that "360 degrees" means "all the way back around to where you started".

It also also be plainly obvious that a + b = 180 degrees. You can see it without needing to measure it, but if you need to, grab a protractor and try it yourself.
And therefore that c + d = 180 degrees.
And also that a + c = 180 degrees.
And also that b + d = 180 degrees.

Now, let's say that in a diagram similar to this one, we know that a = 100 degrees.
From there we can then work out what the angles b, c and d all are, just by pure logic.

if a + c = 180 degrees
and a = 100 degrees
then c = 180 degrees minus 100 degrees
therefore c = 80 degrees.

If you do that same simple equation two more times you'll see that in this example,
a = 100 degrees
b = 80 degrees
c = 80 degrees
d = 100 degrees

Now, let's do that again but for an example where a = 90 degrees (aka a "right angle").

If a + c = 180 degrees
and a = 90 degrees
then c = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore c = 90 degrees

if a + b = 180 degrees
and a = 90 degrees
then b = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore b = 90 degrees

We already now know the values of both b and c as well as the original angle a, so we can use any of three methods to get the final angle:

The first two methods are the same as the one we've just used repeatedly:

If c + b = 180 degrees
and c = 90 degrees
then d = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees

or

If b + d = 180 degrees
and b = 90 degrees
then d = 180 degrees minus 90 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees

or method 3, going back to the original 360 degrees equation:

a + b + c + d = 360 degrees
therefore:
90 + 90 + 90 + d = 360 degrees
therefore:
d = 360 - (90 + 90 + 90) degrees
therefore
d = 360 - 270 degrees
therefore d = 90 degrees





No, again I was just protecting myself from you deflecting by saying something like "I've drawn my lines on the humps of a camel rather than on a piece of paper and the angles don't add up to 360 degrees like you say they should".




No, pretty sure I was right the first time.




No, it's because they're happy to pick up a protractor and measure it. It's not a big con, it's a measuring tool for mathematics, something you claimed to believe in twenty-five pages ago.


I f***ing give up.

Come back after you've done a year of senior school.

And tell your parents they should sue your junior school for incompetence.

You're wasting your time. He's more than proven in the last few weeks he's not willing to accept anything. No wonder the flat earth crew think he's crazy.

 

[fyl2u]

You're wasting your time. He's more than proven in the last few weeks he's not willing to accept anything. No wonder the flat earth crew think he's crazy.

Whether crazy or not, I'm starting to think he genuinely is just THAT stupid that he can't get his head around these most basic concepts.

Hardly surprising he has to make up his own fake rules of science when he can't even grasp the most fundamental basic geometry.

 

[nahwee]

Yep. water level is a fact.

Water level is a fact.
That water is level is not.

 

[Nobby]

All 4 right angles not necessarily equal?????

A new twist nobody saw coming

 

[DaveH]

A nice curvature in picture one as well.
Anyone can set up a crosshair higher than the horizon and pretend its eye level.

You know what?
You can do this yourself. Any person can and prove to themselves the horizon is at eye level.
Raising the crosshair is not proof of any globe, it's disingenuous.

I would've thought this kind of experiment would be up your street. Any time you fancy doing it you can see for yourself.


Yep. water level is a fact.

Ah the old chestnut of this should be seen on a globe earth and we don't see it, there is zero proof, except for that pesky proof which is all faked or produced in error.

 

[nahwee]

Whether crazy or not, I'm starting to think he genuinely is just THAT stupid that he can't get his head around these most basic concepts.

Hardly surprising he has to make up his own fake rules of science when he can't even grasp the most fundamental basic geometry.

Whether crazy or not, I'm starting to think he genuinely is just THAT stupid that he can't get his head around these most basic concepts.

Hardly surprising he has to make up his own fake rules of science when he can't even grasp the most fundamental basic geometry.

Cut the lad some slack!

He’s probably busy with his sketch! (That was promised over a week ago).

 

[DaveH]

All 4 right angles not necessarily equal?????

A new twist nobody saw coming

I think it really starts to give insight into where the viewpoint came from. I have said that a lot of what we know about the planet and other solar system bodies can be demonstrated by basic geometry. I assumed basic geometry was known and understood.

At the end of my second year of comprehensive school we had a big maths test and students were split into 4 groups depending on how well they scored. I was in the top group so I never really saw what maths teaching for those in the bottom group was like. I literally have no concept of remedial mathematics and what they covered. My dad was a maths teacher and my wife is a mathematician. With me having quite an interest in maths, ours is certainly a very mathsy house and I think both kids have picked up on discussions or us showing them things where they have found an interest, so both are rated as pretty advanced in their maths classes. Same as if you have one or two parents who speak French, the kids grow up knowing a fair bit of French, we just often talk about Maths.

It never entered my head that some of these things are just not known or can be difficult for people to get their heads around. But it makes sense to me now. If you can't look at circles and lines on paper and understand what is going on, then you have no chance contemplating the universe.

Most people are quite happy to shrug and say "I'll never understand that, it is beyond me" and not really care. But what do you do if you are interested, if you do care but don't have the abilities to understand? That has to be really frustrating and perhaps embarrassing. I can see the appeal of making up your own world that you do understand or following YouTube videos which present an alternate world in a very simplistic format (mainly because when you drill down into details they fail to work).

 

[Nobby]

I think it really starts to give insight into where the viewpoint came from. I have said that a lot of what we know about the planet and other solar system bodies can be demonstrated by basic geometry. I assumed basic geometry was known and understood.

At the end of my second year of comprehensive school we had a big maths test and students were split into 4 groups depending on how well they scored. I was in the top group so I never really saw what maths teaching for those in the bottom group was like. I literally have no concept of remedial mathematics and what they covered. My dad was a maths teacher and my wife is a mathematician. With me having quite an interest in maths, ours is certainly a very mathsy house and I think both kids have picked up on discussions or us showing them things where they have found an interest, so both are rated as pretty advanced in their maths classes. Same as if you have one or two parents who speak French, the kids grow up knowing a fair bit of French, we just often talk about Maths.

It never entered my head that some of these things are just not known or can be difficult for people to get their heads around. But it makes sense to me now. If you can't look at circles and lines on paper and understand what is going on, then you have no chance contemplating the universe.

Most people are quite happy to shrug and say "I'll never understand that, it is beyond me" and not really care. But what do you do if you are interested, if you do care but don't have the abilities to understand? That has to be really frustrating and perhaps embarrassing. I can see the appeal of making up your own world that you do understand or following YouTube videos which present an alternate world in a very simplistic format (mainly because when you drill down into details they fail to work).

Very good post and insightful, like you maths came naturally and I just assume that some things are obvious

 

[fyl2u]

All 4 right angles not necessarily equal?????

A new twist nobody saw coming

I've laughed out loud at this, gone away, came back, laughed out loud again, gone away, came back, and laughed out loud about it again so hard that I now have abdominal pain.

Stopped laughing for as long as it took me to write this reply, read it back, read your quote again and laughed out loud again. Three more times now before even finishing typing this line.

Oh my life, I have to stop looking at it, it's too f***ing funny.

Four more times.
Six.

STOP READING IT AGAIN PHIL

All 4 right angles not necessarily equal?????

A new twist nobody saw coming

Nope, I've come at it from various different aspects (deliberately avoiding using the word "angles" there) now, and I can't make the right angles be unequal regardless of how asymmetrical is the non-Euclidian geometry I try to use.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I f***ing give up.

Come back after you've done a year of senior school.

And tell your parents they should sue your junior school for incompetence.

When you actually show me a reference point for your first diagram that started all this and give me an absolute, I'll accept it. Until then my query still stands.

 

[fyl2u]

When you actually show me a reference point for your first diagram that started all this and give me an absolute, I'll accept it. Until then my query still stands.

There is no query.

We get it, you don't understand any maths or science at all.

Job done.