Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

Nope, not me.

Because I didn't say I'd done it.

Not once.

Show me.

Funny how it was argued with the water eperiment. Is it now not valid to you?

I do not deny offering it into the topic but it's not my calculation.

Never denied.

Wrong.

It is canny funny.

 

[Nobby]

Nope.

8 inches was not started by anyone other than a globalist and retracted because it destroyed the argument.

That's not what you said half an hour ago. Need to remember what lies you are telling
Post 13140

No like most of your "proofs" you introduced it

8 inches per mile squared, yes I did but it was not my workings and I never said it was.

 

[fyl2u]

It's not me that offers a parabola, it came from your side. I think Dave offered it for his calculations from his supposed global horizon, somehow.

Wrong.

Every time you use the "8 inches per mile squared" formula you're offering a parabola.

If you get a piece of graph paper and draw a graph of the result of "8 inches per mile squared", that graph will be a parabola.

Not a sphere.

Not a circle.

A parabola.

That is why we've been telling you ever since you started using the "8 inches per mile squared" rule that your formula is wrong.

Your "8 inches per mile squared" formula is not the formula of a circle.

Your "8 inches per mile squared" formula is the formula of a parabola.

YOU brought up the "8 inches per mile squared" formula originally.

WE only told you that "8 inches per mile squared" is a formula for a parabola, not for a circle, and is therefore WRONG to describe Earth's curvature because Earth is not a parabola.

I don't know how much more simply and plainly we can explain this.

Of course, you have me on ignore so you won't even see this. Or you'll pretend to ignore it so that you can lie yet again and claim that nobody has told you this information.

 

[DaveH]

Introducted 8 inches per square mile as an argument.

Denies it.

Pointed out many times he has.

Now claims he never said it and it's incorrect.


Etc etc

Canny funny

Laughing is not really that fair. It has been a long old road but along the way he has learned that the rule he introduced back in October, doesn't work. It is a broken rule and describes the shape of a parabola. He now knows that and knows (I think) what a parabola is. Don't laugh at what he didn't know, give credit that something has been learned over the course of this thread.

We now all agree that that rule is bollocks. Nobody in science and nobody supporting the reality of a global on this thread uses this rule, so we can let it drop and move on to more interesting mathematics now.

 

[What A Waster]

He's just going full retard now..
You never go full retard

Simple Jack

 

[fyl2u]

Simple drop from horizontal to vertical over distance on your globe or over a circle if you wish.

Nothing to do with a parabola. It's your side that offers that from a global horizon, somehow.
A circle is not a parabola., so your globe is not offering anything for a parabola other than what your side of offering.

You can see a theoretical horizon line because you're looking out to sea and sky over a level convergence of sea and sky, not over any curvature.

There is no horizon on a globe or circle or ball or whatever round object you wish to look at.

No facts for a globe.

Thick as mince.

 

[What A Waster]

Laughing is not really that fair. It has been a long old road but along the way he has learned that the rule he introduced back in October, doesn't work. It is a broken rule and describes the shape of a parabola. He now knows that and knows (I think) what a parabola is. Don't laugh at what he didn't know, give credit that something has been learned over the course of this thread.

We now all agree that that rule is bollocks. Nobody in science and nobody supporting the reality of a global on this thread uses this rule, so we can let it drop and move on to more interesting mathematics now.

He'll deny saying it's bollocks soon enough and use it again

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If crosshairs are missed it shows a curve if both are the same height and same level.
We don't see any of that and for good reason. Earth is not a globe.

So you're now saying the crosshairs meet?

 

[fyl2u]

It does not.

And I've said why I disagree.

I stand by what I said. No change on my behalf.

And you know this isn't what was said.
I have no issue with the field of vision but I'm not arguing for that and I'm also nullifying it by using pinpoint for the sole reason of showing the Earth does not have global curvature.

You know this.

Thicker than mince.

No parabola from my side.

Thicker than the thickest of frozen mince.

It wasn't me that mentioned a parabola.
I'm using the globe or the circle and a horizontal to the vertical line to offer my side. No parabola from my side unless you think a circle is a parabola or a semi-circle is one, which in that case it's understandable why you're going on.

Mathematically illiterate and just parroting the 8 inches per mile squared without understanding that if you draw 8 inches per mile squared out as a graph, it draws a parabola not a circle/sphere.

 

[BigPete]

Simple Jack

Brilliant film

 

[fyl2u]

Not my workings. It came from the side you adhere to at first but was changed as time went on because it created massive problems when people were actually seeing things over a distance that should not have been seen.

Like anything else, if it causes issues it's basically altered to mean something else.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Not only very very wrong but also a liar.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Can someone explain this crosshair/pinpoint thing and how it proves the earth is not a globe

I’ve asked Oh Great one but he’s not answering

He's trying to use tangents to disprove circles.
He may not realise this, but that's what he's trying to do.

 

[legend7]

Nope, not me.

Because I didn't say I'd done it.

You definitely said you had done superfluid experiments, this was proven to you just the other day, here is the quote again.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[fyl2u]

He's trying to use tangents to disprove circles.
He may not realise this, but that's what he's trying to do.

Whoa careful now, talking about tangents and you'll have him telling us that not all right angles are equal again.

 

[legend7]

Whoa careful now, talking about tangents and you'll have him telling us that not all right angles are equal again.

Probably show us a picture of a tangerine and 2 pinpoint scopes.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

He should know not to offer up appeals to authority as its the golden rule. He should admit he appealed to authority on the 8 inches thing. It would give him a chance to be honest for the first time on the thread.

We all appeal to authority in one form or another so there is no rule other than the ones you decide you want to use. I simply say you appeal to authority, not that you aren't allowed to.

The scopes as you say makes it a really difficult way to do it. First of all most scopes don't have cross hairs. You are obsessed a bit with this, but hey. How about if the experiment was modified? You are talking about measuring laser precision so what do you think if we had a laser on one tower and a large white board on the other? If the earth is flat then the laser should point towards the bottom of the board at the same height your laser mount is at. If the earth is a globe then the laser should point higher than that predicted dot.

Does that sound like a reasonable modification?

It would be spot on if the experiment was done correctly and not manipulated like the lake one, which I'm sure you would've been only too happy to offer to me, right?

The scope and crosshair are an easy fix and cheap.
It would take nothing to add a crosshair to any scope.

 

[Nobby]

We all appeal to authority in one form or another so there is no rule other than the ones you decide you want to use. I simply say you appeal to authority, not that you aren't allowed to.

Post 7576 "The rule is simple. Offer facts and shut me down or offer appeals to authority for your supposed facts and carry on debating my obvious dismissal."

Once again caught out by your own words - liar

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

We all appeal to authority in one form or another so there is no rule other than the ones you decide you want to use. I simply say you appeal to authority, not that you aren't allowed to.

Ah so now it's ok.... since you were shown to be doing it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Wrong.

Every time you use the "8 inches per mile squared" formula you're offering a parabola.

If you get a piece of graph paper and draw a graph of the result of "8 inches per mile squared", that graph will be a parabola.

Not a sphere.

Not a circle.

A parabola.

That is why we've been telling you ever since you started using the "8 inches per mile squared" rule that your formula is wrong.

Your "8 inches per mile squared" formula is not the formula of a circle.

Your "8 inches per mile squared" formula is the formula of a parabola.

YOU brought up the "8 inches per mile squared" formula originally.

WE only told you that "8 inches per mile squared" is a formula for a parabola, not for a circle, and is therefore WRONG to describe Earth's curvature because Earth is not a parabola.

I don't know how much more simply and plainly we can explain this.

Of course, you have me on ignore so you won't even see this. Or you'll pretend to ignore it so that you can lie yet again and claim that nobody has told you this information.

It does not offer any parabola at all.

Post 7576 "The rule is simple. Offer facts and shut me down or offer appeals to authority for your supposed facts and carry on debating my obvious dismissal."

Once again caught out by your own words - liar

Offering appeals to authority is not offering facts.
Whether you want to attribute that to me and yourself doesn't matter because neither can be used as physical facts from any of us but nobody said we can't use them to debate.

No lies here.

Ah so now it's ok.... since you were shown to be doing it.

It has always been ok. What it doesn't do is offer a person the facts, it only offers a person a supposed ally to use for his/her belief they are offering facts.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Offering appeals to authority is not offering facts.
... nobody said we can't use them to debate.

Nobody? You sure?

It has always been ok. What it doesn't do is offer a person the facts, it only offers a person a supposed ally to use for his/her belief they are offering facts.

So if someone else establishes a fact, I can not then state that as a fact in debate unless I go through the entire process too?

OR

Are we just being redirected into a different area to avoid something you no longer want to discuss?