Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Mate, atmospheric conditions only serve to limit the distance of sight to the horizon.

Atmospheric conditions define your horizon or hamper the vision of it, depending on the density of it.

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.

That's defined by below and above atmospheric conditions. The denser obscuring light back to your eyes, below and less obscure, above.

And you still have a horizon from a mountain.

Of course. It's always eye level no matter where you are.

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.

The distance you see depends on height but it's always eye level. Always.

That happens to also be the same distance at which ships always disappear, and they do so from the bottom up.

Of course they disappear bottom up. The light back to your eyes is slowly obscured with distance from bottom to top meaning the ship fades from hull to mast.

None of that is what you would get with some atmospheric-density bounded horizon.

In your mind, no. In mine, absolutely.

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

Scale is simple in terms of simple objects.
Where it becomes obscure is in trying to marry it up to something like Earth size based on a small diagram.

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.

I accept plenty but for me to accept something it needs to be shown to be what it is said to be.

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.

Maybe I am and you're just wasting your time. That's up to you but if you truly believe that you would not waste another second on me. Why do you?

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

I have no issues with plenty of stuff. I asked simple questions about stuff and people are getting all frustrated.
I asked for reference points with the circle and lines. How they all came to be to be the right angle I'm told about.

No real answer yet.

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

A new twist nobody saw coming

Nope, not all 4 angles are necessarily a right angle. Unless they can be shown to be.
Where's the reference points?

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.

As frustrating it may be for you and other, nobody has offered any proof. Plenty of appeals and what not but no real proof.

 

[SYB_DC]

Of course. It's always eye level no matter where you are.


The distance you see depends on height but it's always eye level. Always.

Then there would be no horizon from the top of Everest. But there is.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There is no query.

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

Job done.

No problem. This should be the end for you in engaging with me unless you just want to have some fun, in which case you're absolutely welcome to it but don;t get frustrated from this point on.

Then there would be no horizon from the top of Everest. But there is.

Of course there is. There's always horizon unless dense fog obscures distant vision.
And this horizon will still be at eye level.
The clue is in the eyes.

 

[DaveH]

As frustrating it may be for you and other, nobody has offered any proof. Plenty of appeals and what not but no real proof.

Acknowledged. When you write off all proof about everything and the entire sum of human learning, you are left with absolutely nothing. It effectively gives a clean slate for any theory.

 

[What A Waster]

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.

Why not just try it yourself and see that it works.
Ruler, compass, pencil and protractor are all you need. Draw cricles of various sizes.
From the centre of the circle (the hole on the paper where the compass point was) draw a straight line out of the circle. Where the line meets the circle, call it point A.

Then draw a straight line that doesn't go in the circle, it just touches the edge only and goes through point A.

Then use your protractor and measures the angles.

Try this repeatedly, various size circles, lines at different points on the circle.

Use the protractor to check. They'll always give right angles between your two straight lines.

This is just something that happens. It's not made up. Like when you see patterns in numbers... for example in the 9 x table all the digits in the totals add up to, or depending how much you're multiplying by they'll add up to a multiple of 9 (18,27,36 etc).

Certain things just naturally occur in maths. Like a normal and a tangent make a right angle. It just does.

If you draw it out maybe 10 times you might realise it

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Acknowledged. When you write off all proof about everything and the entire sum of human learning, you are left with absolutely nothing. It effectively gives a clean slate for any theory.

The thing is no proof has been offered by global believers in terms of what we're arguing. None.
It's not a case of just writing proof off. There are none.

 

[SYB_DC]

Of course there is. There's always horizon unless dense fog obscures distant vision.
And this horizon will still be at eye level.
The clue is in the eyes.

That's the point. There is nowhere on earth that is "eye level" for someone standing atop Everest. It's the highest point on earth. If the horizon is "eye level," then there would be no horizon for someone there because nothing else is eye level anywhere from that vantage point.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why not just try it yourself and see that it works.

I can get it to work quite easily. But what the first diagram showed, did not necessarily offer a true right angle based solely on that diagram.

Ruler, compass, pencil and protractor are all you need. Draw cricles of various sizes.
From the centre of the circle (the hole on the paper where the compass point was) draw a straight line out of the circle. Where the line meets the circle, call it point A.

Then draw a straight line that doesn't go in the circle, it just touches the edge only and goes through point A.

Then use your protractor and measures the angles.

Try this repeatedly, various size circles, lines at different points on the circle.

Use the protractor to check. They'll always give right angles between your two straight lines.

Do we need to go through this again?
There was no protractor mentioned.

This is just something that happens. It's not made up.

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

Like when you see patterns in numbers... for example in the 9 x table all the digits in the totals add up to, or depending how much you're multiplying by they'll add up to a multiple of 9 (18,27,36 etc).

No issue with this.

Certain things just naturally occur in maths. Like a normal and a tangent make a right angle. It just does.

Not with that first diagram it doesn't.

If you draw it out maybe 10 times you might realise it

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

 

[fyl2u]

No proof.
None.
There are none.

Three more times unless you missed it the first 500 times he said it after ignoring all the proofs he'd been given.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That's the point. There is nowhere on earth that is "eye level" for someone standing atop Everest.

It's the highest point on earth. If the horizon is "eye level," then there would be no horizon for someone there because nothing else is eye level anywhere.

There is. You or any other person that can see.

No proof.
None.
There are none.

Three more times unless you missed it the first 500 times he said it after ignoring all the proofs he'd been given.

No. I said it after seeing zero proof's. None. Zilch.

 

[What A Waster]

I can get it to work quite easily. But what the first diagram showed, did not necessarily offer a true right angle based solely on that diagram.


Do we need to go through this again?
There was no protractor mentioned.

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

No issue with this.

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.

Try it 10 times or 20 times.

Then come back and check all your drawings at the end with a protractor.

The protractor is only being suggested for your benefit due to your suspicions of maths. Once you can accept that a tangent and normal make a right angle you won't be so hung up on the original diagram trying to nit pick away at something that is just fact.

 

[Nobby]

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

A bit like your non curving water, you've looked at it many times and never proved it by accurate measurement, but strangely not only do accept that but you hang on to it as your "proof".

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Try it 10 times or 20 times.

Then come back and check all your drawings at the end with a protractor.

The protractor is only being suggested for your benefit due to your suspicions of maths. Once you can accept that a tangent and normal make a right angle you won't be so hung up on the original diagram trying to nit pick away at something that is just fact.

Where's the reference point for the circle?

A bit like your non curving water, you've looked at it many times and never proved it by accurate measurement, but strangely not only do accept that but you hang on to it as your "proof".

Absolutely.

 

[fyl2u]

Why not just try it yourself and see that it works.
Ruler, compass, pencil and protractor are all you need. Draw cricles of various sizes.
From the centre of the circle (the hole on the paper where the compass point was) draw a straight line out of the circle. Where the line meets the circle, call it point A.

Then draw a straight line that doesn't go in the circle, it just touches the edge only and goes through point A.

Then use your protractor and measures the angles.

Try this repeatedly, various size circles, lines at different points on the circle.

Use the protractor to check. They'll always give right angles between your two straight lines.

This is just something that happens. It's not made up. Like when you see patterns in numbers... for example in the 9 x table all the digits in the totals add up to, or depending how much you're multiplying by they'll add up to a multiple of 9 (18,27,36 etc).

Certain things just naturally occur in maths. Like a normal and a tangent make a right angle. It just does.

If you draw it out maybe 10 times you might realise it

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.

No. I said it after seeing zero proof's. None. Zilch.

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

Maybe try your hand at finger-painting instead?

 

[SYB_DC]

There is. You or any other person that can see.

There is indeed a horizon there, as I've already stated.

Which is impossible if (a) the Earth is flat - or in any event, the curvature of the Earth does not create the horizon, (b) the horizon is by definition "eye level" and (c) Everest is the only point of its height on Earth.

There is literally no other conclusion possible as a matter of basic logic. There is by definition nothing at "eye level" for the highest mountain on the planet. Your eyes are above every single other object on the surface of the Earth if you stand there.

You have already maintained that you believe (a) and (b) are true, so is it your position that there is another point on Earth as tall as Everest?

 

[babyimreadytoblow]

Yas are all just as bad as he is. 4595 replies man.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There is indeed a horizon there, as I've already stated.

Then you cannot be on a globe.

Which is impossible if (a) the Earth is flat

Earth itself does not need to be flat.
Water on the other hand, is.

- or in any event, the curvature of the Earth does not create the horizon,

Absolutely.

(b) the horizon is by definition "eye level"

Yep, it's always eye level.

and (c) Everest is the only point of its height on Earth.

It doesn't matter how high, there will always be an horizon unless extreme mist/fog obscures it.

There is literally no other conclusion possible as a matter of basic logic.

A simple conclusion is, Earth is absolutely 100% not a globe we walk/sail upon, spinning or not.

There is by definition nothing at "eye level" for the highest mountain on the planet.

As above.

Your eyes are above every single other object on the surface of the Earth if you stand there.

Yep which is why your globe cannot every offer you any horizon as it will always curve down and away from your vision and therefore cannot ever be at eye level.

You have already maintained that you believe (a) and (b) are true, so is it your position that there is another point on Earth as tall as Everest?

Planes. but this isn't just about Everest. It's everything.

 

[DaveH]

The thing is no proof has been offered by global believers in terms of what we're arguing. None.
It's not a case of just writing proof off. There are none.

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. 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.

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

 

[fyl2u]

so is it your position that there is another point on Earth as tall as Everest?

Ooh, side note... technically if you use the word "tall" rather than "high" in this context, then there is actually a "taller" mountain than Everest: Mauna Kea, but a certain amount of it is underwater, making it not as "high" as Everest but technically "taller" from base to summit.

​

Sorry to be pedantic.

 

[DaveH]

A bit like your non curving water, you've looked at it many times and never proved it by accurate measurement, but strangely not only do accept that but you hang on to it as your "proof".

Which conflicts completely with his broken rule of 8" per mile squared, which states the curve over the length of a spirit level is measured in microns.

One rule and one "proof" put forward and his one rule writes off his one proof as useless.