The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 16, 2009, 12:37:03 PM
-
Well for those of you that haven't played, the game consists of a large ocean with many islands scattered throughout it. The map is of an area of flat ocean on a 7x7 categorized grid of the islands. The game has very simple graphics but the game's simplicity is part of what sets it apart. The horizon is flat no matter what direction in the game you view it from. This lack of horizon curvature set me thinking about if it was possible that there are FE undertones to the game.
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j29/elevenius/Brawl/Link_Windwaker_Boat.jpg)
As you travel throughout the square grid of sea, most of the islands aren't visible unless you get within 1 or two grid spaces, and even then, you can't see the bottom of them. However, when you zoom into the islands via first person view or the borrowed telescope from Link's sister, you can see more islands and visibly observe the bottoms of the closer foreign islands and see them to be level. (Very good places to do this include the pier on Outset island, Dragon Roost island, and Windfall)
look at the end of this video and see how more islands are visible when zoomed in first person. And also view it to remember the look of distant islands as a reference.
So anyways, long story short I think The Windwaker might have FE undertones to it as well it's counterpart The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass for the DS platform.
-
Whilst this is a very interesting topic (WW is a great game), it's not really about Flat Earth Theory, so I'm going to move this to General Discussion. For what it's worth, most games take place in 'flat' worlds- few replicate any kind of curvature.
-
srry my bad. I thought the most interesting part is that when sailing, you can see only the tops of the islands at first due to perspective and wave limitations much like the experiments using ships coming in from the sea and only being able to see the tops of those.
-
The horizon is flat no matter what direction in the game you view it from. This lack of horizon curvature set me thinking about if it was possible that there are FE undertones to the game.
You know you can't see the horizontal curvature from close to the surface right?
Because there isn't any.
-
Also, the top of Dragon Roost in thousands of feet above the sea and after freeing the great Valoo of the top gaurds on the mountain, you can still not observe any curvature. Also, when using a pear from Beedle's shop, you can fly as a seagle for awhile which grants first person views from hundreds of feet up with still no observable curvature.
-
For what it's worth, most games take place in 'flat' worlds- few replicate any kind of curvature.
Surely this is solid evidence that a Flat Earth counter-resistance conspiracy exists within the video game industry.
-
The people making zelda are forward thinkers, even when they are stuck making a sprite game to appease nintendo they inject a portion of truth into it.
-
Worst thread ever.
-
Thank you for your input, next time you want to waste our time with spam feel free to hit yourself in the face with a hammer, it'll be much more enjoyable.
-
The people making zelda are forward thinkers, even when they are stuck making a sprite game to appease nintendo they inject a portion of truth into it.
Right but this appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. I think Ichy has just touched the tip of the iceberg with his observation. This requires much zetetic rumination.
And I suggest Mr McIntyre or Mr Davis or one of the serious FE believers contact the CEOs and head programmers of Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Square Enix et al as soon as possible as they appear to be brothers-in-arms. If they can persuade them to go public with their beliefs it could lead to a great surge for the movement. Video games wield an enormous influence on the youth of the world; that's probably why they chose them as the medium to subliminally air their opinions.
-
Dogplatter is obviously obsessed with both the credibility of this board and fe theory judging by his recent comments towards me, I really think he should contact the developers of this game, especially after accepting an interview from the BBC and in turn putting himself at the media head of our group.
-
I found an illuminating anagram for Square Enix: Qua Nixes RE. The second and third words are so obvious that it leads to obvious reflection on the meaning of the whole thing: qua is the Latin word for "as". It's pretty clear that it's intended to convey, in shorthand, that the world as it is nixes RE. Note also how the word "square" in the company's name connotes flatness.
This is pretty serious. I will continue researching the great video game industry FE counter-conspiracy and post my findings as they come.
-
Right but this appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. I think Ichy has just touched the tip of the iceberg with his observation. This requires much zetetic rumination.
And I suggest Mr McIntyre or Mr Davis or one of the serious FE believers contact the CEOs and head programmers of Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Square Enix et al as soon as possible as they appear to be brothers-in-arms. If they can persuade them to go public with their beliefs it could lead to a great surge for the movement. Video games wield an enormous influence on the youth of the world; that's probably why they chose them as the medium to subliminally air their opinions.
You sure it wasn't easier to code the game like that?
-
Right but this appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. I think Ichy has just touched the tip of the iceberg with his observation. This requires much zetetic rumination.
And I suggest Mr McIntyre or Mr Davis or one of the serious FE believers contact the CEOs and head programmers of Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Square Enix et al as soon as possible as they appear to be brothers-in-arms. If they can persuade them to go public with their beliefs it could lead to a great surge for the movement. Video games wield an enormous influence on the youth of the world; that's probably why they chose them as the medium to subliminally air their opinions.
You sure it wasn't easier to code the game like that?
Yes, it's much easier to program it blur, fade, and other effects than simply map the game on a curve. ::)
-
Yes, it's much easier to program it blur, fade, and other effects than simply map the game on a curve. ::)
Most likely if it looks good.
-
Yes, it's much easier to program it blur, fade, and other effects than simply map the game on a curve. ::)
Most likely if it looks good.
Maybe it looks more realistic because that's how things happen.
-
Right but this appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. I think Ichy has just touched the tip of the iceberg with his observation. This requires much zetetic rumination.
And I suggest Mr McIntyre or Mr Davis or one of the serious FE believers contact the CEOs and head programmers of Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Square Enix et al as soon as possible as they appear to be brothers-in-arms. If they can persuade them to go public with their beliefs it could lead to a great surge for the movement. Video games wield an enormous influence on the youth of the world; that's probably why they chose them as the medium to subliminally air their opinions.
You sure it wasn't easier to code the game like that?
With our technology today it should be no problem to convey the world as spherical. Video games strive to be more and more realistic, yet they continue to ignore the supposedly basic notion that the world is spherical. I credit them with having balls of steel to stand by their convictions in the face of the Global Conspiracy, and only hope our exposing them here doesn't lead to them being shut down by the government, or forced to show the world as it is. My guess is they will leave them alone, but don't be surprised if more spherical worlds pop up in video games in the future.
-
Maybe it looks more realistic because that's how things happen.
Yeah because a bunch of programmers know more about the earth then scientists and researchers. ::)
I'm sure when coded it would be much more efficient and realistic to simply blur the horizon, then have the whole map built on curve, infact, I don't think I've ever played a game in which the entire map is curved.
-
With our technology today it should be no problem to convey the world as spherical. Video games strive to be more and more realistic, yet they continue to ignore the supposedly basic notion that the world is spherical. I credit them with having balls of steel to stand by their convictions in the face of the Global Conspiracy, and only hope our exposing them here doesn't lead to them being shut down by the government, or forced to show the world as it is. My guess is they will leave them alone, but don't be surprised if more spherical worlds pop up in video games in the future.
Because no one cares if it's spherical when they play a game, no casual gamer would notice at all. They haven't mastered physics in games yet anyway.
-
With our technology today it should be no problem to convey the world as spherical. Video games strive to be more and more realistic, yet they continue to ignore the supposedly basic notion that the world is spherical. I credit them with having balls of steel to stand by their convictions in the face of the Global Conspiracy, and only hope our exposing them here doesn't lead to them being shut down by the government, or forced to show the world as it is. My guess is they will leave them alone, but don't be surprised if more spherical worlds pop up in video games in the future.
Because no one cares if it's spherical when they play a game, no casual gamer would notice at all. They haven't mastered physics in games yet anyway.
Did you even see my post about Square Enix? The evidence is piling up and I expect to find a great deal more.
-
Did you even see my post about Square Enix? The evidence is piling up and I expect to find a great deal more.
Square Enix is a company formed from Squaresoft and Enix. For many, many years they were un-related companies, well apart from both being big players in the RPG scene. Please get a reality check.
-
I don't think that this observation really proves anything either way, but I do think that the elegence of FE worlds within videogames says a great deal about which model is truly the 'most elegant'. Clearly, when it comes to virtual reality, a FE makes more sense than a RE.
-
Dogplatter is obviously obsessed with both the credibility of this board and fe theory judging by his recent comments towards me, I really think he should contact the developers of this game, especially after accepting an interview from the BBC and in turn putting himself at the media head of our group.
Incidently Raist, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Brendan O'Neill, the journalist who wrote that piece, posted a topic on this forum asking if anyone would be willing to do an interview. Username and Dogplatter (as they were then named) responded, whilst everyone else spent their time arguing if he was a troll or not. Anyone could have responded, but nobody else chose to do so. You posted in the topic, so you should remember.
-
very interesting.
Although i too would like to know if they somehow intentionally made it this way, or if it just happened this way without specifically programming it. They very well may have done that to avoid the "fade in" effect you see in games with lots of fog to use less resources.
-
Dogplatter is obviously obsessed with both the credibility of this board and fe theory judging by his recent comments towards me, I really think he should contact the developers of this game, especially after accepting an interview from the BBC and in turn putting himself at the media head of our group.
Incidently Raist, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Brendan O'Neill, the journalist who wrote that piece, posted a topic on this forum asking if anyone would be willing to do an interview. Username and Dogplatter (as they were then named) responded, whilst everyone else spent their time arguing if he was a troll or not. Anyone could have responded, but nobody else chose to do so. You posted in the topic, so you should remember.
shoot, my sarcasm tags aren't supported by this forum software. We should update to PHPBS
-
shoot, my sarcasm tags aren't supported by this forum software. We should update to PHPBS
Sorry, but I keep reading posts where people talk about the interview as though Dogplatter and Username went through improper channels and basically appointed themselves as spokespeople for the society. It just irks me, as the whole thing was done out in the open in this very board.
-
shoot, my sarcasm tags aren't supported by this forum software. We should update to PHPBS
Sorry, but I keep reading posts where people talk about the interview as though Dogplatter and Username went through improper channels and basically appointed themselves as spokespeople for the society. It just irks me, as the whole thing was done out in the open in this very board.
I haven't seen a single post saying a negative thing about the interview. Please take off the tinted glasses and realize they are about the change in behavior afterward.
-
shoot, my sarcasm tags aren't supported by this forum software. We should update to PHPBS
Sorry, but I keep reading posts where people talk about the interview as though Dogplatter and Username went through improper channels and basically appointed themselves as spokespeople for the society. It just irks me, as the whole thing was done out in the open in this very board.
I haven't seen a single post saying a negative thing about the interview. Please take off the tinted glasses and realize they are about the change in behavior afterward.
Only mods will be able to read this, but it's an excellent example nonetheless:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29399.msg708880#msg708880
-
I'd discuss that with you but it's meant to be in the mod forums, it's his right to feel pissed off especially with the way dogplatter treats his time spent/his being a fe'er as making him above everyone else.
-
I'd discuss that with you but it's meant to be in the mod forums, it's his right to feel pissed off especially with the way dogplatter treats his time spent/his being a fe'er as making him above everyone else.
Whatever about anyone's attitude, this whole 'Dogplatter/Username Conspiracy' nonsense is all I was reacting to- your post just didn't seem that far away from his. In any case, we're dragging this interesting thread off-topic. If you say you were being sarcastic/joking, I'll accept that, but I'm sure you can see where I was coming from.
On-topic, after further consideration I think the horizon in Wind Waker is especially interesting- the telescopic restoration is quite uncanny in its resemblence to what is set out in ENaG. I'm not sure sure about Phantom Hourglass though, as in that case the limitations of the DS probably have a lot to do with it.
-
I checked out the horizon in Oblivion earlier, you can clearly see the flatness when you are in the Plains of Oblivion.
-
Oblivion is actually a good example, as the game-world is large enough to warrant a curvature effect- it's about 16 square miles.
-
Oblivion is actually a good example, as the game-world is large enough to warrant a curvature effect- it's about 16 square miles.
Can you fly above 60,000 ft in Oblivion?
Probably. There are loads of mods for that game. I'll just assume this is a genuine, off-topic, curiosity question, and that you weren't asserting that curvature in a videogame can only be measured by sight and not by the underlying programing.
-
You don't have to be 'high' to observe the curvature. It's in the programming.
-
You don't have to be 'high' to observe the curvature. It's in the programming.
How do you know this? Is the curvature observable at 30,000 ft? Or maybe they've programmed it so that the curvature isn't observable until 120,000 ft!
A RE would ask the radius of the planet.
Do you understand how programming works? If it was curved, the numbers behind the programming would indicate as much.
-
Maybe you have access to the source code you can post here?
On my Mac, so sorry, no. It's anecdotal evidence, but my friend loves Oblivion and likes to mess around with it. I happened to ask him once if the gameworld involved curvature, and he said that no, there was no general curvature in the game world.
-
Maybe you have access to the source code you can post here?
On my Mac, so sorry, no. It's anecdotal evidence, but my friend loves Oblivion and likes to mess around with it. I happened to ask him once if the gameworld involved curvature, and he said that no, there was no general curvature in the game world.
Unfortunately anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.
Unfortunately anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.
-
It doesn't really matter if the program is coded as a flat earth. It quite likely is.
This was never disputed, so I'm not sure why you decided to pick an argument about this in the first place. This is a thread on the FE in popular culture; it isn't meant to say anything definitive about FET.
-
Except for this...
Surely this is solid evidence that a Flat Earth counter-resistance conspiracy exists within the video game industry.
The Conspiracy is not part of FET.
-
Except for this...
Surely this is solid evidence that a Flat Earth counter-resistance conspiracy exists within the video game industry.
The Conspiracy is not part of FET.
Then remove it from the FAQ. There are twelve references to "conspiracy" in there you know.
That The Conspiracy exists does not make it part of FET. However, I don't want to drag this discussion off-topic, so if you would like to discuss it further, you should create a new thread.
EDIT: Typo.
-
who in their right mind would develop a game with a slightly rounded floor when they can avoid it?
The video game itself would use too many resources so that it can have enough detail to even have it in the first place! (well a curve similar to the earth anwyay)
-
who in their right mind would develop a game with a slightly rounded floor when they can avoid it?
The video game itself would use too many resources so that it can have enough detail to even have it in the first place! (well a curve similar to the earth anwyay)
I don't recall Super Mario Galaxy having any problems.
-
who in their right mind would develop a game with a slightly rounded floor when they can avoid it?
The video game itself would use too many resources so that it can have enough detail to even have it in the first place! (well a curve similar to the earth anwyay)
I don't recall Super Mario Galaxy having any problems.
it had a curvature simlar to the earth? What a huge game!
-
(http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp190/FindStuff2/Gaming/Mario%20Bros/super-mario-galaxy-2007110702154475.jpg)
-
lol, thats not so big
-
lol, thats not so big
??? ok...
-
how about mass effect? that game is pretty RE. Halo 3 presents the possibility of an "inside-out" world, while still being RE.
-
I'm not sure Mass Effect actually replicates curvature once you land on planet surfaces though. From space, sure, but once you get in the Mako, I'm willing to bet all those environments lack any general curvature.
-
lol, thats not so big
??? ok...
lol, look at the water there. I bet there ahve been buildings built that are bigger than that. im exaggerating, but if you think about how small that sphere your on is, its REALLY small compared to the earth. In comparison to the earth, it'd probably be a spec.
-
That was just a curvature example. The home world where the original castle is located remains much, much larger. You can see the curvature during the opening cut scenes of attacks when you get to the group of exalting toads
-
SIM CITY HAS NO CURVATURE!
-
http://www.addictinggames.com/demolition-dude-game.html
Someone in this game says he'll crush the world flat.
-
in most cases, programming the various perspective, and land issues is unnecessary for a video game, so most companies choose not to waste the time and money to do so. It's sort of like starting the four finger conspiracy based on the fact that Homer Simpson only has four fingers.
-
in most cases, programming the various perspective, and land issues is unnecessary for a video game, so most companies choose not to waste the time and money to do so. It's sort of like starting the four finger conspiracy based on the fact that Homer Simpson only has four fingers.
No it's because on a round earth at sea level, thee is no curvature at all. Geometry once again, learn it, people.
-
This is a year-old joke thread, people.
-
in most cases, programming the various perspective, and land issues is unnecessary for a video game, so most companies choose not to waste the time and money to do so. It's sort of like starting the four finger conspiracy based on the fact that Homer Simpson only has four fingers.
No it's because on a round earth at sea level, thee is no curvature at all. Geometry once again, learn it, people.
In many games, one is able to travel way above sea level. One example is the Tower of the Gods.
-
in most cases, programming the various perspective, and land issues is unnecessary for a video game, so most companies choose not to waste the time and money to do so. It's sort of like starting the four finger conspiracy based on the fact that Homer Simpson only has four fingers.
No it's because on a round earth at sea level, thee is no curvature at all. Geometry once again, learn it, people.
In many games, one is able to travel way above sea level. One example is the Tower of the Gods.
How high?
-
in most cases, programming the various perspective, and land issues is unnecessary for a video game, so most companies choose not to waste the time and money to do so. It's sort of like starting the four finger conspiracy based on the fact that Homer Simpson only has four fingers.
No it's because on a round earth at sea level, thee is no curvature at all. Geometry once again, learn it, people.
In many games, one is able to travel way above sea level. One example is the Tower of the Gods.
How high?
The Tower is the tallest structure in the game and can be seen from almost every area of the map
grid. It appears to have several dozen floors, but Link only goes through a few and is then teleported to the top.
No exact height but it is obviously extremely tall and within range of low clouds under normal conditions. [several, hundred feet tall above sea level]
-
How high?
The Tower is the tallest structure in the game and can be seen from almost every area of the map
grid. It appears to have several dozen floors, but Link only goes through a few and is then teleported to the top.
No exact height but it is obviously extremely tall and within range of low clouds under normal conditions. [several, hundred feet tall above sea level]
You're an idiot. In RE that's still too low to see curvature. If it's been said over and over that 30,000ft is too low, what makes you think several hundred is high enough?
Point still stands.
-
in most cases, programming the various perspective, and land issues is unnecessary for a video game, so most companies choose not to waste the time and money to do so. It's sort of like starting the four finger conspiracy based on the fact that Homer Simpson only has four fingers.
No it's because on a round earth at sea level, thee is no curvature at all. Geometry once again, learn it, people.
In many games, one is able to travel way above sea level. One example is the Tower of the Gods.
How high?
The Tower is the tallest structure in the game and can be seen from almost every area of the map
grid. It appears to have several dozen floors, but Link only goes through a few and is then teleported to the top.
No exact height but it is obviously extremely tall and within range of low clouds under normal conditions. [several, hundred feet tall above sea level]
You're an idiot. In RE that's still too low to see curvature. If it's been sdaid over and over that 30,000ft is too low, what makes you think several hundred is high enough?
Point still stands.
Not really as the top is only confined to space of the 3 gods of the new world. Thus there is no limit on the possible height. It could easily be multiple thousands of feet high Furthermore, Roost legends confirm the same minimal heights on dragon roost.
-
Blah blah blah
You're an idiot.
/thread
-
Thank you for such an elegant response. Please stop spamming. Go stick to RM if all you are capable of saying is "You're an idiot."
-
Thank you for such an elegant response. Please stop spamming. Go stick to RM if all you are capable of saying is "You're an idiot."
It's not spam. I have absolutely no idea where to start with your crap. This thread shouldn't exist anyway. Zelda is in no way representative of real life.
I say again,
/thread.
-
Thank you for such an elegant response. Please stop spamming. Go stick to RM if all you are capable of saying is "You're an idiot."
It's not spam. I have absolutely no idea where to start with your crap. This thread shouldn't exist anyway. Zelda is in no way representative of real life.
I say again,
/thread.
Good thing it is about FET in popular culture and not real life application. ;]
-
It's a joke thread god damn it! Stop arguing 2fst4u
-
It's not spam. I have absolutely no idea where to start with your crap. This thread shouldn't exist anyway. Zelda is in no way representative of real life.
The game can be considered in ways to be a computer simulation for perspective theory.
That it happens to be a children's game is inconsequential.
-
What about the fact that if you sail west, you eventually end up in the east?
-
Thank you for such an elegant response. Please stop spamming. Go stick to RM if all you are capable of saying is "You're an idiot."
It's not spam. I have absolutely no idea where to start with your crap. This thread shouldn't exist anyway. Zelda is in no way representative of real life.
I say again,
/thread.
No, he's right. The upper boards are not for spam posts. If you have no idea where to start, then don't. Consider this a warning.
-
What about the fact that if you sail west, you eventually end up in the east?
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself.
-
It's a joke thread god damn it! Stop arguing 2fst4u
Thank god,i was worried there for second.
As for a flat earth in popular culture i have never heard of it.Most games either have a flat map because i imagine its easier to put in a rectangle(See overworld rpg maps where the land is flat but you can still circle the world) or will overtly annouce the world is round(see animal crossing and mario galaxy.)
-
What about the fact that if you sail west, you eventually end up in the east?
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself.
QFwat
-
As much as this argument is actually rather a good question, games dont take into account curvature for a round planet generally because its just a detail, why have it curved as it does actually take more work then needed to add a pointless detail, and adding more coding into a program could just cause more bugs later on when they update or change said game causing problems with the said coding.
World of Warcraft for example is a VERY large mapped game with multiple zones that makes the planet wide and large, including three continents so far on the world of -azeroth- as its called, they dont add curvature in the distance because the zones eventually end out at sea or the ocean. However its widely known the planet in World of Warcraft is spherical from multiple models of the planet actually inside the game including in the dungeons and in other areas where actual globes of the planet are found. The reason they dont add curvature is because the length of the planet must eventually end in the game and cant continuously sphere around itself.
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself.
I lol'd, I just had to say that. :P
-
Or because the areas that they load at any one time are so small that no curvature would be visible in either a flat or round model.
-
Or because the areas that they load at any one time are so small that no curvature would be visible in either a flat or round model.
Even so there are very few RE games. The only one that comes to mind is spore (however no one likes that game).
-
Or because the areas that they load at any one time are so small that no curvature would be visible in either a flat or round model.
Even so there are very few RE games. The only one that comes to mind is spore (however no one likes that game).
Flight simulator X is RE. It's about the most accurate you'll get.
-
Or because the areas that they load at any one time are so small that no curvature would be visible in either a flat or round model.
Even so there are very few RE games. The only one that comes to mind is spore (however no one likes that game).
Flight simulator X is RE. It's about the most accurate you'll get.
Except the RE part. Unless it is accurate to some other pseudo-earth.
-
Or because the areas that they load at any one time are so small that no curvature would be visible in either a flat or round model.
Even so there are very few RE games. The only one that comes to mind is spore (however no one likes that game).
Flight simulator X is RE. It's about the most accurate you'll get.
Except the RE part. Unless it is accurate to some other pseudo-earth.
What FE game have you seen that is correct in every way without actually warping it's existence to simulate the correct landmasses?
Oh wait... none.
-
Or because the areas that they load at any one time are so small that no curvature would be visible in either a flat or round model.
Even so there are very few RE games. The only one that comes to mind is spore (however no one likes that game).
Flight simulator X is RE. It's about the most accurate you'll get.
Except the RE part. Unless it is accurate to some other pseudo-earth.
What FE game have you seen that is correct in every way without actually warping it's existence to simulate the correct landmasses?
Oh wait... none.
FE, the game...
-
Or because the areas that they load at any one time are so small that no curvature would be visible in either a flat or round model.
Even so there are very few RE games. The only one that comes to mind is spore (however no one likes that game).
Flight simulator X is RE. It's about the most accurate you'll get.
Except the RE part. Unless it is accurate to some other pseudo-earth.
What FE game have you seen that is correct in every way without actually warping it's existence to simulate the correct landmasses?
Oh wait... none.
FE, the game...
Your inferior response tells me I'm right.
-
The game that started the thread.
-
As much as this argument is actually rather a good question, games dont take into account curvature for a round planet generally because its just a detail, why have it curved as it does actually take more work then needed to add a pointless detail, and adding more coding into a program could just cause more bugs later on when they update or change said game causing problems with the said coding.
World of Warcraft for example is a VERY large mapped game with multiple zones that makes the planet wide and large, including three continents so far on the world of -azeroth- as its called, they dont add curvature in the distance because the zones eventually end out at sea or the ocean. However its widely known the planet in World of Warcraft is spherical from multiple models of the planet actually inside the game including in the dungeons and in other areas where actual globes of the planet are found. The reason they dont add curvature is because the length of the planet must eventually end in the game and cant continuously sphere around itself.
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself.
I lol'd, I just had to say that. :P
and yet, world of warcraft is still very tiny compared to the real size of the earth.
-
The game that started the thread.
That game that started this thread doesn't simulate the real world. The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
-
The game that started the thread.
That game that started this thread doesn't simulate the real world. The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
Then neither does any game that portrays a round earth.
-
The game that started the thread.
That game that started this thread doesn't simulate the real world. The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
Then neither does any game that portrays a round earth.
... I just gave you an example. Flight Simulator X. Are you going to argue that it doesn't simulate the world correctly?
-
The game that started the thread.
That game that started this thread doesn't simulate the real world. The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
Then neither does any game that portrays a round earth.
... I just gave you an example. Flight Simulator X. Are you going to argue that it doesn't simulate the world correctly?
The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
-
Spores a pretty round earth game, I attempted to make a planet flat using buildings, but was unable because the system would make the buildings seem as if they were facing up.
-
The game that started the thread.
That game that started this thread doesn't simulate the real world. The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
Then neither does any game that portrays a round earth.
... I just gave you an example. Flight Simulator X. Are you going to argue that it doesn't simulate the world correctly?
The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
WTF are you smoking? The fact that it simulates OUR earth accurately, and goddamn accurately at that, means that it has everything to do with the topic at hand.
You're an idiot.
-
The game that started the thread.
That game that started this thread doesn't simulate the real world. The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
Then neither does any game that portrays a round earth.
... I just gave you an example. Flight Simulator X. Are you going to argue that it doesn't simulate the world correctly?
The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
WTF are you smoking? The fact that it simulates OUR earth accurately, and goddamn accurately at that, means that it has everything to do with the topic at hand.
You're an idiot.
It does not simulate it accurately. If you are going to continue to only contribute to conversations by calling me an idiot please keep it to RM.
-
The game that started the thread.
That game that started this thread doesn't simulate the real world. The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
Then neither does any game that portrays a round earth.
... I just gave you an example. Flight Simulator X. Are you going to argue that it doesn't simulate the world correctly?
The fact that it's AN earth doesn't correlate to anything.
WTF are you smoking? The fact that it simulates OUR earth accurately, and goddamn accurately at that, means that it has everything to do with the topic at hand.
You're an idiot.
It does not simulate it accurately. If you are going to continue to only contribute to conversations by calling me an idiot please keep it to RM.
What proof do you have for this statement other than your pre-disposed view towards the shape of the earth (Which are day by day being disproven. I honestly don't see how you can keep this shit up)?
-
There is no proof for a round earth or flat earth. Only evidence.
-
There is no proof for a round earth or flat earth. Only evidence.
Awesome. Way to dodge a question. That pretty much wraps it up - I'm right, you can't admit it and this thread has no purpose.
-
It has a purpose, it serves as a venue to disscuss Flat earth video games.
-
There is no proof for a round earth or flat earth. Only evidence.
Of which the latter is somewhat lacking, a lot.
-
There is no proof for a round earth or flat earth. Only evidence.
Awesome. Way to dodge a question. That pretty much wraps it up - I'm right, you can't admit it and this thread has no purpose.
You haven't even stated anything. How can you be right? All you have been doing is derailing the thread. The tactic of you just saying "Oh I'm right, you're wrong" without anything else to add isn't working. The thread's purpose was already stated to you.
-
There is no proof for a round earth or flat earth. Only evidence.
Awesome. Way to dodge a question. That pretty much wraps it up - I'm right, you can't admit it and this thread has no purpose.
You haven't even stated anything. How can you be right? All you have been doing is derailing the thread. The tactic of you just saying "Oh I'm right, you're wrong" without anything else to add isn't working. The thread's purpose was already stated to you.
The bloody flight simulator, you knob. I said it was accurate and you said it isn't without backing up your statement at all. You really piss me off sometimes. You never get to the question at hand at all. You're almost as bad as Levee. Let me try again:
Why, in your mind, is flight simulator not accurate?
-
Because it assumes a round earth.
-
Because it assumes a round earth.
And what does that say of it's accuracy? I know for a fact that distances, timings, speed and placements are all correct to things that I have seen and flown in my lifetime. People all over the world are also using FSX and nobody has gone "Wait, but that flight takes 3 times longer at the speed I flew". It IS accurate. You need a better excuse than the assumption if an RE. If it assumed a [proper] FE then it would be inaccurate. FS9 used a flat earth but had to warp what you saw in order to get things to appear correctly (including magnetic field lines).
Try harder.
-
Because it assumes a round earth.
And what does that say of it's accuracy? I know for a fact that distances, timings, speed and placements are all correct to things that I have seen and flown in my lifetime. People all over the world are also using FSX and nobody has gone "Wait, but that flight takes 3 times longer at the speed I flew". It IS accurate. You need a better excuse than the assumption if an RE. If it assumed a [proper] FE then it would be inaccurate. FS9 used a flat earth but had to warp what you saw in order to get things to appear correctly (including magnetic field lines).
Try harder.
It's accuracy proves nothing. I also doubt you've compared any of real life experiences to the game. Also, simulations are not bound by physical laws of the universe.
-
Because it assumes a round earth.
And what does that say of it's accuracy? I know for a fact that distances, timings, speed and placements are all correct to things that I have seen and flown in my lifetime. People all over the world are also using FSX and nobody has gone "Wait, but that flight takes 3 times longer at the speed I flew". It IS accurate. You need a better excuse than the assumption if an RE. If it assumed a [proper] FE then it would be inaccurate. FS9 used a flat earth but had to warp what you saw in order to get things to appear correctly (including magnetic field lines).
Try harder.
It's accuracy proves nothing. I also doubt you've compared any of real life experiences to the game. Also, simulations are not bound by physical laws of the universe.
It's accuracy proves everything. Also:
I know for a fact that distances, timings, speed and placements are all correct to things that I have seen and flown in my lifetime.
I may not have flown every route or measured all distances, but I haven't seen any inaccuracies yet.
It may not be bound by the physical laws of the universe, but does that mean FSX doesn't follow them? No. It clearly does.
-
Surely this is proof that we so far do not have the technology to create a fully 3-d world. Luckily the universe has the technology to create fully 3-d objects, like planets and stars.
-
Surely this is proof that we so far do not have the technology to create a fully 3-d world. Luckily the universe has the technology to create fully 3-d objects, like planets and stars.
Did you read anything I just typed?
-
I didn't go through the thread, just felt like posting.
-
Now I have, and your point is totally valid. While it has been a long time since I have played a FS game, I know for a fact that they are used in training because of the almost spot on accuracy of the simulation. Then I realized that I have played the game Spore and was gonna bring that up, but then noticed that it was brought up, but those planets are round and very accurately modeled.
-
Runescape is another important example of a flat world.
-
Runescape is another important example of a flat world.
Runescape is not set on Earth, Gielinor may very well be flat, but as FE'ers like to point out, Earth is different.
-
Runescape is another important example of a flat world.
Runescape is not set on Earth, Gielinor may very well be flat, but as FE'ers like to point out, Earth is different.
It depicts a flat world.
-
Runescape is another important example of a flat world.
Runescape is not set on Earth, Gielinor may very well be flat, but as FE'ers like to point out, Earth is different.
It depicts a flat world.
It does not depict Earth.
-
Runescape is another important example of a flat world.
Runescape is not set on Earth, Gielinor may very well be flat, but as FE'ers like to point out, Earth is different.
It depicts a flat world.
It does not depict Earth.
Where's your proof?
-
Runescape is another important example of a flat world.
Runescape is not set on Earth, Gielinor may very well be flat, but as FE'ers like to point out, Earth is different.
It depicts a flat world.
It does not depict Earth.
Where's your proof?
The Runescape knowledge base has a search function, I suggest you use it.
-
Runescape is another important example of a flat world.
Runescape is not set on Earth, Gielinor may very well be flat, but as FE'ers like to point out, Earth is different.
It depicts a flat world.
It does not depict Earth.
Where's your proof?
The Runescape knowledge base has a search function, I suggest you use it.
Ok so you have no evidence. Another win for FES!
-
It's not my fault you refuse to look for the evidence, I'm not going to drop everything and do your research for you.
-
I went atop the volcano of Karamja and looked out to a flat horizon with no curvature. In fact, from everywhere I change camera views in Runescape I see a flat world. It appears flat and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
-
I went atop the volcano of Karamja and looked out to a flat horizon with no curvature. In fact, from everywhere I change camera views in Runescape I see a flat world. It appears flat and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
I haven't said Gielinor isn't depicted as a flat world, I have said that it is not the same as Earth. Every reference to the world as a whole is "Gielinor", and never "Earth".
An example, straight from Guthix, the main deity of that world:
This realms name is in truth Gielinor, yet is called RuneScape in the common tongue by it's inhabitants. Each kingdom hath its' own name such as Misthalin, Asgarnia, and so forth.
I also feel obliged to point out that the races thou hast mentioned are all currently in residence upon this realm, along with many more lesser known species such as the Skavid...
-
Please refrain from using religious texts in a scientific discussion.
-
Please refrain from using religious texts in a scientific discussion.
LMAO!
On a more serious note, how do you know Gielnor does not translate into Earth?
-
This thread is full of fail.
firstly, Zelda is a stylized game, it doesn't try to be realistic, notice how the water and fire are highly stylized. and if I remember correctly, when you sail to one end, you reach the other, so this world would be an infinite plane loop. Secondly, you guys are mad tripping. I seriously doubt that the Japenese people who made the game have heard of you guys. you guys are a teeny tiny niche of society, and if they have heard of you, I doubt any of the production team decided to make the world flat for your cause. You guys are majorly tripping. Some people might believe that the moon is evil, does that mean that Majora's mask was for the lunatic clan? No
also, clearly the game area isn't very big, in one mile it would only drop 8inches. and the game is hardly more than 5 miles long, if that. Furthermore, I believe in the official artwork there was a pic showing a globular world.
TL;DR
In the real world, they don't know you, they don't like you, they don't love you or your cause. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. In the end you will have not impact mainstream society in the least bit, enjoy your fail.
-
This thread is full of fail.
firstly, Zelda is a stylized game, it doesn't try to be realistic, notice how the water and fire are highly stylized. and if I remember correctly, when you sail to one end, you reach the other, so this world would be an infinite plane loop. Secondly, you guys are mad tripping. I seriously doubt that the Japenese people who made the game have heard of you guys. you guys are a teeny tiny niche of society, and if they have heard of you, I doubt any of the production team decided to make the world flat for your cause. You guys are majorly tripping. Some people might believe that the moon is evil, does that mean that Majora's mask was for the lunatic clan? No
also, clearly the game area isn't very big, in one mile it would only drop 8inches. and the game is hardly more than 5 miles long, if that. Furthermore, I believe in the official artwork there was a pic showing a globular world.
TL;DR
In the real world, they don't know you, they don't like you, they don't love you or your cause. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. In the end you will have not impact mainstream society in the least bit, enjoy your fail.
Please provide evidence for your outlandish claims.
-
This thread is full of fail.
firstly, Zelda is a stylized game, it doesn't try to be realistic, notice how the water and fire are highly stylized. and if I remember correctly, when you sail to one end, you reach the other, so this world would be an infinite plane loop. Secondly, you guys are mad tripping. I seriously doubt that the Japenese people who made the game have heard of you guys. you guys are a teeny tiny niche of society, and if they have heard of you, I doubt any of the production team decided to make the world flat for your cause. You guys are majorly tripping. Some people might believe that the moon is evil, does that mean that Majora's mask was for the lunatic clan? No
also, clearly the game area isn't very big, in one mile it would only drop 8inches. and the game is hardly more than 5 miles long, if that. Furthermore, I believe in the official artwork there was a pic showing a globular world.
TL;DR
In the real world, they don't know you, they don't like you, they don't love you or your cause. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. In the end you will have not impact mainstream society in the least bit, enjoy your fail.
Please provide evidence for your outlandish claims.
which part? if you have played the game, you no this is true.
or is it the part about noone knowing about you, or being impacted by you.
you do realized that barely anyone in the real world thinks about FES right?
did you think you guys were big shiz? no Co$ pulls way more members, money, and press than you guys ever will, and so far I see no dianetics games
-
This thread is full of fail.
firstly, Zelda is a stylized game, it doesn't try to be realistic, notice how the water and fire are highly stylized. and if I remember correctly, when you sail to one end, you reach the other, so this world would be an infinite plane loop. Secondly, you guys are mad tripping. I seriously doubt that the Japenese people who made the game have heard of you guys. you guys are a teeny tiny niche of society, and if they have heard of you, I doubt any of the production team decided to make the world flat for your cause. You guys are majorly tripping. Some people might believe that the moon is evil, does that mean that Majora's mask was for the lunatic clan? No
also, clearly the game area isn't very big, in one mile it would only drop 8inches. and the game is hardly more than 5 miles long, if that. Furthermore, I believe in the official artwork there was a pic showing a globular world.
TL;DR
In the real world, they don't know you, they don't like you, they don't love you or your cause. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. In the end you will have not impact mainstream society in the least bit, enjoy your fail.
Please provide evidence for your outlandish claims.
which part? if you have played the game, you no this is true.
or is it the part about noone knowing about you, or being impacted by you.
you do realized that barely anyone in the real world thinks about FES right?
did you think you guys were big shiz? no Co$ pulls way more members, money, and press than you guys ever will, and so far I see no dianetics games
Please provide evidence for your outlandish claims.
-
This thread is full of fail.
firstly, Zelda is a stylized game, it doesn't try to be realistic, notice how the water and fire are highly stylized. and if I remember correctly, when you sail to one end, you reach the other, so this world would be an infinite plane loop. Secondly, you guys are mad tripping. I seriously doubt that the Japenese people who made the game have heard of you guys. you guys are a teeny tiny niche of society, and if they have heard of you, I doubt any of the production team decided to make the world flat for your cause. You guys are majorly tripping. Some people might believe that the moon is evil, does that mean that Majora's mask was for the lunatic clan? No
also, clearly the game area isn't very big, in one mile it would only drop 8inches. and the game is hardly more than 5 miles long, if that. Furthermore, I believe in the official artwork there was a pic showing a globular world.
TL;DR
In the real world, they don't know you, they don't like you, they don't love you or your cause. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. In the end you will have not impact mainstream society in the least bit, enjoy your fail.
Please provide evidence for your outlandish claims.
which part? if you have played the game, you no this is true.
or is it the part about noone knowing about you, or being impacted by you.
you do realized that barely anyone in the real world thinks about FES right?
did you think you guys were big shiz? no Co$ pulls way more members, money, and press than you guys ever will, and so far I see no dianetics games
Please provide evidence for your outlandish claims.
Lurk moar please... on wikipedia you guys have 8 pop culture references, most of which you guys are being held synonymous with idiots. Scientology has a whole artical about them in pop culture. they made it into a South Park episode. They also got meme status. you guys however have less than a thousand members, the burden of proof is on you. you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
Of course it has ponds and oceans,what else would a place where life exists have?
This however doesn't necessarily imply they were trying to mimic Earth.
Also,i think the decision to make the earth was more likely because it is more convient to make a game on a flat box than a sphere.
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
that analogy is dumb they didn't mimic their interpretation of the earth. So I suppose they added in swirly clouds, choppy sea, magic, a place where time stopped, monsters, and an infinite surface loop because they thought the earth had those things too.
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
that analogy is dumb they didn't mimic their interpretation of the earth. So I suppose they added in swirly clouds, choppy sea, magic,and an infinite surface loop because they thought the earth had those things too.
The Earth doesn't have swirly clouds and choppy seas? ???
Yes, they do.
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
that analogy is dumb they didn't mimic their interpretation of the earth. So I suppose they added in swirly clouds, choppy sea, magic,and an infinite surface loop because they thought the earth had those things too.
The Earth doesn't have swirly clouds and choppy seas? ???
Yes, they do.
so you think this:
http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Soundtracks/The%20Wind%20Waker%20Front%20Large.jpg
is an accurate representation of the clouds.
also notice the curvature... check and mate.
and what about the magic, the monsters, the place where time doesn't exist, the lack of stars, and the infinite surface loop.
-
so you think this:
http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Soundtracks/The%20Wind%20Waker%20Front%20Large.jpg
is an accurate representation of the clouds.
Yes, some clouds.
and the infinite surface loop.
Lurk moar, this has been proposed here before. They could have picked up on it.
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
Because the grass, ponds and oceans on the earth are not rendered in 8-bit, low resolution graphics.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Legend_of_Zelda_NES.PNG)
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
Because the grass, ponds and oceans on the earth are not rendered in 8-bit, low resolution graphics.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Legend_of_Zelda_NES.PNG)
That does not look like Windwaker.
-
you are the one that is saying that the production team of Zelda are secretly FES, but have not shown one iota of evidence. all you've shown is that the made a flat earth in a highly stylized game. wow
They have trees in Zelda, they have grass. They have ponds and oceans. Why? To qualities of the Earth. Why are they making it flat? To mimic the Earth which is flat.
Because the grass, ponds and oceans on the earth are not rendered in 8-bit, low resolution graphics.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Legend_of_Zelda_NES.PNG)
That does not look like Windwaker.
Looks flat to me.
-
so you think this:
http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Soundtracks/The%20Wind%20Waker%20Front%20Large.jpg
is an accurate representation of the clouds.
Yes, some clouds.
and the infinite surface loop.
They don't know about this place you are seriously tripping
Lurk moar, this has been proposed here before. They could have picked up on it.
ok so you think some clouds look like that...source?
uhmmm...no they didn't, the infinite loop idea has been around before, what do you think the production team is lurking in the forum? and what about the countless other phenomena? the fire... last time I checked combustion patterns didn't swirl around
-
This is still going on? I think even touching on the idea of some video games having a flat world being proof of a flat Earth is kind of discrediting to all of TFES. It's kind of like seeing someone fly in a movie and using that as proof of anti-gravity.
-
This is still going on? I think even touching on the idea of some video games having a flat world being proof of a flat Earth is kind of discrediting to all of TFES. It's kind of like seeing someone fly in a movie and using that as proof of anti-gravity.
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
-
Someone did mention that it proves a flat earth is more convenient.
-
This is still going on? I think even touching on the idea of some video games having a flat world being proof of a flat Earth is kind of discrediting to all of TFES. It's kind of like seeing someone fly in a movie and using that as proof of anti-gravity.
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
You're right, I apologize. He's saying that since some video games have a flat world it's showing that the game companies believe in a flat Earth. How silly of me. Either way this argument is stupid because I don't think rich Japanese people are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat.
-
This is still going on? I think even touching on the idea of some video games having a flat world being proof of a flat Earth is kind of discrediting to all of TFES. It's kind of like seeing someone fly in a movie and using that as proof of anti-gravity.
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
You're right, I apologize. He's saying that since some video games have a flat world it's showing that the game companies believe in a flat Earth. How silly of me. Either way this argument is stupid because I don't think rich Japanese people are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat.
Well, you're entitled to your stupid opinion.
-
This is still going on? I think even touching on the idea of some video games having a flat world being proof of a flat Earth is kind of discrediting to all of TFES. It's kind of like seeing someone fly in a movie and using that as proof of anti-gravity.
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
You're right, I apologize. He's saying that since some video games have a flat world it's showing that the game companies believe in a flat Earth. How silly of me. Either way this argument is stupid because I don't think rich Japanese people are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat.
Well, you're entitled to your stupid opinion.
You're entitled to your own stupid beliefs that the world is flat.
-
This is still going on? I think even touching on the idea of some video games having a flat world being proof of a flat Earth is kind of discrediting to all of TFES. It's kind of like seeing someone fly in a movie and using that as proof of anti-gravity.
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
You're right, I apologize. He's saying that since some video games have a flat world it's showing that the game companies believe in a flat Earth. How silly of me. Either way this argument is stupid because I don't think rich Japanese people are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat.
Well, you're entitled to your stupid opinion.
You're entitled to your own stupid beliefs that the world is flat.
he doesn't don't argue with him. he's a DA, but argues just for sport he's not a troll either
-
This is still going on? I think even touching on the idea of some video games having a flat world being proof of a flat Earth is kind of discrediting to all of TFES. It's kind of like seeing someone fly in a movie and using that as proof of anti-gravity.
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
You're right, I apologize. He's saying that since some video games have a flat world it's showing that the game companies believe in a flat Earth. How silly of me. Either way this argument is stupid because I don't think rich Japanese people are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat.
Well, you're entitled to your stupid opinion.
You're entitled to your own stupid beliefs that the world is flat.
If you can't handle people believing in FE, then this is probably not the website for you.
-
Probably because rendering a more curvy surface would require more sophistication on how to do it and more polygons than a plane.
I would do it just like this in it's simplest form if I was to render the ground or sea. I also love so much endless infinite planes in computer graphics.
-
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
Cool. Then this thrad has not point other than "Look! Other flat things!". I am pleased that it has reached 7 pages. It shows that presigious elite FE scientists are researching the suject.
-
Ichy's not claiming that the fact that some video games have a flat world proves a flat Earth.
Cool. Then this thrad has not point other than "Look! Other flat things!". I am pleased that it has reached 7 pages. It shows that presigious elite FE scientists are researching the suject.
Please reread the thread.
-
Please reread the thread.
I did. Point still stands.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
-
Zeldas world is portrayed as round, as I've already proved. Troll better.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
A world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds would be boring and look stupid. Making the world they're on round would take unnecessary coding and modeling that isn't worth doing. Try harder.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
A world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds would be boring and look stupid. Making the world they're on round would take unnecessary coding and modeling that isn't worth doing. Try harder.
Irrelevant. Your arguement was based on that they would not make a round Earth simply because it is easier not to.
Zeldas world is portrayed as round, as I've already proved. Troll better.
You fail. You have posted like what? Three other times in this thread? And each time you did not prove anything, you made pointless comments.
This is a year-old joke thread, people.
It's a joke thread god damn it! Stop arguing 2fst4u
Someone did mention that it proves a flat earth is more convenient.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
A world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds would be boring and look stupid. Making the world they're on round would take unnecessary coding and modeling that isn't worth doing. Try harder.
Irrelevant. Your arguement was based on that they would not make a round Earth simply because it is easier not to.
Zeldas world is portrayed as round, as I've already proved. Troll better.
You fail. You have posted like what? Three other times in this thread? And each time you did not prove anything, you made pointless comments.
This is a year-old joke thread, people.
It's a joke thread god damn it! Stop arguing 2fst4u
Someone did mention that it proves a flat earth is more convenient.
No, you have to make a game look nice or people will not want to play it. The curvature is not something most people other than Ichi really give a shit about.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
I know this is difficult to grasp. Try to focus...
Creating a spherical game world is unnecessary. Creating a virtual world on the scale of a planet wouldn't change the perspective for the player and would add nothing to the gaming environment.
Creating a virtual spherical world for a game would also consume a lot more memory, and the storage medium for these games does have a finite amount of space. Furthermore, the consoles themselves have a finite amount of system memory to run them.
Console games are not easily patched once they're out on the market. Because of this fact, the programming tends to be simpler.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
This is just silly. A world without birds, trees, grass or ponds isn't pleasing to the eye,and is contrary to the spirit of LoZ.
Representing a spherical world on the other hand,is something that wouldn't be missed.
This whole thread is silly to begin with.
If an atheist makes a game with gods in them,is he any less of an atheist?
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
This is just silly. A world without birds, trees, grass or ponds isn't pleasing to the eye,and is contrary to the spirit of LoZ.
Representing a spherical world on the other hand,is something that wouldn't be missed.
This whole thread is silly to begin with.
If an atheist makes a game with gods in them,is he any less of an atheist?
If he is trying to make that game a representation of Earth, then yes.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
This is just silly. A world without birds, trees, grass or ponds isn't pleasing to the eye,and is contrary to the spirit of LoZ.
Representing a spherical world on the other hand,is something that wouldn't be missed.
This whole thread is silly to begin with.
If an atheist makes a game with gods in them,is he any less of an atheist?
If he is trying to make that game a representation of Earth, then yes.
Congratulations, that response made absolutely no goddamn sense at all. Catchpa was justified in questioning your cognitive ability.
-
If he is trying to make that game a representation of Earth, then yes.
I doubt Shigeru was trying to make LoZ replicate earth.
I mean its not like flat maps are uncommon.
-
To think that there were intentional FE undertones inserted into this game is simply...stupid. The reason the game world is flat is that it's simply easier, programmatically speaking, to represent it as such.
It would also be easier to provide a world without birds, trees, grass, and ponds. However, these were included in the game because the makers wanted to make a good representation of the Earth. If they wished to go into such deailed, Zelda's world in that game would have been spherical. It was not.
This is just silly. A world without birds, trees, grass or ponds isn't pleasing to the eye,and is contrary to the spirit of LoZ.
Representing a spherical world on the other hand,is something that wouldn't be missed.
This whole thread is silly to begin with.
If an atheist makes a game with gods in them,is he any less of an atheist?
If he is trying to make that game a representation of Earth, then yes.
Congratulations, that response made absolutely no goddamn sense at all. Catchpa was justified in questioning your cognitive ability.
If you cannot makes sense of that simple scentence, I suggest you go back to grade school. The Question1 obviously understood it.
If he is trying to make that game a representation of Earth, then yes.
I doubt Shigeru was trying to make LoZ replicate earth.
I mean its not like flat maps are uncommon.
I'm not saying Shigeru was trying to replicate Earth. That would be far too hard for the programmers to do as the Earth is huge. And it would take so long to travel that most gamers would shoot themselves as they would be running across empty fields for days.
I'm saying Shigeru was trying to copy as many characteristics of Earth as possible.
-
For what it's worth, most games take place in 'flat' worlds- few replicate any kind of curvature.
Surely this is solid evidence that a Flat Earth counter-resistance conspiracy exists within the video game industry.
-
For what it's worth, most games take place in 'flat' worlds- few replicate any kind of curvature.
Surely this is solid evidence that a Flat Earth counter-resistance conspiracy exists within the video game industry.
this is only evidence that you are not smart. we've shown countless times that this is a fallacy. Just because you refuse to admit it, doesn't mean that it isn't true. you're argument is a complete non sequiter.
-
For what it's worth, most games take place in 'flat' worlds- few replicate any kind of curvature.
Surely this is solid evidence that a Flat Earth counter-resistance conspiracy exists within the video game industry.
Again, reasons for a FE environment in a game summarized for those with short attention spans...
1. Limitations in storage space of the game media.
2. Limitations in system memory of the console and computer systems.
3. Creating a RE environment on the scale of a planet would add nothing to the gaming experience.
4. Programmers take shortcuts, but enhance and exaggerate smaller elements to get their end result. like FET.
-
1. Limitations in storage space of the game media.
2. Limitations in system memory of the console and computer systems.
See also: Final Fantasy VIII
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
-
1. Limitations in storage space of the game media.
2. Limitations in system memory of the console and computer systems.
See also: Final Fantasy VIII
by this logic, Shigeru believes in magic
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
sure it is. And I guess the fact that ice is softer than metal is evidence for the titanic conspiracy
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
Hahahaha, the round earthers are grasping at so many straws they have to ride off our side as trolls because they have no evidence to the contrary. I predict within my lifetime the Earth will be proven not to be round as you claim but flat. It says this in the bible and accurate science will tell you this as well.
Good day sir.
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
Well in mario galazy they also have flat platforms that do go upwards, and other Flat earth bodies, it doesn't nessarly conflict with FET. Also I'm not sure if the mushroom kindgom is on Earth.
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
Hahahaha, the round earthers are grasping at so many straws they have to ride off our side as trolls because they have no evidence to the contrary. I predict within my lifetime the Earth will be proven not to be round as you claim but flat. It says this in the bible and accurate science will tell you this as well.
Good day sir.
I don't need proof against. u make the claim, so u give evidence about this accurate science.
So again, Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
Hahahaha, the round earthers are grasping at so many straws they have to ride off our side as trolls because they have no evidence to the contrary. I predict within my lifetime the Earth will be proven not to be round as you claim but flat. It says this in the bible and accurate science will tell you this as well.
Good day sir.
I don't need proof against. u make the claim, so u give evidence about this accurate science.
So again, Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
The world is flat and the Ice Wall keeps the water from falling off. People fly planes all the time yet none is so bold as to fly around the earth because they KNOW they will fall off. This much is obvious.
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
Hahahaha, the round earthers are grasping at so many straws they have to ride off our side as trolls because they have no evidence to the contrary. I predict within my lifetime the Earth will be proven not to be round as you claim but flat. It says this in the bible and accurate science will tell you this as well.
Good day sir.
I don't need proof against. u make the claim, so u give evidence about this accurate science.
So again, Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
The world is flat and the Ice Wall keeps the water from falling off. People fly planes all the time yet none is so bold as to fly around the earth because they KNOW they will fall off. This much is obvious.
Again do you have any evidence to support you outlandish claims?
and btw, people have flown over Antarctica before
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
Hahahaha, the round earthers are grasping at so many straws they have to ride off our side as trolls because they have no evidence to the contrary. I predict within my lifetime the Earth will be proven not to be round as you claim but flat. It says this in the bible and accurate science will tell you this as well.
Good day sir.
I don't need proof against. u make the claim, so u give evidence about this accurate science.
So again, Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
The world is flat and the Ice Wall keeps the water from falling off. People fly planes all the time yet none is so bold as to fly around the earth because they KNOW they will fall off. This much is obvious.
You fail at being a FE troll. Read the FAQ.
-
RE video game: Mario Galaxy
Nice call. Clearly evidence the conspiracy is making moves against the counter-conspiracy.
Mario Galaxy is part of the conspiracy to subliminally insert messages that planet bodies are round as opposed to flat. Amazing it is how far the rabbit hole goes!
Obvious troll is obvious. Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
Hahahaha, the round earthers are grasping at so many straws they have to ride off our side as trolls because they have no evidence to the contrary. I predict within my lifetime the Earth will be proven not to be round as you claim but flat. It says this in the bible and accurate science will tell you this as well.
Good day sir.
I don't need proof against. u make the claim, so u give evidence about this accurate science.
So again, Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
The world is flat and the Ice Wall keeps the water from falling off. People fly planes all the time yet none is so bold as to fly around the earth because they KNOW they will fall off. This much is obvious.
You fail at being a FE troll. Read the FAQ.
He speaks the truth, I am very dissapointed with you.
If only there were more trolls as awesome as PizzaPlanet. He is fun to have around.
-
PizzaPlanet tries to take the whole pedantic angle a little too far and just comes off annoying. Others are better at it.
-
PizzaPlanet tries to take the whole pedantic angle a little too far and just comes off annoying. Others are better at it.
His old Pizza Earth Theory thread had so much win in it though!!!
-
PizzaPlanet tries to take the whole pedantic angle a little too far and just comes off annoying. Others are better at it.
I'm not really that pedantic. I won't scream if someone calls RE a sphere, claims that orbits are circular, and whatnot.
I do, however, object when someone is flat out wrong, eg. claims that applying a RE-like environment to a computer game is difficult and may be impossible due to limitations of some sort, says that something flawed works flawlessly, or uses classical fallacies.
His old Pizza Earth Theory thread had so much win in it though!!!
<3
-
PizzaPlanet tries to take the whole pedantic angle a little too far and just comes off annoying. Others are better at it.
I'm not really that pedantic. I won't scream if someone calls RE a sphere, claims that orbits are circular, and whatnot.
I do, however, object when someone is flat out wrong, eg. claims that applying a RE-like environment to a computer game is difficult and may be impossible due to limitations of some sort, says that something flawed works flawlessly, or uses classical fallacies.
RE-environment as in what? How accurate?
Applying an accurate round earth environment would probably be extremely hard. It's much easier to simply make the ground flat, then apply the other environmental stuff.
-
PizzaPlanet tries to take the whole pedantic angle a little too far and just comes off annoying. Others are better at it.
I'm not really that pedantic. I won't scream if someone calls RE a sphere, claims that orbits are circular, and whatnot.
I do, however, object when someone is flat out wrong, eg. claims that applying a RE-like environment to a computer game is difficult and may be impossible due to limitations of some sort, says that something flawed works flawlessly, or uses classical fallacies.
RE-environment as in what? How accurate?
Applying an accurate round earth environment would probably be extremely hard. It's much easier to simply make the ground flat, then apply the other environmental stuff.
As accurate as it's currently done. You could draw that conclusion from my previous post.
-
PizzaPlanet tries to take the whole pedantic angle a little too far and just comes off annoying. Others are better at it.
I'm not really that pedantic. I won't scream if someone calls RE a sphere, claims that orbits are circular, and whatnot.
I do, however, object when someone is flat out wrong, eg. claims that applying a RE-like environment to a computer game is difficult and may be impossible due to limitations of some sort, says that something flawed works flawlessly, or uses classical fallacies.
RE-environment as in what? How accurate?
Applying an accurate round earth environment would probably be extremely hard. It's much easier to simply make the ground flat, then apply the other environmental stuff.
As accurate as it's currently done. You could draw that conclusion from my previous post.
Uhm, what's your definition of a RE-environment as opposed to a FE-e? The only thing I can think of is avoiding moonlight.
-
A round planet as opposed to a flat "planet" would be the level of accuracy relevant to this thread.
-
That is not currently done, other than in pre animated cutscenes, intros and pictures.
-
That is not currently done, other than in pre animated cutscenes, intros and pictures.
Two games that contradict your statement have already been mentioned.
In case you had any objections: SPORE.
-
Which is the other?
-
There are two other games mentioned in this thread. Since I'm a strong supporter of people reading threads before replying to them, I encourage you to find them yourself. The names are mentioned in a very unambiguous way so this shouldn't be a difficult task.
Either way, since it's already been established that it is both possible and done, I consider this finished.
-
And how do you propose this would be easily done in games like Crysis?
Spore and that other game you wont care to reveal is the exception from the rule. Notice the graphics in Spore aint that great, plus it's easier to make a small circle(Like in Spore) than to program extremely small unnoticeable curvature in larger game worlds(planets).
-
1. These are two games I'm not revealing that we're speaking of. Read the thread.
2. There is no reason to model the curvature. We're talking about computer games here, not accurate models. As long as the fact that the planet is round appears somewhere in the game, it makes the planet round. Not difficult at all.
3. A small circle? The planets are modeled quite well, even if the graphics might not be the greatest. Have you played it? If so, did you use the holo tool? It lets you walk the planet in space stage. Thanks to that, you can see the planet from a high altitude (it's spherical!), and from the ground, where it appears flat. The models are not changed in the meantime.
-
Again, Spores planets are small. In a larger game planet, such as Crysis, the developers will have a difficult time to create a decent spherical world.
Why do you insist that game developers HAVE to make a RE version of the game(Be it a picture etc.)? It's not really relevant in any way to the developers, and afaik none have claimed that these games which never portray a round earth still happens on a round earth. If you're looking at the RE list, I believe you'll see that all the listed RE games do have proof of curvature if you research it.
And you claim it's not difficult to create a spherical game world. Please do tell how it is not, as all I see is that it would create much harder coding.
-
Again, Spores planets are small. In a larger game planet, such as Crysis, the developers will have a difficult time to create a decent spherical world.
Yes. I'm not talking about decency here. Only the possibility.
Why do you insist that game developers HAVE to make a RE version of the game(Be it a picture etc.)?
Never did. What I meant was that if there is a round Earth in the game, it's a game with a round Earth. By definition. Just like a bathtub full of water contains water in it.
It's not really relevant in any way to the developers, and afaik none have claimed that these games which never portray a round earth still happens on a round earth. If you're looking at the RE list, I believe you'll see that all the listed RE games do have proof of curvature if you research it.
How is that even relevant?
And you claim it's not difficult to create a spherical game world. Please do tell how it is not, as all I see is that it would create much harder coding.
Okay, here, I'll spoil it for you. One of the games mentioned in this thread is FFVIII. There was a round planet there and it wasn't exactly implemented in a difficult way. You could just circumnavigate it while viewing a rotating globe. The very same happens it SPORE.
-
This is probably the biggest troll thread, I've ever read, in my entire life, ever. To think that people who probably have no idea how to make a 3d world, code, or any kind of graphic design such as texturing, rendering, or modeling would go as far as to bend names, maps, or any other form of detail of game to make it sound like it advocates the Flat Earth Theory. It would be MUCH simpler to build a game upon a flat surface environment just because A) that is how it actually looks at lower levels B) It saves a lot of wasteful time coding the ability to walk along a sphere? (Coders aren't idiotic and put stupid little things that only trolls like you would find, they try to stay as efficient as possible, putting in only what is absolutely necessary) and C) Most of the time I don't see games taking place thousands of kilometers up.
Please if you are going to critique RE'rs for having such wild accusations by blindly believing in NASA, don't try to do this.
-
This is probably the biggest troll thread, I've ever read, in my entire life, ever. To think that people who probably have no idea how to make a 3d world, code, or any kind of graphic design such as texturing, rendering, or modeling would go as far as to bend names, maps, or any other form of detail of game to make it sound like it advocates the Flat Earth Theory. It would be MUCH simpler to build a game upon a flat surface environment just because A) that is how it actually looks at lower levels B) It saves a lot of wasteful time coding the ability to walk along a sphere? (Coders aren't idiotic and put stupid little things that only trolls like you would find, they try to stay as efficient as possible, putting in only what is absolutely necessary) and C) Most of the time I don't see games taking place thousands of kilometers up.
Please if you are going to critique RE'rs for having such wild accusations by blindly believing in NASA, don't try to do this.
Designers put code in all the time even if it isn't nessesary. Ever hear the term"Easter Egg"? Stop trying to act smart. You are not.
-
In my opinion Easter Eggs are completely necessary, makes the game that much more enjoyable, allows the community to discuss the meaning of said Easter Egg and allows people to hunt for unseen Easter Eggs, adding gameplay. Please stop your trolling.
Edit: Unnecessary in the means of, if a battle takes place in space, the game makers dont ask scientists the constellation system in that quadrant in order to accurately place the stars in their cinematics and ask the entire team to make a 3d world based exactly off that environment.
Similar to how the game Prototype took place in New York City but didn't EXACTLY replicate it in order to not waste time.
When I think about it save for a meager attempt at making Central Park, the games area doesn't look anything like Manhattan.
OBVIOUSLY ITS A CONSPIRACY, THERE IS OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF CLOAKING SHIELD ON MANHATTAN AND HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTION SO IT LOOKS DIFFERENT, BUT THE GAME PROTOTYPE IS REVEALING WHAT NEW YORK REALLY LOOKS LIKE.
-
Designers put code in all the time even if it isn't nessesary. Ever hear the term"Easter Egg"?
Yes, there are terms for unnecessary extra code. Featureitis (feature creep) and bloated code come to mind.
-
Good coders try to keep that to a minimum although I can agree that sometimes its impossible :-\
-
In my opinion Easter Eggs are completely necessary, makes the game that much more enjoyable, allows the community to discuss the meaning of said Easter Egg and allows people to hunt for unseen Easter Eggs, adding gameplay. Please stop your trolling.
Edit: Unnecessary in the means of, if a battle takes place in space, the game makers dont ask scientists the constellation system in that quadrant in order to accurately place the stars in their cinematics and ask the entire team to make a 3d world based exactly off that environment.
Similar to how the game Prototype took place in New York City but didn't EXACTLY replicate it in order to not waste time.
When I think about it save for a meager attempt at making Central Park, the games area doesn't look anything like Manhattan.
Having a lack of Easter Eggs does not decrease the games enjoyment at all considering many players play games without knowing that the Easter Eggs even exist.
As you said, they are there so gamers can consider and discuss why they made them that way. The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
-
The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
Really?Did they tell you this?
-
In my opinion Easter Eggs are completely necessary, makes the game that much more enjoyable, allows the community to discuss the meaning of said Easter Egg and allows people to hunt for unseen Easter Eggs, adding gameplay. Please stop your trolling.
Edit: Unnecessary in the means of, if a battle takes place in space, the game makers dont ask scientists the constellation system in that quadrant in order to accurately place the stars in their cinematics and ask the entire team to make a 3d world based exactly off that environment.
Similar to how the game Prototype took place in New York City but didn't EXACTLY replicate it in order to not waste time.
When I think about it save for a meager attempt at making Central Park, the games area doesn't look anything like Manhattan.
Having a lack of Easter Eggs does not decrease the games enjoyment at all considering many players play games without knowing that the Easter Eggs even exist.
As you said, they are there so gamers can consider and discuss why they made them that way. The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
I would say it decreases games enjoyment in the long run. Lets take Assassins Creed 2 for example, lets take out all of the extra missions they put in, take out the money system, your given standard weapons the whole game, you can only play the story, etc.
I wouldn't assume a game isn't hindered by its addition of collectibles, treasure hunting, etc.
And theres a difference between adding things for fun, then adding things unnecessarily . I guess you ignored my example because as I said game makers are smart, not idiotic.
Prototype
Fast paced game that youll end up never even looking at the building your scaling
A lot of explosions, NPC's, and action
If they had made a highly realistic and detailed Manhattan sandbox area it would have overall lagged the game when attempting to play in such an environment (My ps3 lags a bit sometimes when I play the game with its low detailed buildings).
Theres a large difference between Easter Egg, and something that would be completely detrimental to the project.
Now imagine Prototype when you take a helicopter and fly as high as you can with a curved surface environment, oh joy for a few minutes that you are in the sky before you get bored you would notice the millions of lines of code to make a workable spherical surface of gameplay get bored of how unnecessary it was and the fact it just took up another few gigs (exaggerated) of your Harddrives memory and you turn off and uninstall the game for wasting your space and lagging your game because they tried to make a realistic world environment.
-
The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
Really?Did they tell you this?
If they did they wouldn't have wasted their time filling their game with FE undertones ::)
-
They didn't fill their games with FE undertones, your just assuming it was purposely made that way. Kind of like how English teachers assume authors do every single piece of satire, meaningful symbols and everything were done on purpose :D.
EDIT: and no response to my post above? Really, I guess the FE strat of ignoring the RE'r when theyre right is coming into effect.
-
The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
Really?Did they tell you this?
If they did they wouldn't have wasted their time filling their game with FE undertones ::)
Really?its filled with FE undertones.I must have missed that part.
Now barring the game being on a flat map.please explain these FE undertones.
-
Perhaps you and I have different ideas of easter eggs. I don't see them as extra weapons or missions. I see them as a designer putting a pic of his girlfriend in a hidden place on Psyconauts or theskulls in Halo. Stuff that's adds nothing to gameplay but are hidden to for players to find and discuss.
-
What kind of code does that really take 0.o? I didn't know it was an easter egg that was that simple on your part. You do realize that its pretty easy to just reuse lets say a poster used on the streets of the environment, change the picture to your girlfriend, and replace the texture at one point of the entire game? The results are negligible. I thought we were speaking of say in Metal Gear Solid 3, shooting all of the Kerotans (SP?) in order to gain Stealth camoflauge at the end of the game (Something with a reward, which would have to be checked, updated, maintained, etc. which could take a bit of code).
-
The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
Really?Did they tell you this?
If they did they wouldn't have wasted their time filling their game with FE undertones ::)
Really?its filled with FE undertones.I must have missed that part.
Now barring the game being on a flat map.please explain these FE undertones.
Lurk moar idiot. Reread this thread. Zelda being flat isn't the only thing.
-
Is the idiot comment really necessary? We just discussed A) how he wouldnt be high enough to notice curvature, and B) would be unnecessary code
So I'll use the same tone for you, Idiot give us some more examples or we can just assume you have no idea what your talking about.
-
The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
Really?Did they tell you this?
If they did they wouldn't have wasted their time filling their game with FE undertones ::)
Really?its filled with FE undertones.I must have missed that part.
Now barring the game being on a flat map.please explain these FE undertones.
Lurk moar idiot. Reread this thread. Zelda being flat isn't the only thing.
Thank you for wasting my time,i saw nothing else indicating FE undertones.
-
By the way Zelda isn't flat as shown by the game picture
(http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Soundtracks/The%20Wind%20Waker%20Front%20Large.jpg)
Please just stop while your ahead.
-
The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
Really?Did they tell you this?
If they did they wouldn't have wasted their time filling their game with FE undertones ::)
Really?its filled with FE undertones.I must have missed that part.
Now barring the game being on a flat map.please explain these FE undertones.
Lurk moar idiot. Reread this thread. Zelda being flat isn't the only thing.
Thank you for wasting my time,i saw nothing else indicating FE undertones.
Obviously you have no comprehension skills or you lied. Read the OP.
-
By the way Zelda isn't flat as shown by the game picture
(http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Soundtracks/The%20Wind%20Waker%20Front%20Large.jpg)
Please just stop while your ahead.
ANOTHER WIN FOR RET!
-
By the way Zelda isn't flat as shown by the game picture
(http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Soundtracks/The%20Wind%20Waker%20Front%20Large.jpg)
Please just stop while your ahead.
ANOTHER WIN FOR RET!
You retarded? The people that make the sound track have nothing to do with those who program and design the game.
-
You retarded? The people that make the sound track have nothing to do with those who program and design the game.
Incorrect AND irrelevant.
-
You retarded? The people that make the sound track have nothing to do with those who program and design the game.
correct AND relevant.
-
I would assume the cover art for the soundtrack has to be okayed by the developers if not made by the concept artists themselves.
If the overwhelming large FE'r base of the development team has such a problem with the cover's portrayal would they not have it pulled/changed because it gave a wrong idea about their game?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61TRVSRE4NL.jpg)
Oh hey look they would also pull it from this strategy guide
HEY LOOK WHAT I FOUND :D
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/news/03/17/zelda/z_screen002.jpg)
ANOTHER WIN FOR RET![/center]
-
The programmers made the games flat hoping that players would notice.
Really?Did they tell you this?
If they did they wouldn't have wasted their time filling their game with FE undertones ::)
Really?its filled with FE undertones.I must have missed that part.
Now barring the game being on a flat map.please explain these FE undertones.
Lurk moar idiot. Reread this thread. Zelda being flat isn't the only thing.
Thank you for wasting my time,i saw nothing else indicating FE undertones.
Obviously you have no comprehension skills or you lied. Read the OP.
Or your seeing things that aren't there?
All those thing ichi mentioned have to do with a flat map.
-
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
-
This thread smells like RE WIN!!!
-
I think I Stomped down opposition and brought it some win, and Ellipsis brought in some lovely sprinkles to the victory :)
-
Let's just ignore the perspective effect everyone ::)
-
Let's just ignore the fact that a round planet is clearly depicted everyone ::)
Fix'd.
-
If you have any valid evidence, please post it.
-
Such has already been posted by my esteemed colleague, Ellipsis. If you choose to invent some imaginary "perspective effect" to explain why the horizon is clearly curved, I would suggest it is you who should post some evidence.
-
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
If you actually made it to the credits, you would see the view is warped. Notice the clouds twist and distort and the camera view switches up to the sky to the The End message. In the very scene itself, all I see is flatness.
-
So no evidence then?
-
So no evidence then?
I guess not for you. The Windwaker isn't a hard game though. I bet with all of your effort though, you can get through it in a month or two.
-
So no evidence then?
I guess not for you. The Windwaker isn't a hard game though. I bet with all of your effort though, you can get through it in a month or two.
You have a knack for asking for evidence General, then refusing to accept evidence that is given. Ichi clearly said that it was perspective because it was part of the sequence that everything became distorted.
-
Okay even if that was true, why ignore my piece of evidence? Either way you lose.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/news/03/17/zelda/z_screen002.jpg)
-
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
If you actually made it to the credits, you would see the view is warped. Notice the clouds twist and distort and the camera view switches up to the sky to the The End message. In the very scene itself, all I see is flatness.
This is bordering on straight up denial. Let it go cover art clearly shows a round world. and the horizon would not be curved on a flat earth, it would be straight.
-
Okay even if that was true, why ignore my piece of evidence? Either way you lose.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/news/03/17/zelda/z_screen002.jpg)
It looks to me like the image on the cover was clearly taken with a fish-eye lens. The amount of curvature is far more consistent with that than it is with the actual curvature we'd be able to observe of the Earth from ground level, even if the Earth is round.
-
Okay even if that was true, why ignore my piece of evidence? Either way you lose.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/news/03/17/zelda/z_screen002.jpg)
It looks to me like the image on the cover was clearly taken with a fish-eye lens. The amount of curvature is far more consistent with that than it is with the actual curvature we'd be able to observe of the Earth from ground level, even if the Earth is round.
If the world in TLoZ were actually as big as earth.
-
It looks to me like the image on the cover was clearly taken with a fish-eye lens. The amount of curvature is far more consistent with that than it is with the actual curvature we'd be able to observe of the Earth from ground level, even if the Earth is round.
Hahaha FE'rs starting to troll. That means we win right?
-
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
...all I see is flatness.
Try opening your eyes.
-
It looks to me like the image on the cover was clearly taken with a fish-eye lens. The amount of curvature is far more consistent with that than it is with the actual curvature we'd be able to observe of the Earth from ground level, even if the Earth is round.
Hahaha FE'rs starting to troll. That means we win right?
Roundy is not an FE'er. I encourage you to lurk moar.
-
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
If you actually made it to the credits, you would see the view is warped. Notice the clouds twist and distort and the camera view switches up to the sky to the The End message. In the very scene itself, all I see is flatness.
This is bordering on straight up denial. Let it go cover art clearly shows a round world. and the horizon would not be curved on a flat earth, it would be straight.
The people that make the cover art have nothing to do with those that program the game. Within the actual game the horizon is consistant with the FE philosophies the programmers were trying to convey. Therr is a slight curved horizon effect at the end because of everfything being warped.
-
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
If you actually made it to the credits, you would see the view is warped. Notice the clouds twist and distort and the camera view switches up to the sky to the The End message. In the very scene itself, all I see is flatness.
This is bordering on straight up denial. Let it go cover art clearly shows a round world. and the horizon would not be curved on a flat earth, it would be straight.
the horizon is consistant with the FE philosophies the programmers were trying to convey.
Or perhaps this is because the game takes place on a flat map?
The telescxope would be pretty useless if the earth curved downwards and you couldn't see anymore islands.
-
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
If you actually made it to the credits, you would see the view is warped. Notice the clouds twist and distort and the camera view switches up to the sky to the The End message. In the very scene itself, all I see is flatness.
This is bordering on straight up denial. Let it go cover art clearly shows a round world. and the horizon would not be curved on a flat earth, it would be straight.
The people that make the cover art have nothing to do with those that program the game. Within the actual game the horizon is consistant with the FE philosophies the programmers were trying to convey. Therr is a slight curved horizon effect at the end because of everfything being warped.
So what. The design team are the people who actually designed everything. These are the people who created the design for the cover art as well as told the programmers what the level design is. fail. They were not trying to show any FE philosophies. Let it go
-
I love how they dont understand how a team works
Concept -> Design -> Implementation
Its not like each group works completely exempt from the other groups, So good job.
If I make concept art about Zombies, the game is going to have zombies in it.
And if it is solely for the programmers sake, as we discussed before, making a flat map is much easier than making a curved map (which doesn't make sense because our perspective of the world on the surface is generally flat anyway).
And of course once the camera angle reaches a height that would actually determine whether or not curvature exists they call it a warped picture :).
Roundy is not an FE'er. I encourage you to lurk moar.
His name has Flat Earth Theorist, my apologies for misreading it, i guess it actually says Flat Earth Troll.
-
I love how they dont understand how a team works
Concept -> Design -> Implementation
Its not like each group works completely exempt from the other groups, So good job.
If I make concept art about Zombies, the game is going to have zombies in it.
And if it is solely for the programmers sake, as we discussed before, making a flat map is much easier than making a curved map (which doesn't make sense because our perspective of the world on the surface is generally flat anyway).
And of course once the camera angle reaches a height that would actually determine whether or not curvature exists they call it a warped picture :).
Roundy is not an FE'er. I encourage you to lurk moar.
His name has Flat Earth Theorist, my apologies for misreading it, i guess it actually says Flat Earth Troll.
I am a REer, and I am a Flat Earth Theorist. How is that a contradiction?
-
Someone who theorizes god exists usually believes in some sort of god. Someone who theorizes there is no god usually believes there is no god. My fault for the assumption but it doesnt really apply to this conversation any longer lol. All I'm saying is that coding a video game to appear spherical is completely unecessary
-
Believing in a round earth and theorizing about a flat one tends to create disingenuous arguments. You tend to just guess about how something could be explained, rather than do research to find out how it is most likely to be explained.
This is why I don't like arguing with FE devil's advocates such as yourself (Parsifal, EnglishGentleman and others), your "theories" do not accurately reflect FE beliefs most of the time.
-
Yeah that's the best part when they start contradicting one another and when the RE'r gets confused about their belief it obviously means the FE'r Bested him in pitched combat. So far I'd like to think were winning since no FE'r in this thread has any idea what they are talking about.
-
The World of Warcraft is another good example of a Flat Earth video game. I see no curvature no matter how high I go, even on the zepplins, and I never see any boats coming over the horizon while at sea.
The programmers also most likely believed in the infinite plane model as I have found no current boundary to the seas. You can proceed to go in any direction and you will find is more and more water.
-
The World of Warcraft is another good example of a Flat Earth video game. I see no curvature no matter how high I go, even on the zepplins, and I never see any boats coming over the horizon while at sea.
The programmers also most likely believed in the infinite plane model as I have found no current boundary to the seas. You can proceed to go in any direction and you will find is more and more water.
I doubt any zeppelin could reach an altitude where it was possible to visually discern curvature, which is at the very least 20000-30000 feet.
-
The World of Warcraft is another good example of a Flat Earth video game. I see no curvature no matter how high I go, even on the zepplins, and I never see any boats coming over the horizon while at sea.
The programmers also most likely believed in the infinite plane model as I have found no current boundary to the seas. You can proceed to go in any direction and you will find is more and more water.
Have you considered this is due to draw distance?also, once again this could be due to the fact that it is rendered on a flat plane.
-
Ichi still denying this the Zelda stuff, even though I proved him wrong in another thread is yet another reason why I believe he's a troll.
-
Ichi still denying this the Zelda stuff, even though I proved him wrong in another thread is yet another reason why I believe he's a troll.
When you actually prove something, then get in touch.
-
I'm sorry but I keep forgetting what a fantasy video game is supposed to prove about the shape of the earth. Would someone remind me, please?
-
I'm sorry but I keep forgetting what a fantasy video game is supposed to prove about the shape of the earth. Would someone remind me, please?
Sure, it proves that the REers are so dominating the argument in reality that the FEers are seeking refuge in fantasy. :)
-
I'm sorry but I keep forgetting what a fantasy video game is supposed to prove about the shape of the earth. Would someone remind me, please?
The game has nothing to do with proof/disproof of the earth's shape. Please read the entire thread.
-
The game has nothing to do with proof/disproof of the earth's shape.
Then you guys have been arguing for 13 pages for no reason whatsoever? OK, carry on.
Please read the entire thread.
No thanks, you just told me everything that I need to know about this thread.
-
I'm sorry but I keep forgetting what a fantasy video game is supposed to prove about the shape of the earth. Would someone remind me, please?
The game has nothing to do with proof/disproof of the earth's shape. Please read the entire thread.
It's hard to prove anything to you when you insist that "earth" is the same as "Earth". It is however straight out denial from you when I show you a picture depicting a RE in the Zelda universe.
-
The game has nothing to do with proof/disproof of the earth's shape.
Then you guys have been arguing for 13 pages for no reason whatsoever? OK, carry on.
Please read the entire thread.
No thanks, you just told me everything that I need to know about this thread.
At least read the OP then.
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
Because I'll promise to make you a markjo Trading card if you do? :D
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
It shows people out there DO believe and insert a small amount of FEB ideas into pop culture. FET is around us more than one would initially realize.
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
It shows people out there DO believe and insert a small amount of FEB ideas into pop culture. FET is around us more than one would initially realize.
It does nothing of the sort. It shows that programming a flat gaming area is easier than accounting for curvature.
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
It shows people out there DO believe and insert a small amount of FEB ideas into pop culture. FET is around us more than one would initially realize.
It does nothing of the sort. It shows that programming a flat gaming area is easier than accounting for curvature.
It would be much easier to program the Windwaker without the perspective effect, but that didn't stop them ::)
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
It shows people out there DO believe and insert a small amount of FEB ideas into pop culture. FET is around us more than one would initially realize.
It does nothing of the sort. It shows that programming a flat gaming area is easier than accounting for curvature.
It would be much easier to program the Windwaker without the perspective effect, but that didn't stop them ::)
That’s a poor argument. They could have added all the details of Daniel’s flat, but they didn’t do that. What’s in the game was a business decision, a cost benefit analysis. How many more units would they have sold by adding the subtle RE correction to the simulation? I’d say none.
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
It shows people out there DO believe and insert a small amount of FEB ideas into pop culture. FET is around us more than one would initially realize.
No it proves that you look too much into things.
-
Just so we're clear, Are you claiming that the designers of the game (and the others you mentioned in the thread) purposefully designed it specifically so that the world would appear flat?
-
Just so we're clear, Are you claiming that the designers of the game (and the others you mentioned in the thread) purposefully designed it specifically so that the world would appear flat?
What he's trying to say is that the fact that some video game worlds appear flat is proof that some video game designers believe in a flat Earth. It's a pretty outlandish and stupid claim, but that's what he's saying.
-
At least read the OP then.
If this game has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, then why should I (or anyone else) care?
It shows people out there DO believe and insert a small amount of FEB ideas into pop culture. FET is around us more than one would initially realize.
It does nothing of the sort. It shows that programming a flat gaming area is easier than accounting for curvature.
It would be much easier to program the Windwaker without the perspective effect, but that didn't stop them ::)
That’s a poor argument. They could have added all the details of Daniel’s flat, but they didn’t do that. What’s in the game was a business decision, a cost benefit analysis. How many more units would they have sold by adding the subtle RE correction to the simulation? I’d say none.
Actually fog effect loading would be bounds easier to program and much cheaper than including the perspective effect
-
Is it safe to say that Will Wright, EA and Maxis are all safe from the crazy FET?
-
Did anyone in the 13 pages mention super Mario Galaxy I & II? They show a round planet universe, among other things.
-
Did anyone in the 13 pages mention super Mario Galaxy I & II? They show a round planet universe, among other things.
Yes, and Spore too.
-
Did anyone in the 13 pages mention super Mario Galaxy I & II? They show a round planet universe, among other things.
Yes, and Spore too.
Did anyone ever claim that there is a counter-conspiracy group programming every single video game?
-
Did anyone in the 13 pages mention super Mario Galaxy I & II? They show a round planet universe, among other things.
Yes, and Spore too.
Did anyone ever claim that there is a counter-conspiracy group programming every single video game?
That would be a silly thing to suggest. lol
-
Did anyone in the 13 pages mention super Mario Galaxy I & II? They show a round planet universe, among other things.
Yes, and Spore too.
Did anyone ever claim that there is a counter-conspiracy group programming every single video game?
That would be a silly thing to suggest. lol
My point. Nobody made such a claim so it is irrelevant to point out games that depict a RE.
-
So games that depict a FE are proof that there are video game designers that believe in FE, but video games the depict a RE prove nothing.
-
So games that depict a FE are proof that there are video game designers that believe in FE, but video games the depict a RE prove nothing.
??? Who's saying anything about RE games?
-
So games that depict a FE are proof that there are video game designers that believe in FE, but video games the depict a RE prove nothing.
??? Who's saying anything about RE games?
EG did, look up.
-
Actually fog effect loading would be bounds easier to program and much cheaper than including the perspective effect
??? Perspective is a fundamental element that would need to be built into any 3d rendering engine ever made. Fog is nice, but is not necessary and is computationally quite expensive (which is why it's usually off loaded to the GPU).
-
Actually fog effect loading would be bounds easier to program and much cheaper than including the perspective effect
Fog is nice, but is not necessary and is computationally quite expensive (which is why it's usually off loaded to the GPU).
Restoring abilities through the telescope is much more wasteful than any fading scheme or fog effect (even though latter two are not present in the game).
-
Actually fog effect loading would be bounds easier to program and much cheaper than including the perspective effect
Fog is nice, but is not necessary and is computationally quite expensive (which is why it's usually off loaded to the GPU).
Have you read the OP ???
Yes, and I don't see any analysis of the programming complexity or computational requirements of fog effects vs. perspective effects.
-
Just so we're clear, Are you claiming that the designers of the game (and the others you mentioned in the thread) purposefully designed it specifically so that the world would appear flat?
-
I'm a game designer. Anyone who thinks that this is a sign of some flat Earth-believing game designers is just grabbing for straws. There are three major reasons why a video game world appears to be flat.
1. The game world does not correspond to the real world. As far as you know, Wind Waker takes place on an infinitely large sphere. Or on a cube. Especially in aesthetically simple games like Wind Waker, adherence to reality is not only unnecessary, but usually avoided.
2. It's simpler. Even in basic terms. To draw a quadrilateral, you need four vertices, which create four lines and one face. To make even the simplest possible hemisphere, half of an 8-sided die, you need five vertices, creating eight lines and four faces. A moderately nice looking hemisphere at that scale requires hundreds of vertices to look acceptable. And if you only wanted to render a curved horizon, that would be even more work, as you would have to distort a plane after it has already been rendered. In short, it's easier for everyone if you just have a quad.
3. Gravity. In games, gravity works by increasing the vertical velocity of things in the down direction. In a flat world, gravity always exists in the same direction. In a round world, gravity points towards the center of the mass. When you have variable gravity, you will end up with variable collision. Zelda floor collision is very simple. You are either touching ground or you aren't. To make it acceptable in 'round' terms, you would need to rework your collision engine to make the character conform to the rounded terrain. This goes back to the 'it's simpler' point. There's just no need to put all that extra work into making the game round.
-
I'm a game designer. Anyone who thinks that this is a sign of some flat Earth-believing game designers is just grabbing for straws. There are three major reasons why a video game world appears to be flat.
1. The game world does not correspond to the real world. As far as you know, Wind Waker takes place on an infinitely large sphere. Or on a cube. Especially in aesthetically simple games like Wind Waker, adherence to reality is not only unnecessary, but usually avoided.
2. It's simpler. Even in basic terms. To draw a quadrilateral, you need four vertices, which create four lines and one face. To make even the simplest possible hemisphere, half of an 8-sided die, you need five vertices, creating eight lines and four faces. A moderately nice looking hemisphere at that scale requires hundreds of vertices to look acceptable. And if you only wanted to render a curved horizon, that would be even more work, as you would have to distort a plane after it has already been rendered. In short, it's easier for everyone if you just have a quad.
3. Gravity. In games, gravity works by increasing the vertical velocity of things in the down direction. In a flat world, gravity always exists in the same direction. In a round world, gravity points towards the center of the mass. When you have variable gravity, you will end up with variable collision. Zelda floor collision is very simple. You are either touching ground or you aren't. To make it acceptable in 'round' terms, you would need to rework your collision engine to make the character conform to the rounded terrain. This goes back to the 'it's simpler' point. There's just no need to put all that extra work into making the game round.
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
-
I'm a game designer. Anyone who thinks that this is a sign of some flat Earth-believing game designers is just grabbing for straws. There are three major reasons why a video game world appears to be flat.
1. The game world does not correspond to the real world. As far as you know, Wind Waker takes place on an infinitely large sphere. Or on a cube. Especially in aesthetically simple games like Wind Waker, adherence to reality is not only unnecessary, but usually avoided.
2. It's simpler. Even in basic terms. To draw a quadrilateral, you need four vertices, which create four lines and one face. To make even the simplest possible hemisphere, half of an 8-sided die, you need five vertices, creating eight lines and four faces. A moderately nice looking hemisphere at that scale requires hundreds of vertices to look acceptable. And if you only wanted to render a curved horizon, that would be even more work, as you would have to distort a plane after it has already been rendered. In short, it's easier for everyone if you just have a quad.
3. Gravity. In games, gravity works by increasing the vertical velocity of things in the down direction. In a flat world, gravity always exists in the same direction. In a round world, gravity points towards the center of the mass. When you have variable gravity, you will end up with variable collision. Zelda floor collision is very simple. You are either touching ground or you aren't. To make it acceptable in 'round' terms, you would need to rework your collision engine to make the character conform to the rounded terrain. This goes back to the 'it's simpler' point. There's just no need to put all that extra work into making the game round.
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
If there are multiple reasons, then that means only one of them can be an actual reason? What kind of insane logic is that? If I give you two vectors and ask you to prove they're equal, you need to prove that both the magnitudes and the directions are equal. If you only prove one, that doesn't prove anything. And in an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else, games are still being run on systems with limited memory. That means you cut corners when you can. It's why you don't draw things when they aren't in view, even though objects exist even when you don't look at them. It's why game designers do a lot of things.
-
Actually fog effect loading would be bounds easier to program and much cheaper than including the perspective effect
Fog is nice, but is not necessary and is computationally quite expensive (which is why it's usually off loaded to the GPU).
Have you read the OP ???
Yes, and I don't see any analysis of the programming complexity or computational requirements of fog effects vs. perspective effects.
Did you play video games during the PS1/N64 era?
-
Actually fog effect loading would be bounds easier to program and much cheaper than including the perspective effect
Fog is nice, but is not necessary and is computationally quite expensive (which is why it's usually off loaded to the GPU).
Have you read the OP ???
Yes, and I don't see any analysis of the programming complexity or computational requirements of fog effects vs. perspective effects.
Did you play video games during the PS1/N64 era?
Did you play video games during the Atari 2600 era? Game programmers are always looking for shortcuts and optimizations to enhance game performance on systems with limited resources.
-
I'm a game designer. Anyone who thinks that this is a sign of some flat Earth-believing game designers is just grabbing for straws. There are three major reasons why a video game world appears to be flat.
1. The game world does not correspond to the real world. As far as you know, Wind Waker takes place on an infinitely large sphere. Or on a cube. Especially in aesthetically simple games like Wind Waker, adherence to reality is not only unnecessary, but usually avoided.
2. It's simpler. Even in basic terms. To draw a quadrilateral, you need four vertices, which create four lines and one face. To make even the simplest possible hemisphere, half of an 8-sided die, you need five vertices, creating eight lines and four faces. A moderately nice looking hemisphere at that scale requires hundreds of vertices to look acceptable. And if you only wanted to render a curved horizon, that would be even more work, as you would have to distort a plane after it has already been rendered. In short, it's easier for everyone if you just have a quad.
3. Gravity. In games, gravity works by increasing the vertical velocity of things in the down direction. In a flat world, gravity always exists in the same direction. In a round world, gravity points towards the center of the mass. When you have variable gravity, you will end up with variable collision. Zelda floor collision is very simple. You are either touching ground or you aren't. To make it acceptable in 'round' terms, you would need to rework your collision engine to make the character conform to the rounded terrain. This goes back to the 'it's simpler' point. There's just no need to put all that extra work into making the game round.
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
Elaborate.
-
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
Because Zelda looks realistic, has a realistic storyline and realistic colours amirite.
Do you actually think before posting? Call of duty for instance is one of the most popular games at this very moment, it is however far from realistic. Sims on the other hand are far less popular although their degree of realism is higher (think il2, silent hunter arma etc.). So apparently realism is not "prized above everything else" in this age.
But I see what you did there (well, attempted anyway)
-
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
Because Zelda looks realistic,
I'm stopping right there. If you think Zelda looks realistic, then this debate can clearly not continue.
(http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://64tacos.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/thelegendofzelda-thewindwaker_01.jpg&sa=X&ei=6LMsTP2XA9PjnAeFkK30Ag&ved=0CAQQ8wc4AQ&usg=AFQjCNHcWI-Wi9WMsBtd2Xos8uJcVQQjUg)
That looks nothing like reality.
-
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
Because Zelda looks realistic,
I'm stopping right there. If you think Zelda looks realistic, then this debate can clearly not continue.
That looks nothing like reality.
Wow, did you misplace your glasses? www.rif.org
That was my point you silly person, something you would have realized if you had read on.
-
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
Because Zelda looks realistic,
I'm stopping right there. If you think Zelda looks realistic, then this debate can clearly not continue.
That looks nothing like reality.
Wow, did you misplace your glasses? www.rif.org
That was my point you silly person, something you would have realized if you had read on.
Then maybe you have your point mixed up. Call of Duty is far more realistic then the Sims.
-
That depends on how you look at the two games. CoD(MW2) is far from being realistic if you look at the real war. Sims, however, is more true to the everyday life but obviously kept at entertainment value and the technological possibilities.
-
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
Because Zelda looks realistic,
I'm stopping right there. If you think Zelda looks realistic, then this debate can clearly not continue.
That looks nothing like reality.
Wow, did you misplace your glasses? www.rif.org
That was my point you silly person, something you would have realized if you had read on.
Then maybe you have your point mixed up. Call of Duty is far more realistic then the Sims.
www.rif.org
Not "The Sims" as in the game in which you take control of people and get to build houses from top down. I mean sims as in simulations, something you would have understood if you would have read on (something I told you to do in my previous post). So before being silly again read my whole post, or don't bother replying to it.
If you then still believe CoD, a game in which you shit out a grenade after you die, a game in which the US marines are using 19th century shotties, a game in which shooting 2 p90's at the same while running and still hitting your target is normal, a game in which both marines and insurgents can "take control" of an ac130. If you then still believe that CoD is more realistic than a game like ArmA, all hope is lost.
(to make it clear, I am saying ArmA is more realistic than CoD, not that it is life-like realistic)
EDIT: I would also like to point out that you have once again derailed the discussion thanks to you not reading, or not understanding that which you have read.
-
If you're right, you shouldn't have to throw out three reasons that you're right. Only one of them (if any) can be the actual reason video games are rendered flat. In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me.
But I think I see what you are doing, comrade. ;)
Because Zelda looks realistic,
I'm stopping right there. If you think Zelda looks realistic, then this debate can clearly not continue.
That looks nothing like reality.
Wow, did you misplace your glasses? www.rif.org
That was my point you silly person, something you would have realized if you had read on.
Then maybe you have your point mixed up. Call of Duty is far more realistic then the Sims.
www.rif.org
Not "The Sims" as in the game in which you take control of people and get to build houses from top down. I mean sims as in simulations, something you would have understood if you would have read on (something I told you to do in my previous post). So before being silly again read my whole post, or don't bother replying to it.
If you then still believe CoD, a game in which you shit out a grenade after you die, a game in which the US marines are using 19th century shotties, a game in which shooting 2 p90's at the same while running and still hitting your target is normal, a game in which both marines and insurgents can "take control" of an ac130. If you then still believe that CoD is more realistic than a game like ArmA, all hope is lost.
(to make it clear, I am saying ArmA is more realistic than CoD, not that it is life-like realistic)
You did not at any point specify what type of realism is you were talking about. I took it you meant realistic as in visually realistic as that would fit in the context of the thread.
-
I think you two are talking past each other :-\
-
I think you two are talking past each other :-\
Which is no surprise as he is replying after only half-reading everything.
@Gentleman:
My first reply was to Truthiness who said the following:
"In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me."
I showed him is premises ("an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else") were false and that therefor his conclusion ("these look like weak justifications to me") is wrong.
Now please refrain from replying again untill you have read everything I said along with all quotations etc..
www.rif.org
-
I think you two are talking past each other :-\
Which is no surprise as he is replying after only half-reading everything.
@Gentleman:
My first reply was to Truthiness who said the following:
"In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me."
I showed him is premises ("an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else") were false and that therefor his conclusion ("these look like weak justifications to me") is wrong.
Now please refrain from replying again untill you have read everything I said along with all quotations etc..
www.rif.org
You did no such thing.
Because Zelda looks realistic, has a realistic storyline and realistic colours amirite.
Do you actually think before posting? Call of duty for instance is one of the most popular games at this very moment, it is however far from realistic. Sims on the other hand are far less popular although their degree of realism is higher (think il2, silent hunter arma etc.). So apparently realism is not "prized above everything else" in this age.
But I see what you did there (well, attempted anyway)
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)
-
I think you two are talking past each other :-\
Which is no surprise as he is replying after only half-reading everything.
@Gentleman:
My first reply was to Truthiness who said the following:
"In an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else these look like weak justifications to me."
I showed him is premises ("an age when realism in games is held as prized above anything else") were false and that therefor his conclusion ("these look like weak justifications to me") is wrong.
Now please refrain from replying again untill you have read everything I said along with all quotations etc..
www.rif.org
You did no such thing.
Because Zelda looks realistic, has a realistic storyline and realistic colours amirite.
Do you actually think before posting? Call of duty for instance is one of the most popular games at this very moment, it is however far from realistic. Sims on the other hand are far less popular although their degree of realism is higher (think il2, silent hunter arma etc.). So apparently realism is not "prized above everything else" in this age.
But I see what you did there (well, attempted anyway)
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)
Roundy said realism in games is prized over everything else, I showed him that is not true. You are reading and seeing things you want to read and see.
Btw, call of duty is far from visually realistic, if you think that is what war looks like you have been watching too much Hollywood. Sure, it's a fun game with cool effects and it sure does look stunning, it is however far from loking realistic. But again, that isn't the point, the point is that realsim=/=most prized in games.
-
Fun game, can I play too? www.rif.org
I'll ask this yet again:
Just so we're clear, Are you claiming that the designers of the game (and the others you mentioned in the thread) purposefully designed it specifically so that the world would appear flat?
-
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
Except curves don't exist in video games.
-
ONLY THE POLYGONS.
-
ONLY THE POLYGONS.
Exactly.
-
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
Except curves don't exist in video games.
Irrelevant. If the polygons are small enough, you would not be able to tell the difference between a curve and a series of lines.
-
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
Except curves don't exist in video games.
Irrelevant. If the polygons are small enough, you would not be able to tell the difference between a curve and a series of lines.
Right, but this goes back to my point: What's easier to render, a plane, or a series of lines in such quantity that it looks like a curve?
-
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
Except curves don't exist in video games.
Irrelevant. If the polygons are small enough, you would not be able to tell the difference between a curve and a series of lines.
Right, but this goes back to my point: What's easier to render, a plane, or a series of lines in such quantity that it looks like a curve?
If video game creators only cared about making games with the least amount of effort we would still be playing pong.
-
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
Except curves don't exist in video games.
Irrelevant. If the polygons are small enough, you would not be able to tell the difference between a curve and a series of lines.
Right, but this goes back to my point: What's easier to render, a plane, or a series of lines in such quantity that it looks like a curve?
If video game creators only cared about making games with the least amount of effort we would still be playing pong.
There's a difference between developer effort and processor effort. It's simple enough to model. But at any rate, there's also a difference between minimal effort and cutting an irrelevant corner. Something called optimization.
-
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
Except curves don't exist in video games.
Irrelevant. If the polygons are small enough, you would not be able to tell the difference between a curve and a series of lines.
Right, but this goes back to my point: What's easier to render, a plane, or a series of lines in such quantity that it looks like a curve?
If video game creators only cared about making games with the least amount of effort we would still be playing pong.
Oh really? I think that video game creators care about making money with the least ammount of effort, so you are wrong. Pong doesn't make money because people always want more, better, etc. Video game makers want to make games as cheap as possible and sell them as expensive as possible.
Again I will give the example of CoD; it now has DLC which includes maps from the older CoD. So people are paying money to the video game makers, whereas the video game makers only had to port the map from game 1 to game 2.
-
All you did was through in a strawman argument. Call of Duty as far as video games go is extremely visually realistic and that is exactly what Roundy was talking about.
Except curves don't exist in video games.
Irrelevant. If the polygons are small enough, you would not be able to tell the difference between a curve and a series of lines.
Right, but this goes back to my point: What's easier to render, a plane, or a series of lines in such quantity that it looks like a curve?
If video game creators only cared about making games with the least amount of effort we would still be playing pong.
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/06/14/pong-ps3-psp-leaked/
Does your foot live in your mouth or is it just a vacation home?
-
wow this thread is still going on? srlsy English Gent, u must answer GD's question.
A normal person would think that the games are flat due to programming it simply, as the curve is extremely subtle.
Do you think that they are einstein haters for not including the curvature of spacetime into their work? surley a bullet travelling nearly instantaneously on CoD would have some weird effects when you go into the kill cam
-
Btw, how many games actually have the scale in which it is even neccessary to add curvature to the earth? I can only think of flight sims...
The question at hand: There are games that DO add curvature to the game, silent hunter 3, 4 and 5 all show smoke beyond the horizon. Now you can argue with the whole perspective thing, but the devs added this feature because they believe the earth is round. So you see, there ARE game devs who think the earth is round.
-
Who said that every game developer is in on the counter conspiracy movement? ???
-
SquareSoft are part of a conspiracy! Final Fantasy VII has an airship in, in which you can fly around the world! And the Planet's viewed from space, and it's round! SquareSoft/Enix is run by NASA!
-
SquareSoft are part of a conspiracy! Final Fantasy VII has an airship in, in which you can fly around the world! And the Planet's viewed from space, and it's round! SquareSoft/Enix is run by NASA!
Welcome to many pages ago.
-
SquareSoft are part of a conspiracy! Final Fantasy VII has an airship in, in which you can fly around the world! And the Planet's viewed from space, and it's round! SquareSoft/Enix is run by NASA!
Welcome to many pages ago.
Meh, I'm not reading all 15.
-
I want a Zelda tattoo.
-
This game I must say is great but I think it does not tackle about Flat Earth, I think most of the RPG games availalble has the same concept. thanks anyway.
-
I'm currently playing Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass. I'll let you know how round/flat the world is.
-
I'm currently playing Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass. I'll let you know how round/flat the world is.
I am excited to hear your results.
-
I'm currently playing Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass. I'll let you know how round/flat the world is.
I am excited to hear your results.
I have a team of scientists on it now.
-
Dig Dug is another example of a Flat Earth video game. Note how there is no curvature in the Earth, and it is depicted as a 2d cylinder.
(http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/dig_dug.jpg)
-
Dig Dug is another example of a Flat Earth video game. Note how there is no curvature in the Earth, and it is depicted as a 2d cylinder.
(http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/dig_dug.jpg)
You mean a rectangle?
-
Nope. A cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
-
Nope. I cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
He wasn't talking about the tunnels,he mean't the whole thing.
Which is box shaped.
-
Nope. I cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
He wasn't talking about the tunnels,he mean't the whole thing.
Which is box shaped.
Likes like a 2d cylinder to me. The fact that all the tunnels are are dug as cylinders lead me to believe the whole thing is one. Otherwise you would be digging boxes.
-
Nope. I cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
He wasn't talking about the tunnels,he mean't the whole thing.
Which is box shaped.
Likes like a 2d cylinder to me. The fact that all the tunnels are are dug as cylinders lead me to believe the whole thing is one. Otherwise you would be digging boxes.
Umm.. There is no such thing as a 2d cylinder.
-
Nope. I cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
He wasn't talking about the tunnels,he mean't the whole thing.
Which is box shaped.
Likes like a 2d cylinder to me. The fact that all the tunnels are are dug as cylinders lead me to believe the whole thing is one. Otherwise you would be digging boxes.
Umm.. There is no such thing as a 2d cylinder.
Incorrect.
-
Nope. I cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
He wasn't talking about the tunnels,he mean't the whole thing.
Which is box shaped.
Likes like a 2d cylinder to me. The fact that all the tunnels are are dug as cylinders lead me to believe the whole thing is one. Otherwise you would be digging boxes.
Umm.. There is no such thing as a 2d cylinder.
Incorrect.
Then no doubt you can show me one.
From wikipedia: in geometry, a three-dimensional geometric shape - see Cylinder (geometry)
-
Nope. I cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
He wasn't talking about the tunnels,he mean't the whole thing.
Which is box shaped.
Likes like a 2d cylinder to me. The fact that all the tunnels are are dug as cylinders lead me to believe the whole thing is one. Otherwise you would be digging boxes.
What makes you think its a 2D cylinder?the ground doesn't appear to curve at the sides.
So if i dug a Rectangular hole,does that mean the earth i shaped as a cube?
-
Did anyone in the 13 pages mention super Mario Galaxy I & II? They show a round planet universe, among other things.
But they also show a lot of flat planets.
-
Nope. I cylinder. Note how all the tunnels are dug as cylinders, not rectangles.
He wasn't talking about the tunnels,he mean't the whole thing.
Which is box shaped.
Likes like a 2d cylinder to me. The fact that all the tunnels are are dug as cylinders lead me to believe the whole thing is one. Otherwise you would be digging boxes.
because the shape of a whole is definitly the shape of the entire planet right?
seriously, this thread belongs in RM now
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
So what does the dotted line represent to you?
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
So what does the dotted line represent to you?
The hypothetical edge that would be visible if the cylinder were 3d, but isn't due to it being presented in a 2d environment. Have you never seen it before?
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
So what does the dotted line represent to you?
The hypothetical edge that would be visible if the cylinder were 3d, but isn't due to it being presented in a 2d environment. Have you never seen it before?
It's a representation of a cylinder in 2d, it is however not a true cylinder. The picture just shows us 2 lines and 2 ellipses.
-
Why is this thread going on after i proved that the devs believed in round Earth.... I got banned for about 2 weeks for some reason but i figured this thread would be locked, but i guess FE's like to ignore RE's
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
Sorry, that is a 2d rendering of a 3d object.
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
Sorry, that is a 2d rendering of a 3d object.
Yes.
-
Which means that you haven't shown us a cylinder.
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
Sorry, that is a 2d rendering of a 3d object.
Yep, just as the 2d world of dig dug is actually a 3d cylinder. Nice to see you are catching on.
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
Sorry, that is a 2d rendering of a 3d object.
Yep, just as the 2d world of dig dug is actually a 3d cylinder. Nice to see you are catching on.
No ellipses in dig dug :( it just shows rectangles.
-
Then no doubt you can show me one.
Yes.
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41702/FC_Cylinder_41702_lg.gif)
Sorry, that is a 2d rendering of a 3d object.
Yep, just as the 2d world of dig dug is actually a 3d cylinder. Nice to see you are catching on.
No ellipses in dig dug :( it just shows rectangles.
^ That shows a view slightly above the cylinder.
Dig dug is from a frontal view.
-
Prove it.
-
Prove it.
Easy!
No ellipses visible:
(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1797/100712022357.jpg)
One ellipsis clearly visible:
(http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9180/100712022541.jpg)
-
Prove it.
Easy!
No ellipses visible:
(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1797/100712022357.jpg)
Slight ellipse, for you get the idea.
-
I can do the same with a rectangular box, it merely shows that one can't make a conclusion on wether dig dug is digging cylinders or rectangles.
-
Slight ellipse, for you get the idea.
Well, yeah, but that's because I didn't level my hand perfectly with the cylinder. Anyway, that's perfectly consistent with the game's screenshot.
-
I can do the same with a rectangular box, it merely shows that one can't make a conclusion on whether dig dug is digging cylinders or rectangles.
I think it's pretty clear he is digging cylinders. ::) Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
-
Slight ellipse, for you get the idea.
Well, yeah, but that's because I didn't level my hand perfectly with the cylinder. Anyway, that's perfectly consistent with the game's screenshot.
Wrong, doesn't matter how level your hand is, without photoshop either the top or bottom (or both) of your TP will appear curved.
-
Slight ellipse, for you get the idea.
Well, yeah, but that's because I didn't level my hand perfectly with the cylinder. Anyway, that's perfectly consistent with the game's screenshot.
Wrong, doesn't matter how level your hand is, without photoshop either the top or bottom (or both) of your TP will appear curved.
Like how the tops and bottoms of the holes in Dig Dug appear?
-
Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
Wrong, curvature=/=ellipse. I can have a box which is rounded on its corners.
-
Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
Wrong, curvature=/=ellipse. I can have a box which is rounded on its corners.
Sure. Of course, such a box wouldn't be a rectangle.
-
Slight ellipse, for you get the idea.
Well, yeah, but that's because I didn't level my hand perfectly with the cylinder. Anyway, that's perfectly consistent with the game's screenshot.
Wrong, doesn't matter how level your hand is, without photoshop either the top or bottom (or both) of your TP will appear curved.
Like how the tops and bottoms of the holes in Dig Dug appear?
Indeed, but you seem to be under the illusion that this is mutually exclusive with rectangles with rounded edges
-
Raver: are you implying that the Earth is two-dimensional?
-
Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
Wrong, curvature=/=ellipse. I can have a box which is rounded on its corners.
Sure. Of course, such a box wouldn't be a rectangle.
Nor a cylinder, I am not trying to say that dig dug is digging any particulair form. I am trying to say that one can not make a conclusion on what form he is digging based on the 2d rendering. It could be cylindrical, but it need not be.
-
Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
Wrong, curvature=/=ellipse. I can have a box which is rounded on its corners.
Sure. Of course, such a box wouldn't be a rectangle.
Nor a cylinder, I am not trying to say that dig dug is digging any particulair form. I am trying to say that one can not make a conclusion on what form he is digging based on the 2d rendering. It could be cylindrical, but it need not be.
So you're just being pedantic?
-
Dig dug's world could quite easily be a cylinder from a perfectly frontal view so you wouldn't see any curves. Dig Dug would also then be digging at a slight angle (so he can climb out of his holes) which make his holes appear to be cylinders. We just can't tell because it is 2d.
-
Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
Wrong, curvature=/=ellipse. I can have a box which is rounded on its corners.
Sure. Of course, such a box wouldn't be a rectangle.
Nor a cylinder, I am not trying to say that dig dug is digging any particulair form. I am trying to say that one can not make a conclusion on what form he is digging based on the 2d rendering. It could be cylindrical, but it need not be.
So you're just being pedantic?
What, like you with your post about rectangles not having rounded edges which you deleted before this post (very clever indeed)? Besides that it isn't pedantic when EngGent is trying to say it is cylindrical.
-
Dig dug's world could quite easily be a cylinder from a perfectly frontal view so you wouldn't see any curves. Dig Dug would also then be digging at a slight angle (so he can climb out of his holes) which make his holes appear to be cylinders. We just can't tell because it is 2d.
Kind of my point.......
-
Dig dug's world could quite easily be a cylinder from a perfectly frontal view so you wouldn't see any curves. Dig Dug would also then be digging at a slight angle (so he can climb out of his holes) which make his holes appear to be cylinders. We just can't tell because it is 2d.
Kind of my point.......
So you admit Dig Dug is a FE video game? :D
-
Dig dug's world could quite easily be a cylinder from a perfectly frontal view so you wouldn't see any curves. Dig Dug would also then be digging at a slight angle (so he can climb out of his holes) which make his holes appear to be cylinders. We just can't tell because it is 2d.
Kind of my point.......
So you admit Dig Dug is a FE video game? :D
No I admit that we..."just can't tell because it is 2d".
-
Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
Wrong, curvature=/=ellipse. I can have a box which is rounded on its corners.
Sure. Of course, such a box wouldn't be a rectangle.
Nor a cylinder, I am not trying to say that dig dug is digging any particulair form. I am trying to say that one can not make a conclusion on what form he is digging based on the 2d rendering. It could be cylindrical, but it need not be.
So you're just being pedantic?
What, like you with your post about rectangles not having rounded edges which you deleted before this post (very clever indeed)? Besides that it isn't pedantic when EngGent is trying to say it is cylindrical.
I'm not sure where you think I was being clever, as I was really just restating what I said in an earlier post. I only deleted it because I decided to respond directly to the post you made after I was done. Anyway, I think we should all be able to agree that the most likely shape being dug in Dig Dug is a cylinder. Why is the actual shape so important? To argue such a thing when it has no bearing on the discussion can only be described as pointless pedantry.
-
Note on you can see the ellipses on them.
Wrong, curvature=/=ellipse. I can have a box which is rounded on its corners.
Sure. Of course, such a box wouldn't be a rectangle.
Nor a cylinder, I am not trying to say that dig dug is digging any particulair form. I am trying to say that one can not make a conclusion on what form he is digging based on the 2d rendering. It could be cylindrical, but it need not be.
So you're just being pedantic?
What, like you with your post about rectangles not having rounded edges which you deleted before this post (very clever indeed)? Besides that it isn't pedantic when EngGent is trying to say it is cylindrical.
I'm not sure where you think I was being clever, as I was really just restating what I said in an earlier post. I only deleted it because I decided to respond directly to the post you made after I was done. Anyway, I think we should all be able to agree that the most likely shape being dug in Dig Dug is a cylinder. Why is the actual shape so important? To argue such a thing when it has no bearing on the discussion can only be described as pointless pedantry.
Well then this whole thread is pointless pedantry, as this whole thread is about geometry in games and how it proves or disporves them as being FE or RE "loyal"....
My remark about you being clever was referring to you deleting a post in which you was being as pedantic as I was in the post you qouted me on. As in; "Before I criticize someone on being pedantic I better delete my own pedantic posts."
-
My remark about you being clever was referring to you deleting a post in which you was being as pedantic as I was in the post you qouted me on. As in; "Before I criticize someone on being pedantic I better delete my own pedantic posts."
I don't see how it's pedantic to point out that you're incorrect about rectangles since that's the crux of your argument. And honestly, that had nothing to do with why I deleted the post. I just thought that with the responses that came up it wasn't necessary.
-
My remark about you being clever was referring to you deleting a post in which you was being as pedantic as I was in the post you qouted me on. As in; "Before I criticize someone on being pedantic I better delete my own pedantic posts."
I don't see how it's pedantic to point out that you're incorrect about rectangles since that's the crux of your argument. And honestly, that had nothing to do with why I deleted the post. I just thought that with the responses that came up it wasn't necessary.
Then I don't see how it is pedantic to point out that in dig and dug the tunnels could be cylinders but need not be, in other words you can't make a conclusion about the shape of the tunnels as it was the crux of my argument. My apologies for misunderstanding the post deletion though.
-
Joust is another fine example of a Flat Earth Video game. Note how in the lava, there is absolutely zero opposite side. This agrees with my old school theory that the Flat Earth works similar to a flat toroid in which the sides are attached while still existing on a 2d plane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Joustarcadegame.png)
-
Joust is another fine example of a Flat Earth Video game. Note how in the lava, there is absolutely zero opposite side. This agrees with my old school theory that the Flat Earth works similar to a flat toroid in which the sides are attached while still existing on a 2d plane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Joustarcadegame.png)
The Mobius Band-shaped Earth Society!
-
Joust is another fine example of a Flat Earth Video game. Note how in the lava, there is absolutely zero opposite side. This agrees with my old school theory that the Flat Earth works similar to a flat toroid in which the sides are attached while still existing on a 2d plane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Joustarcadegame.png)
Not far enough away to show curvature.
-
Joust is another fine example of a Flat Earth Video game. Note how in the lava, there is absolutely zero opposite side. This agrees with my old school theory that the Flat Earth works similar to a flat toroid in which the sides are attached while still existing on a 2d plane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Joustarcadegame.png)
The Mobius Band-shaped Earth Society!
:) You get the idea! In this model there is no ice wall, when a plane flies off one side of the Earth, it just reappears on the opposite side.
-
This thread belongs in RM now.
could make a game where the earth is shaped like Santa, but that wouldn't prove anything either
-
Joust is another fine example of a Flat Earth Video game. Note how in the lava, there is absolutely zero opposite side. This agrees with my old school theory that the Flat Earth works similar to a flat toroid in which the sides are attached while still existing on a 2d plane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Joustarcadegame.png)
We've already discussed video games and the irrelevancy of the game structure having any bearing on the developers beliefs of the Earth, why do you continue to discuss what has already been proven false?
In case you forgot about how you were proven wrong. I have made a basic video game, allowing the character to move buy items fight etc. It was on a flat plane because it was the easiest to code, i still believe in a round earth. Your argument is invalid.
-
This thread belongs in RM now.
could make a game where the earth is shaped like Santa, but that wouldn't prove anything either
Please do. Not for the sake of the argument, but just because it would be purely awesome.
-
Joust is another fine example of a Flat Earth Video game. Note how in the lava, there is absolutely zero opposite side. This agrees with my old school theory that the Flat Earth works similar to a flat toroid in which the sides are attached while still existing on a 2d plane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Joustarcadegame.png)
I have made a basic video game, allowing the character to move buy items fight etc. It was on a flat plane because it was the easiest to code, i still believe in a round earth. Your argument is invalid.
Evidence of your video game? And did YOU make it, or did you use someone else's game generator?
-
Joust is another fine example of a Flat Earth Video game. Note how in the lava, there is absolutely zero opposite side. This agrees with my old school theory that the Flat Earth works similar to a flat toroid in which the sides are attached while still existing on a 2d plane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Joustarcadegame.png)
I have made a basic video game, allowing the character to move buy items fight etc. It was on a flat plane because it was the easiest to code, i still believe in a round earth. Your argument is invalid.
Evidence of your video game? And did YOU make it, or did you use someone else's game generator?
Would you like me to post some of the source code or the .exe file itself? It is in a .cpp file if you have a compiler or i can just put it into a notepad file. Me and a friend worked on this whenever we didn't have any work to do in our C++ class, its really old but i was able to find it from my old files.
Example:
move=getch();
switch(move)
{ /*Left*/ case'\0K':{if(intrap==1){break;}
if(traparraytut[posy][posx-1]==' ')
{traparraytut[posy][posx]=' ';
posx--;}
break;
}
/*Right*/ case'\0M':{if(intrap==1){break;}
posx++;
if(posy==1 && posx==8)
{currentlevel++;break;}
posx--;
if(trapc(posx,posy,intrap, health)==1)
{traparraytut[posy][posx]=' ';posx++;break;} //Trap instructional
if(traparraytut[posy][posx+1]==' ')
{traparraytut[posy][posx]=' ';
posx++;}
break;
}
/*Trap*/ case't':{if(intrap==1){
intrap--;
gotoxy(40,11);
printf("You get out of the trap!");
Sleep(1500);
break;}
break;}
}}
and although it was never finished, part of the battle system data management
class Enemy
{
private:
char Enemy_Name [40];
char Enemy_Type [20];
int Enemy_Str;
int Enemy_Def;
int Enemy_Sta;
int Enemy_Inte;
int Enemy_P_Resistance;
int Enemy_L_Resistance;
int Enemy_F_Resistance;
int Enemy_C_Resistance;
public:
Enemy (name[40],type[20], str, def, sta, inte) //Contstructor
{
strcpy(Enemy_Name, name);
strcpy(Enemy_Type, type);
Enemy_Str = str;
Enemy_Def = def;
Enemy_Sta = sta;
Enemy_Inte = inte;
}
void Display_stats();
-
So you posting some code is evidence you were the one that actually made it? ???
-
So you posting some code is evidence you were the one that actually made it? ???
Well how do you want me to prove its mine besides the fact that we spent about a month working on it on and off. I have a few test files and header files that we scrapped or remade which i doubt anyone would post on the internet...
-
@EnglshGentleman, can you prove he didn't write the game himself?
-
@EnglshGentleman, can you prove he didn't write the game himself?
I don't have to. He has already said he doesn't have any evidence of making it besides his word that he did.
He didn't source the material, how am I suppose to know where it came from? I saw no tags or any form of identification of who made it. Therefore, I have zero reason to think he made it. Until he can give reason, it will remain that way.
-
@EnglshGentleman, can you prove he didn't write the game himself?
I don't have to. He has already said he doesn't have any evidence of making it besides his word that he did.
He didn't source the material, how am I suppose to know where it came from? I saw no tags or any form of identification of who made it. Therefore, I have zero reason to think he made it. Until he can give reason, it will remain that way.
the only identification the source code had was
/*My name
Game title
Version*/
(/* */ is syntax meaning its commented out but readable in the source)
and you could just say that i added it at the top by sending it to you.
It's like proving to someone you wrote a personal short story on your computer. You could say you did, you could have even really wrote it, but you have utterly no way to physically prove that you wrote it other then the other person not finding it anywhere else / online / no one claiming its theirs.
i have multiple versions of some source code of the file but I might as well accept the fact you are going to tell me to 100% prove I made it. I did make it, I spent weeks working on it, but I can't prove it physically, I'll just acknowledge I did it, acknowledge I am right and that you are wrong, and continue on with my day :).
-
@EnglshGentleman, can you prove he didn't write the game himself?
I don't have to. He has already said he doesn't have any evidence of making it besides his word that he did.
He didn't source the material, how am I suppose to know where it came from? I saw no tags or any form of identification of who made it. Therefore, I have zero reason to think he made it. Until he can give reason, it will remain that way.
the only identification the source code had was
/*My name
Game title
Version*/
(/* */ is syntax meaning its commented out but readable in the source)
and you could just say that i added it at the top by sending it to you.
It's like proving to someone you wrote a personal short story on your computer. You could say you did, you could have even really wrote it, but you have utterly no way to physically prove that you wrote it other then the other person not finding it anywhere else / online / no one claiming its theirs.
i have multiple versions of some source code of the file but I might as well accept the fact you are going to tell me to 100% prove I made it. I did make it, I spent weeks working on it, but I can't prove it physically, I'll just acknowledge I did it, acknowledge I am right and that you are wrong, and continue on with my day :).
ITT, AdmiralAttackhow uses many words to say, "It's MINE!".
-
Counter Strike is another example of a Flat Earth video game. Ever where you play, you are always playing on a flat terrain, there is zero curvature, and the entire world is suspended in the middle of the air. The artists draw a "horizon" to make fun of RE'ers that believe that there are actually true horizons on Earth. You will never see anything pass over, or see anything come over the horizon in this game.
(http://maps.allstats.de/cstrikes/ak47_dust_final.jpg)
-
Counter Strike is another example of a Flat Earth video game. Ever where you play, you are always playing on a flat terrain, there is zero curvature, and the entire world is suspended in the middle of the air. The artists draw a "horizon" to make fun of RE'ers that believe that there are actually true horizons on Earth. You will never see anything pass over, or see anything come over the horizon in this game.
(http://maps.allstats.de/cstrikes/ak47_dust_final.jpg)
It could be because you reach probably a max of height of a 100 ft. which is what the map was made for, and its more technologically sound to make a 2D video game flat projection of a background then a 3D one. Nice try Mr. Troll.
-
This is possible the most thread fail ever.
Lrn2artistic license.
Because the developers never incorporated Special Relativity, does that mean they don't believe in it?
Because the developers never incorporated wind speed, does that mean they don't believe in wind?
-
This is possible the most thread fail ever.
Lrn2artistic license.
Because the developers never incorporated Special Relativity, does that mean they don't believe in it?
Because the developers never incorporated wind speed, does that mean they don't believe in wind?
because counter-strike lacks bullet rotation, proper recoil, and the fact that silencers aren't that quiet in real life. They don't believe in proper physics, nor proper sound projection.
Oh also because it doesn't go from day to night the also don't believe in a change of day at all. I've also never seem Gun jamming incorporated into the game, does that mean they don't believe in that either?
Englshgentleman i eagerly await your response.
-
This argument is pretty flimsy and silly.
-
I hate to sound like a noob here, but I think this entire thread is kind of silly. Are we just pointing out examples of 2D games now?
-
I hate to sound like a noob here, but I think this entire thread is kind of silly. Are we just pointing out examples of 2D games now?
if by "we" you mean Englshman, then yeah.
-
I hate to sound like a noob here, but I think this entire thread is kind of silly. Are we just pointing out examples of 2D games now?
>.<
-
I hate to sound like a noob here, but I think this entire thread is kind of silly. Are we just pointing out examples of 2D games now?
EG is pretending that he thinks every game with a flat horizon, or just 2d is a proof that the developers intended it to represent a flat earth video game.
-
Wow, worst topic ever. If you make a videogame, the space you always move in and the perspective is so little that the surfaces have to be flat. Why the hell a programmer wants to work on a curved surface if the impression in the real life is that the terrain is flat. But if you take into account space game, you'll see the worlds are round.
(http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x230/Janesee2/X3ReunionGate.jpg)
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/237/944742_20080825_790screen005.jpg)
-
(http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x230/Janesee2/X3ReunionGate.jpg)
There's some flat stuff in that screenshot :o
-
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x230/Janesee2/X3ReunionGate.jpg
There's some flat stuff in that screenshot :o
point being?
-
I hate to point this out, but those are planets - not earth. Of course they are round.
-
And I hate to point out that any similarity between video games and reality is strictly coincidental. ::)
-
0:56
-
And I hate to point out that any similarity between video games and reality is strictly coincidental. ::)
Agreed
-
I hate to point this out, but those are planets - not earth. Of course they are round.
I was waiting for this answer... but not from you!
Anyway...
See, earth is round.
-
I hate to point this out, but those are planets - not earth. Of course they are round.
I was waiting for this answer... but not from you!
Anyway...
See, earth is round.
How is your RE game relevant to the fact that FE games exist?
-
I hate to point this out, but those are planets - not earth. Of course they are round.
I was waiting for this answer... but not from you!
Anyway...
See, earth is round.
How is your RE game relevant to the fact that FE games exist?
How is FE games showing any sort of specification in the belief of a flat earth when its been debated to death it is more technologically sound to make the game appear flat. I've yet to see a video game that shows the entirety of the Earth and showing it to be flat. and from a low perspective the Earth appears to be flat, so why not make it simpler and take up less memory then just make the game as basic in that respect as you can.
-
I hate to point this out, but those are planets - not earth. Of course they are round.
I was waiting for this answer... but not from you!
Anyway...
See, earth is round.
How is your RE game relevant to the fact that FE games exist?
I've never seen FE games. This topic is otrageous to human intelligence.
-
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2878/youstilllose.png)
Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
If you actually made it to the credits, you would see the view is warped. Notice the clouds twist and distort and the camera view switches up to the sky to the The End message. In the very scene itself, all I see is flatness.
I was reading the previous pages... i hate myself... and all of a sudden, beng! a pic that shows that in the zelda game the world is round. So, the thread starts saying that the game reproduce a flat earth because in the game we always see the flat horizon. Than in the end, when the camera goes up enough, you see the world is round and you think, ok if the prove of the fe game is the fact that the horizon is always flat, then the picture in the end proves the world is round. But NOPE!! The pics always work in favour of the FEers!! Why the hell is this way of thinking so fucked up?? It just blow my mind, its OTRAGEOUS to common sense!
-
And then i see pics of DIG DUG!!! OH MY GOD! This thread is a joke.
-
And then i see pics of DIG DUG!!! OH MY GOD! This thread is a joke.
Ignore the photoshops, they're all part of a Conspiracy to trick you into thinking the Earth is flat.
-
After playing "The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass" my team of top globularist scientists concluded that video games are fun and people who look too deep into them are retarded. Another win for "who gives a crap!"
-
ITT: People not getting the point.
-
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
-
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
Why has this thread been able to go along for weeks? Is the point of this forum to enrage people with blatant hypocrisy and disregard for others? I think that the mods should shut down this thread because it is dumb and says dumb things.
-
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
Why has this thread been able to go along for weeks? Is the point of this forum to enrage people with blatant hypocrisy and disregard for others? I think that the mods should shut down this thread because it is dumb and says dumb things.
I just love videogames, especially retrogaming, and i m in love with zelda series, so i m just disappointed!!
-
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
Why has this thread been able to go along for weeks?
RE'ers continue to bump this thread even when no FE'ers post in it for days, therefore, I assume the topic is still live and people still have interest in it, so I post more examples of FE games.
-
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
Why has this thread been able to go along for weeks?
RE'ers continue to bump this thread even when no FE'ers post in it for days, therefore, I assume the topic is still live and people still have interest in it, so I post more examples of FE games.
How can you when non such exist.
-
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
Why has this thread been able to go along for weeks?
RE'ers continue to bump this thread even when no FE'ers post in it for days, therefore, I assume the topic is still live and people still have interest in it, so I post more examples of FE games.
I'm the only one interested in this topic, but not just because the games proves the flatness... but because is really funny.
-
I find it funny as well. RE ers hate to concede anything. Even if it's just a mere FE game.
-
I find it funny as well. RE ers hate to concede anything. Even if it's just a mere FE game.
One can not say that FE'ers are any different, or you would have conceded to a RE a very long time ago.
-
I find it funny as well. RE ers hate to concede anything. Even if it's just a mere FE game.
One can not say that FE'ers are any different, or you would have conceded to a RE a very long time ago.
I find it funny you think an FE game exists lol.
-
In Civilization II, you can check a flat earth box. I'm not really sure how it changes the world, because you have to discover the map and it takes a long time. There is also an ice wall on the top and bottom of the map. But you can send people on it and no one kills them.
That's because the game takes place prior to the conspiracy.
-
In Civilization II, you can check a flat earth box. I'm not really sure how it changes the world, because you have to discover the map and it takes a long time. There is also an ice wall on the top and bottom of the map. But you can send people on it and no one kills them
-
In Civilization II, you can check a flat earth box. I'm not really sure how it changes the world, because you have to discover the map and it takes a long time. There is also an ice wall on the top and bottom of the map. But you can send people on it and no one kills them.
That's because the game takes place prior to the conspiracy.
Except that the game ends on the year 2020,the conspiracy should be there already.
-
In Civilization II, you can check a flat earth box. I'm not really sure how it changes the world, because you have to discover the map and it takes a long time. There is also an ice wall on the top and bottom of the map. But you can send people on it and no one kills them.
That's because the game takes place prior to the conspiracy.
Except that the game ends on the year 2020,the conspiracy should be there already.
It has space flight too. AND you can colonize on...Mars? I think it's Mars. Somewhere else anyway.
-
Indeed, if the conspiracy exists, it is likely very old in some forms.
-
Indeed, if the conspiracy exists, it is likely very old in some forms.
Older than the Legend of Zelda?! But legends were written thousands of years ago! Another FE fail!
-
This thread being bumped makes me happy. :)
-
Indeed, if the conspiracy exists, it is likely very old in some forms.
Older than the Legend of Zelda?! But legends were written thousands of years ago! Another FE fail!
But written by who?
-
Indeed, if the conspiracy exists, it is likely very old in some forms.
Older than the Legend of Zelda?! But legends were written thousands of years ago! Another FE fail!
But written by whom?
Fixed.
-
Indeed, if the conspiracy exists, it is likely very old in some forms.
Older than the Legend of Zelda?! But legends were written thousands of years ago! Another FE fail!
But written by whom?
Fixed.
Oddly enough I had that at first. My brain just isn't working today.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
*glares at people who forget to use quotation marks*
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
*glares at people who forget to use quotation marks*
*glares at people who don't know how to use quote tags*
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
-
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
Your missing a punctuation mark in this post.
-
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
Your missing a punctuation mark in this post.
You're missing something too.
-
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
Your missing a punctuation mark in this post.
You're missing something too.
You're messing the point.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
I didn't prove anything, I was just being a penguin.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
I did use whom.
Are you slow?
Protip: being intentionally obtuse does not make you thick skulled.
The only way to deal with a pedant is to intentionally misunderstand them. Die in a fire.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
I did use whom.
Are you slow?
Protip: being intentionally obtuse does not make you thick skulled.
The only way to deal with a pedant is to intentionally misunderstand them. Die in a fire.
Whom did you mean to give that advice? Whom did you want to curse? When did you want to learn English?
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
I did use whom.
Are you slow?
Protip: being intentionally obtuse does not make you thick skulled.
The only way to deal with a pedant is to intentionally misunderstand them. Die in a fire.
Whom did you mean to give that advice? Whom did you want to curse? When did you want to learn English?
You should use "whom" only after prepositions.
-
ClockTower is actually a FE believer. His name stems from Majora's mask which is very clearly a FE game.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
I did use whom.
Are you slow?
Protip: being intentionally obtuse does not make you thick skulled.
The only way to deal with a pedant is to intentionally misunderstand them. Die in a fire.
Whom did you mean to give that advice? Whom did you want to curse? When did you want to learn English?
You should use "whom" only after prepositions.
I realize that you think that; you're just wrong.
Reference: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx).
-
ClockTower is actually a FE believer. His name stems from Majora's mask which is very clearly a FE game.
http://www.zeldawiki.org/Clock_Tower
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
I did use whom.
Are you slow?
Protip: being intentionally obtuse does not make you thick skulled.
The only way to deal with a pedant is to intentionally misunderstand them. Die in a fire.
Whom did you mean to give that advice? Whom did you want to curse? When did you want to learn English?
You should use "whom" only after prepositions.
I realize that you think that; you're just wrong.
Reference: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx).
Whom is the form used when the object is a preposition, this is the most common case in english and in general the rule to follow.
-
You should use "whom" only after prepositions.
I realize that you think that; you're just wrong.
Reference: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx).
Whom is the form used when the object is a preposition, this is the most common case in english and in general the rule to follow.
I highlighted your error for you since you seem unable to admit your mistake.
-
You should use "whom" only after prepositions.
I realize that you think that; you're just wrong.
Reference: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx).
Whom is the form used when the object is a preposition, this is the most common case in english and in general the rule to follow.
I highlighted your error for you since you seem unable to admit your mistake.
Go play in traffic little kid. I'm glad you payed attention in english class, I hope it got you all the glory you hoped it would.
-
You should use "whom" only after prepositions.
I realize that you think that; you're just wrong.
Reference: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx).
Whom is the form used when the object is a preposition, this is the most common case in english and in general the rule to follow.
I highlighted your error for you since you seem unable to admit your mistake.
Go play in traffic little kid. I'm glad you payed attention in english class, I hope it got you all the glory you hoped it would.
Oh how cute! You correct others incorrectly and when you get schooled you respond like that. You demonstrate the very best of the FEers!
-
you payed attention in english class
The irony.
-
yYou payedpaid attention in eEnglish class.
The irony.
Uh.. That's not irony. I'd say those are just expected errors from someone who falsely claimed to know English enough to educate us on "who" versus "whom". Irony would be unexpected, right?
-
You should use "whom" only after prepositions.
I realize that you think that; you're just wrong.
Reference: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx).
Whom is the form used when the object is a preposition, this is the most common case in english and in general the rule to follow.
I highlighted your error for you since you seem unable to admit your mistake.
Go play in traffic little kid. I'm glad you payed attention in english class, I hope it got you all the glory you hoped it would.
ITT: Raist still getting mad over the dumbest crap, grow up and let it go. Seriously your the first to bring up education every time someone proves you wrong about something. Admit your wrong and try to think of an original insult.
ClockTower is actually a FE believer. His name stems from Majora's mask which is very clearly a FE game.
Well Bleach is a round earth manga/anime so therefore you are an RE'r!
-
Actually my character was able to fully extend his sword many miles without any visible curvature. Ichimaru Gin is the most prominent FE er in the series.
http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Gin_Ichimaru
Kamishini no Yari in particular is shown at the roughly 8.1 mile extension while completely cutting through the entire city's buildings.
With that distance, RET predicts a slight change in height or a curvature but there isn't any. The following pictures in the manga showing where buildings were cut show no change in height.
-
yYou payedpaid attention in eEnglish class.
The irony.
Uh.. That's not irony. I'd say those are just expected errors from someone who falsely claimed to know English enough to educate us on "who" versus "whom". Irony would be unexpected, right?
Yeah, you're right. I didn't mean to say that Raist was being witty. I should have probably said "Oh, the irony of fate!" instead.
-
Actually my character was able to fully extend his sword many miles without any visible curvature. Ichimaru Gin is the most prominent FE er in the series.
http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Gin_Ichimaru
Kamishini no Yari in particular is shown at the roughly 8.1 mile extension while completely cutting through the entire city's buildings.
With that distance, RET predicts a slight change in height or a curvature but there isn't any. The following pictures in the manga showing where buildings were cut show no change in height.
Actually they were in Soul Society at the time, I could picture Soul Society as a "Flat Earth" kind of endless plane, that would make sense to me. Once I find a place to read it again, now that they are actually back on Earth, we can see if thats true or not :D.
Need a new place to read the manga since the site i went to got shutdown pretty much <.<.
-
I know what Bs >:(
btw Aizen is a faggot.
-
Remember, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use whom habitually*
Remember, use who after a preposition. Otherwise use who. *glares at people that use who habitually*
Remember Raist, use whom after a preposition. Otherwise use who.
What? That makes no sense. Whom should definitely be used after a preposition.
'use' is a verb and therefore not a preposition.
ITT: Eddy proving how thick-skulled Raist is XD. Raist here is a hint. Use "whom" next time.
I did use whom.
Are you slow?
Protip: being intentionally obtuse does not make you thick skulled.
The only way to deal with a pedant is to intentionally misunderstand them. Die in a fire.
Whom did you mean to give that advice?
wat?
-
you payed attention in english class
The irony.
sigh, i originally had typed the word "pay" for a present tense sentence and I didn't think when i edited it to a past tense sentence.
-
you payed attention in english class
The irony.
sigh, i originally had typed the word "pay" for a present tense sentence and I didn't think when i edited it to a past tense sentence.
Excuses, Excuses everywhere. Just admit your wrong for once you annoying baby <.<
-
So now I'm playing Majora's Mask for the first time in years. It's pretty fun.
-
So now I'm playing Majora's Mask for the first time in years. It's pretty fun.
It is really fun!
Saddam, is it your experience that the moon in the game is alive or lifeless?
-
So now I'm playing Majora's Mask for the first time in years. It's pretty fun.
Thats the only one I play cuz you can be a goron.
So now I'm playing Majora's Mask for the first time in years. It's pretty fun.
It is really fun!
Saddam, is it your experience that the moon in the game is alive or lifeless?
Though I'm not saddam I'll answer for my own sake. I think its alive its mouth opens.
-
So now I'm playing Majora's Mask for the first time in years. It's pretty fun.
It is really fun!
Saddam, is it your experience that the moon in the game is alive or lifeless?
Hmm...well, despite the facial features on the moon, I'd have to say it's lifeless. It was drawn to Termina because of Majora's Mask's evil influence. Although I doubt that the game designers chose the moon as a sign of danger or evil accidentally. Coupled with the lack of curvature over a vast geographic area, there may well be FET influences behind the game.
-
I agree that the evil nature what not by pure chance Saddam. However, I think it is without a doubt alive.
For one thing at the end, (when Majora's spell is broken) the face doesn't just disappear. In fact, it just changes to a happier expression.
Furthermore, prior to battling the actually mask, you are taken to the moon which is shown to have a vibrant green meadow full of grass, a big tree, and youthful creatures running along donning ancient masks.
The moon is alive in FET not RET. It is quite a remarkable FE game to say the least.
-
I agree that the evil nature what not by pure chance Saddam. However, I think it is without a doubt alive.
For one thing at the end, (when Majora's spell is broken) the face doesn't just disappear. In fact, it just changes to a happier expression.
Furthermore, prior to battling the actually mask, you are taken to the moon which is shown to have a vibrant green meadow full of grass, a big tree, and youthful creatures running along donning ancient masks.
The moon is alive in FET not RET. It is quite a remarkable FE game to say the least.
No, the Moon is not alive in FET, as evidenced in the FAQ and the FEW, though there is some lame discussion about that in the Believer's Forum.
-
I agree that the evil nature what not by pure chance Saddam. However, I think it is without a doubt alive.
For one thing at the end, (when Majora's spell is broken) the face doesn't just disappear. In fact, it just changes to a happier expression.
Furthermore, prior to battling the actually mask, you are taken to the moon which is shown to have a vibrant green meadow full of grass, a big tree, and youthful creatures running along donning ancient masks.
The moon is alive in FET not RET. It is quite a remarkable FE game to say the least.
No, the Moon is not alive in FET, as evidenced in the FAQ and the FEW, though there is some lame discussion about that in the Believer's Forum.
Where does it say it isn't alive? Many FE ers believe it is. RE ers do not. Majora's mask is a fine example of the FE game industry.
-
I agree that the evil nature what not by pure chance Saddam. However, I think it is without a doubt alive.
For one thing at the end, (when Majora's spell is broken) the face doesn't just disappear. In fact, it just changes to a happier expression.
Furthermore, prior to battling the actually mask, you are taken to the moon which is shown to have a vibrant green meadow full of grass, a big tree, and youthful creatures running along donning ancient masks.
The moon is alive in FET not RET. It is quite a remarkable FE game to say the least.
No, the Moon is not alive in FET, as evidenced in the FAQ and the FEW, though there is some lame discussion about that in the Believer's Forum.
Where does it say it isn't alive? Many FE ers believe it is. RE ers do not. Majora's mask is a fine example of the FE game industry.
Where does it say it's alive? Many FEers believe all sorts of bizarre things. Their beliefs need not be part of the theory. I remind you that games, just like James's dreams, are not real.
-
I agree that the evil nature what not by pure chance Saddam. However, I think it is without a doubt alive.
For one thing at the end, (when Majora's spell is broken) the face doesn't just disappear. In fact, it just changes to a happier expression.
Furthermore, prior to battling the actually mask, you are taken to the moon which is shown to have a vibrant green meadow full of grass, a big tree, and youthful creatures running along donning ancient masks.
The moon is alive in FET not RET. It is quite a remarkable FE game to say the least.
No, the Moon is not alive in FET, as evidenced in the FAQ and the FEW, though there is some lame discussion about that in the Believer's Forum.
Where does it say it isn't alive? Many FE ers believe it is. RE ers do not. Majora's mask is a fine example of the FE game industry.
Where does it say it's alive? Many FEers believe all sorts of bizarre things. Their beliefs need not be part of the theory. I remind you that games, just like James's dreams, are not real.
It still stands that Majora's mask is a FE game.
-
I agree that the evil nature what not by pure chance Saddam. However, I think it is without a doubt alive.
For one thing at the end, (when Majora's spell is broken) the face doesn't just disappear. In fact, it just changes to a happier expression.
Furthermore, prior to battling the actually mask, you are taken to the moon which is shown to have a vibrant green meadow full of grass, a big tree, and youthful creatures running along donning ancient masks.
The moon is alive in FET not RET. It is quite a remarkable FE game to say the least.
No, the Moon is not alive in FET, as evidenced in the FAQ and the FEW, though there is some lame discussion about that in the Believer's Forum.
Where does it say it isn't alive? Many FE ers believe it is. RE ers do not. Majora's mask is a fine example of the FE game industry.
Where does it say it's alive? Many FEers believe all sorts of bizarre things. Their beliefs need not be part of the theory. I remind you that games, just like James's dreams, are not real.
It still stands that Majora's mask is a FE game.
I really don't care what fantasies stand. And don't start telling us about your dreams.
-
It still stands that Majora's mask is a FE game.
[/quote]
The moon being alive or not has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. You should make a "Living Moon Society", and post this there.
-
Actually the Majora's mask moon is only compatible with FET, not RET.
-
Actually the Majora's mask moon is only compatible with FET, not RET.
And why would anyone care?
-
The moon being alive or not has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. You should make a "Living Moon Society", and post this there.
-
Actually the Majora's mask moon is only compatible with FET, not RET.
-
you payed attention in english class
The irony.
sigh, i originally had typed the word "pay" for a present tense sentence and I didn't think when i edited it to a past tense sentence.
Excuses, Excuses everywhere. Just admit your wrong for once you annoying baby <.<
Right after you do.
-
Why is life on the moon a component of FET? That seems line an entirely separate theory.
-
The people making zelda are forward thinkers, even when they are stuck making a sprite game to appease nintendo they inject a portion of truth into it.
Right but this appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon. I think Ichy has just touched the tip of the iceberg with his observation. This requires much zetetic rumination.
And I suggest Mr McIntyre or Mr Davis or one of the serious FE believers contact the CEOs and head programmers of Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Square Enix et al as soon as possible as they appear to be brothers-in-arms. If they can persuade them to go public with their beliefs it could lead to a great surge for the movement. Video games wield an enormous influence on the youth of the world; that's probably why they chose them as the medium to subliminally air their opinions.
Don't forget to contact Nintendo (the same people who make Zelda) about Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 about this! Because it is obviously shown that the worlds of both of those games are fl..... oh wait....
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
So what makes you think Zelda has any base in the real world if Mario doesn't?
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
Please show me how we would be unable to visit the moon using Majora's magic in FET.
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
Please show me how we would be unable to visit the moon using Majora's magic in FET.
If celestial gears are possible, then why can't Majora's magic be possible? They're both magic IMO.
-
you payed attention in english class
The irony.
sigh, i originally had typed the word "pay" for a present tense sentence and I didn't think when i edited it to a past tense sentence.
Excuses, Excuses everywhere. Just admit your wrong for once you annoying baby <.<
Right after you do.
Eh, typed it at like 3 in the morning so personally I don't care, it's just fun to see you trail off into an argument because of dumb little mistakes you try to justify :).
-
Maybe I should rephrase:
what in FET prevents a person from getting to the moon via Majora's magic?
-
Maybe I should rephrase:
what in FET prevents a person from getting to the moon via Majora's magic?
Nothing.
-
Why is life on the moon a component of FET? That seems line an entirely separate theory.
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
Please show me how we would be unable to visit the moon using Majora's magic in FET.
Please show me Majora's magic in FET.
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
Please show me how we would be unable to visit the moon using Majora's magic in FET.
Please show me Majora's magic in FET.
Please show me Majora's magic in RET ::) The point is CLOCKTOWER, neither theory prevents a person from traveling to the moon via magic/ancient power.
-
^discussed mannnnny pages back. Even so, the early mario games were all FE games.
It is clear Super Mario galaxy isn't even a good representation of RET. Gravity doesn't change directions magically and certainly those black holes in the game would have devoured every level in the game.
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
Please show me how we would be unable to visit the moon using Majora's magic in FET.
Please show me Majora's magic in FET.
Please show me Majora's magic in RET ::) The point is CLOCKTOWER, neither theory prevents a person from traveling to the moon via magic/ancient power.
The point is nothing is impossible once you invoke magic power, so your claim that it's incompatible with RET is hogwash.
-
lolol You only disproved your own claim that Majora's Mask is a RE game.
-
lolol You only disproved your own claim that Majora's Mask is a RE game.
You're confused, again. I made no such claim. Do pay attention.
-
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
Maybe not but you heading in that direction. Anyways, simply put Majora's Mask is a FE game. The moon is only compatible with FET.
-
Obviously no game in which you reach the Moon is compatible with FET--by the same logic(?).
Maybe not but you heading in that direction. Anyways, simply put Majora's Mask is a FE game. The moon is only compatible with FET.
So you were about your claim, again. The Moon is the game is most certainly compatible with RET. You can't tell me that some magic power changed the Moon into the fantasy's version since magic power is its own fiat.
-
They are video games. They are not meant to be real or even have reality in them most of the time. Why the hell is this one of the most popular threads on this stupid website? At first it was fun to argue it, then it became stupid, and now I question this society in general.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
My goodness...please tell me when you're actually going to attempt reading other people's posts.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
My goodness...please tell me when you're actually going to attempt reading other people's posts.
You beg a question.
I have to note that you again fail to answer questions. Oh well, I guess that's just your way of giving up with what little grace you have left.
-
Ok so tell me when you're done actually reading.
-
Ok so tell me when you're done actually reading.
I'll never be done reading, so why don't you just go back to a fantasy game?
-
Ok so tell me when you're done actually reading.
I'll never be done reading, so why don't you just go back to a fantasy game?
If you're not going to read this thread, please don't bother posting in it.
-
Ok so tell me when you're done actually reading.
I'll never be done reading, so why don't you just go back to a fantasy game?
If you're not going to read this thread, please don't bother posting in it.
Who said that I'm not going to read this thread? Do you usually make such assumptions?
-
Can someone please explain why this thread has lasted 25 pages?
-
Can someone please explain why this thread has lasted 25 pages?
Because there are some very easy trollbait hanging around here.
-
Why is life on the moon a component of FET? That seems like an entirely separate theory.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
Who said the Moon was in a stable orbit? Is that yet another unsupported assumption? How is it that in FE the Moon fell? Did its nexus ring fail? Did its magic fail? Again, you make assumptions prematurely, just like the typical FEer.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
Who said the Moon was in a stable orbit? Is that yet another unsupported assumption? How is it that in FE the Moon fell? Did its nexus ring fail? Did its magic fail? Again, you make assumptions prematurely, just like the typical FEer.
What? The RE's moon has to be in a stable orbit. Or at least relatively stable for it to have been there for any long period of time.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
Who said the Moon was in a stable orbit? Is that yet another unsupported assumption? How is it that in FE the Moon fell? Did its nexus ring fail? Did its magic fail? Again, you make assumptions prematurely, just like the typical FEer.
What? The RE's moon has to be in a stable orbit. Or at least relatively stable for it to have been there for any long period of time.
IIRC,the moon is moving away from us slowly.I think thats what he meant.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
Who said the Moon was in a stable orbit? Is that yet another unsupported assumption? How is it that in FE the Moon fell? Did its nexus ring fail? Did its magic fail? Again, you make assumptions prematurely, just like the typical FEer.
What? The RE's moon has to be in a stable orbit. Or at least relatively stable for it to have been there for any long period of time.
Who said that in the game that the Moon was in a stable orbit? As you seem to have forgotten, allow me to remind you that the game is not real. <sigh>
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
Who said the Moon was in a stable orbit? Is that yet another unsupported assumption? How is it that in FE the Moon fell? Did its nexus ring fail? Did its magic fail? Again, you make assumptions prematurely, just like the typical FEer.
What? The RE's moon has to be in a stable orbit. Or at least relatively stable for it to have been there for any long period of time.
Who said that in the game that the Moon was in a stable orbit? As you seem to have forgotten, allow me to remind you that the game is not real. <sigh>
Sigh, you're arguing about the game, then when I try to apply logic to it you go "it's just a game logic don't work lulzorz!!!111one1"
The moon would have had to have been in a stable orbit to be up there. If not then it simply proves all of RE theory is bullshit.
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
Who said the Moon was in a stable orbit? Is that yet another unsupported assumption? How is it that in FE the Moon fell? Did its nexus ring fail? Did its magic fail? Again, you make assumptions prematurely, just like the typical FEer.
What? The RE's moon has to be in a stable orbit. Or at least relatively stable for it to have been there for any long period of time.
Who said that in the game that the Moon was in a stable orbit? As you seem to have forgotten, allow me to remind you that the game is not real. <sigh>
Sigh, you're arguing about the game, then when I try to apply logic to it you go "it's just a game logic don't work lulzorz!!!111one1"
The moon would have had to have been in a stable orbit to be up there. If not then it simply proves all of RE theory is bullshit.
No, again, there is no reason to conclude that the Moon was in a stable orbit. Unstable orbits can exist for thousands of years. Take the Alpha Centauri, for example. Your conclusion is unfounded. Again, tell us how FET better explains a falling Moon than RET. How could the Moon fall in FET?
-
you payed attention in english class
The irony.
sigh, i originally had typed the word "pay" for a present tense sentence and I didn't think when i edited it to a past tense sentence.
Excuses, Excuses everywhere. Just admit your wrong for once you annoying baby <.<
Right after you do.
Why would the order be reversed, though?
-
It isn't compatible. The moon isn't alive in RET.
The magic power didn't make it alive. It only allowed transport to it. Please keep up Clocktower.
Who says that the magic power didn't make it alive when it violated the FET edict that sustained space travel is impossible? Is the Moon alive in FET?
If I remember correctly the moon hurtled toward the earth and had to be caught by gods and thrown back up. Probably a commentary on the impossibility of a round earth and moon staying separate while there is a huge "attractive" force between them.
Typical of FEers, you make a conclusion on the intent of some designer who've never met. Perhaps, someday FEers will understand the need for evidence before conclusion. <sigh>
I'm not a FE'er. I'm just saying the fact that the moon fell towards the earth supports the FE side of things. You know prolonged space flight being impossible et al.
Nope. RE explains it as gravity. Again, you make conclusions prematurely.
So.... the moon fell out of a stable orbit and crashed into the earth slowly? RE does not make that prediction at all.
Who said the Moon was in a stable orbit? Is that yet another unsupported assumption? How is it that in FE the Moon fell? Did its nexus ring fail? Did its magic fail? Again, you make assumptions prematurely, just like the typical FEer.
What? The RE's moon has to be in a stable orbit. Or at least relatively stable for it to have been there for any long period of time.
Who said that in the game that the Moon was in a stable orbit? As you seem to have forgotten, allow me to remind you that the game is not real. <sigh>
Sigh, you're arguing about the game, then when I try to apply logic to it you go "it's just a game logic don't work lulzorz!!!111one1"
The moon would have had to have been in a stable orbit to be up there. If not then it simply proves all of RE theory is bullshit.
No, again, there is no reason to conclude that the Moon was in a stable orbit. Unstable orbits can exist for thousands of years. Take the Alpha Centauri, for example. Your conclusion is unfounded. Again, tell us how FET better explains a falling Moon than RET. How could the Moon fall in FET?
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
-
The NeverhoOd Chronicles are also a FE video game.
(http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/130960-nv1.jpg)
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
You claimed that the UA exists, not me. I guess when you claim something, we just have to assume that you're not speaking for anyone but yourself, and that you don't have the reasoning skills to do a good job at even that. For example, even in your last post we see:
That massive rocks can hit the Moon without the Moon losing its orbit doesn't mean that there has been no such rock ever in the history of the Solar System. You need to work on your deduction skills.
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
You claimed that the UA exists, not me. I guess when you claim something, we just have to assume that you're not speaking for anyone but yourself, and that you don't have the reasoning skills to do a good job at even that. For example, even in your last post we see:
That massive rocks can hit the Moon without the Moon losing its orbit doesn't mean that there has been no such rock ever in the history of the Solar System. You need to work on your deduction skills.
With any rock hitting the moon, the moon will change his momentum.
His orbit isnt stable anyway, it keeps changing while we speak. The moon is actually continually travelling away from the earth at whatever like one inch a year or so. Look it up at wikipedia, I cant be bothered. So saying "something will hit the moon and not make a difference at all" is simply wrong. You could however state "some small rock hitting the moon wont make a noticeable difference because the moon is so huge that this small rock would not make any noticable difference to the overall momentum".
Well anyway, if some massive rock hit the moon (say a tenth of the moons own mass) this would - depending on the speed of collision - actually have great impact on the moons orbit. This doesnt mean though, that after this moon would be thrown out of orbit completey - it may just have a (slightly) different orbit now.
-
The NeverhoOd Chronicles are also a FE video game.
(http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/130960-nv1.jpg)
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
You claimed that the UA exists, not me. I guess when you claim something, we just have to assume that you're not speaking for anyone but yourself, and that you don't have the reasoning skills to do a good job at even that. For example, even in your last post we see:
That massive rocks can hit the Moon without the Moon losing its orbit doesn't mean that there has been no such rock ever in the history of the Solar System. You need to work on your deduction skills.
With any rock hitting the moon, the moon will change his momentum.
His orbit isnt stable anyway, it keeps changing while we speak. The moon is actually continually travelling away from the earth at whatever like one inch a year or so. Look it up at wikipedia, I cant be bothered. So saying "something will hit the moon and not make a difference at all" is simply wrong. You could however state "some small rock hitting the moon wont make a noticeable difference because the moon is so huge that this small rock would not make any noticable difference to the overall momentum".
Well anyway, if some massive rock hit the moon (say a tenth of the moons own mass) this would - depending on the speed of collision - actually have great impact on the moons orbit. This doesnt mean though, that after this moon would be thrown out of orbit completey - it may just have a (slightly) different orbit now.
So you admit, in practice, no rock has ever thrown the moon out of orbit despite the fact that a huge rock hit it?
As for your assertion that something the tenth of its size could destabilize it, I find that highly unlikely. The Earth is a) not big enough to pull the moon into itself very easily. b) The Earth was hit by a planet slightly smaller than it (a lot bigger than 1/10 our size) and we are still in orbit.
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
You claimed that the UA exists, not me. I guess when you claim something, we just have to assume that you're not speaking for anyone but yourself, and that you don't have the reasoning skills to do a good job at even that. For example, even in your last post we see:
That massive rocks can hit the Moon without the Moon losing its orbit doesn't mean that there has been no such rock ever in the history of the Solar System. You need to work on your deduction skills.
With any rock hitting the moon, the moon will change his momentum.
His orbit isnt stable anyway, it keeps changing while we speak. The moon is actually continually travelling away from the earth at whatever like one inch a year or so. Look it up at wikipedia, I cant be bothered. So saying "something will hit the moon and not make a difference at all" is simply wrong. You could however state "some small rock hitting the moon wont make a noticeable difference because the moon is so huge that this small rock would not make any noticable difference to the overall momentum".
Well anyway, if some massive rock hit the moon (say a tenth of the moons own mass) this would - depending on the speed of collision - actually have great impact on the moons orbit. This doesnt mean though, that after this moon would be thrown out of orbit completey - it may just have a (slightly) different orbit now.
So you admit, in practice, no rock has ever thrown the moon out of orbit despite the fact that a huge rock hit it?
As for your assertion that something the tenth of its size could destabilize it, I find that highly unlikely. The Earth is a) not big enough to pull the moon into itself very easily. b) The Earth was hit by a planet slightly smaller than it (a lot bigger than 1/10 our size) and we are still in orbit.
Orbit could have re-stabalized 0.o?
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
You claimed that the UA exists, not me. I guess when you claim something, we just have to assume that you're not speaking for anyone but yourself, and that you don't have the reasoning skills to do a good job at even that. For example, even in your last post we see:
That massive rocks can hit the Moon without the Moon losing its orbit doesn't mean that there has been no such rock ever in the history of the Solar System. You need to work on your deduction skills.
With any rock hitting the moon, the moon will change his momentum.
His orbit isnt stable anyway, it keeps changing while we speak. The moon is actually continually travelling away from the earth at whatever like one inch a year or so. Look it up at wikipedia, I cant be bothered. So saying "something will hit the moon and not make a difference at all" is simply wrong. You could however state "some small rock hitting the moon wont make a noticeable difference because the moon is so huge that this small rock would not make any noticable difference to the overall momentum".
Well anyway, if some massive rock hit the moon (say a tenth of the moons own mass) this would - depending on the speed of collision - actually have great impact on the moons orbit. This doesnt mean though, that after this moon would be thrown out of orbit completey - it may just have a (slightly) different orbit now.
So you admit, in practice, no rock has ever thrown the moon out of orbit despite the fact that a huge rock hit it?
As for your assertion that something the tenth of its size could destabilize it, I find that highly unlikely. The Earth is a) not big enough to pull the moon into itself very easily. b) The Earth was hit by a planet slightly smaller than it (a lot bigger than 1/10 our size) and we are still in orbit.
Orbit could have re-stabalized 0.o?
NO WAY!
We are discussing catastrophic loss of orbit. IE the moon slamming into the Earth. Or the Earth slamming into the sun.
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
You claimed that the UA exists, not me. I guess when you claim something, we just have to assume that you're not speaking for anyone but yourself, and that you don't have the reasoning skills to do a good job at even that. For example, even in your last post we see:
That massive rocks can hit the Moon without the Moon losing its orbit doesn't mean that there has been no such rock ever in the history of the Solar System. You need to work on your deduction skills.
With any rock hitting the moon, the moon will change his momentum.
His orbit isnt stable anyway, it keeps changing while we speak. The moon is actually continually travelling away from the earth at whatever like one inch a year or so. Look it up at wikipedia, I cant be bothered. So saying "something will hit the moon and not make a difference at all" is simply wrong. You could however state "some small rock hitting the moon wont make a noticeable difference because the moon is so huge that this small rock would not make any noticable difference to the overall momentum".
Well anyway, if some massive rock hit the moon (say a tenth of the moons own mass) this would - depending on the speed of collision - actually have great impact on the moons orbit. This doesnt mean though, that after this moon would be thrown out of orbit completey - it may just have a (slightly) different orbit now.
So you admit, in practice, no rock has ever thrown the moon out of orbit despite the fact that a huge rock hit it?
As for your assertion that something the tenth of its size could destabilize it, I find that highly unlikely. The Earth is a) not big enough to pull the moon into itself very easily. b) The Earth was hit by a planet slightly smaller than it (a lot bigger than 1/10 our size) and we are still in orbit.
Orbit could have re-stabalized 0.o?
NO WAY!
We are discussing catastrophic loss of orbit. IE the moon slamming into the Earth. Or the Earth slamming into the sun.
Define catastrophic loss of orbit
-
In truth the moon could not fall in FE theory. You are correct.
The Earth simply would accelerate up to the moon. Though in fairness using the right FOR this is also true in RE theory.
Gee, did all FEers settle on the UA? I thought wasn't settled. Why would the UA suddenly stop accelerating the Moon too? No, in no FoR would it be true in RET unless something magical happened.
The moon could hit a rock and fall past the bowshock. I don't know. Just because the reason wasn't expressly put doesn't make it "magic."
As for "not every fe'er agreeing on the UA" a person's belief does not determine physical reality no matter how many people share that belief.
Right, so a 'rock' hits the Moon came only happen in FE, is that your claim?
So you're saying that you get to chose whether FE include the UA or regular gravity then?
No, the very nature of the Universe dictates how the Universe works. I just explained that our opinions have no bearing on reality. Please keep up.
As for the rock hitting the moon, it has been shown conclusively that massive rocks can hit the moon in RE theory and no loss of stable orbit will occur. (the craters on the moon)
You claimed that the UA exists, not me. I guess when you claim something, we just have to assume that you're not speaking for anyone but yourself, and that you don't have the reasoning skills to do a good job at even that. For example, even in your last post we see:
That massive rocks can hit the Moon without the Moon losing its orbit doesn't mean that there has been no such rock ever in the history of the Solar System. You need to work on your deduction skills.
With any rock hitting the moon, the moon will change his momentum.
His orbit isnt stable anyway, it keeps changing while we speak. The moon is actually continually travelling away from the earth at whatever like one inch a year or so. Look it up at wikipedia, I cant be bothered. So saying "something will hit the moon and not make a difference at all" is simply wrong. You could however state "some small rock hitting the moon wont make a noticeable difference because the moon is so huge that this small rock would not make any noticable difference to the overall momentum".
Well anyway, if some massive rock hit the moon (say a tenth of the moons own mass) this would - depending on the speed of collision - actually have great impact on the moons orbit. This doesnt mean though, that after this moon would be thrown out of orbit completey - it may just have a (slightly) different orbit now.
So you admit, in practice, no rock has ever thrown the moon out of orbit despite the fact that a huge rock hit it?
As for your assertion that something the tenth of its size could destabilize it, I find that highly unlikely. The Earth is a) not big enough to pull the moon into itself very easily. b) The Earth was hit by a planet slightly smaller than it (a lot bigger than 1/10 our size) and we are still in orbit.
Orbit could have re-stabalized 0.o?
NO WAY!
We are discussing catastrophic loss of orbit. IE the moon slamming into the Earth. Or the Earth slamming into the sun.
Define catastrophic loss of orbit
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3Fdq0j9Nq73BX7Vll87xUi6ldPpi72R1bJUa2gnY0quzXrKs&t=1&usg=__VMQYdo8z3arNWdNp-w3wOdZDL3I=)
-
clearly you didnt read or understood my post.
I said any rock would change the moons momentum. Hence any Rock would change the moons orbit, too. However there is no need to assume the moon would then crash into the earth or just fly away. Why cant the moon just keep orbiting the earth in a (slightly) different orbit?
Hence, lots of rocks and meteorites could have hit the moon, and changed the moons orbit, but not completely thrown it out of it. Even if that object was as large as the moon itself, depending on speed and point of collision the object(s) that we will have after such a collision could still orbit the earth.
I dont exactly know where we're going here.
-
clearly you didnt read or understood my post.
I said any rock would change the moons momentum. Hence any Rock would change the moons orbit, too. However there is no need to assume the moon would then crash into the earth or just fly away. Why cant the moon just keep orbiting the earth in a (slightly) different orbit?
Hence, lots of rocks and meteorites could have hit the moon, and changed the moons orbit, but not completely thrown it out of it. Even if that object was as large as the moon itself, depending on speed and point of collision the object(s) that we will have after such a collision could still orbit the earth.
I dont exactly know where we're going here.
I don't either, I was just answering the claim that a rock could throw the moon out of orbit enough to hit the Earth. I said it wasn't likely but you guys were dead set on proving it.
-
The playable area in Wind Waker is cut off at the edges of the map, yet the water continues... It's more likely that the area (which is very small) is just a small section of a larger world. I don't see anything in the game that leads me to believe it was made to have a flat earth.
-
Chao World is a flat earth minigame.
Discuss.
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/solareala/neutral_chao_garden-1.jpg)
-
Chao World is a flat earth minigame.
Discuss.
Doesn't look very flat to me.
-
World of Warcraft features both a round and flat "Earth".
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wowinsider.com/media/2007/10/aa1003.jpg)
(http://beta.mortalken.com/images/betagallery/outland019.jpg)
-
A flat map does not automatically signify that the developers of the game intended it to be flat.
-
A flat map does not automatically signify that the developers of the game intended it to be flat.
Yes, however Outland is, in fact, flat and finite. You can see the edge, and you can also fall off it.
Azeroth comes with a flat map, but it's clearly stated that it's spherical.
-
A flat map does not automatically signify that the developers of the game intended it to be flat.
Yes, however Outland is, in fact, flat and finite. You can see the edge, and you can also fall off it.
Azeroth comes with a flat map, but it's clearly stated that it's spherical.
Gonna have to agree with PP on this. Fun times watching people get mind controlled into jumping off the edge to their death. Too bad Wow sucks now
-
I can travel safely in Azeroth on my flat map. According to RE'ers, a round earth can not be accurate on a flat map, yet in Azeroth it is!
-
I can travel safely in Azeroth on my flat map. According to RE'ers, a round earth can not be accurate on a flat map, yet in Azeroth it is!
There is a concept in science referred to as "correlation" that can be applied here and does back up your claim.
-
I can travel safely in Azeroth on my flat map. According to RE'ers, a round earth can not be accurate on a flat map, yet in Azeroth it is!
Can you point out the Azeroth on the FE map which is in the FAQ section?
-
World of Warcraft features both a round and flat "Earth".
(http://beta.mortalken.com/images/betagallery/outland019.jpg)
Amazing, Blizzard can make a working Flat Earth map but the Flat Earth Society can't.
-
I cant believe this thread came back to life!
-
It always does. :) This and the evolution one.
This is undoubtedly proof that if Azeroth can make a working flat map, so can we! Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them how the did it.
-
It always does. :) This and the evolution one.
This is undoubtedly proof that if Azeroth can make a working flat map, so can we! Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them how the did it.
Both are imaginary worlds so the ideas should be compatible.
-
It always does. :) This and the evolution one.
This is undoubtedly proof that if Azeroth can make a working flat map, so can we! Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them how the did it.
It makes sense. Blizzard has many forces at it's disposal.
-
It always does. :) This and the evolution one.
This is undoubtedly proof that if Azeroth can make a working flat map, so can we! Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them how the did it.
It makes sense. Blizzard has many forces at it's disposal.
Ummmmmmm...... I don't get it. You quoted yourself.
-
I can travel safely in Azeroth on my flat map. According to RE'ers, a round earth can not be accurate on a flat map, yet in Azeroth it is!
A flat version of a Round map/globe/whatever will always be wrong (inconsistent with the Round map in some way). However, it may be distorted (projected) in a way that allows for navigation.
-
It always does. :) This and the evolution one.
This is undoubtedly proof that if Azeroth can make a working flat map, so can we! Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them how the did it.
It makes sense. Blizzard has many forces at it's disposal.
Ummmmmmm...... I don't get it. You quoted yourself.
Twas an afterthought.
-
It always does. :) This and the evolution one.
This is undoubtedly proof that if Azeroth can make a working flat map, so can we! Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them how the did it.
It makes sense. Blizzard has many forces at it's disposal.
Ummmmmmm...... I don't get it. You quoted yourself.
Twas an afterthought.
<points to the 'edit' function>
-
It always does. :) This and the evolution one.
This is undoubtedly proof that if Azeroth can make a working flat map, so can we! Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them how the did it.
Don't make the fool out yourself with writing email. You can do a flat map of the round earth without any problems.
-
The playable area in Wind Waker is cut off at the edges of the map, yet the water continues... It's more likely that the area (which is very small) is just a small section of a larger world. I don't see anything in the game that leads me to believe it was made to have a flat earth.
Reread my posts in the beginning couple of pages and you will change your mind!
-
Reread my posts in the beginning couple of pages and you will change your mind!
There is nothing from the game which indicates they were actively trying to promote the idea of a flat Earth or that they believe in that.
Instead, the vastly more likely option is that they chose to make the game world flat because it is so much easier to program.
-
The playable area in Wind Waker is cut off at the edges of the map, yet the water continues... It's more likely that the area (which is very small) is just a small section of a larger world. I don't see anything in the game that leads me to believe it was made to have a flat earth.
Reread my posts in the beginning couple of pages and you will change your mind!
Nice 13 year necro. We’re up to Tears of the Kingdom now.
-
The playable area in Wind Waker is cut off at the edges of the map, yet the water continues... It's more likely that the area (which is very small) is just a small section of a larger world. I don't see anything in the game that leads me to believe it was made to have a flat earth.
Reread my posts in the beginning couple of pages and you will change your mind!
You believe the game is trying to tell us the MOBs or the fictional monsters from the game are real too? Where does your logic stop?
And if they cared that much, just come out and state it with real world evidence. Not an imaginary story.
I’m increasingly under the impression FE’s can’t discern fiction from the application of physics that leads to practical everyday useable objects. Such as a telescope on an equatorial mount.
Probably the result of people living exclusively in a virtual computer social media existence, vs actually going out to garden, hike, star gaze, and getting their hands dirty wrenching on something.
The kid was surprised how much there is to real fishing VS fishing in Minecraft.
-
The playable area in Wind Waker is cut off at the edges of the map, yet the water continues... It's more likely that the area (which is very small) is just a small section of a larger world. I don't see anything in the game that leads me to believe it was made to have a flat earth.
Reread my posts in the beginning couple of pages and you will change your mind!
You believe the game is trying to tell us the MOBs or the fictional monsters from the game are real too? Where does your logic stop?
So your argument is literally that its a slippery slope?
-
See my post on Tears of the Kingdom. The Zelda franchise is pretty flat Earth friendly. In fact the most Flat Earth unfriendly game I've ever played was Final Fantasy VII. But when riding by Chocobo and flying, you realize that mountains and trees pitch up from the ground. But the Round Earth map falls apart when you can launch a laser weapon across the land. A beam traveling in a straight line cannot curve.
-
See my post on Tears of the Kingdom. The Zelda franchise is pretty flat Earth friendly. In fact the most Flat Earth unfriendly game I've ever played was Final Fantasy VII. But when riding by Chocobo and flying, you realize that mountains and trees pitch up from the ground. But the Round Earth map falls apart when you can launch a laser weapon across the land. A beam traveling in a straight line cannot curve.
Or, you just realise that game makers don't want the complex math of a round surface, so are happy with a flat one.
Very few games bother with correcting for curvature, and most don't need to considering how small the area is.
-
Or, you just realise that game makers don't want the complex math of a round surface, so are happy with a flat one.
Got it. Round earth math is inelegant.
-
Pretty interesting that the perspective effect is seen in a AAA title.
The tears of the kingdom also shows universal acceleration instead of gravity. Just look at the Zonai ruins.
-
Pretty interesting that the perspective effect is seen in a AAA title.
Do you mean how because they chose to programmatically load and unload (or at least not render) specific content? Rather than being able to render it based upon reality?
The tears of the kingdom also shows universal acceleration instead of gravity. Just look at the Zonai ruins.
Why don't you post a screenshot to support that instead of just claiming they do?
Otherwise, it can likewise be dismissed as BS.
-
The tears of the kingdom also shows universal acceleration instead of gravity. Just look at the Zonai ruins.
A game you can build things by levitating parts, then drive them over beds of lava? 😂
Can you find four wheels and a body just laying in a volcanic crater, levitate then together, then drive the machine through/over yards of molten lava?
-
Pretty interesting that the perspective effect is seen in a AAA title.
Do you mean how because they chose to programmatically load and unload (or at least not render) specific content? Rather than being able to render it based upon reality?
The tears of the kingdom also shows universal acceleration instead of gravity. Just look at the Zonai ruins.
Why don't you post a screenshot to support that instead of just claiming they do?
Otherwise, it can likewise be dismissed as BS.
no I'm talking about the perspective effect with the telescope of Link's sister in Windwaker!
I don't need to post a screenshot...the Zonai islands are actually where literally Link wakes up to begin his adventure. They can only exist with UA and not gravity.
-
They can only exist with UA and not gravity.
Vs Minecraft where some of the blocks are effected by gravity and some are not?
😂
Wait. There are games with rockets that travel space. Space travel between the planets is a reality!
Rock on.
Or you can treat graphics like a cartoon and do things not possible with real world physics. Like some stone blocks float, while gravel blocks fall.
-
I don't need to post a screenshot...the Zonai islands are actually where literally Link wakes up to begin his adventure. They can only exist with UA and not gravity.
Wait, video game islands in link exists, what boat do I take to get there?
-
no I'm talking about the perspective effect with the telescope of Link's sister in Windwaker!
So you mean where they don't render in full detail, but can render the view of the telescope in more detail?
I don't need to post a screenshot...the Zonai islands are actually where literally Link wakes up to begin his adventure. They can only exist with UA and not gravity.
Why?
They rely upon magic.
It is literally magic.
And that magic can work to levitate them against gravity or UA.
So just why do they require UA instead of gravity?
-
I don't need to post a screenshot...the Zonai islands are actually where literally Link wakes up to begin his adventure. They can only exist with UA and not gravity.
Wait, video game islands in link exists, what boat do I take to get there?
They're sky islands. You take a giant spring up there, use a hot air balloon, or (get this) make a jet scooter out of two fans and a control platform.
-
They're sky islands. You take a giant spring up there, use a hot air balloon, or (get this) make a jet scooter out of two fans and a control platform.
In what regards demonstrates real world physics.
-
I don't recall any magic mentioned. We just observe that the acceleration of the islands matches the mainland.
-
They're sky islands. You take a giant spring up there, use a hot air balloon, or (get this) make a jet scooter out of two fans and a control platform.
In what regards demonstrates real world physics.
Well with the rocket and balloon set-ups, it matches with FET and how indefinitely sustainable flight is not possible.
-
I don't recall any magic mentioned. We just observe that the acceleration of the islands matches the mainland.
We see the magic.
All the swirly blue.
Just how are we seeing the acceleartion?
What acceleration is being seen?
What magic is causing it?
Also note that as soon as you point out what magic is causing it, that same magic can just be causing it to levitate.
You can also start by explaining how the islands magically levitate, but not Link, or even the trees or boulders or water on the islands.
-
They're sky islands. You take a giant spring up there, use a hot air balloon, or (get this) make a jet scooter out of two fans and a control platform.
In what regards demonstrates real world physics.
Well with the rocket and balloon set-ups, it matches with FET and how indefinitely sustainable flight is not possible.
Even better. There is hard limit to flight. See my theories about buoyancy and how basically at a certain altitude you have to be lighter than nothing to enter "space."
-
I don't recall any magic mentioned. We just observe that the acceleration of the islands matches the mainland.
We see the magic.
All the swirly blue.
Just how are we seeing the acceleartion?
What acceleration is being seen?
What magic is causing it?
Also note that as soon as you point out what magic is causing it, that same magic can just be causing it to levitate.
You can also start by explaining how the islands magically levitate, but not Link, or even the trees or boulders or water on the islands.
The swirly blue is only seen when objects drop from the sky indicating a magic force has overcome the UA. The islands do not. The more you dive into the game, the more it clearly shows UA FET
-
The hard limit to flight is also a good shout!
-
Even better. There is hard limit to flight.
Almost as if there is an arbitrary limit imposed by the game. Probably to avoid eventual glitches from things like overflows. All games will have some limit on altitude, the question is just what will it be.
Notice that it is the same device just happily sitting there, and Link can't even jump from it.
Yet Link is fine jumping around lower down.
And the same device was used each time to lift it.
So it has nothing at all to do with buoyancy.
The swirly blue is only seen when objects drop from the sky indicating a magic force has overcome the UA.
No, the swirly blue (or green) is seen in several locations.
No magic is seen when objects fall.
So no, it does NOT show UA or FE garbage.
Again, what magic is allowing the islands to stay up, while objects on the island, including the very rocks the islands are made out of, the water on the island (which doesn't seem to deplete from the lakes, even though it goes over waterfalls and falls off the islands), and Link and trees, instead fall?
And then, explain why that magic can't just be acting against gravity.
Because do you know one of the biggest issue with UA?
How highly selective this allegedly "universal" acceleration is.
-
You seem to be confused what shrines are. You should try completing some, it'll make your play through a lot better by giving you the ability to increase your stamina and hearts!
-
You seem to be confused what shrines are. You should try completing some, it'll make your play through a lot better by giving you the ability to increase your stamina and hearts!
I recognise what shrines are. An notice that they display the magic swirly bits.
And the first ones in the starter area give you magic ability which allow you to do things like levitate an object with magic.
You should try to actually answer the questions you are actively avoiding.
As the magic will work equally with UA and gravity, so your claim is pure BS.
Again, what magic is allowing the islands to stay up, while objects on the island, including the very rocks the islands are made out of, the water on the island (which doesn't seem to deplete from the lakes, even though it goes over waterfalls and falls off the islands), and Link and trees, instead fall?
And then, explain why that magic can't just be acting against gravity.
Because do you know one of the biggest issue with UA?
How highly selective this allegedly "universal" acceleration is.
-
The swirly "magic" is only seen on shrines and not islands themselves. The large majority of islands in fact lack shrines.
So how can objects in the sky stay suspended upwards relative to the surface in the RET for such a prolonged amount of time? They can't. There is no globularist explanation.
Once again the franchise Zelda has shown a Hyrule incompatible with RET
-
The swirly "magic" is only seen on shrines and not islands themselves. The large majority of islands in fact lack shrines.
So how can objects in the sky stay suspended upwards relative to the surface in the RET for such a prolonged amount of time? They can't. There is no globularist explanation.
Once again the franchise Zelda has shown a Hyrule incompatible with RET
It’s a video game made to appeal to fantasy. It has nothing to do with the constraints of reality. In tears of the kingdom link can make things magically levitate.
The game can be coded to make about any effect that can be displayed visually. It has everting to do with how the game is coded. Nothing to with real word physics and it’s consequences. Where does the energy come from so link can levitate objects. Where does the energy come from where one sword does more damage than another.
(https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/image/2023/5/15/a8a2846d-7fdc-464c-96a4-d729cf091ba3-image-from-ios-117.jpg?w=374&h=210&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format%2Ccompress&q=50&dpr=2)
The Spear+Spear combo almost seems like it’s cheating.NINTENDO
Trying to use this slow awkward weapon with a horrible center of gravity would get you killed in real life hand to hand combat.
(https://i.imgur.com/RfsBY1i.jpg)
https://youtube.com/shorts/5NIhpyND5do?feature=share
Because in real life you could run with this much crap on your back all day up and down mountains. And magically pull out a little glider at anytime on the run. And carry, what? Ten, twenty, thirty large weapons on your person at anyone time?
(https://culturedvultures.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/TOTK-paraglider-screen-cover-785x442.jpg)
[/img]
Seriously. When’s the last time link fell down a mountain and had to spend six months in a body cast from broken bones.
There isn’t a lick of UA or gravity.
-
So how can objects in the sky stay suspended upwards relative to the surface in the RET for such a prolonged amount of time? They can't. There is no globularist explanation.
It is fantasy. What do you expect?
Why don't you ask about all the other fantasy elements?
For example, a being that can magically change how they perceive time?
Magical transitions from "normal" conditions to freezing cold?
Magical transitions from "normal" conditions to burning hot?
Magical protection from heat by drinking a potion, made from ingredients which would burn if exposed to the heat?
Skeletons magically incarnated from the dead, then falling apart in the morning?
It isn't compatible with reality.
Yet you choose to cling to one aspect of this fantasy which you claim doesn't work with gravity but does with UA; yet you still can't explain how.
It seems to be the standard FE BS of "This is a problem, so I'm going to pretend it means Earth can't be round, and entirely ignore how it can't work on a FE either."
Again, as the magic will work equally with UA and gravity, so your claim is pure BS.
Again, what magic is allowing the islands to stay up, while objects on the island, including the very rocks the islands are made out of, the water on the island (which doesn't seem to deplete from the lakes, even though it goes over waterfalls and falls off the islands), and Link and trees, instead fall?
And then, explain why that magic can't just be acting against gravity.
Because do you know one of the biggest issue with UA?
How highly selective this allegedly "universal" acceleration is.
-
There is an explanation for the magic/force that link uses to make objects levitate and bind, etc...the secret stone from Rauru.
The islands don't have that, they are presented as just naturally occurring in the game environment.
Admit it. Zelda is a Flat earther franchise.
-
Adding insult to injury, when creating BotW, they first made a 2d world and then expanded it later to 3d, knowing they were designing a flat earth game. It is also heavily influenced by the Jomon culture, which at the time is suspected to have believed in a flat earth and held a mix of horizontal and vertical cosmology - also hinting to a flat earth. As a precursor to the Shinto belief system, this view is well supported.
-
Admit it. Zelda is a Flat earther franchise.
It’s a fantasy game.
Hence why there is no true physics behind a stone that would take gallons and gallons of fuel to make a machine lift the same weight.
Do you have to “charge” or fuel the stone.
See many of the same elements in Dragon Ball Z and they depict planets as spherical. So spherical earth and space travel must be true?
Back to Zelda. Still you’re ignoring the Link wouldn’t be able to use that little glider. It’s too small. Especially if you throw in all the weapons, equipment, and armor he carries.
The weapons with horrible centers of gravity that would be useless in a real world melee.
All the arrows and weapons with impossible power for their size. How much gunpowder / explosive warhead would it take to get the same explosive power in real life? 20 pound? 100 pounds?
Link can run up mountains with impossible loads. Falls down mountains with never a broken bone.
Simple question. Does link swim wearing full suits of armor?
-
From what I remember of game dev, centers of gravity on models are depically something set by the model designers, not those designing the world. It would be reasonable to expect them to be not physically accurate.
While you are able to point out a lot of things that don't match the physics of reality, that is completely irrelevant. We are talking about whether the game world is a flat world, which it is regardless of what other oddities differ from our universe. Whether link has the equivalent of a bag of holding or magical swimming abilities (pretty well established in lore) has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Those things that do have to do with the shape of the earth clearly are depicting a flat earth.
While you could argue that perhaps this was done for ease of coding or preformance or other reasons, it is still clear that both in lore and in the actual game it is a flat world. I believe this holds for every single version since the NES.
-
While you could argue that perhaps this was done for ease of coding or preformance or other reasons, it is still clear that both in lore and in the actual game it is a flat world. I believe this holds for every single version since the NES.
Cause this is FE physics?
srry my bad. I thought the most interesting part is that when sailing, you can see only the tops of the islands at first due to perspective and wave limitations much like the experiments using ships coming in from the sea and only being able to see the tops of those.
I would say “due to perspective and wave limitations” isn’t quite true.
(https://i.imgur.com/KHkscH2.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BuHvXul.jpg)
I would say the game uses a persistent magic fog at the horizon.
-
There is an explanation for the magic/force that link uses to make objects levitate and bind, etc...the secret stone from Rauru.
Yes, magic.
The islands don't have that, they are presented as just naturally occurring in the game environment.
No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic.
Again, you have no explanation as to why they float.
And any explanation you give will work equally for UA and gravity.
So it does not rely upon UA, and if it did refute gravity, it would also refute the highly selective UA.
Admit it. Zelda is a Flat earther franchise.
Why would I admit such delusional BS?
There is really nothing to indicate the creators think Earth is flat.
We are talking about whether the game world is a flat world, which it is regardless of what other oddities differ from our universe.
Says who?
The original topic was if there were FE undertones to the game, with the developers believing in FE and trying to use the game to promote it.
Having a game world where they don't bother accounting for curvature is NOT promoting a FE, nor does it mean they believe in a FE. Especially as it doesn't take place on Earth.
As for the lore aspect, as it only shows you a small portion of the world, it is entirely unclear if in lore it is flat or if it is round and you are just seeing a small portion of it.
It was then changed to a focus on TotK to claim that it shows UA instead of gravity.
-
Why would I admit such delusional BS?
There is really nothing to indicate the creators think Earth is flat.
Yes, except every single Zelda using physics that are based on a flat earth. That is "nothing."
We are talking about whether the game world is a flat world, which it is regardless of what other oddities differ from our universe.
Says who?
Anyone who is actually looking objectively at the games. There is no doubt TLoZ was a flat earth. Its even more obvious in TAoL as you can see it in the side scrolling. Others have spoken to some of the other games.
The original topic was if there were FE undertones to the game, with the developers believing in FE and trying to use the game to promote it.
It turned that way quite quickly, but that was never the only discussion within the 40 pages, the only one that should be discussed, or what the OP actually says. The OP says there were FE undertones to the game.
So anyways, long story short I think The Windwaker might have FE undertones to it as well it's counterpart The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass for the DS platform.
To think if we allowed you to police what discussions were about here what kind strawmen round earth non-sense forum this would be.
Having a game world where they don't bother accounting for curvature is NOT promoting a FE, nor does it mean they believe in a FE.
You were the one arguing it was about the intent of the creators. Now you are arguing that its not promoting FE, in spite that it is - even if we believe you non-intentionally.
Video games can deeply influence the way players perceive and understand the world - like many mediums. By presenting a flat, non-curving game world, players can and do subconsciously adopt a supposedly skewed view of geography and physics. This can potentially reinforce - and promote - that the real world Earth is flat. Additionally, it helps normalize that normal science isn't the only way to look at things by providing a working universe where that isn't the case and realistic enough physics to showcase that it is not a necessity for the earth to be round to observe the majority of what we see.
Especially as it doesn't take place on Earth.
Ah yes, no one forms opinions based on fiction and then extrapolates them to the real world. Reality never mimics art. Are you mad?
As for the lore aspect, as it only shows you a small portion of the world, it is entirely unclear if in lore it is flat or if it is round and you are just seeing a small portion of it.
You are inventing an entire world that doesn't exist simply to support your tenuous claims.
It was then changed to a focus on TotK to claim that it shows UA instead of gravity.
Because it does.
-
Yes, except every single Zelda using physics that are based on a flat earth. That is "nothing."
No, it isn't.
Just what part is using physics that are based on a flat Earth?
Note: Specifically based upon a FE, rather than merely approximating a RE.
For a RE, things fall down.
For a small enough portion of it, that can be modelled as flat, with down parallel.
Anyone who is actually looking objectively at the games. There is no doubt TLoZ was a flat earth. Its even more obvious in TAoL as you can see it in the side scrolling. Others have spoken to some of the other games.
No, it isn't.
Again, it is Hyrule, not Earth.
And again, is this merely an approximation, like a street directory, or is it actually trying to say the entire planet is flat?
It turned that way quite quickly, but that was never the only discussion within the 40 pages, the only one that should be discussed, or what the OP actually says. The OP says there were FE undertones to the game.
And there isn't.
You were the one arguing it was about the intent of the creators. Now you are arguing that its not promoting FE, in spite that it is - even if we believe you non-intentionally.
Video games can deeply influence the way players perceive and understand the world - like many mediums. By presenting a flat, non-curving game world, players can and do subconsciously adopt a supposedly skewed view of geography and physics. This can potentially reinforce - and promote - that the real world Earth is flat.
Not if they have any sense of rational thought and recognise all the other fantasy aspects.
Additionally, it helps normalize that normal science isn't the only way to look at things by providing a working universe where that isn't the case and realistic enough physics to showcase that it is not a necessity for the earth to be round to observe the majority of what we see.
It works with pure fantasy. Not based upon anything like real world physics.
It provides no explanation for how anything happens. Nor does it even attempt to fully model the real world.
So no, it doesn't show Earth doesn't need to be round.
You are inventing an entire world that doesn't exist simply to support your tenuous claims.
That would be you. With you claiming the lore of the game has it as a flat world. But just where is that?
No where.
Because it does.
Except no one can explain how.
So I see no reason at all to think it does.
-
"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."
The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature. Consider in real life: If God the creator exists, does that mean Earth has to rely upon pure magic? No. That's an absurd leap. Just like yours
-
"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."
The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature.
They are presented as the creation of magic, not natural and just sitting there.
Now again, what magic holds them up? And why can't this magic work equally for UA and gravity?
Even if you don't want it to be magic, the question still stands, why UA and not gravity?
-
"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."
The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature.
They are presented as the creation of magic, not natural and just sitting there.
Now again, what magic holds them up? And why can't this magic work equally for UA and gravity?
Even if you don't want it to be magic, the question still stands, why UA and not gravity?
Yeah, I always use the words device, machine and technology to describe magic - such as Zonai technology and Zonai devices. I'd hazard it to say the word magic isn't mentioned once in relation to the Zonai. Again, as per usual, you are just making things up to attempt to win an discussion in which you are patently and blatantly incorrect.
If they do mention magic (I can't think of a single instance), it's no surprise as we all know "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and we can be sure that the Zonai's tech fits this bill. Given the appearance of these islands and their timing, its pretty clearly due to zonai technology. In this case, it would be leveraging the bow shock effect of the UA as introduced by TheEngineer or space dialation as introduced by myself. The technology that makes this happen is likely in lore to be the giant floating death star-esque devices.
-
"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."
The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature. Consider in real life: If God the creator exists, does that mean Earth has to rely upon pure magic? No. That's an absurd leap. Just like yours
The globularist mind is dependent on absurd leap after absurd leap to hold its fragile uneducated world view together. I have to admit, I'm not in the least bit surprised in this behavior. It would make a wonderful subject for a psychological study.
Due to a deeply rooted biological imperative to see connections where they don't exist, the globularist is innately compelled to engage in such silliness. In the wild, they benefited from this because if they assumed a predator was not near when one was, they would die. If they instead assumed a predator was there when one was or was not, either way they are more likely to live.
Its truly a shame to all man that they haven't moved beyond their animal thought structures and learned the skill of critical thought as us Brothers of Zetetic thought have.
-
Again, as per usual, you are just making things up to attempt to win an discussion in which you are patently and blatantly incorrect.
I would say that again, as per usual, you are deflecting.
Notice how much you cling to the word magic, rather than even attempting to address the actual issue.
In this case, it would be leveraging the bow shock effect of the UA as introduced by TheEngineer or space dialation as introduced by myself. The technology that makes this happen is likely in lore to be the giant floating death star-esque devices.
Care to elaborate?
And notice how you again do what you accuse others of? Inventing lore which simply doesn't exist.
The globularist mind is dependent on absurd leap after absurd leap to hold its fragile uneducated world view together. I have to admit, I'm not in the least bit surprised in this behavior. It would make a wonderful subject for a psychological study.
You sure do love projection.
Due to a deeply rooted biological imperative to see connections where they don't exist
Like trying to see a connection between a game and FE?
Its truly a shame to all man that they haven't moved beyond their animal thought structures and learned the skill of critical thought as us Brothers of Zetetic thought have.
Those who would actually follow zetetic thought would discard the FE and all its nonsense.
-
In this case, it would be leveraging the bow shock effect of the UA as introduced by TheEngineer or space dialation as introduced by myself. The technology that makes this happen is likely in lore to be the giant floating death star-esque devices.
Care to elaborate?
And notice how you again do what you accuse others of? Inventing lore which simply doesn't exist.
You are welcome to take those as conjecture. However, inventing an entire world that doesn't exist, inventing that zonai devices are magic, etc are center to your argument. This is just a foot note and could be easily omitted without affecting the validity of my points negatively.
You sure do love projection.
Ah yes, how surprised am I see you using the tried and true defense of "I know you are but what am I."
-
You are welcome to take those as conjecture. However, inventing an entire world that doesn't exist, inventing that zonai devices are magic, etc are center to your argument.
No, it isn't.
Firstly, I wasn't inventing an entire world that doesn't exist. That was you, from the start:
While you could argue that perhaps this was done for ease of coding or preformance or other reasons, it is still clear that both in lore and in the actual game it is a flat world.
There is NOTHING to suggest that in the lore of the game it is a flat world.
All you have is that the game is mostly Euclidean.
And in fact, there is one part of the game world which appears non Euclidean if you wish to avoid magic, the lost woods.
Likewise, I don't care if they are magic or technology, the same issue arises.
If this can allow them to defy the highly selective UA and remain in the air, then why can't it also allow them to defy gravity and remain in the air?
Again, you invent a story about how it could work, with nothing from the game to support it, and no real explanation of it at all; just to claim it supports a FE.
This is just a foot note and could be easily omitted without affecting the validity of my points negatively.
Yet instead of attempting to focus on what should be your argument, you cling to this?
You are right, it should be a footnote, but you make it the main focus.
Again, how is it based upon a FE, rather than a simplification of RE/reality?
How does it require UA?
Does this apply for every floating platform, including the multitude of those seen in previous games?
What about those which go up and down?
Do they still require UA? Or can they just be defying gravity?
Care to try addressing the actual argument, rather than clinging to a footnote?
Ah yes, how surprised am I see you using the tried and true defense of "I know you are but what am I."
And I'm not surprised to see a FEer, projecting their inadequacies onto REers, rather than even attempting to defend their argument.
Likewise, I'm not surprised to see a FEer, entirely ignore being called out on it, entirely ignoring examples of how they are doing what they accuse others of.
-
So I think we can now safely add ToTK to the list of Zelda titles like the Windwaker which exhibit FET components
-
So I think we can now safely add ToTK to the list of Zelda titles like the Windwaker which exhibit FET components
Only if by that you mean you can find something which remotely resembles something from FE, then sure.
If you mean it demonstrates a FE or requires a FE then no.
Again, why must it be UA rather than gravity.
-
You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.
Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome
-
You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.
Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome
You believe floating islands are evidence of either model? When it’s just fantasy?
-
You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.
No, I don't.
I think it is fantasy, without any connection to the shape of Earth.
Me objecting to the idea it is promoting a FE does not mean I think this fantasy is any more plausible on a RE.
If anything, I indicated there was no difference.
Notice how I wasn't boldly claim it MUST use gravity and is incompatible with UA?
Instead, I asked why it should require UA rather than working equally for gravity.
And I notice you still haven't provided an answer.
Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome
Yet you still don't have any.
-
You're the one that thinks floating islands are more plausible on a round earth.
Another Zelda game with FE themes has been quite welcome
You believe floating islands are evidence of either model? When it’s just fantasy?
Yeah, we do. RE has upside down floating islands. Given that Link is told by the game mechanics in BOTW/TOTK that he cannot climb upside down, the game's own mechanics disprove the idea that Link is able to keep going around a circle. As is the fact that in many Zelda games, Link cannot loop back to his starting location.
-
So I think we can now safely add ToTK to the list of Zelda titles like the Windwaker which exhibit FET components
Most definitely. We can set that in stone now and safely move on since there are no legitimate arguments to the contrary.
-
Yeah, we do. RE has upside down floating islands.
No it doesn't.
Care to try again without lying?
the game's own mechanics disprove the idea that Link is able to keep going around a circle. As is the fact that in many Zelda games, Link cannot loop back to his starting location.
A limitation of the game, where an edge to the world of some form, typically just an arbitrarily limit, with the world still existing but you unable to pass an impenetrable wall, just proves it is a game.
Most definitely. We can set that in stone now and safely move on since there are no legitimate arguments to the contrary.
You can set anything in stone. But that wont make it true.
You have no arguments to support such a fantasy.
-
Yeah, we do. RE has upside down floating islands.
No it doesn't.
Care to try again without lying?
You can set anything in stone. But that wont make it true.
You have no arguments to support such a fantasy.
Yeah, it does. If we ascribe to your theory.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1138630881423151175/HyruleRE_Fail.png)
Objects extending outside from the underside of a spherical object are upside down.
In the mean time, wow. Okay, at the right altitude (I was riding the Light Dragon), near Turakawak shrine, I was able to see straight to the Lomei Ruins in Akkala. In can you missed it, this is a straight line with zero curvature. It lined up with Death Mountain. In fact, I was able to take a shot of all three Lomei ruins though the one near Gerudo (actually the closest geographically) was mostly obscured by dust clouds.
-
Yeah, it does. If we ascribe to your theory.
No, if we ascribe to your nonsense (including your strawman of the RE model).
Again, in the RE model (and reality) Earth is in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any other object.
The floating islands in Hyrule are not that.
Again, the islands float by magic. It doesn't really matter if you want to call it magic or technology. Either way, no one has yet provided why this should work for UA, but not gravity.
Objects extending outside from the underside of a spherical object are upside down.
That is your strawman.
In the mean time, wow. Okay, at the right altitude (I was riding the Light Dragon), near Turakawak shrine, I was able to see straight to the Lomei Ruins in Akkala. In can you missed it, this is a straight line with zero curvature. It lined up with Death Mountain. In fact, I was able to take a shot of all three Lomei ruins though the one near Gerudo (actually the closest geographically) was mostly obscured by dust clouds.
If it was a straight line, with 0 curvature, any altitude would work.
-
You keep saying they float from magic with no evidence.
-
You keep saying they float from magic with no evidence.
I say it is magic, because no one is providing any explanation of how they float.
And as I said, it doesn't actually matter if it is magic.
Unless you can explain the technology which allows it to float, and how that would only work under UA rather than gravity, it means it is just as compatible with gravity as UA.
Now care to be honest and try to actually address that?
Care to explain why they can float under UA and not gravity?
-
Yeah, it does. If we ascribe to your theory.
No, if we ascribe to your nonsense (including your strawman of the RE model).
Again, in the RE model (and reality) Earth is in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any other object.
The floating islands in Hyrule are not that.
Again, the islands float by magic. It doesn't really matter if you want to call it magic or technology. Either way, no one has yet provided why this should work for UA, but not gravity.
Magic? No, I'm talking about forces of repulsion. The sky islands are kept in the sky by what appears to be some sort of strong anti-magnetic metal. You can see this on some of the islands if you miss the top, and have to climb up from the underside.
Objects extending outside from the underside of a spherical object are upside down.
That is your strawman.
No, it's physics. And common sense. If I were to have an object (such as some sort of magnet) that simultaneously repels and attracts objects causing them to hover around the object, everything hovering toward the top side would be above it, while everything near the underside would be below it.
In the mean time, wow. Okay, at the right altitude (I was riding the Light Dragon), near Turakawak shrine, I was able to see straight to the Lomei Ruins in Akkala. In can you missed it, this is a straight line with zero curvature. It lined up with Death Mountain. In fact, I was able to take a shot of all three Lomei ruins though the one near Gerudo (actually the closest geographically) was mostly obscured by dust clouds.
If it was a straight line, with 0 curvature, any altitude would work.
If it had any curvature, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's rather simple...
I set pins from two locations. The first was atop Light Dragon (Zelda). From there, I was at a good height to see completely across the map, and I could take pictures of all the Lomei mazes, including ones that were completely across the map.
By comparison, at ground level in Lookout Landing, I could see... Hyrule Castle, Gerudo Highlands, and Hebra Mountains. These were the only distant landmarks that I could see.
In order to see Lanaryu Mountain, I had to climb some steps, as it was obstructed by the walls. I also couldn't see sky islands (except if sky was ideal), except for the two nearest islands, an island in the Central Hyrule Archipelago and the Great Sky Island.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1139269512290639883/HyruleView.png)
Basically, considering that I was surrounded by walls on all sides, Link's view was remarkably good for tall ground level objects but terrible for objects in the sky. Kinda similar to what I'd expect with zero curvature. Now let's talk about what happens when you have curvature, and how elevation affects it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1139270338140704869/HyruleRE.png)
Link is riding Light Dragon (Zelda) again, but this time, he is on a round Earth (well, Hyrule). The problem is, the farther away an object, the more profound the curvature. His current location is -0241, 0074, 0019. Teleporting to Sitsum Shrine on Death Mountain... 2369, 2595, 0790
Let's see the difference is 2610 + 2491 + 771 = 5872 or over a mile difference between the two points. But because we are working with perspective, we scale this to 3 miles view for regular day and about 11 miles for clear view. There's a problem.
The problem is, Hyrule is at a much smaller scale than Earth. So if we were to curve land (not including the areas off the map like some of the unpinnable mountains), even a few mere miles would curve out of view, meaning that whether Link was at ground level atop Best Waifu Draygon or even atop the highest island (which is one of the flower shaped islands directly above Lookout Landing), he should nonetheless be completely unable to see around the hard corners of curve in this world.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1139270338140704869/HyruleRE.png)
Look, it's not difficult. Any video game player can tell you why on a completely flat screen you can't see forever. Just ask them.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1139278926175277096/image.png)
The screen ends. That's it.
There is a limit to sight that has nothing to do with curvature, and everything to do with all lines of sight converging at an endpoint. There's no clever solution, no tricky trick to this.
You just stop seeing it. It moves outside perspective.
-
Magic? No, I'm talking about forces of repulsion. The sky islands are kept in the sky by what appears to be some sort of strong anti-magnetic metal. You can see this on some of the islands if you miss the top, and have to climb up from the underside.
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to call it magic or not.
The fact is you cannot provide a reason why it works on UA with FE but not with gravity or a RE.
No, it's physics. And common sense.
No, it isn't.
It is your strawman where you want to entirely ignore physics.
A key part of physics is no preferred directionality.
This means that if you want to discuss the underside you need to have some reference for where down is.
For the RE, down is towards the centre.
So it doesn't matter where on the surface of the sphere you are, you are NOT on the underside. There is no underside.
It is only if you take a much smaller sphere and put it on Earth, that you have down still towards the centre of Earth.
Again, stop pretending the RE is a tiny ball on a much larger ball.
That is your strawman that you need to repeatedly cling to to pretend the RE is wrong.
If I were to have an object (such as some sort of magnet) that simultaneously repels and attracts objects causing them to hover around the object, everything hovering toward the top side would be above it, while everything near the underside would be below it.
And how do you identify the top side?
If it had any curvature, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Not quite. If it had any curvature, and you were honest, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As you are quite happy to lie to everyone, we are having this "discussion".
Notice how in your image you shown terrain?
Features which go up and down.
If it was actually a straight line with no curvature, it would be flat. There would be no terrain.
Death mountain wouldn't exist.
What you want to do is ignore all that terrain and focus on a hypothetical flat surface. A surface that doesn't exist.
Now let's talk about what happens when you have curvature, and how elevation affects it.
You mean now you will blatantly lie about what happens with curvature, clinging to straw men again.
Once more, Earth is not a tiny ball.
And Hyrule is NOT the entirety of the world in Zelda.
It may be the region you can access, but if you go to the edge you can see it still stretches out beyond.
So once more you are being dishonest.
You are setting up a strawman to attack because you can't attack reality.
Look, it's not difficult. Any video game player can tell you why on a completely flat screen you can't see forever. Just ask them.
The screen ends. That's it.
There is a limit to sight that has nothing to do with curvature, and everything to do with all lines of sight converging at an endpoint.
The limit has NOTHING to do with lines of sight converging.
Instead it has to do with the fact it is a game. A game, with artificial limitations, like resolution, and rendering limits.
Once more, the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
When things "disappear" due to perspective, they are simply too small to resolve and using better optics allow them to be viewed.
Also in this case, they disappear BEFORE the horizon.
Conversely, when, in reality, things disappear at the horizon, they are obstructed from view, with no optics able to bring them back into view.
And plenty even disappear when still resolvable, showing it is NOT perspective.
-
Magic? No, I'm talking about forces of repulsion. The sky islands are kept in the sky by what appears to be some sort of strong anti-magnetic metal. You can see this on some of the islands if you miss the top, and have to climb up from the underside.
Again, it doesn't matter if you want to call it magic or not.
The fact is you cannot provide a reason why it works on UA with FE but not with gravity or a RE.
No, it's physics. And common sense.
No, it isn't.
It is your strawman where you want to entirely ignore physics.
I'm not entirely sure you used the term strawman correctly.
A key part of physics is no preferred directionality.
This means that if you want to discuss the underside you need to have some reference for where down is.
That's funny, because when I discussed the idea of no preferred directionality in another thread...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91148.630
I basically got sass. People telling me that while it is possible to push a Jeep Wrangler forward or downhill, it is completely impossible to push it uphill or straight upward. If no directionality is preferred (because you need to have the Earth round) then it is fully possible to rotate directions, and indeed push objects straight up given the right circumstances (I discussed a harness). Pick one. Either we have non-fixed directionality and you have to account for multi-directional movement including straight up walls and ceilings, or we have a fixed directionality toward the bottom of the Earth (FE or RE), or we have semi-non-fixed directionality and a FE.
For the RE, down is towards the centre.
So why is it that objects fly? I create a random object with a dense magnetic & metallic center. All objects should be pulled strongly toward the center. For purposes of this experiment, this object's outside is a sturdy water bucket (holds 20 gallons of water) made from indestructible plastic, while the core is a floating orb in the center of the bucket that has equal mass (compressed and proportional to the surface space) to the Earth. Basically, I'm creating an experimental microcosm. It ought to supposedly stick any gravel, sand, and water into it, while leaving everything outside the bucket alone.
But there's a problem. I introduce a bee hummingbird (since the experimental space is small, so must the bird be). The bird is not grounded. It flies out of the bucket going back to what you call normal gravity. It's not stopped by that either. Neither is a helicopter, jumbo jet, or hot air balloon.
So it doesn't matter where on the surface of the sphere you are, you are NOT on the underside. There is no underside.
Yes. There is. Just because your "scientist" gurus say no, doesn't mean that's the case. If all force were equal, we still have other forces to work with! Even central gravity, you're basically describing a sort of magic that mysteriously violates angular momentum. Or do you want to answer this question?
A more practical example. I can place my Jeep Wrangler in neutral and push it around the garage with or with out the front wheels turned. But I can’t lift it vertically off the ground by strength.
Or. What’s different where I can push the wrangle around the garage, I can let it roll downhill, but I can’t push it uphill.
What’s the difference with mass where I can push the wrangler around the garage from standstill. I can let the wrangle roll down a hill from standstill. But can’t push / roll the wrangle uphill from standstill.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1139270338140704869/HyruleRE.png)
Meanwhile, if you were honest, you would tell me that Link's eyes cannot see around corners. Yes, even though he is a Hylian elf, eyes don't do that.
(https://www.hiddenvalleydiscoverypark.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/maze-hidden-valley-1.jpg)
The reason we become lost in mazes is because vision is indeed fallible. Now, maybe if you didn't double-down when caught in lies, and shift the facts to whatever you want them to be to suit the purpose at hand, we could actually have a real discussion and not just have alot of crap.
We can't climb walls or ceilings, we can't push objects uphill, but you say gravity is not fixed. Because you say so?
Why don't we get sick in the same way as jet lag, when we walk over the equator? Or around certain points of latitude or longitude? Even if gravity is centered, the liquids inside your body should be doing this.
Blood rush is a serious problem, and liquids and solids do not move at the same pace.
-
I'm not entirely sure you used the term strawman correctly.
I am.
You are dishonestly misrepresenting the RE model, pretending it is something it is not, so you can attack that misrepresentation rather than the RE model.
That is a strawman.
A key part of physics is no preferred directionality.
This means that if you want to discuss the underside you need to have some reference for where down is.
That's funny, because when I discussed the idea of no preferred directionality in another thread...
I basically got sass.
I wouldn't call that sass.
You could not explain the directionality.
If no directionality is preferred (because you need to have the Earth round) then it is fully possible to rotate directions, and indeed push objects straight up
Without gravity, yes.
Gravity provides directionality.
Either we have non-fixed directionality and you have to account for multi-directional movement including straight up walls and ceilings, or we have a fixed directionality toward the bottom of the Earth (FE or RE), or we have semi-non-fixed directionality and a FE.
Or I can pick reality.
We have no intrinsic directionality, and directionality comes from interactions.
That means if you have a large sphere in space, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of other objects, down is towards that object and up is away from it.
No need for a magical, inexplicable down.
So why is it that objects fly?
Because multiple forces act.
I create a random object with a dense magnetic & metallic center. All objects should be pulled strongly toward the center. For purposes of this experiment, this object's outside is a sturdy water bucket (holds 20 gallons of water) made from indestructible plastic, while the core is a floating orb in the center of the bucket that has equal mass (compressed and proportional to the surface space) to the Earth. Basically, I'm creating an experimental microcosm. It ought to supposedly stick any gravel, sand, and water into it, while leaving everything outside the bucket alone.
Why would it magically leave everything outside the bucket alone?
But there's a problem. I introduce a bee hummingbird (since the experimental space is small, so must the bird be). The bird is not grounded. It flies out of the bucket going back to what you call normal gravity. It's not stopped by that either. Neither is a helicopter, jumbo jet, or hot air balloon.
Wrong again.
With the mass of Earth placed into a region smaller than a bucket, the gravitational attraction would be much greater.
If it was an orb with a radius of 6.371 cm, then its radius is roughly one 100 millionth of that of Earth. And as the force of gravity scales as 1/d^2, that means the value of g for that orb would be 10 quadrillion times that of Earth.
Your little bird would fall in and be killed by that force.
But ignoring that, and sticking to just reality, where birds can fly, that is because another force acts.
Gravity is not magic. If you have a strong enough force acting opposing gravity, you can have a net force acting in a direction opposite the force due to gravity, allowing birds to fly.
If you remove the wings, the birds can't fly.
If you remove the helicopter's blades (its rotary wing) or the jumbo jet's wings, they can't fly.
If you allow the air in the hot air balloon to cool, it can't fly.
They all need an additional force acting.
Yes. There is. Just because your "scientist" gurus say no, doesn't mean that's the case.
No, there isn't.
Your irrational hatred of the RE model, and wanting to strawman it by pretending there is an underside will not change that.
If you wish to claim there is an underside, then tell us what location on the RE is the lowest point, and most importantly, WHY.
If all force were equal, we still have other forces to work with! Even central gravity, you're basically describing a sort of magic that mysteriously violates angular momentum. Or do you want to answer this question?
The one clinging to pure magic here is YOU! Where you want to claim things fall for no reason.
What question?
Why things can be pushed on level ground but not up?
And why it accelerates when going down?
Because gravity pulls it down. When you move it up, you need to apply a force to overcome gravity.
When you move it down, gravity pulls it for you.
When you move it level, you are neither fighting gravity nor having it assist you.
If you mean your crappy drawing, again, Earth is not a tiny ball, neither is Hyrule.
Meanwhile, if you were honest, you would tell me that Link's eyes cannot see around corners.
I am honest.
I'm not the one blatantly lying to everyone repeatedly, with pure BS like a clearly irregular terrain magically being straight.
That would be YOU!
Do you know why you can't see around corners? Because objects block the way, e.g. the corner.
We can even use a doorway as an example.
The wall around the doorway blocks the view.
An honest person would admit you can see through the doorway to the other side, seeing objects on the other side of the door; where it is when the line of sight is obstructed, such as trying to look straight through the wall, that you can't see it; clearly demonstrating how obstructions block the view.
Conversely, dishonest people want to pretend that this magically means there is some distance limit to your eyes, where perspective magically cuts off your vision, as if you can't see someone standing on the other side of the doorway, because of the wall to the side, even though the wall doesn't block the view.
Now, maybe if you didn't double-down when caught in lies, and shift the facts to whatever you want them to be to suit the purpose at hand, we could actually have a real discussion and not just have alot of crap.
And more pathetic projection.
You are yet to catch me in any lines. Conversely I have caught you in plenty.
You happily lie, making up whatever dishonest BS you think you need to pretend your delusional BS is true.
There have even been plenty of times where you contradict yourself, and switch back and forth between different contradictory blatant lies to pretend the RE must have a problem
If you want a real discussion, try having one.
Notice how yet again you avoided the real issue?
Whatever magic you appeal to should work equally for UA or gravity. So the floating islands do not need a FE.
You know you have no rational response to this, so you deflect with whatever dishonest BS you can muster to pretend RE must be wrong.
We can't climb walls or ceilings, we can't push objects uphill, but you say gravity is not fixed.
Why should we be able to?
Again, you just assert delusional BS with no justification at all.
Why don't we get sick in the same way as jet lag, when we walk over the equator? Or around certain points of latitude or longitude? Even if gravity is centered, the liquids inside your body should be doing this.
Again, WHY?
Stop just asserting delusional BS and try explaining it.
Why should we magically get jet lag from walking over the equator?
What makes the equator so magically special?
Why should any other point of latitude or longitude magically cause that?
-
"No, they are presented as the home of gods to the Hylians, i.e. the Zonai.
They also match well with the floating lands from skyward Sword. This would mean they were created by the Goddess Hylia, and rely upon pure magic."
The fact that there is a creator doesn't mean it doesn't occur in nature. Consider in real life: If God the creator exists, does that mean Earth has to rely upon pure magic? No. That's an absurd leap. Just like yours
Or more precisely, a being that creates things based on magic as someone here conjectures, can also enact laws.
"Let there be a force that causes atoms to stick together." (Cohesion)
"Let there be a force that causes metal to be attracted." (Magnetism)
Why is there no force of gravity mentioned? Would God repeat himself? There are already two laws governing the motion of objects.
"Let there be a force that lets light things float and heavy things sink." (Buoyancy)
"Let there be a force that allows objects to stay in motion until they slow to a stop. Let it be governed by the force of buoyancy." (Momemtum)
"Let there further be a force that overrides buoyancy. Let it be governed by the force of momentum." (Propulsion)
This is why falling objects continue falling (momentum stalls so we have free fall/terminal velocity, but they still continue toward ground because of buoyancy as it is truly understood to not only be about floating but also sinking). This is also why you can fly or swim (propulsion allows push against mediums, but short of self-propulsion as in swimming, it is subject to gradual decline of momentum). There is no such thing as infinite momentum. I cannot fire an arrow and expect it to go forever without falling. And no it's not because of a constant force ("gravity"), it starts happening the moment the arrow begins to slow.
Granted these aren't the only laws. But gravity is not needed.
That said, there seem to be different rules on firing arrows in each Zelda game. Skyward Sword and Ocarina of Time? Arrows fly forward until they go offscreen (this is insane).
The overhead games? Arrows sometimes bypass objects that boomerang hits and sometimes not, travels an entire screen.
Botw? Arc fully determines distance. Ancient bow arrows travel straight until a certain distance.
Totk? Arc determines distance but there is a hard momentum limit (probably based on the bow).
-
Why is there no force of gravity mentioned? Would God repeat himself? There are already two laws governing the motion of objects.
Because you are literally fabricating quotes to further back up your dishonesty?
And notice how you didn't even fabricate one for UA?
Again, care to try being honest for once and explaining why the magical floating islands need magical highly selective UA rather than gravity?
Or will you just continue to dishonestly deflect?
buoyancy as it is truly understood to not only be about floating but also sinking
No, it isn't.
When incredibly poorly understood, including have absolutely no idea why, it is thought to be that.
But when understood, we recognise buoyancy as arising from a pressure gradient in a fluid which itself is caused by gravity (or something equivalent). This is an upwards force (or equivalent).
It provides no reason for things to fall, and relies upon gravity (or equivalent) to work.
There is no such thing as infinite momentum.
Momentum does not need to be infinite for an object to travel forever. What you need is nothing to remove the momentum.
I cannot fire an arrow and expect it to go forever without falling. And no it's not because of a constant force ("gravity")
It is because of gravity.
Your wilful rejection of reality wont change that.
Granted these aren't the only laws. But gravity is not needed.
Then provide an explanation for why things fall.
That said, there seem to be different rules on firing arrows in each Zelda game.
As if it is just a game, rather than reality.
With the rules of the game not actually based upon reality.
As if they just chose whatever rules they wanted for the game, rather than trying to hide claims about reality in it.
-
Another great proof is in the underworld. Not only is this a clear indication of a vertical cosmology, which plane out makes no sense given a globular world view, but also we can easily note that there are no plate tectonics - something that would be necessary on a round earth to create the various mountains and valleys present in Hyrule.
-
Another great proof is in the underworld. Not only is this a clear indication of a vertical cosmology, which plane out makes no sense given a globular world view, but also we can easily note that there are no plate tectonics - something that would be necessary on a round earth to create the various mountains and valleys present in Hyrule.
None of that is true.
An underworld doesn't require a vertical cosmology. We have tunnels on Earth as well.
Again, this is an issue of fantasy not being compatible with reality, nothing intrinsic to the shape of Earth.
As for plate tectonics, why? Because you say so? We literally see the ground move, so why couldn't their be plate tectonics?
As for needed on a RE, why? If a FE doesn't have it, and yet it can still have mountains, then why can't whatever process that works on a FE work on a RE?
-
And notice how you didn't even fabricate one for UA?
I'm not part of the UA crowd. Such a thing is neither for or against what I believe to be true. I only care about the shape and the basic (lack of) motion of this world.
Again, care to try being honest for once and explaining why the magical floating islands need magical highly selective UA rather than gravity?
Or will you just continue to dishonestly deflect?
See above. Totally agnostic on the point of UA, and leave that opinion to other people. Sorry to disappoint. My theory is about buoyancy.
buoyancy as it is truly understood to not only be about floating but also sinking
No, it isn't.
When incredibly poorly understood, including have absolutely no idea why, it is thought to be that.
But when understood, we recognise buoyancy as arising from a pressure gradient in a fluid which itself is caused by gravity (or something equivalent). This is an upwards force (or equivalent).
It provides no reason for things to fall, and relies upon gravity (or equivalent) to work.
Your problem is you don't understand that buoyancy is an If-Else equation.
If Mass of object > Buoyant Forrce of medium, object sinks.
If Mass of object < Buoyant Force of medium, object floats.
By slyly introducing gravity as an opposite to buoyancy, Newton and his ilk were able to avoid actually debating against the proven theory of buoyancy by pretending it has always been a part of the buoyancy theory. But buoyancy was understood as far back as Archimedes and tbh, as far back as there were boats. Newton's theories were an add-on.
I hereby call out the fraud that is any buoyancy theories that associate with gravity. And I hereby declare that if you wish to prove gravity, you must prove that objects do not sink and float in the water due to their mass. Gravity as counterforce is no longer an option. You must wholly dispute buoyancy as a theory to propose the theory of gravity.
Because I know that objects float, and under an If-Else condition there is no reason to have gravity, so but you gotta prove gravity by some other means than the lazy ride-along you've depended on thus far.
There is no such thing as infinite momentum.
Momentum does not need to be infinite for an object to travel forever. What you need is nothing to remove the momentum.
I call forth a void space for you to practice in, looped as though it is round. If indeed "momentum doesn't need to be infinite for an object to move forever" when you fire an arrow, it will continue and hit you in the back, then keep going, dragging you with it. Forever. Is any of this summoning realistic? No? Then :unsummons: will you yet admit that Newton was wrong (again) when he said objects stay in motion? Momentum is what keeps things moving. But nothing but the sun and moon move forever. Typically the things that move forever are phenomena (miracles), while objects come to a stop either by hitting objects or skidding to a stop on flat ground. If the Earth were truly round, don't you think objects should continue to roll?
I cannot fire an arrow and expect it to go forever without falling. And no it's not because of a constant force ("gravity")
It is because of gravity.
Your wilful rejection of reality wont change that.
Then provide an explanation for why things fall.
You crying and screaming that a force exists does change the fact that if I built a hovercraft, it should fall not long after the gas runs out. "Gravity" is simply mass in the absence of momentum. Motion stops due to fuel, the object sinks. Were an arrow able to fly forever (as Newton claims with his catchy statement), it should never touch the ground, drilling through mountains and staying aloft. Instead it either stops when it hits something, or figures out whether to sink or float. Buoyancy.
-
Another great proof is in the underworld. Not only is this a clear indication of a vertical cosmology, which plane out makes no sense given a globular world view, but also we can easily note that there are no plate tectonics - something that would be necessary on a round earth to create the various mountains and valleys present in Hyrule.
None of that is true.
An underworld doesn't require a vertical cosmology. We have tunnels on Earth as well.
Again, this is an issue of fantasy not being compatible with reality, nothing intrinsic to the shape of Earth.
As for plate tectonics, why? Because you say so? We literally see the ground move, so why couldn't their be plate tectonics?
As for needed on a RE, why? If a FE doesn't have it, and yet it can still have mountains, then why can't whatever process that works on a FE work on a RE?
Name one culture with a vertical cosmology that believed at its conception that the earth was round. A vertical cosmology is synonymous by definition with a flat planet.
The underworld isn't tunnels. Have you even played the game? Its an inverted topology of the surface. Given this, there are no plate tectonics because of said underworld.
Are you saying the RE model doesn't require tectonic plates? Can you justify this without vague hand waving?
-
I'm not part of the UA crowd. Such a thing is neither for or against what I believe to be true. I only care about the shape and the basic (lack of) motion of this world.
Which is just more deflection.
Even if you don't want it to be UA, explain why these magical floating islands need a FE rather than a RE.
There is no reason.
Instead, all you can offer is your typical strawmen of pretending the RE is a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Your problem is you don't understand that buoyancy is an If-Else equation.
No, your problem is that I do understand buoyancy. It isn't magic.
Do you know the key thing your nonsense lacks? Any ability to explain the pressure gradient which is the cause of buoyancy.
If buoyancy was just a simple case of denser object sinks, lighter object floats, then there would be no pressure gradient; and if there was a pressure gradient it would act in addition to buoyancy pushing objects up more.
And there is no explanation at all for the directionality.
In reality, the pressure gradient is empirically verifiable.
This pressure gradient MUST provide an upwards force.
So there must be a downwards force to counter it.
This downwards force is gravity.
This goes all the way back to Aristotle (or possibly further).
Aristotle had gravity make heavy objects go down.
But as they didn't know about the pressure gradient, they claimed that levity made light objects go up, with that being some innate property of the object.
Understanding the pressure gradient, including what is causing it and its effects, means there is no need for a magical levity.
Instead, there is gravity, a downwards force, trying to move everything, even air, downwards.
This develops a pressure gradient in fluids, and that pushes objects up.
A great thing about this is it is transferrable. You can substitute gravity for acceleration, explaining why a helium filled balloon suspended from the floor of a car will move forwards when you accelerate forwards.
And Newton came along and provided a reason, an attractive force between masses. This gave us an explanation for the directionality and no longer needed a magical down.
I hereby call out the fraud that is any buoyancy theories that associate with gravity. And I hereby declare that if you wish to prove gravity, you must prove that objects do not sink and float in the water due to their mass. Gravity as counterforce is no longer an option. You must wholly dispute buoyancy as a theory to propose the theory of gravity.
No, I don't need to do any of that. And that is because (as above) gravity provide an explanation for buoyancy.
If you wish to reject gravity, you need to explain what is maintaining a pressure gradient in a fluid, and why this fluid doesn't push objects of equal or similar density to fluids up.
Because I know that objects float, and under an If-Else condition there is no reason to have gravity
Pure BS.
An If-Else condition which entirely ignores key aspects of reality which destroys a simple if-else condition doesn't mean anything.
The pressure gradient means you need gravity or something like it.
It means the upwards buoyant force is a result of a downwards force.
And equally important, your if-else has no justification for the directionality.
but you gotta prove gravity by some other means than the lazy ride-along you've depended on thus far.
Providing explanations is not a mere lazy ride-along.
But gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt in plenty of ways, like the Cavendish experiment, and countless objects in orbit.
will you yet admit that Newton was wrong (again) when he said objects stay in motion?
No, I will object to your pathetic quote mine.
They didn't say that objects will stay in motion. They said that objects will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
So if an external force acts, the object slows down.
The key point is that such a force is needed to slow an object down. It doesn't just magically lose speed.
while objects come to a stop either by hitting objects or skidding to a stop on flat ground.
What you are appealing to there is an external force.
But the ground doesn't need to be flat.
It works as well on rough ground.
If the Earth were truly round, don't you think objects should continue to roll?
Why would I think that? If there is a force acting to resist the relative motion, it will stop eventually.
Care to try any sort of explanation at all, or will you just continue in your habit of asserting pure BS with no justification at all?
You crying and screaming that a force exists does change the fact that if I built a hovercraft, it should fall not long after the gas runs out.
I'm not crying and screaming. I'm just pointing out reality that you need to flee from.
You are yet to provide a viable alternative for gravity.
Instead you want to act like an arrow just magically falls for no reason at all.
And yes, with gravity acting on the hovercraft, without it burning fuel to stay up, it falls.
Were an arrow able to fly forever (as Newton claims with his catchy statement), it should never touch the ground, drilling through mountains and staying aloft.
Again, can you post a single post without a lie?
That is NOT what Newton claims.
Again, it is WITHOUT AN EXTERNAL FORCE.
Does your hypothetical have external forces?
YES!
You have the arrow drill through mountains.
This will require a force to displace the material that it has to drill through.
This force will act to slow down the arrow.
The arrow is flying through the air, so you have air resistance slowing it down.
You also have gravity, attracting it to Earth, and if it is in a sub-orbital path, it will hit Earth, with a force needed to displace the material again slowing it down.
So you have an external force acting to slow it down.
If you want it to continue forever you need to remove those forces. Such as by having it travel in an orbital trajectory (or faster) with negligible air resistance, without passing through matter, so as high up as possible.
-
Name one culture with a vertical cosmology that believed at its conception that the earth was round. A vertical cosmology is synonymous by definition with a flat planet.
No.
Explain why a vertical cosmology would require a flat Earth.
Why can't we have a vertical cosmology with spherical shells?
The underworld isn't tunnels. Have you even played the game?
I have played some of it, but so far the only underworld I have seen is a collection of tunnels.
Its an inverted topology of the surface. Given this, there are no plate tectonics because of said underworld.
Being inverted would not stop plate tectonics.
Are you saying the RE model doesn't require tectonic plates? Can you justify this without vague hand waving?
Are you saying the RE model requires tectonic plates, and that there is no other way to get mountains and the like without it? Can you justify this without vague hand waving?
Or do you accept that if plate tectonics were the only way to get mountains, that is a problem for any model that doesn't have plate tectonics regardless of the shape of Earth; and that if a FE can have mountains without plate tectonics, then whatever led to them being there for a FE would work equally well for a RE?
Or can you provide a mechanism which relies upon a FE, which wouldn't work on a RE?
You are just using a somewhat common FE tactic of claiming there is a problem and focusing on the RE while ignoring that the FE would have the same problem.
-
Name one culture with a vertical cosmology that believed at its conception that the earth was round. A vertical cosmology is synonymous by definition with a flat planet.
No.
Explain why a vertical cosmology would require a flat Earth.
Why can't we have a vertical cosmology with spherical shells?
Its almost like I know what I'm talking about and you are just talking out of your ass.
So, you have no counter argument, the definition agrees with me, you have no counter examples but you wish me to still take you seriously? Do you know what the word vertical means?
If it was layers on a globe, it would no longer be a vertical cosmology.
Here are some examples to support my argument: Ancient Mesopotamia with their zigarut shaped universe; Ancient Egyptian Religion with its different layers for heaven etc; Hindu with lokas; Abrahamic religions with heaven and hell; Ancient Chinese with the three layers.
You can't just make up a different definition for "vertical cosmology" and expect us to take it seriously when its literally an overarching idea that has emerged in various cultures and civilizations throughout history independently and the same way, never matching your definition.
The underworld isn't tunnels. Have you even played the game?
I have played some of it, but so far the only underworld I have seen is a collection of tunnels.
Its an inverted topology of the surface. Given this, there are no plate tectonics because of said underworld.
Being inverted would not stop plate tectonics.
Ah yes, the topology created by the surface plates which we never see and the underworld topology just happens to be a mirror for no reason. More than this, the majority of the space between the two is empty, questioning how tectonics would even physically work and why they would work in such a way that they would in concert create valleys exactly where mountains are.
Are you saying the RE model doesn't require tectonic plates? Can you justify this without vague hand waving?
Are you saying the RE model requires tectonic plates, and that there is no other way to get mountains and the like without it? Can you justify this without vague hand waving?
I'm not saying this. The scientific consensus of your world view is.
-
Its almost like I know what I'm talking about and you are just talking out of your ass.
Straight to projection I see?
So, you have no counter argument, the definition agrees with me, you have no counter examples but you wish me to still take you seriously? Do you know what the word vertical means?
If it was layers on a globe, it would no longer be a vertical cosmology.
What you have is an "underworld" which from what I can see is a collection of chasms with a large connected chasm underneath the main surface, and floating islands.
There is nothing to indicate it is purely vertical compared to spherical shells, or just a round planet with some things floating above it and things under the main surface.
You are making all sorts of logical leaps to pretend it must be a FE and that a RE isn't possible.
If you want to appeal to exact definitions, then show why that is the only definition that is applicable.
Show why it must be a "vertical cosmology" with a FE and planes above and below.
And as for the actual definition, I can't find any explicit definition of vertical cosmology as a phrase and instead see it as just a common combination of terms, i.e. it is simply a cosmology which is vertical.
And if vertical is radially outwards (or inwards), then spherical shells would match that.
As for your specific examples, if you are referring to ancient Buddhism, the three realms are not physical flat worlds stacked vertically on top of each other. It focused on different mental states.
It is unclear if the Lokas are meant to be vertically stacked or just different worlds.
But here is a nice picture of them:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Lower_seven_Lokas_purana.png)
Sure looks like a stack of planes....
And some like Mesopotamia are based upon reconstructions from today rather than any account form the past.
Ah yes, the topology created by the surface plates which we never see and the underworld topology just happens to be a mirror for no reason. More than this, the majority of the space between the two is empty, questioning how tectonics would even physically work and why they would work in such a way that they would in concert create valleys exactly where mountains are.
Yes, as if magic is causing it instead.
As if it is a game.
A game where the world has changed quite a lot over the entire history of it.
With some regions moving massively relative to one another.
How would such a system work in a FE?
I'm not saying this. The scientific consensus of your world view is.
So you are saying the current RE model uses plate tectonics, not that the RE is impossible without them?
People realised Earth was round before plate tectonics was understood.
And that isn't what you actually said.
This is what you said:
we can easily note that there are no plate tectonics - something that would be necessary on a round earth to create the various mountains and valleys present in Hyrule.
This is NOT you merely saying the current RE model has plate tectonics to explain the formation of mountains and valleys.
Instead, this is you boldly asserting that a round Earth NEEDS plate tectonics to create the various mountains and valleys.
Quite different. So no deflecting off to the current scientific explanation of how the mountains and valleys formed.
Instead you need to justify your claim that the RE needs it.
And part of that will naturally be explaining why it is specifically the RE that needs it and not a FE.
Otherwise you are just saying there is no reason for why there are mountains and valleys, regardless of the shape of Earth.
-
And as for the actual definition, I can't find any explicit definition of vertical cosmology as a phrase and instead see it as just a common combination of terms, i.e. it is simply a cosmology which is vertical.
And if vertical is radially outwards (or inwards), then spherical shells would match that.
As for your specific examples, if you are referring to ancient Buddhism, the three realms are not physical flat worlds stacked vertically on top of each other. It focused on different mental states.
It is unclear if the Lokas are meant to be vertically stacked or just different worlds.
But here is a nice picture of them:
It's a real shame that you don't understand the difference between horizontal stacking and vertical stacking.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/vector-illustration-sandwich-layers-infographic-design-food-sandwich-layers-215069881.jpg)
Vertical stacking. Note the round shape of the hamburger bun. Nvm that it is not a real burger.
(https://www.sciencenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/060620_reviews_feat-1028x579.jpg)
Horizontal stacking. The tree is chopped so it has fallen over, but the result is not different. Outward concentric circles = horizontal stacking. As is true for this.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Lower_seven_Lokas_purana.png)
Tree rings of metaphysical reality. Horizontal stacking.
Link rocketing straight up? Vertical stacking.
-
It's a real shame that you don't understand the difference between horizontal stacking and vertical stacking.
Great job entirely missing the point.
Horizontal stacking. The tree is chopped so it has fallen over, but the result is not different. Outward concentric circles = horizontal stacking. As is true for this.
That depends on the orientation of the circles. And you ignored spheres.
Now again, care to try explaining why it needs a FE?
Or even admit that your "straight line" is based upon ignoring the geography?
-
I see JB still refers to them as "magical floating islands".
Do you also observe the magical floating structures known commonly as clouds from time to time?
I imagine it's fun to call what occurs in nature magic.
-
I see JB still refers to them as "magical floating islands".
And until someone provides an explanation for them, I will continue to do so.
Have you come up with an explanation?
Or just more dishonest deflection?
-
You're the one making a claim of magic, not me
-
I see JB still refers to them as "magical floating islands".
Do you also observe the magical floating structures known commonly as clouds from time to time?
I imagine it's fun to call what occurs in nature magic.
You can clearly see that the bottom of these are capped with some sort of metal. This is a repulsion reaction using some kind of magnetic reaction.
https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/xgpp8m/totk_this_section_of_the_tears_of_the_kingdom/
Look at the video from about 0:15 to 0:17. You can clearly see spires on each of these.
You call everything that can't be explained by the science you know magic. How unscientific. There is such a thing as magic (spiritual abilities), but ignoring what actually involves science to instead talk about magic and layers of Buddhist reality... if you're gonna teach us that Flat Earthers are superstitious, you're not off to a great start!
-
I see JB still refers to them as "magical floating islands".
Do you also observe the magical floating structures known commonly as clouds from time to time?
I imagine it's fun to call what occurs in nature magic.
If they are clouds in a video game, they are not even real. Just code, probably in this case with nothing simulating temperature changes and condensing. What’s the temperature changes vs sun position and altitude for the game environment. With relative humidity. Or is it easier to say the clouds are just code magic. With no reason to exist other than they were coded in.
-
You're the one making a claim of magic, not me
So I was right, just more pathetic deflection.
I am the one dismissing it as magic, as you are yet to provide an explanation of how it is meant to work.
I don't really care if you want to call it magic, or nature, or technology.
The simple fact is YOU are the one making a claim that this means it is a FE, with UA.
Yet you have provided NOTHING to support that claim.
Again, why must it require a FE? Why must it require UA?
Why can't it work equally well with a RE and gravity?
-
Its almost like I know what I'm talking about and you are just talking out of your ass.
Straight to projection I see?
So, you have no counter argument, the definition agrees with me, you have no counter examples but you wish me to still take you seriously? Do you know what the word vertical means?
If it was layers on a globe, it would no longer be a vertical cosmology.
What you have is an "underworld" which from what I can see is a collection of chasms with a large connected chasm underneath the main surface, and floating islands.
There is nothing to indicate it is purely vertical compared to spherical shells, or just a round planet with some things floating above it and things under the main surface.
You are making all sorts of logical leaps to pretend it must be a FE and that a RE isn't possible.
If you want to appeal to exact definitions, then show why that is the only definition that is applicable.
Show why it must be a "vertical cosmology" with a FE and planes above and below.
And as for the actual definition, I can't find any explicit definition of vertical cosmology as a phrase and instead see it as just a common combination of terms, i.e. it is simply a cosmology which is vertical.
It's almost as if taking classes on the topic and studying sources is more valid than googling things to try to float an unsustainable argument. Its a well known term in the field.
However, since you insist your ignorance is as good as my knowledge, this should get you started. Unfortunately we all know you'll just use it to cherry pick:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22vertical+cosmology%22+%22anthropology%22
And if vertical is radially outwards (or inwards), then spherical shells would match that.
As for your specific examples, if you are referring to ancient Buddhism, the three realms are not physical flat worlds stacked vertically on top of each other. It focused on different mental states.
Fair enough; some of these aren't the cleanest fitting into the paradigm.
It is unclear if the Lokas are meant to be vertically stacked or just different worlds.
But here is a nice picture of them:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Lower_seven_Lokas_purana.png)
Sure looks like a stack of planes....
The interpretation of them as spheres is an obvious modern interpretation... as such it doesn't speak to my claim but instead some straw man. We need to start calling you Hunk since you are so found of them.
And some like Mesopotamia are based upon reconstructions from today rather than any account form the past.
I mean its a pretty damned fair reconstruction.
And actually, they were built on accounts from the past. For example, the ziggurats are an account from the past. Architecture is as much an account as written word, and not realizing that just shines a spot light on why you are not equipped for this discussion. This is also ignoring the evidence from myths, texts and iconography all of which all contain references to cosmic levels.
Ah yes, the topology created by the surface plates which we never see and the underworld topology just happens to be a mirror for no reason. More than this, the majority of the space between the two is empty, questioning how tectonics would even physically work and why they would work in such a way that they would in concert create valleys exactly where mountains are.
Yes, as if magic is causing it instead.
As if it is a game.
A game where the world has changed quite a lot over the entire history of it.
With some regions moving massively relative to one another.
How would such a system work in a FE?
It points to a divine creator, which is clearly supported by the mythology of the Zelda universe. I mean if we are just going to go around saying magic, at least my magic is actually supported by evidence with in game lore where yours is completely derived off non-existent assumptions such as the world continues past the only evidence we have of it and then acts against what induction would lead us to believe and is instead spherical.
I'm not saying this. The scientific consensus of your world view is.
So you are saying the current RE model uses plate tectonics, not that the RE is impossible without them?
People realised Earth was round before plate tectonics was understood.
Are you trying to say that because it wasn't discovered it wasn't necessary for the model to function?
And that isn't what you actually said.
This is what you said:
we can easily note that there are no plate tectonics - something that would be necessary on a round earth to create the various mountains and valleys present in Hyrule.
This is NOT you merely saying the current RE model has plate tectonics to explain the formation of mountains and valleys.
Instead, this is you boldly asserting that a round Earth NEEDS plate tectonics to create the various mountains and valleys.
If you'd like to argue against the mainstream account of the round earth, I'm happy to listen to you present your burden of proof. However, the current understanding in mainstream physics is that these are necessary on a round EARTH to create the various mountains and valleys.
Not on any planet. ON EARTH. Jesus christ read the claim before you try to abuse it semantically.
-
You're the one making a claim of magic, not me
So I was right, just more pathetic deflection.
AH yes, everyone else in this thread is deflecting and projecting, and none of it is you being wrong because that simply isn't a possibility.
Hrm, since we are playing psychologist here, what does that sound like?
-
You can clearly see that the bottom of these are capped with some sort of metal. This is a repulsion reaction using some kind of magnetic reaction.
There is nothing to support the idea that it is magnetic. It could be anything. Technology or magic.
You call everything that can't be explained by the science you know magic. How unscientific. There is such a thing as magic (spiritual abilities), but ignoring what actually involves science to instead talk about magic and layers of Buddhist reality... if you're gonna teach us that Flat Earthers are superstitious, you're not off to a great start!
No, I dismiss things in games which have no explanation (and in a game which uses magic) as magic.
But again, look at how much you cling to this, rather than trying to justify the insane claim that it needs a FE?
-
It's almost as if taking classes on the topic and studying sources is more valid than googling things to try to float an unsustainable argument.
An unsustainable argument like claiming a video game is promoting a FE? Because of floating islands and an underground chasm?
However, since you insist your ignorance is as good as my knowledge, this should get you started. Unfortunately we all know you'll just use it to cherry pick:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22vertical+cosmology%22+%22anthropology%22
Again, this is just deflection from the point.
If you want to classify it as a highly specific term, you need to show how the game requires this term.
As such, any further discussion on the topic until you can establish that is pointless.
It points to a divine creator, which is clearly supported by the mythology of the Zelda universe. I mean if we are just going to go around saying magic, at least my magic is actually supported by evidence with in game lore where yours is completely derived off non-existent assumptions such as the world continues past the only evidence we have of it and then acts against what induction would lead us to believe and is instead spherical.
A divine creator, which could have created Hyrule and the world it is on, in any shape, not just flat.
Your claims are not supported by the game at all.
There is nothing to support the idea that it must be flat.
Instead, you just see what could be a large portion of it or a tiny portion of it.
We can see that there are regions of the world beyond where Link can reach.
The question then is how far, and what shape is it?
Are you trying to say that because it wasn't discovered it wasn't necessary for the model to function?
Yes. The RE model does not need plate tectonics to be a RE model.
e.g. going back to your prior claim, a RE can be created by a god or goddess like Hylia, without any need for plate tectonics.
You can even have this god/goddess changing the world.
If you'd like to argue against the mainstream account of the round earth
Again, address what YOU said.
YOU claimed the RE NEEDS plate tectonics.
Not merely that it is the best explanation we have so far.
And your claim focuses purely on the RE, rather than just Earth in general.
So the question for you is why does RE need it, but not FE?
What allows a FE to have mountains and valleys
However, the current understanding in mainstream physics is that these are necessary on a round EARTH to create the various mountains and valleys.
No, the current understanding in mainstream physics is that plate tectonics are the cause of mountains and valleys. No need to appeal to the shape of Earth. And no claim of necessity. They are simply the best explanation we have for why mountains and valleys exist. And currently, for science it is the only explanation we have which is viable. And again, that applies regardless of the shape of Earth.
The Shape of Earth is a separate question.
And if you want to go down this path, the current understanding in mainstream physics is that Earth is round. So we can end the discussion there.
Given you want to reject that and instead claim that Earth is flat, it seems rather dishonest to then try to hide behind it to claim that the RE needs plate tectonics with the implication that FE doesn't; while providing no mechanism that would only work for a FE.
AH yes, everyone else in this thread is deflecting and projecting, and none of it is you being wrong because that simply isn't a possibility.
It isn't about what is a possibility, it is about what questions are raised and how they respond.
e.g. instead of dealing with the actual issue and trying to explain why this requires a FE with UA, they instead cling to the choice of a single word and try to attack that.
-
I have to question whether you come to this debate in good faith.
Another great proof that it is indeed showing a vertical cosmology is the presence of the world trees both above and more discretely in the underworld. You likely haven't seen them since all you've seen are tunnels, but they are present in the underworld. These talk to the interconnections of the different layers / planes of existence in cultures around the world again independently developed and towards a flat earth world view. Many indigneous world views are prime examples, including some of those traditionally strongly tied to flat earth beliefs though they are also present in norse, hindu and buddhist cosmology again cementing that the origin of these worldviews was a flat earth through trees such as Mount Meru, Yggdrasil and the such. Above each of these is a temple in the game. More than this, it continues the trend by doing the same with its tallest mountain - perhaps a nod to meru - as well as holy places by having a corollary spot in the under world of prayer and supplication in the form of the 4 eyed gods.
Speaking of four eyed gods, wasn't there one of those in egyptian mythology whose world view was also flat? Oh yes, and he was associated with the sky - again showing the link between the three obviously vertically stacked planes.
-
Since you are clearly not interested in a good faith debate, I will just continue the discussion with those here that enjoy rational thought.
Says the person claiming it meets the definition of a phrase they choose to apply, to then make more claims based upon this phrase.
Without actually showing it is.
Says the person claiming a RE needs it, without explaining why the RE needs it, nor providing an explanation of just how it would work on a FE and why that wouldn't work equally on a RE.
Another great proof that it is indeed showing a vertical cosmology
At this point you are just going around in circles.
According to you, for it to be a vertical cosmology, it needs to be flat layers.
So if you want to show it is, you need to show those flat layers.
That means you cannot use it to demonstrate it is flat.
Otherwise you are basically arguing it is flat because it is flat.
As shown, there are other interpretations of such cosmology, where it represents it as circles/spheres, not as planes.
So what you have is not enough.
Otherwise, care to try getting back to the point of the debate and show how it requires a flat surface?
-
As far as this magic bit, it literally again and again talks of how the feats of the zonai are based in technology throughout the game. I can't remember hearing the word magic once; perhaps you have a quote that might support your claim?
-
As far as this magic bit, it literally again and again talks of how the feats of the zonai are based in technology throughout the game. I can't remember hearing the word magic once; perhaps you have a quote that might support your claim?
And again, you cling to the use of the word magic, rather than attempting to explain how it works or why it needs a FE.
Like I said, it doesn't matter if you want to call it magic or technology.
What matters is why does this magic/technology require a FE?
Why can't this magic/technology work on a RE?
This is the key issue.
But as for referencing in the game, well for starters, while not Zonai, you do have the magic rod and similar weapons.
And for a more direct reference to the Zonai, you have the character profile of Gannondorf:
"He was imprisoned beneath Hyrule Castle for ages, but the MAGIC holding him weakened when the castle was damaged during the Calamity a century ago."
-
So let's just summarize a bit on our TotK research:
- Vertical cosmology:
- Worldviews that stem from vertical or horizontal cosmologies are exclusively created as flat earth world views historically
- World trees in Zelda point to a flat earth world view
- Literal layers that mirror each other in TotK point to a vertical cosmology
- Linking of holy sites between these layers through various religious basis points to a vertical cosmology
- Represents a flat earth:
- The world is literally flat
- Entirety of universe shown is flat and consisting of three flat areas
- Every zelda game's entire universe is flat
- Floating islands fit many flat earth models (bowshock, UA, etc)
- Other zelda games show a flat earth through physics - famous bishop experiment in wind walker
- Heavily influenced my Jomon - a flat earth wv
- Every single Zelda uses flat earth physics when it uses physics and takes no account to the shape of the earth.
On the other hand, on the RE argument is based on "magic", and a bunch of things that aren't in the game but are assumed simply to make the argument work.
And more misleading BS.
So let's honestly summarize a bit on your TotK research:
- Vertical cosmology:
- Worldviews that stem from vertical or horizontal cosmologies are exclusively created as flat earth world views historically, but also have interpretations which do not require Earth to be flat
- World trees in Zelda point to nothing about the shape of Earth
- Literal layers that mirror each other in TotK point to some divine/magical thing causing it.
- Linking of holy sites between these layers through various religious basis points to nothing about the shape of Earth. It also raises the question of how do these links actually tie together and if you are actually still on the surface, just some inversion of it, rather than being physically below.
- Represents a flat earth:
- The world is literally a rough, irregular terrain with hills and valleys
- Entirety of universe shown is rough and irregular, without large flat areas.
- Every zelda game's entire universe is a game world which uses cartesian coordinates which could be flat or could merely be a simplification for the game.
- Floating islands do not intrinsically require a flat Earth
- Other zelda games show things which defy physics and do not rely upon Earth being flat or round.
- Every single Zelda uses physics which do not depend upon the shape of Earth.
The FE argument is based upon:
"IT MUST BE FLAT"
-
So let's just summarize a bit on our TotK research. I've had chat gpt clean up my earlier summary.
Vertical Cosmology:
1. Worldviews Stemming from Vertical Cosmologies: Throughout history, worldviews that have emerged from vertical or horizontal cosmologies have often been associated with flat earth worldviews. In this context, the vertical cosmology depicted in the game could suggest a possible connection to a flat earth concept.
2. World Trees in Zelda Point to a Flat Earth Worldview: The presence of world trees in "Tears of the Kingdom" could symbolically connect different realms within a flat earth framework. These trees, traditionally found in vertical cosmologies, might hint at the idea of a flat plane connecting distinct regions.
3. Literal Layers with Mirrored Characteristics: The depiction of literal layers in the game, which mirror each other in certain aspects, could be interpreted as indicative of a vertical cosmology. Such layered designs might reflect a vertical connection between these levels, possibly aligning with the concept of a flat earth.
4. Linking of Holy Sites Across Layers: The linking of holy sites between different layers of the game's universe, based on various religious aspects, could further point to a vertical cosmology. This notion of interconnectedness might align with the idea of realms being vertically arranged within a flat earth model.
Represents a Flat Earth:
1. Literal Flat World: "Tears of the Kingdom" portrays the world as literally flat. This fundamental depiction mirrors the concept of a flat earth.
2. Entire Universe Consists of Flat Areas: The game's portrayal of a universe comprising three flat regions reinforces the idea of a flat earth cosmology.
3. Consistency Across Zelda Games: The consistent portrayal of the entire Zelda game universe as flat across various titles suggests a potential ongoing adherence to a flat earth concept within the franchise.
4. Floating Islands and Flat Earth Models: The inclusion of floating islands in the game can be interpreted through various flat earth models, such as the bowshock, universal acceleration (UA), and others.
5. Unified Acceleration (UA) Effects: Observations of UA-like effects within the game, such as the "moon jump" phenomenon when reaching high altitudes, resonate with the principles of universal acceleration in the context of a flat earth model.
6. Physics and Shape of the Earth: The utilization of flat earth physics within Zelda games, as demonstrated by the famous bishop experiment in "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker," further suggests that the franchise supports a flat earth.
7. Influences from Historical Flat Earth Worldviews: "Tears of the Kingdom" is influenced by the Jomon culture, known for adhering to a flat earth worldview, possibly contributing to the flat earth elements within the game's universe.
8. Consistent Flat Earth Physics: The overarching lack of consideration for a Round Earth shape in various Zelda games when applying physics adds to the notion of a flat earth representation within the series.
9. Tectonic Plates: Typical round earth models would feature tectonic plates. The lack of this being a possibility hints towards a flat earth worldview.
On the other hand, on the RE argument is based on "magic", and a bunch of things that aren't in the game but are assumed simply to make the argument work.
And having gpt fact check itself:
"Overall, the information provided seems to align with established concepts about vertical cosmologies and potential representations of a flat earth within "The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom".
Recall that chat gpt is wildly prejudiced against any sort of flat earth argument. It even suggesting a positive case is of note in and of itself. Of note is that I used our corporate gpt for this, which does not have the same cut off date.
I don't know. When an advanced AI literally trained to argue against flat earth arguments disagrees with you, you might want to consider that you might be biased. Again, your side of the argument so far as been either saying we are projecting, lying, and deflecting or referencing things that are not within the game or blaming things on "magic" when its clearly defined as technology throughout the game.
-
At the very least, if you're gonna deny FET, you guys ought to understand when you are looking at it, instead of trying to pretend a FE depiction is round Earth. This would lend some credibility to say "no, FE is bogus, but all of this seems FE in Zelda." I suspect the reason we have this hardcore denial here is that someone might ask about commercials, shows, and movies, and how many of them actually show common points in FE theory. And keep in mind the shrines/roots aren't the only layer consistency. The Lomei Ruins are interconnected. In order to open the sky ruins touchpad, you need a signal from ground level. In order to open the latch to the depth ruins from ground level, you need to activate the sky ruins.
-
1. Literal Flat World: "Tears of the Kingdom" portrays the world as literally flat. This fundamental depiction mirrors the concept of a flat earth.
No it doesn't.
It has quite irregular terrain. It is not flat by any stretch of the imagination.
To assert it is flat you would need to see much further.
2. Entire Universe Consists of Flat Areas: The game's portrayal of a universe comprising three flat regions reinforces the idea of a flat earth cosmology.
No it doesn't. As it doesn't comprise 3 flat regions.
3. Consistency Across Zelda Games: The consistent portrayal of the entire Zelda game universe as flat across various titles suggests a potential ongoing adherence to a flat earth concept within the franchise.
There is no portrayal of the Zelda universe being flat.
Again, there is all sorts of hilly terrain.
Instead, what is far more likely, is simple math, without any concern for the shape of Earth.
4. Floating Islands and Flat Earth Models: The inclusion of floating islands in the game can be interpreted through various flat earth models, such as the bowshock, universal acceleration (UA), and others.
Or can just be treated as magic.
As there is no explanation provided which relies upon a FE, so this in no way supports the idea of a FE.
Especially note, most of these claimed ideas don't work at all, because objects on the island still fall, including off the island.
5. Unified Acceleration (UA) Effects: Observations of UA-like effects within the game, such as the "moon jump" phenomenon when reaching high altitudes, resonate with the principles of universal acceleration in the context of a flat earth model.
The "moon jump" glitch works at all altitudes.
The fact you still need to push the jump key shows it is a glitch rather than anything to do with UA.
6. Physics and Shape of the Earth: The utilization of flat earth physics within Zelda games, as demonstrated by the famous bishop experiment in "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker," further suggests that the franchise supports a flat earth.
There is no FE physics in Zelda games.
There are numerous locations where they outright defy physics.
The bishop experiment is not in the wind waker.
And the "Bishop experiment" is just an attempt to take evidence of a RE and pretend it is evidence of a FE.
7. Influences from Historical Flat Earth Worldviews: "Tears of the Kingdom" is influenced by the Jomon culture, known for adhering to a flat earth worldview, possibly contributing to the flat earth elements within the game's universe.
Jomon is an entire period. There is no basis to claim that this means they thought Earth was flat and took it from that, or that it contributed to FE elements.
8. Consistent Flat Earth Physics: The overarching lack of consideration for a Round Earth shape in various Zelda games when applying physics adds to the notion of a flat earth representation within the series.
It has physics which isn't even consistent with itself. As if it is a game.
As if they simplify things to make things easier, without any consideration for the shape of Earth.
A lack of consideration for the shape of Earth does not mean they are going for a FE.
9. Tectonic Plates: Typical round earth models would feature tectonic plates. The lack of this being a possibility hints towards a flat earth worldview.
And more wild speculation.
Or, it hints towards it being a game, which doesn't try to perfectly convey reality.
Also, for a consistent lore, you need to have things move around.
On the other hand, on the RE argument is based on "magic", and a bunch of things that aren't in the game but are assumed simply to make the argument work.
No, the RE argument is that there is nothing in the game which indicates a FE in favour of a RE.
You have nothing more than wild speculation.
And having gpt fact check itself:
Great job showing you have no idea how it works.
Chat GPT cannot fact check itself.
It doesn't understand anything, and just generates text.
You can even trivially get it to generate things like this:
The Legend of Zelda, a beloved and iconic video game franchise created by Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka, has captured the hearts and imaginations of gamers around the world for decades. While the primary focus of the series is on the hero Link's adventures in the fictional land of Hyrule, one can argue that the underlying themes and elements within the games subtly hint at a round Earth cosmology.
First and foremost, let's consider the exploration and navigation aspects present in various Zelda titles. Many of the games feature expansive overworlds that players can traverse, often requiring them to navigate through diverse terrains such as forests, mountains, deserts, and oceans. The manner in which players move across these terrains reflects the principles of spherical geometry, where players can travel in one direction and eventually return to their starting point. This concept parallels the notion of circumnavigating a round Earth, wherein explorers can set out on a journey, travel in a straight line, and ultimately end up back where they began.
Furthermore, the presence of day-night cycles and changing celestial phenomena in certain Zelda games reinforces the idea of a round Earth. As players progress through the games, they witness the sun rise in the east and set in the west, just as one would observe on a planet with a spherical surface. The gradual transition from day to night and the changing positions of stars across the sky provide players with a sense of immersion in a realistic, dynamic world that mirrors the astronomical observations associated with a spherical Earth.
The inclusion of ships and boats as means of transportation in various Zelda installments also serves to support the concept of a round Earth. Players can set sail across vast oceans, encountering different islands and landmarks along their journeys. The curvature of the Earth plays a role in how these journeys unfold, as players sail away from the horizon and observe distant islands gradually coming into view. This phenomenon mirrors the way ships gradually disappear from view as they sail away from a shoreline due to the Earth's curvature.
Moreover, the portrayal of Hyrule and other lands in the Zelda series often includes distinctive horizons that curve out of sight, reminiscent of the way horizons appear on a spherical planet. These visual cues subtly reinforce the idea that the game world is set on a round Earth.
While it's important to note that the Legend of Zelda series is primarily a work of fantasy and fiction, the incorporation of these elements and mechanics subtly aligns with the principles of a round Earth cosmology. While the games do not overtly intend to promote any particular scientific concept, they do create a sense of immersion and realism by incorporating features that parallel observations one would make on a spherical planet. As players journey through these fantastical worlds, they inadvertently engage with elements that reflect a round Earth cosmology, further enriching the overall gaming experience.
-
I don't know. When an advanced AI literally trained to argue against flat earth arguments disagrees with you
Firstly, it isn't an "Advanced AI" in the sense of being able to think.
Secondly, how was it trained on that?
Do you know what its training dataset was?
Do you know if it includes arguments for a FE?
Or is this more wild speculation on your behalf?
But finally, it doesn't disagree with me:
Do you think legend of Zelda promotes a flat Earth or a round earth?
The Legend of Zelda series does not actively promote either a flat Earth or a round Earth cosmology. It is important to remember that the Legend of Zelda is a work of fantasy and fiction, and its primary focus is on providing engaging and immersive storytelling and gameplay experiences. While the games may include elements that could be interpreted as supporting a round Earth cosmology, such as the curvature of horizons and realistic day-night cycles, these elements are likely included to enhance the overall sense of immersion and realism within the game world.
It's worth emphasizing that the creators of the Legend of Zelda series have not publicly indicated any intention to promote a specific cosmological belief through their games. The inclusion of certain features or mechanics that align with aspects of a round Earth cosmology is likely a result of game design choices rather than an explicit endorsement of any particular worldview.
In conclusion, the Legend of Zelda series is not designed to actively promote either a flat Earth or a round Earth cosmology. It is a work of fiction that draws upon various elements of fantasy, adventure, and mythology to create a unique and captivating gaming experience.
Does it passively or unknowingly promote either?
There is no evidence to suggest that The Legend of Zelda series passively or unknowingly promotes either a flat Earth or a round Earth cosmology. The creators of the series have not indicated any intention to use the games as a platform to convey specific cosmological beliefs, and any perceived alignment with either cosmology is likely coincidental or a result of game design choices made for the sake of creating an immersive and engaging game world.
It's important to approach fictional works like The Legend of Zelda with an understanding that they are primarily meant for entertainment and storytelling. While elements within the games, such as visual cues or gameplay mechanics, might resemble aspects of either cosmology, these resemblances are not indicative of any deliberate promotion of one belief over the other.
Ultimately, The Legend of Zelda series is a beloved franchise cherished by fans for its captivating narratives, memorable characters, and engaging gameplay, rather than for its stance on cosmological theories.
Is the legend of zelda series more consistent with a round earth or flat earth cosmology?
The Legend of Zelda series is more consistent with a round Earth cosmology. While the games are not intended to be accurate representations of real-world cosmological concepts, certain elements and mechanics within the series align more closely with the characteristics of a round Earth.
For example, the inclusion of features like curved horizons, changing celestial phenomena, and navigational mechanics that allow players to circumnavigate the game world all reflect principles associated with a spherical planet. These elements contribute to a sense of immersion and realism within the game world, as they mimic observations and experiences that one would associate with a round Earth.
It's important to reiterate that The Legend of Zelda series is a work of fiction and fantasy, and any resemblances to cosmological concepts are likely artistic choices made by the game developers to enhance the gameplay experience. The series is not designed to convey scientific truths about the shape of the Earth, and any perceived consistency with a round Earth cosmology should be understood within the context of the fictional universe of the games.
Again, your side of the argument so far as been either saying we are projecting, lying, and deflecting or referencing things that are not within the game or blaming things on "magic" when its clearly defined as technology throughout the game.
And have you actually taken a look at what you have done?
You wildly speculate about things not seen in the game, to try to jump to conclusions that it must be a FE.
When asked simple questions about why it requires a FE, you deflect.
Even now, you again appeal to my use of the word magic.
Again, I don't care if you want to call magic or technology. Until you explain it and explain why it needs a FE; it will not support the idea of a FE.
At the very least, if you're gonna deny FET, you guys ought to understand when you are looking at it, instead of trying to pretend a FE depiction is round Earth.
That's rich coming from someone who repeatedly misrepresents the RE model to pretend their are problems with it.
How about instead of acting like we don't understand, you try to explain why.
I suspect the reason we have this hardcore denial here is that someone might ask about commercials, shows, and movies, and how many of them actually show common points in FE theory.
Or, how many of them just show points common to any theory about Earth?
How many actually show something that actually requires a FE?
e.g. look at what you are providing now:
And keep in mind the shrines/roots aren't the only layer consistency. The Lomei Ruins are interconnected. In order to open the sky ruins touchpad, you need a signal from ground level. In order to open the latch to the depth ruins from ground level, you need to activate the sky ruins.
How does any of this indicate a FE?
-
Just here to throw this in the giant heap of evidence for our case. Where you guys planning on presenting the round earth argument, or just mroe attempting to fisk and throw ad hominem attacks poorly?
- Horizon is a flat line
- Objects can be seen at great distances; there is no curvature to the ground.
- Paragliding at such great distances would in a round planet would lead to noticeable curvature. This is not observed.
- Stars remain in fixed positions. On a round planet, they would move as you do. The static star positions suggest a flat, stationary world where the stars are fixed in the sky.
- Bodies of water are level. On a spherical planet, the water adheres to the shape of the curvature.
- Weather patterns are consistent independent of distance and elevation. On a round planet, one would expect weather patterns might vary more significantly due to differences in atmospheric conditions at various altitudes and distances.
-
No, the RE argument is that there is nothing in the game which indicates a FE in favour of a RE
If that is the RE argument you've done a piss poor job defending it. We've provided several concrete in game implementations and in lore evidences of a flat earth. You've provided nothing. Zilda. Nilche. Nada. Zed. Zero. To say that there is nothing in the game which indicates a flat Hyrule is ludicrous, especially given its visual representation is conclusively flat.
That "there is nothing in the game which indicates a FE" is an indefensible stance. The ground is literally flat. The horizon is literally straight. The water is undeniably level.
You just don't want to admit you can't defend your argument due to your underlying hatred of our people.
-
Just like you would expect for a RE.
- Objects can be seen at great distances; there is no curvature to the ground.
There is curvature to the ground, such as how it curves up and down to make hills and mountains and valleys.
You need to ignore all that and pretend it is just flat.
- Paragliding at such great distances would in a round planet would lead to noticeable curvature. This is not observed.
In what way would it be observed?
- Stars remain in fixed positions. On a round planet, they would move as you do. The static star positions suggest a flat, stationary world where the stars are fixed in the sky.
On any planet, they would move as you do.
The question is how much, which depends upon how far away they are, and in what manner.
For the common FE model, with stars so close, you would expect the stars to appear to move around as you do and distort the constellations.
For the common RE model, with stars so far away, the stars also appear to move as you do, but that is primarily due to your reference changing orientation, and they don't appear to distort.
Either way, the distance travelled needs to be negligible to the distance to the stars or the distance for the curvture.
- Bodies of water are level. On a spherical planet, the water adheres to the shape of the curvature.
Yes, a level curved surface.
- Weather patterns are consistent independent of distance and elevation. On a round planet, one would expect weather patterns might vary more significantly due to differences in atmospheric conditions at various altitudes and distances.
Again you just want to focus on a RE while ignoring a FE.
Why should this happen on a RE only?
We've provided several concrete in game implementations and in lore evidences of a flat earth.
No, you haven't.
You have provided nothing more than wild speculation.
especially given its visual representation is conclusively flat.
No, it is not conclusively flat.
Again, there are mountains and valleys, not flat.
The question is what shape would the surface be with all that removed?
It is not better than looking at your sink, saying you don't see curvature and claiming that must mean the entire Earth is flat.
It is wild speculation, nothing more.
-
Yes, clearly the discussion is about whether or not there are hills or valleys in the game. Another win for The Flat Earth Society.
-
Yes, clearly the discussion is about whether or not there are hills or valleys in the game. Another win for The Flat Earth Society.
No, just clearly the desperation that FEers have to go to to pretend things are flat.
It reminds me of the time a FEer tried telling me the horizon was flat, taking a picture of a mountain range and just drawing a line across it with nothing at all to do with the horizon.
It shows how FEers are willing to entirely ignore what is actually present, and instead just pretend they see what they want to see.
-
No one is ignoring that hills and valleys exist in Zelda, except in so much that its irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Your argument is clearly disingenuous and I don't think anyone has the time or energy to waste on your drivel. I know I don't.
-
No one is ignoring that hills and valleys exist in Zelda, except in so much that its irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Your argument is clearly disingenuous and I don't think anyone has the time or energy to waste on your drivel. I know I don't.
How are they not ignoring it when they boldly assert things like this:
"The ground is literally flat."
The ground is NOT literally flat.
It is rough and irregular.
You need to ignore all that and just pretend there is a flat reference.
But you could do the same by assuming a round reference.
You don't have a perfectly flat reference to use.
If you don't have time or energy to waste on justifying your position, why bother responding at all?
My argument is quite simple:
There is nothing in Zelda to support the idea of Earth actually being flat over being round.
The best you have is simplifications for game design.
-
:face_bleeding_from_palm_strike: Look, if you can't understand that a flat Earth (or Hyrule) gets to have hills, we have bigger issues that you think.
-
For those interested in evidence and not wasting others time - the height data (https://github.com/MrCheeze/botw-tools/blob/master/heightmap.png), showing a lack of curvature as expected.
-
:face_bleeding_from_palm_strike: Look, if you can't understand that a flat Earth (or Hyrule) gets to have hills, we have bigger issues that you think.
The issue isn't understanding it.
The issue is dishonest people like you entirely ignoring what is actually there, to assert something you have absolutely no basis for.
You entirely ignore what the terrain actually is, to boldly assert it is flat.
Just like previously, I'm pretty sure you were the one entirely ignoring what the horizon actually was, and just drawing a red line arbitrarily in the image.
For those interested in evidence and not wasting others time - the height data (https://github.com/MrCheeze/botw-tools/blob/master/heightmap.png), showing a lack of curvature as expected.
How?
All this provides are the different elevations.
It does nothing to show you the "height" of a level surface.
Those not interested in wasting others time would have either pointed out how none of this requires a FE, or tried explaining just how this actually requires a FE; not merely trying to find tenuous connections to past cultures which believed Earth was flat; nor would they entirely ignore terrain to assert the ground is literally flat.
-
Whenever I want to know if something I as myself WWGD (what would God do)? And the answer is that even if he is omnipotent, there literally no good reason to show off.
1. It makes your believers see you as an arrogant asshole
2. It draws away time that can be spent helping people
3. Nobody is in a managerial position of him, so God can be as lazy as he wants. If he wants to sleep an entire day, that's on him
4. Therefore God, regardless of omnipotence, will choose the most direct and expedient (the simplest) path to an objective.
Talking dishonesty, it all boils down to that. Can I draw hills realistically around a sphere without my arms going into spasms? The answer is NO, you will start drawing mountains upside down shortly before my wrist snaps. What about hills on a line? YES. What about only upright mountains inside a disc? YES.
-
Whenever I want to know if something I as myself WWGD (what would God do)?
What does this have to do with the thread?
Can you show what requires a FE?
And the answer is that even if he is omnipotent, there literally no good reason to show off.
So you are saying the Bible is wrong?
After all, do you know what the plagues of Egypt were for?
For God to show off, or as the bible puts it, "So his wonders will multiply".
Can I draw hills realistically around a sphere without my arms going into spasms?
And that's a you problem.
It has no bearing on the shape of Earth.
-
A miracle is something DIFFERENT from regular reality. In other words, reality is made in such a way that if you or I were given God's computer, we could do the special effect in half a day. Make a flat foreground in eight directions (that defines a disc not a sphere), patch in the sky, turn on the Rain switch. Easy, if you had God's computer. Hell more talented photographers can do the movie version in about that time.
Ask the Ten Commandments or Prince of Egypt team what kind of effort it takes to make the plagues. Or the Chosen team how expensive it is to do the feeding of the 5000 or walking on water. These are NON-STANDARD special effects. Even animated, they require thousands of very high quality images to look like the miracle ought to. And then there's other flashy effects.
Like music.
Reality = least amount of effort
Miracles = God getting our attention
So, as the BotW team can tell you, not only did they clearly not set up the world as flat (you cannot go beyond a square of movement), but it would have taken more effort just to loop the world in on itself. Even if it was looped, that doesn't prove anything. RpgMaker allows looping but the basic space is a square. Not that Earth can be a square, because we have radial turns when looking around. But I digress. There are certain shapes that are more practical than others, and certain shapes that create layering problems or looping problems that no progeammer want to deal with. Taking on a real RE project would involve sandwiching water on the topside, side, and underside of an object. "Gravity" or no, the programmer must draw it as part of the model. This in turn creates behavior glitches, as you've defined how water flows when you show water as a flat space. This is why all RE images are still, because it would drive people nuts if you tried to depict just to the point of curvature with water moving. You can't do it, so they say curve is way farther. Truth is, you have to make a special picture for it. RE falls into the category of miracle. As someone who despises religion, I may havs made you cringe at that thought.
-
All this provides are the different elevations.
It does nothing to show you the "height" of a level surface.
If only they had implemented some sort of 3d model in which we could directly observe that the heights match the elevation. They could have added in enemies and a hero and some physics mechanics and it could be quite fun if they threw in a few quests and dungeons too. Perhaps to remove any chance of it being a globe they could implement an underworld that mirrored the surface world with the same size of space used, a feat impossible on a globe.
Ah, but then you'd hand wave that all away anyways wouldn't you?
-
A miracle is something DIFFERENT from regular reality.
This depends on how you want to define it.
What most people claim as miracles are really just rare events, with nothing miraculous at all.
But what does this have to do with anything?
it would have taken more effort just to loop the world in on itself. Even if it was looped, that doesn't prove anything.
That's right, some things take more effort.
And people choosing a simpler version doesn't mean they beleive that is true about reality.
For example, they could have set up a complex weather system, where weather actually moves across the map, mimicking how it occurs in reality; or they could have global weather which effects the entire map with some specific regions then getting local weather which is set for that region.
Does picking the simpler one mean they think if it is raining in one location it is raining over the entire world (except the regions with their special weather)? No.
Game designers make simplifications to make their life easier. That doesn't mean they think that is reality.
Taking on a real RE project would involve sandwiching water on the topside, side, and underside of an object.
No, it wouldn't.
Stop acting like a RE would have a topside, side, underside, etc.
That is just your pathetic strawman.
Taking on a RE project would involve making a spherical planet, and using polar coordinates to define a water level, and using some approximation of gravity to cause things to fall downwards.
Super Mario galaxy used a variety of "gravity fields" which simply indicated the direction to fall.
There is no "up" or "down" etc other than as dictated by these fields.
"Gravity" or no, the programmer must draw it as part of the model. This in turn creates behavior glitches, as you've defined how water flows when you show water as a flat space.
No, it doesn't.
Again, you are setting up a strawman.
Most programmers would avoid flowing water because it is a pain to do properly, and instead they use other techniques to animate the water.
But if you want to show it, why would it cause a problem?
You program the game physics for a RE, using whatever technique you are using to make things fall.
Do you know what actually caused behaviour glitches (so had to be changed)?
Having a cylindrical hit-box.
Previous 3D Mario games used a cylinder for Mario's hitbox. This allowed Mario to have a different height and width.
But this causes problems when you go onto a non-flat world, as the hitbox changes angles around a curve and that change in angle can cause it to clip through terrain or objects, causing issues including potentially falling through the ground.
So do you know what they did to fix it? Made the hitbox a sphere. That way it would be the same from all angles.
This is why all RE images are still, because it would drive people nuts if you tried to depict just to the point of curvature with water moving.
Why?
Because you say so?
You can't do it, so they say curve is way farther. Truth is
The truth is the curvature is predictable by basic math.
For an observer height of 2 m the horizon is roughly 5 km away.
RE falls into the category of miracle. As someone who despises religion, I may havs made you cringe at that thought.
No, as someone who despises BS I cringe at that thought, as it is pure BS.
RE falls into the category of nature, and natural.
A FE would be a supernatural feat.
If only they had implemented some sort of 3d model in which we could directly observe that the heights match the elevation. They could have added in enemies and a hero and some physics mechanics and it could be quite fun if they threw in a few quests and dungeons too. Perhaps to remove any chance of it being a globe they could implement an underworld that mirrored the surface world with the same size of space used, a feat impossible on a globe.
Which in no way shows it is flat, as you don't have the level surface needed for a comparison.
From this video:
The entire playable area is less than 10 km by 10 km.
That means from the centre to the edge you would have less than 2 m as a drop. The angle difference would be less than 0.09 degrees.
Do you really expect to see the curvature at this scale?
Even if the underworld was 1 km down, the difference in size of it would be around 2 m.
Taking a more realistic approach and saying it is 100 m down, then you end up with a difference in size of roughly 0.2 m.
So no, you aren't doing anything to show it is flat.
Again, it is like looking at water in your sink, saying you can't see the curve, and declaring the entire world flat from that.
There is nothing intrinsically impossible about a large chasm and underworld co-existing with a RE.
If anything of that was going to be a problem, it would be the ground above being supported, which is just an issue in general, not an issue specific to the RE.
So no, implementing an underworld that mirrored the surface is NOT impossible.
As for the same size of space, are you sure it is exactly the same?
And even if it was, is that because they actually think Earth is flat, or is it merely an approximation because accounting for the curvature changes so little it isn't funny?
A circle on a flat surface, with a radius of 5 km has a circumference of 31.41592654 km.
A circle, on a spherical surface with a radius of 6371 km, with the circle having a radius of 5 km along the surface, will have a radius of 4.999999487 km in a plane which contains the circle, giving it a radius of 31.41592331 km.
That is a difference of 3 mm in the circumference.
-
If only they had implemented some sort of 3d model in which we could directly observe that the heights match the elevation. They could have added in enemies and a hero and some physics mechanics and it could be quite fun if they threw in a few quests and dungeons too. Perhaps to remove any chance of it being a globe they could implement an underworld that mirrored the surface world with the same size of space used, a feat impossible on a globe.
Which in no way shows it is flat, as you don't have the level surface needed for a comparison.
There are plenty of level enough surfaces on the surface of Hyrule to use a basis. There is a very clear minima and maxima and the minima presents a level plane and can be seen in the terrain at multiple locations.
The entire playable area is less than 10 km by 10 km.
That means from the centre to the edge you would have less than 2 m as a drop. The angle difference would be less than 0.09 degrees.
Are you attempting to claim with no basis that the circumference of a round Hyrule would match that of a round earth and then use that in some sort of circular logic attempt to show that Hyrule can't be flat?
Using what we actually see in the game, the world has a surface area of 10km x 10km by your claim at a maximum. This leads us to a r ≈ 2,823.62 meters. Using that we can see over 100m we would expect a dE ≈ 1.16 meters. This is not seen in either the data or its representation.
Do you really expect to see the curvature at this scale?
If there was curvature, yes I would expect it to be present in the data or the representation of that data. Otherwise I'd just be making things up if I were to claim there were curvature.
You can't just make up wild claims that aren't supported by anything like "That means from the centre to the edge you would have less than 2 m as a drop."
Even given your wild claim, this 2m drop is not seen and is purely imagined by you.
-
There are plenty of level enough surfaces on the surface of Hyrule to use a basis.
Really?
Level enough to be able to detect the variation that would be expected due to curvature?
Care to say just what surface this is?
Remembering the entire playable area is less than 10 km across.
There is a very clear minima and maxima and the minima presents a level plane and can be seen in the terrain at multiple locations.
Where?
What is this minima? And on what basis do you claim this minima is level?
Are you attempting to claim with no basis that the circumference of a round Hyrule would match that of a round earth and then use that in some sort of circular logic attempt to show that Hyrule can't be flat?
No.
I'm pointing out how small the playable area is.
And then using the current size of the RE as an example, to show what kind of effects would be expected.
To show how it is pointless trying to claim it is flat from such a small area.
And to show that if they were tyring to model the world Hyrule is part of after reality, then regardless of if they accepted the mainstream model, or incorrectly thought Earth was flat, you would expect basically the same result due to how small the world is.
You have no idea how large the world actually is. All you know about is just the portion you can play in.
Again, it is like looking at water in your sink, and declaring that because you cannot see the miniscule amount of curvature, that that means the entire world is flat.
Such limited observations can only put a lower bound on the radius of the world; or conversely an upper bound on the curvature. Where a flat surface would have an infinite radius or 0 curvature.
Using what we actually see in the game, the world has a surface area of 10km x 10km by your claim at a maximum.
You sure love lying don't you?
The playable area is less than 10 by 10.
But when you go to the border of that playable area, you see more beyond it.
So it is clear that the world is larger than that 10 km by 10 km area.
If there was curvature, yes I would expect it to be present in the data or the representation of that data.
And how would you expect it to be present?
Even given your wild claim, this 2m drop is not seen and is purely imagined by you.
Again, where is the level surface you are using as a reference?
How are you measuring it?
I have also gotten further into the game, and see more magic.
For example, the sacred stones are not technology which grants powers. Instead, they appear to be pure magic which just enhances the powers of the wearer.
That means Zelda's ability to time travel and control time is not based upon any technology, but instead is based upon herself, i.e. magic.
Raru's ability to send out a blast of light to kill things is not based upon technology, but their own power, i.e. magic.
-
I have also gotten further into the game, and see more magic.
For example, the sacred stones are not technology which grants powers. Instead, they appear to be pure magic which just enhances the powers of the wearer.
That means Zelda's ability to time travel and control time is not based upon any technology, but instead is based upon herself, i.e. magic.
Raru's ability to send out a blast of light to kill things is not based upon technology, but their own power, i.e. magic.
The land of Hyrule has magic, technology, and nature. Both nature and technology operate on scientific principles.
That you're somehow conflating how Hyrule looks and works with magic is deeply ignorant. It's nature. How a FE works has to do with nature.
Next, we can see science in the dungeons and buildings, and how they are run. The Zonai devices are high tech. The Zora kingdom uses water and electricity. The Rito use wind turbines (responsibly, unlike us with our exposed bird death traps). Gerudo use electricity. Goron use... percussion. Even the sky islands operate using technology. Don't believe me?
(https://cdn.segmentnextimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Zelda-TotK-Great-Sky-Island-Shrines.jpg)
Look at the bottom of these islands. They are held aloft by magnetic repulsion. Each of these have spires of one sort or another at the bottom of them, with the exception of death star sphere thingies and the mazes. The mazes appear to be split into three parts with each section of the maze feeding off of the other. The underground maze is mostly solid. The above ground and sky maze can probably be lined up to form a solid block.
So magic is a force that stands out in that it cannot be explained by either nature or science. It as you say, is personal power.
-
That you're somehow conflating how Hyrule looks and works with magic is deeply ignorant.
No, I'm not.
Some aspects of it are magic. e.g. from the Godess Hylia.
Even the sky islands operate using technology. Don't believe me?
No, I don't believe you, as you are yet to explain it. But again, that is irrelevant to the discussion unless you want to explain why it would require a FE.
Look at the bottom of these islands. They are held aloft by magnetic repulsion. Each of these have spires of one sort or another at the bottom of them, with the exception of death star sphere thingies and the mazes.
Having spires in no way leads to magnetic repulsion.
It is just wild speculation.
And saying they all have them, and then pointing out not all do, just makes saying it pointless.
But again, regardless of what is holding it up, why would it require a FE?
-
I've been to alot of islands by barely missing. An awful lot of them have thick metal spires. I can only conclude that they are held aloft by some strongly magnetic effect.
For a secular person, you're pretty superstitious. You have conflate goddess Hylia's deity powers with the natural world. Both magic and religious stuff are inherently supernatural. That is, they operate outside the explainable world by science. Fusing objects, ascending, moving objects to merge together, reversing time. These are magic. While in BotW this operates by science, the effect more closely resembles magic here. What is the difference? Before, it's a tablet that is doing this, and the effects are all basically high science (freezing water, generating bombs, magnetism). But phasing through objects cannot be called anything but magic. And unlike statis that by all intents and purposes simply turns kinetic energy into potential energy, the recall ability is actual time reversal.
-
I've been to alot of islands by barely missing. An awful lot of them have thick metal spires. I can only conclude that they are held aloft by some strongly magnetic effect.
What we see are spires.
Have you checked if they are metal? If so, how?
And even if they were metal, how does it lead to magnetic levitation?
We can even see special locations, where gravity is reduced, for everything, not just magnetic things.
For a secular person, you're pretty superstitious.
No, I just recognise elements of magic in a game.
What is the difference?
Not much.
In one, you can summon bombs from no where, you can control things remotely, you can cause distant things to freeze instantly, and you can freeze time; with the claim that it comes from the Sheikah slate, with the tech downloaded into the slate from a shrine.
Here, you can manipulate a different set of objects, stick them together, fuse things to your weapon , shield, etc, phase through solid matter to travel upwards, and reverse time; with the claim it comes from a hand which presumably has some technology on it, and you have these abilities initially given when you speak to Raru in the shrine, and a final one authorised in the abandon mine.
But one is not intrinsically more magical.
Phasing through solid matter is no more magical than summoning bombs from nowhere.
But again, none of that relates to a FE.
-
I've been to alot of islands by barely missing. An awful lot of them have thick metal spires. I can only conclude that they are held aloft by some strongly magnetic effect.
What we see are spires.
Have you checked if they are metal? If so, how?
I was close enough to climb it. In fact, I was climbing it before usually falling to my doom (not much of a device builder). If it's not metal, then it's either Zonaite or whatever the Ancient/Guardian materials were made from.
I suppose I could have tested whether it was metal by clinging to it during a thunder storm, or while on the Thunder Islands.
And even if they were metal, how does it lead to magnetic levitation?
Some metals are magnetic. More importantly, magnetic repulsion occurs when two magnets are the same polarity. Just like gay sex can't happen like ever (this is a joke), two North magnets or two South magnets will repel each other. There just needs to be strong magnetic metals in the ground, pushing the spire away from the ground and it will float.
We can even see special locations, where gravity is reduced, for everything, not just magnetic things.
But gravity isn't reduced. You enter a buoyant zone. Basically, the humidity and air pressure is such that we have pockets of air that are like water (this is Hyrule, not Earth so I'm willing to forgive some weirdness, along with Gloom/Malice and the Blood Moon). You enter such bubbles in places like the Zora temple where yes, there is higher than normal humidity.
For a secular person, you're pretty superstitious.
No, I just recognise elements of magic in a game.
Yeah, I do too. Ganon turning into a dragon? Magic. Reversing time? Magic. Fusing weapons? Moving objects around? Phasing through ceilings? Magic, magic, magic. The heroes using their powers? Magic. Beams of light? Magic. Turning an important character back from a dragon form? Magic. All of these things, with the exception of the first, are done without objects intervening. Magic is personal power. It is a similar category to faith, except faith is usually outside the self (e.g. praying to Hylia).
The spires are science that is not fully understood but best guess, based on known information. It's sufficiently advanced science, but it's not actually magic.
Phasing through solid matter is no more magical than summoning bombs from nowhere.
Replicating bombs is supposedly a science (unless we want to call Star Trek tech "magic". Phasing through solid matter on the other hand is actively altering something about the states of solids while also moving upward through the air.
But again, none of that relates to a FE.
Mmmm. Of course it doesn't.
-
I was close enough to climb it. In fact, I was climbing it before usually falling to my doom (not much of a device builder). If it's not metal, then it's either Zonaite or whatever the Ancient/Guardian materials were made from.
The guardians are Sheikah, not Zonai.
So it makes more sense for it to be made out of Zonaite.
Some metals are magnetic. More importantly, magnetic repulsion occurs when two magnets are the same polarity.
Which should mean these spires would push each other away.
The fact they don't indicate it likely isn't magnetism.
There is also the issue of how unstable such repulsion typically is. You need a complex setup for electromagnetic levitation.
And if it is just the spire, then you are trying to balance the islands on a point. So it should likely topple over and have the spire pointing away from the ground.
But gravity isn't reduced. You enter a buoyant zone.
It is.
There is nothing we have that can magically float inside but not outside. Objects still fall, just at a reduced rate.
Yeah, I do too. Ganon turning into a dragon? Magic. Reversing time? Magic. Fusing weapons? Moving objects around? Phasing through ceilings? Magic, magic, magic. The heroes using their powers? Magic. Beams of light? Magic. Turning an important character back from a dragon form? Magic. All of these things, with the exception of the first, are done without objects intervening. Magic is personal power. It is a similar category to faith, except faith is usually outside the self (e.g. praying to Hylia).
Ganon lifting Hyrule Castle into the sky?
Replicating bombs is supposedly a science (unless we want to call Star Trek tech "magic". Phasing through solid matter on the other hand is actively altering something about the states of solids while also moving upward through the air.
A replicator rearranging matter into a bomb is altering the matter.
And Star Trek has phasing through matter as well.
-
Ganon's Castle lifting in the sky is magic
If you'll notice, Ganon's Castle seems to have an entirely different feel to it than the other sky castles. They appear to be freestanding, governed by their own force, his castle on the other hand was forced up by his Malice/Gloom, and we can likewise see it hanging all around the castle, including a long visible stream of red beneath it.
Magic is personal power, and it has the side effects of personal power. That means, when Ganon is defeated, the castle falls to the ground.
There is no similar vertical column around the sky islands. They are not held up by magic. They also outlast the entire story, with you being able to visit the Temple of Time after both Ganon and Rauru are gone. These were put in the sky through science, not through magic.
Which should mean these spires would push each other away.
The fact they don't indicate it likely isn't magnetism.
There is a fair amount of space between most islands. There's a pretty big gap of islands in the middle for instance, and between zones.
Also most of the magnetism is directed at the ground. Recall from BotW that big metal boulders were just lying around, and there were more objects than you would reasonably think that could be affected by magnesis? The soil of Hyrule is rich in iron, and iron can often become magnetized.
It is.
There is nothing we have that can magically float inside but not outside. Objects still fall, just at a reduced rate.
You enter a bubble, when you enter this buoyant zone. Objects still fall but at a reduced rate because objects are still heavier than the buoyant zone (between air and water in terms of buoyancy). But within this bubble, you can enter other bubbles, where you can actually swim as they bob up.
The way Star Trek does this is through a matter phasing. That is, it pushes molecules aside temporarily by sequencing matter around itself. This is not what Link does. He simply bypasses matter, effectively swimming up it. The more matter there is, the more he can swim up it. He's not using science to resequence matter around him, he's bypassing matter by turning it into energy.
-
There is no similar vertical column around the sky islands. They are not held up by magic. They also outlast the entire story, with you being able to visit the Temple of Time after both Ganon and Rauru are gone. These were put in the sky through science, not through magic.
Except some of the ones with the ancient tablets (the flower shaped ones), which fall when link stands on it or grabs onto it, with the central region, including the spire falling, while the flower remains.
There is a fair amount of space between most islands.
Yet there are plenty of islands far closer together than the distance between the island and the ground.
Why aren't these islands pushing each other apart?
Also most of the magnetism is directed at the ground.
How?
What is directing it at the ground? And what keeps that upright?
Recall from BotW that big metal boulders were just lying around
And yet they remain unaffected by what you claim is capable of levitating entire islands.
There are even still metal crates and boulders (and plenty of other metal objects affected by magnesis) remaining in TotK. Yet these don't cling to either the ground or the sky islands.
there were more objects than you would reasonably think that could be affected by magnesis?
Was there?
How did you determine what was reasonable, for a land with a history of society developing only to be destroyed?
Remember, before BotW, there was a calamity raging for 100 years destroying society.
You enter a bubble, when you enter this buoyant zone. Objects still fall but at a reduced rate because objects are still heavier than the buoyant zone (between air and water in terms of buoyancy). But within this bubble, you can enter other bubbles, where you can actually swim as they bob up.
Which just demonstrates it isn't buoyancy.
You don't swim up in these bubbles, you float to the surface.
That means you are more buoyant that these bubbles (which isn't surprising, considering a human with a lung full of air is more buoyant that water).
But if these bubbles can float in this environment, and it is just buoyancy, that means you are more buoyant than the air, and so you should float in the air.
The other big issue for you is that each of these bubbles has a device inside it.
The way Star Trek does this is through a matter phasing. That is, it pushes molecules aside temporarily by sequencing matter around itself. This is not what Link does. He simply bypasses matter, effectively swimming up it. The more matter there is, the more he can swim up it. He's not using science to resequence matter around him, he's bypassing matter by turning it into energy.
Pure nonsense.
Star trek doesn't move matter around.
Instead, it puts matter "out of phase", that is when the phasic cloak is engaged, the object is "out of phase" with normal matter.
The more out of phase the matter is, the less interaction there is. This includes ability to perceive, and ability to interact. And it appears to do whatever the plot needs it to. e.g. allowing them to walk through a door, but not fall through a fall.
This allows matter to be in the same place at once, as long as they have different phases.
The abilities in BotW are just as magical as TotK.
-
If we are sure that it isn't magnetism, it still doesn't rule out chemical properties of zonaite. Minerals have properties. For example, alexandrite changes color in different lighting. Bismuth forms crystals of interesting shape and iridescent color. Osmium is extraordinarily dense. lead repels radiation, gold is very soft, etc.
We know that like luminous stone, zonaite glows in the dark. We know it's based on the concept of Castle in the Sky. Refined zonaite likely floats in large enough quantities by pushing against things other than itself. Where is zonaite found? Usually underground or in the sky island caves. So, we have zonaite pushing against the surface from the sky (resulting in floating islands) and against the surface underground (what kept Hyrule from collapsing before Ganon blew holes in the surface). We further know that occasionally this breaks off island pieces, and occasionally forces islands away from each other. It wouldn't be magic though, but some field generated by the natural radiation of zonaite.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Phasing_cloaking_device
It explains in depth how this phasing system works. It uses the cloaking device to restructure the sequence of energy and matter. Ascending on the other hand seems to involve swimming through matter. All of BotW's sheikah slate powers were explicitly technology, even to the point of being downloaded to a machine. Meanwhile, TOTK's powers were granted by a ghost. This is magic!
Magic, in all cases, is personal power. Ganon dies? Hyrule Castle lowers to ground. Rauru finally gives up the ghost? Link's hand powers no longer exist. His sister dies? No more giant robo!
So please, go ahead, explain how the sky islands stay active after TOTK. These things were built, but not powered by magic. If they were, they would crash to the ground when their original caster died.
Furry girl Mineru dies, suit of armor goes kaput (4:26). Yet the sky islands stay.
Therefore, even if it is not magnetism, even if I do not know what science it is, I know it is not magic.
Because magic in TOTK repeatedly follows rules of caster dependency. If the caster dies, the effect dies.
-
Refined zonaite likely floats in large enough quantities by pushing against things other than itself.
Yet it doesn't.
If that was the case, if you put a piece of Zonaite on the ground, it would float, and if you had something else on the islands, they would float.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Phasing_cloaking_device
It explains in depth how this phasing system works. It uses the cloaking device to restructure the sequence of energy and matter. Ascending on the other hand seems to involve swimming through matter. All of BotW's sheikah slate powers were explicitly technology, even to the point of being downloaded to a machine. Meanwhile, TOTK's powers were granted by a ghost. This is magic!
No, it really doesn't. It basically just says it phases matter.
It has no explanation for what this phase is, or how it gives it the apparently magical properties it has.
And links ability to phase through matter seems similarly magical.
Where Sheikah slate powers actually technology? Or were they magic, downloaded with a magic drop dropping onto the tablet?
How does dropping a download onto a tablet allow it to summon bombs out of thin air?
Magic, in all cases, is personal power.
Except plenty of cases where it isn't.
Like a magic rod, which anyone can pick up and use.
In prior games there were things like a magic staff which allowed you to change the season.
Not to mention the magic of the tri-force.
These were not dependent upon people living.
Rauru finally gives up the ghost? Link's hand powers no longer exist.
Rauru was dead from the start.
Therefore, even if it is not magnetism, even if I do not know what science it is, I know it is not magic.
Because magic in TOTK repeatedly follows rules of caster dependency. If the caster dies, the effect dies.
No, you don't. Magic is quite inconsistent, and follows various rules.
-
Supernatural
"above/outside"-"birth/inborn"
Therefore, something supernatural (i.e. magic) is something that works outside the physical word as it is created ("born").
Now then, let's consider the origins of the Ascend ability.
https://www.polygon.com/legend-zelda-tears-kingdom/23720221/zelda-totk-tears-kingdom-interview-ascend-ability-botw-2
It started out as a hack. The developers needed a way to get up and down layers as it was difficult to make it out of the Depths or out of wells, and caves. They later added animation and polish to this.
It is a hack, meaning literally a supernatural ability.
Merging weapons is likewise code modification. I have a flame like-like core, and I fuse it to a staff, and my staff now has fire ability. I can then drop this ability to instead attach a puffball.
Undoing mistakes? Hack.
Merging objects when moving them close to each other? Hack hack hack. Real objects don't fuse like that, superglue or not.
There's a quest map function. While that's basically GPS, real GPS doesn't happen to know what you're planning to do right now.
And then there's auto-build which basically easy-builds everything.
These are not science things like the sheikah slate does (freeze ray, stasis, bomb summoning, magnetism). They are explicitly abilities that cannot be done naturally.
-
Refined zonaite likely floats in large enough quantities by pushing against things other than itself.
Yet it doesn't.
If that was the case, if you put a piece of Zonaite on the ground, it would float, and if you had something else on the islands, they would float.
Underlined for your convenience
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Phasing_cloaking_device
It explains in depth how this phasing system works. It uses the cloaking device to restructure the sequence of energy and matter. Ascending on the other hand seems to involve swimming through matter. All of BotW's sheikah slate powers were explicitly technology, even to the point of being downloaded to a machine. Meanwhile, TOTK's powers were granted by a ghost. This is magic!
No, it really doesn't. It basically just says it phases matter.
It has no explanation for what this phase is, or how it gives it the apparently magical properties it has.
And links ability to phase through matter seems similarly magical.
From the page.
An expansion on the more traditional cloaking device, it was designed to phase sequence the structure of matter and energy to such a rate that it was possible to allow any vessel utilizing the device to pass through normal matter in the phased state.
Where Sheikah slate powers actually technology? Or were they magic, downloaded with a magic drop dropping onto the tablet?
How does dropping a download onto a tablet allow it to summon bombs out of thin air?
The sheikah technology uses a "watermarked" download. If Star Trek had our tablets, they could download fabricator code instead of hauling around a big fabricator machine. Likewise, many tablets have a compass (using magnet/gyroscope) or a flashlight (outputting light energy) as part of their app systems.
Magic, in all cases, is personal power.
Except plenty of cases where it isn't.
Like a magic rod, which anyone can pick up and use.
Which doesn't have any power on its own (at least in TOTK). Magical tools are technology with regard to the user, and magic with regard to the tool itself. That is, I merge up a ruby to a magic rod. The rod now has fire power. But it also can break after exhausting all power.
In prior games there were things like a magic staff which allowed you to change the season.
Not to mention the magic of the tri-force.
These were not dependent upon people living.
Prior games had different mechanics.
The Triforce is explicitly the creation of gods. These gods are still around (immortal dragons) and thus, their magical object remains even if they are sorta kinda not an active part of the world anymore.
Rauru finally gives up the ghost? Link's hand powers no longer exist.
Rauru was dead from the start.
Rauru was a ghost. Cessation of existence, not death of the physical body, is what undoes magic. This is why zombie Ganon was able to spew out malice long after he had decayed away, and eventually restored his power when the seal came undone. Rauru passes on with his wife to the hereafter, and Link's hand and all its power is gone. Mineru passes on, and the battle armor just becomes parts.
Therefore, even if it is not magnetism, even if I do not know what science it is, I know it is not magic.
Because magic in TOTK repeatedly follows rules of caster dependency. If the caster dies, the effect dies.
No, you don't. Magic is quite inconsistent, and follows various rules.
Yes, I'm afraid I do. You had to resort to previous games to debate around inconsistencies. The previous games are explained as possibly legendary by the authors (mainly to avoid timelines).
-
It started out as a hack. The developers needed a way to get up and down layers as it was difficult to make it out of the Depths or out of wells, and caves. They later added animation and polish to this.
It is a hack, meaning literally a supernatural ability.
No, it isn't.
Instead, it means like many thing in games, it started out as just "do this" without any lore based explanations.
Merging objects when moving them close to each other? Hack hack hack. Real objects don't fuse like that, superglue or not.
Real objects don't magically pop out of thin air like the bombs did.
Real objects don't allow you to magically freeze them in time.
Real objects don't just magically freeze instantly forming large ice cubes which protrude from the water.
There's a quest map function. While that's basically GPS, real GPS doesn't happen to know what you're planning to do right now.
And the quest system doesn't either.
For example, when Purah sends you to the 4 regions, it just marked the location of the towns.
When you need to unlock the water temple, it just has the mark on Sidon (I think), not the fish in the sky, not the teardrop you need to shoot through, etc.
These are not science things like the sheikah slate does (freeze ray, stasis, bomb summoning, magnetism). They are explicitly abilities that cannot be done naturally.
The Sheikah slate abilities cannot be done any more naturally.
Underlined for your convenience
You mean to ignore the point.
Here is something you are overlooking:
Mass to zonaite ratio.
If a certain amount of zonaite is capable of lifting itself, then why can't a smaller amount?
An expansion on the more traditional cloaking device, it was designed to phase sequence the structure of matter and energy to such a rate that it was possible to allow any vessel utilizing the device to pass through normal matter in the phased state.
i.e. it was designed to phase matter.
No explanation of how it works, what this phase sequence is, or how it allows matter to pass through other matter.
The sheikah technology uses a "watermarked" download. If Star Trek had our tablets, they could download fabricator code instead of hauling around a big fabricator machine. Likewise, many tablets have a compass (using magnet/gyroscope) or a flashlight (outputting light energy) as part of their app systems.
A compass wont allow you to magically move around magnetic objects.
Which doesn't have any power on its own (at least in TOTK). Magical tools are technology with regard to the user, and magic with regard to the tool itself. That is, I merge up a ruby to a magic rod. The rod now has fire power. But it also can break after exhausting all power.
Yes, in TotK that magic rod doesn't have power on its own. But it is magic which doesn't rely upon the caster being alive.
Prior games had different mechanics.
Then you can stop trying to compare BotW and TotK, as they are different games.
Cessation of existence, not death of the physical body, is what undoes magic. This is why zombie Ganon was able to spew out malice long after he had decayed away, and eventually restored his power when the seal came undone.
He wasn't dead then. He wasn't a ghost.
He was still physically there, just trapped.
Conversely, Rauru was dead, which you said is what was required.
Yes, I'm afraid I do.
No, you don't. You wish to believe it is.
And notice your circular reasoning.
You claim all magic is dependent upon the caster, to claim the islands aren't magic, to claim the magic is dependent on the caster.
-
The sages made the islands float via zonai technology. There's a quest about it. They did it to protect Link from the Demon King during his awakening.
That said, I was wrong - magic is present in the game. The rods / staves of course mention it and magicians (though this could just be what hyrulians call it - sufficiently advanced.)
-
Merging objects when moving them close to each other? Hack hack hack. Real objects don't fuse like that, superglue or not.
Real objects don't magically pop out of thin air like the bombs did.
Real objects don't allow you to magically freeze them in time.
Real objects don't just magically freeze instantly forming large ice cubes which protrude from the water.
Technology allows a space to be reduced in temperature to nearly absolute zero.
It allows things like cloning, so matter fabrication is not that big a stretch. But you should think about what you just said. People who claim that God doesn't exist can't account for life just "popping out of thin air."
As for time, it's largely a construct. Day and night are cycles, not the result of a force. But since we're on that topic, stasis doesn't actually stop time.
It arrests momentum. This is why you can whack objects and build their force.
There's a quest map function. While that's basically GPS, real GPS doesn't happen to know what you're planning to do right now.
And the quest system doesn't either.
For example, when Purah sends you to the 4 regions, it just marked the location of the towns.
When you need to unlock the water temple, it just has the mark on Sidon (I think), not the fish in the sky, not the teardrop you need to shoot through, etc.
GPS though can only locate locations. Not objectives. Not even partial objectives.
These are not science things like the sheikah slate does (freeze ray, stasis, bomb summoning, magnetism). They are explicitly abilities that cannot be done naturally.
The Sheikah slate abilities cannot be done any more naturally.
Bombs and freeze rays are science, not magic. Granted, this guy's freeze ray can't lower temp more than a few degrees. But the thing done is not magic at all.
Underlined for your convenience
You mean to ignore the point.
Here is something you are overlooking:
Mass to zonaite ratio.
If a certain amount of zonaite is capable of lifting itself, then why can't a smaller amount?
Probably for the same reason a tiny pellet of lodestone can't pick up a sword but a large/powerful magnet might be able to. For the properties to work to the extent they do, a great amount (and purity) must be necessary. Refining zonaite is key.
The sheikah technology uses a "watermarked" download. If Star Trek had our tablets, they could download fabricator code instead of hauling around a big fabricator machine. Likewise, many tablets have a compass (using magnet/gyroscope) or a flashlight (outputting light energy) as part of their app systems.
A compass wont allow you to magically move around magnetic objects.
Today, we have electromagnets that can seriously heft objects. The typical tablet is fitted with only a compass. This is because hardware is also a thing, and such hardware isn't built in. But a Zelda-style tablet? You can bet if the sheikah built it, it has the potential to release various types of energy.
https://youtube.com/shorts/1iQ8A0YmZ0w?si=zc69oldO7qSnZDZx
There is a magnesis app on the phone. See?
Which doesn't have any power on its own (at least in TOTK). Magical tools are technology with regard to the user, and magic with regard to the tool itself. That is, I merge up a ruby to a magic rod. The rod now has fire power. But it also can break after exhausting all power.
Yes, in TotK that magic rod doesn't have power on its own. But it is magic which doesn't rely upon the caster being alive.
Not getting what I'm talking about. Magic runs on Conservation of Energy principles. If a person casts magic, that magic is tied to a person. If an object "casts" magic, that magic saps from the object.
Cessation of existence, not death of the physical body, is what undoes magic. This is why zombie Ganon was able to spew out malice long after he had decayed away, and eventually restored his power when the seal came undone.
He wasn't dead then. He wasn't a ghost.
He was still physically there, just trapped.
Conversely, Rauru was dead, which you said is what was required.
Ganon was a zombie. Rauru was a ghost. In both cases, undead =/= dead.
Rauru is able to speak to give advice, and able to gift powers to Link.
Ganon is able to make illusory Zeldas that appear to warn about the Blood Moon, summon monsters, and shoot out large amounts of malice and gloom.
What part of this sounds dead?
-
There are plenty of level enough surfaces on the surface of Hyrule to use a basis.
Really?
Level enough to be able to detect the variation that would be expected due to curvature?
Care to say just what surface this is?
Remembering the entire playable area is less than 10 km across.
And how exactly am I supposed to calculated expected curvature when there is no expected curvature aside from your wild guesses that hyrule is earth sized?
There is a very clear minima and maxima and the minima presents a level plane and can be seen in the terrain at multiple locations.
Where?
What is this minima? And on what basis do you claim this minima is level?
You can see it clearly on the data I provided earlier. I claim its level because it is represented in data as level and is displayed as level in the representation of said data.
Are you attempting to claim with no basis that the circumference of a round Hyrule would match that of a round earth and then use that in some sort of circular logic attempt to show that Hyrule can't be flat?
No.
I'm pointing out how small the playable area is.
And then using the current size of the RE as an example, to show what kind of effects would be expected.
To show how it is pointless trying to claim it is flat from such a small area.
That does not show how it is pointless, and it again presumes that hyrule is large and round to show the point its large and round. For one complaining about circular logic, you certainly don't mind taking part in it.
And to show that if they were tyring to model the world Hyrule is part of after reality, then regardless of if they accepted the mainstream model, or incorrectly thought Earth was flat, you would expect basically the same result due to how small the world is.
Again, you presume this. The fact hyrule is so small undermines your point that it would be the same result. As calculated in my last post - it would not be the same result.
You have no idea how large the world actually is. All you know about is just the portion you can play in.
No, you are assuming world exists where it doesn't. What's next, are you going to invent some space teapot as well? While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you still need to actually have evidence to support the claim that it is larger than ALL evidence says.
Again, it is like looking at water in your sink, and declaring that because you cannot see the miniscule amount of curvature, that that means the entire world is flat.
Only if the water in my sink was the only matter in the universe.
Such limited observations can only put a lower bound on the radius of the world; or conversely an upper bound on the curvature. Where a flat surface would have an infinite radius or 0 curvature.
Using what we actually see in the game, the world has a surface area of 10km x 10km by your claim at a maximum.
You sure love lying don't you?
I'm going to stop right here because as you can likely tell I'm sick of your bullshit. You've been warned in the past about insulting members.
-
The sages made the islands float via zonai technology. There's a quest about it. They did it to protect Link from the Demon King during his awakening.
That said, I was wrong - magic is present in the game. The rods / staves of course mention it and magicians (though this could just be what hyrulians call it - sufficiently advanced.)
Expanding on this, a first hand witness later shows us it was in fact the zonai and not the sages:
For the Hero's Sake: "Sith hire founding has Hyrule hardshippe ysene, but that is onli smale moment of time. "Mineru, the kynges elder suster, seyes of this kyndgom that hit ne mot nat awaren aye be ycaccht, nat evenforth fer futur. "Princesse Zelda tells hire that this futur be wrat alredi, that a champioun bith from the skie comen. "Bitwene the two, thei imaked to fiden a wei this champioun in that distaunt time to helpen. Her min treuthe, sogte thei to up-reisen the Temple of Time, into the skie to warden hit onyenes ivil. "Al dyden so in fer distaunt dai, our kingdom mighte be safed. In min herte y woot y helpen mot, ond y asked of Mineru, canst yow devyse the menes to upreisen in the skie thaes stane. Min wordes iseie nat enow, but thei thaes memorie safen, of the roial familie, heigh in the skie for that future time."
Translation based on middle english:
"Here my (loyalty/fidelity), seeks they to up-rise the Temple of Time, into the sky to ward it against evil."
They are not a natural phenomena, nor magic. They are a purposefuly made construction of the zonai, namely Rauru and the fifth sage.
The Day the Land Rose: “Swich wondrous sight y hav bihelden that ne con hit nat justli be described. “The Temple of Time y saw, ond al londe yheld it, reisen to the skie, both ferful ond majestatic. "As princesse Zelda itold mi, in fer distaunt future comes a champioun to that place, the hope that Hyrule safen. "For that champioun be hit that y thes grete stane inscriben."The kynges elder suster, Mineru, sendes nou thes stane to the skie, that the champioun mought hem ireden."
"The Temple of Time I saw, and all land [it held], risen to the sky, both fearful and majestic." ... "The king's elder sister, Mineru, sends now these stands to the sky, that the champion might them (find counsel)."
She recounts how she created these records and they were put into the sky, further cementing they are placed in the sky by zonai technology. This of course fits perfectly with my earlier hypothesis of the great sky balls, especially given their localized effects on gravity.
-
Technology allows a space to be reduced in temperature to nearly absolute zero.
Typically through a process of evaporative cooling, where far less if left at the end.
It doesn't allow you to magically form a cube of ice which pops out of the water.
It allows things like cloning, so matter fabrication is not that big a stretch.
Not just summoning an entire bomb out of thin air.
But you should think about what you just said. People who claim that God doesn't exist can't account for life just "popping out of thin air."
And you should think about it, how does your god exist? Your god solves nothing.
Life didn't pop out of thin air, it emerged from chemicals, simple at first and slowly growing in complexity.
As for time, it's largely a construct.
No, it isn't.
The exact way we measure it may be, but it is not.
But since we're on that topic, stasis doesn't actually stop time.
It does, for a single object.
If it didn't, when you hit it, it would go flying.
It arrests momentum. This is why you can whack objects and build their force.
You can do that because time is frozen, as all the additional momentum you give it doesn't start moving it, until time is unfrozen for it.
GPS though can only locate locations. Not objectives. Not even partial objectives.
The location IS the objective.
Bombs and freeze rays are science, not magic. Granted, this guy's freeze ray can't lower temp more than a few degrees. But the thing done is not magic at all.
That guys freeze ray uses liquid nitrogen which depletes as it is used. And it doesn't remotely make a nice solid block of ice.
Probably for the same reason a tiny pellet of lodestone can't pick up a sword but a large/powerful magnet might be able to.
Notice how you are trying to lift the sword, not the loadstone?
A tiny magnet can typically lift itself.
So if zonaite can lift itself, along with other stuff around it, then even a small piece should be able to do that.
If a large island is enough to push itself off the ground, then why can't it push a small rock away?
For the properties to work to the extent they do, a great amount (and purity) must be necessary.
So a pure piece of Zonaite, or refined zonaite in the form of a crystalised charge should easily be able to push itself off the ground if a large island with large pools of water and rock and so on can.
Today, we have electromagnets that can seriously heft objects. The typical tablet is fitted with only a compass. This is because hardware is also a thing, and such hardware isn't built in. But a Zelda-style tablet? You can bet if the sheikah built it, it has the potential to release various types of energy.
Why can I bet that? Because you are desperate for it?
We also know how electromagnets work.
They don't allow you to manipulate a single object.
They attract all magnetic objects to them
There is a magnesis app on the phone. See?
Congrats, you fell for a crap video.
But notice how even that needs contact, or at least very close proximity. It doesn't allow you to manipulate objects from afar, and pick a single object to manipulate.
Not getting what I'm talking about. Magic runs on Conservation of Energy principles. If a person casts magic, that magic is tied to a person. If an object "casts" magic, that magic saps from the object.
That isn't conservation of energy at all.
Ganon was a zombie. Rauru was a ghost. In both cases, undead =/= dead.
Rauru was dead, as a ghost. A ghost is dead, not undead.
The point is even after death they can still interact.
Remember, it is magic, so death isn't the barrier you think it is.
-
Technology allows a space to be reduced in temperature to nearly absolute zero.
Typically through a process of evaporative cooling, where far less if left at the end.
It doesn't allow you to magically form a cube of ice which pops out of the water.
I think what I'm referring to is an endothermic reaction.
(https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/dUFIdOECCKbby848_njTNOR_DOE=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/endothermic-and-exothermic-reactions-602105_final-c4fdc462eb654ed09b542da86fd447e2.png)
You're not evaporating anything. You're pulling heat in. Don't ask me how the tablet withstands that. Probably an epic tier coolant system.
It allows things like cloning, so matter fabrication is not that big a stretch.
Not just summoning an entire bomb out of thin air.
While you reach for me to say that this is somehow magic, it's not. It's not conventional science either, but rather something more akin to alchemy. The tablet or slate is fabricating a bomb by extracting compounds from the air or ground. Since even things like ammonia, alcohol, or oil are just compositions of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, or Hydrogen, most chemicals can be made from simply ingredients readily found in the air. It's just a matter of combining them as a bomb, and then uncombining them as an explosion reaction.
But you should think about what you just said. People who claim that God doesn't exist can't account for life just "popping out of thin air."
And you should think about it, how does your god exist? Your god solves nothing.
Life didn't pop out of thin air, it emerged from chemicals, simple at first and slowly growing in complexity.
Wrong. Abiogenesis (which is the very definition of "popping out of thin air") has never been replicated in a lab. But if this chemical soup somehow did work, you know what? It would prove intelligent design. Without precise intervention of the scientists working on it, it does not succeed.
It arrests momentum. This is why you can whack objects and build their force.
You can do that because time is frozen, as all the additional momentum you give it doesn't start moving it, until time is unfrozen for it.
Nuh. You need to understand. The reason "time" is a construct is that what it represents is causality. If you stop time, all causality goes away. No matter how how many times you hit something, the hit wouldn't register.
On the other hand, if time is still going, but the object itself is frozen, then the formula for momentum is normally p=mv. Velocity, however, is turned into potential energy, until motion restores, so storing the velocity as v, p=(m+ m + m + m...)(0). So long as v = 0, all mass added by hitting the object is multiplied by zero. Once v no longer equals 0, though, kinetic energy restores, and all mass is multiplied by velocity. p=(m+ m + m + m...)v, and the object jumps forward with full momentum.
Notice how you are trying to lift the sword, not the loadstone?
A tiny magnet can typically lift itself.
So if zonaite can lift itself, along with other stuff around it, then even a small piece should be able to do that.
If a large island is enough to push itself off the ground, then why can't it push a small rock away?
Different properties means different traits. There are a number of gems that glow in the dark but they don't all glow the same way. Some elements have metallic traits, but they don't experience things like oxidation the same way. Iron for instance rusts, while copper forms a protective patina, preventing from further corrosion. So just because a property is similar, it doesn't mean it's identical.
We're not even sure what's happening here. If it's not repulsion but levitation, then it wouldn't push anything else away. However, smaller fragments of the islands might not be thick enough to levitate. Which matches up with the falling rocks. Zonaite's properties increase with greater mass, just like a bigger magnet.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/421
Would a magnet of a longer length have a longer magnetic field than a magnet of a shorter length, assuming that they both are made of the same materials and that they have the same width and height.
- Adam (age 16)
I guess by ’longer magnetic field’ you mean ’field keeping at least some minimum strength out farther away’. The answer is yes. Far away from the magnet, the field strength falls off as the cube of the distance. For a uniformly magnetized material, the strength of that field will be proportional to the volume of the magnet. If a magnet is twice as long, with other dimensions fixed, its field far away will be twice as strong. That means that it would stay above any fixed minimum strength out to the cube root of 2 times as far, around 26% farther.
For the properties to work to the extent they do, a great amount (and purity) must be necessary.
So a pure piece of Zonaite, or refined zonaite in the form of a crystalised charge should easily be able to push itself off the ground if a large island with large pools of water and rock and so on can.
As I say, we can't be sure what sort of force zonaite emits. Repulsion? Magnetism? Or just straight up levitation?
In the latter case, it wouldn't push a damned thing away. It would just float in midair, gradually breaking off smaller shards.
There is a magnesis app on the phone. See?
Congrats, you fell for a crap video.
But notice how even that needs contact, or at least very close proximity. It doesn't allow you to manipulate objects from afar, and pick a single object to manipulate.
The range of Magnesis is not that impressive. What it is, is a very focused magnet. Yes, you're describing a magnetic field as it normally is. But what would happen if the magnet was blocked so it only came out in a tight radius? For instance, if I have created a sort of cage around the magnet in every direction but directly in front, wouldn't the magnetic radius only go one way? You only see what is, never what can be. The sheikah slate has front that is a screen,
(https://files.cults3d.com/uploaders/5998550/illustration-file/0605f7d2-e79b-4d2c-a2d1-a81e5d86bec9/Finish_Front.jpg)
but what about the back?
(https://img.etsystatic.com/il/1032f3/1276948249/il_fullxfull.1276948249_799t.jpg)
See those concentric circles? Suppose magnetic insulation using thick nonmagnetic materials blocks off all magnetism but through a narrow area. Still think it's impossible to have targeted magnetism?
It's like 30th century science, but not even remotely in the realm of magic.
Having goat ghost send energy into your hand, no downloads into a tablet or anything, and from then on being able to use a series of abilities that aren't how the natural world works... yeah, that's magic.
Not getting what I'm talking about. Magic runs on Conservation of Energy principles. If a person casts magic, that magic is tied to a person. If an object "casts" magic, that magic saps from the object.
That isn't conservation of energy at all.
From Wikipedia: In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
You can't make a magical object that extracts energy from nowhere. It can only transform energy (turning rubies into fire... somehow) or sustain a transformation or transference that has already occurred. Caster A's energy transfers to Object A, turning it into Object B. The reason magic reverts when the caster dies is because magic actually uses the fuzzy theories like quantum entanglement. Real science tends not to (which is why if I cut a log and burn half of it, the other half doesn't burn too). In magic, this is called the law of contagion. The caster's efforts spread to the casted upon.
-
Technology allows a space to be reduced in temperature to nearly absolute zero.
Typically through a process of evaporative cooling, where far less if left at the end.
It doesn't allow you to magically form a cube of ice which pops out of the water.
I think what I'm referring to is an endothermic reaction.
You're not evaporating anything.
You were referring to temperature being reduced to almost absolute zero.
That is done via evaporative cooling.
Regardless, you keep ignoring the remote part.
How is the tablet pulling the heat out of the distant water, to make a perfect ice cube?
While you reach for me to say that this is somehow magic, it's not. It's not conventional science either, but rather something more akin to alchemy.
Alchemy is magic.
The tablet or slate is fabricating a bomb by extracting compounds from the air or ground.
So it teleports it, and then puts quite high energy compounds in?
Just what magic is powering this?
Why don't we see the result of the air being sucked in?
Wrong. Abiogenesis (which is the very definition of "popping out of thin air") has never been replicated in a lab.
Things quite similar to it have been.
But again, your god solves nothing.
Your god hasn't been replicated in a lab either.
But if this chemical soup somehow did work, you know what? It would prove intelligent design. Without precise intervention of the scientists working on it, it does not succeed.
Pure BS.
Do you know the biggest thing preventing abiogenesis now?
All the life which would consume any potential new life.
Nuh. You need to understand. The reason "time" is a construct
Time is not a construct.
You need to understand that.
Dismissing it as a construct to ignore the issue will not change that.
If you stop time, all causality goes away. No matter how how many times you hit something, the hit wouldn't register.
Almost like it is magic, and just behaves however it magically needs to?
On the other hand, if time is still going, but the object itself is frozen, then the formula for momentum is normally p=mv. Velocity, however, is turned into potential energy, until motion restores
And what magic does that? What magic is causing it to store that energy, only to shoot it out later?
Different properties means different traits. There are a number of gems that glow in the dark but they don't all glow the same way.
And we are focusing on Zonaite, what you claim causes the levitation. Even though there is no evidence of that at all.
We're not even sure what's happening here.
Yet you are confident that it is science/technology, not magic.
In the latter case, it wouldn't push a damned thing away. It would just float in midair, gradually breaking off smaller shards.
Yet it doesn't.
The range of Magnesis is not that impressive. What it is, is a very focused magnet. Yes, you're describing a magnetic field as it normally is. But what would happen if the magnet was blocked so it only came out in a tight radius?
It wouldn't, as that isn't how magnetism works.
For instance, if I have created a sort of cage around the magnet in every direction but directly in front, wouldn't the magnetic radius only go one way? You only see what is, never what can be.
No.
Instead, what you actually need is many many many magnets, such that their fields cancel in all locations except the location you want to be effected.
The problem is trying to make a magnetic field that does that.
One kind of like that I know of is a fridge magnet, which is 1 sided.
It's like 30th century science, but not even remotely in the realm of magic.
No, what you are suggesting it isn't remotely like science
Having goat ghost send energy into your hand, no downloads into a tablet or anything, and from then on being able to use a series of abilities that aren't how the natural world works... yeah, that's magic.
Just like going to a random stone, which drops some magic juice on a tablet.
You can't make a magical object that extracts energy from nowhere.
Magic is violating natural laws.
Why wouldn't it be able to violate the law of conservation of energy?
Regardless, consider a simple case of a fire. You put wood on the fire and it burns, releasing energy. You put water on and it takes that energy in to convert to steam.
When the fire is put out, it doesn't magically cause all that steam to instantly switch back to water.
The reason magic reverts when the caster dies is because magic actually uses the fuzzy theories like quantum entanglement. Real science tends not to (which is why if I cut a log and burn half of it, the other half doesn't burn too). In magic, this is called the law of contagion. The caster's efforts spread to the casted upon.
No, real science tends not to use quantum entanglement because it is rarely important. Magic does not use it. A log is not quantum entangled with the other half.
Magic instead uses a magical law of contagion, which continues AFTER DEATH!
e.g. mediums use items belonging to dead people to have a connection to them.
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
I've been wondering the same thing.
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.
-
Shrugs?
So anyways, long story short I think The Windwaker might have FE undertones to it as well it's counterpart The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass for the DS platform.
Because, somehow a video game justifies FE belief?
🤨
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.
Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality. Not feel, actually are.
But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
Because?
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.
Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality. Not feel, actually are.
Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round. I imagine your response might be that Time is not a true Scotsman.
But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.
Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.
Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.
On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.
Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.
-
Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round.
None of that is reality.
It is just an insult to try to ridicule people.
Again, you really have no basis to claim the entire planet that Hyrule is on is flat.
Again, it is like looking at water in your sink and claiming that because you can't see the curve Earth must be flat.
What it is vastly more likely to be is that FEers are so desperate to pretend Earth is flat that they need to cling to a video game to pretend that promotes the idea of a FE.
Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.
Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation
Sure it is.
It is the bold belief that you have overcome massive "brainwashing", that you are one of the select few "smart enough" to see through all the BS and see the "truth".
Some times it is tied to the belief that the entire universe was made just for us.
On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.
Well you have one thing right, it certainly is a story.
And considering I have a good idea who you are making up fantasies about, it clearly isn't a true story.
-
But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.
Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.
Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.
On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.
Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.
I'm sure that the black athletes in the Olympics during the regime of Hitler were just "looking for attention." Oh wait, no, they fought for equality. People trying to make a change in the world don't do it for money, they don't do it as part of some organization (though wicked organizations like the Marxists have tried to hijack the civil rights movement), and they don't do it to make a name for themselves.
None of that is reality.
It is just an insult to try to ridicule people.
You have a skewed vision of what is reality.
-
I'm sure that the black athletes in the Olympics during the regime of Hitler were just "looking for attention."
You’re comparing the struggle for human rights by a regime that ended up committing genocide vs FE only based on lies and innuendo.
bulmabriefs144, you are fucking stupid. And a waste of space.
-
You have a skewed vision of what is reality.
Why?
Because I accept all the evidence that shows Earth is round?
-
I'm sure that the black athletes in the Olympics during the regime of Hitler were just "looking for attention."
You’re comparing the struggle for human rights by a regime that ended up committing genocide vs FE only based on lies and innuendo.
bulmabriefs144, you are fucking stupid. And a waste of space.
Globalist regime has been responsible for a great deal of human cruelty.
It is "open borders" systems that produced this.
(Skip first minute to get past test pattern beep)
Human trafficking. My comparison stands.
You are a waste of space actually, as there is nothing about you that adds to the world. You only tear things and people down.
What do you stand for? I stand for truth, even when those around me call me a liar. And I stand for freedom too.
-
I'm sure that the black athletes in the Olympics during the regime of Hitler were just "looking for attention."
You’re comparing the struggle for human rights by a regime that ended up committing genocide vs FE only based on lies and innuendo.
bulmabriefs144, you are fucking stupid. And a waste of space.
Globalist regime has been responsible for a great deal of human cruelty.
It is "open borders" systems that produced this.
(Skip first minute to get past test pattern beep)
Human trafficking. My comparison stands.
You are a waste of space actually, as there is nothing about you that adds to the world. You only tear things and people down.
What do you stand for? I stand for truth, even when those around me call me a liar. And I stand for freedom too.
What are you ranting about. I don’t care about any cause bulmabriefs144 of yours if you can fall for this the earth is flat.
Other than innuendo, lies. and propaganda. Do you have any evidence the earth is flat. Seems the only thing you have of late is to character assassinate anyone that doesn’t agree the earth is flat with false accusations of corruption and association.
So said to see you bring false witness to try to make yourself into something you’re not. Now your just a small person, and using false testimony.
-
What do you stand for?
If you want to go into law enforcement or start being proactive and go on mission trips. Go for it.
If you want to thump the Bible, get judgmental about people not knowing them and assuming falsehood based on them because the earth is spherical. Maybe you should actually read the Bible.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=ESV
Do Not Be Anxious
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?[a] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A25-34&version=ESV
bulmabriefs144, stop making false accusations and being judgmental. Especially if you don’t know what causes individuals take up and how they devote their free time.
You’re the kind of Karen that put judgmental asshole in religion.
I try not to be judgmental, but reading you posts bulmabriefs144 brings certain bible verses into mind…
Fasting
16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A16-25&version=ESV;NASB
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
27“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,f whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
https://biblehub.com/esv/matthew/23.htm
-
Other than innuendo, lies. and propaganda. Do you have any evidence the earth is flat. Seems the only thing you have of late is to character assassinate anyone that doesn’t agree the earth is flat with false accusations of corruption and association.
I have plenty. I'm also sick of repeating myself.
The bottom line is that if you think water curves, light curves, gravity is a thing... but only when it's convenient, I probably could explain until I'm blue in the face, but it's easier to call you a corrupt puppet of the state.
"You have no evidence of flat Earth." (shows how it works) "Bah! I didn't see anything!"
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1153799808272846919/ChON8vwWIAE62Rr.jpg)
There is no curved water. And no hills of water.
But... but... gravity! That's it!
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong/
So basically, they cycled back to pre-Newton but made it sound new.
There has undoubtedly been something scientifically disconcerting about giving so much significance to a force that’s never been detected directly. It’s existence has only been inferred through gravitational effects.
If a "force" can be only detected indirectly, then you can call something gravity, but it's actually something else.
So, ummm water hills?
This is nonsense. And it figures from a show that is explicitly a RE concept. I like One Piece, but its RE is laughable at best.
-
Globalist regime has been responsible for a great deal of human cruelty.
That is not the globalist regime.
Stop acting like everything that you don't like is because of the RE.
So no, your comparison is pure BS.
What do you stand for? I stand for truth, even when those around me call me a liar. And I stand for freedom too.
If you stand for truth, why do you continually lie?
A lot of the time you even know that what you are spouting is BS, and know the truth, but choose to ignore the truth and spout lies instead.
As for freedom, you stand for your own freedom and don't care about the freedom of others, especially recognising that freedom is a 2 way street. If you want freedom, it comes with responsibilities to ensure the freedom of others.
I have plenty. I'm also sick of repeating myself.
Then stop repeating the same lies.
The bottom line is that if you think water curves, light curves, gravity is a thing... but only when it's convenient
Not only when it is convenient, all the time.
It is just a question of how much.
Over a 1 m distance (on Earth), you would have a bulge on the order of nm. The ripples on the surface would be vastly more significant.
I probably could explain until I'm blue in the face, but it's easier to call you a corrupt puppet of the state.
Of course it is easy to invent lies about people to dismiss them, than to actually address their arguments.
Actually addressing their argument requires you to read it, understand it, and come up with a rational response.
And that can be quite difficult when you are knowingly lying.
"You have no evidence of flat Earth." (shows how it works) "Bah! I didn't see anything!"
No, you don't show how it works. You look for pathetic cop outs, entirely ignore plenty of observations, including at times literally saying you are ignoring it, lying about simple things, all to boldly proclaim Earth is flat.
You have no evidence to support the fantasy that Earth is flat.
You have no evidence to refute a round Earth.
We see water curve with the behaviour of objects as they go over the horizon.
In order to avoid this simple fact, you need to invent all sorts of delusional BS to pretend it works.
To try to pretend your claim is justified, you appeal to situations where you simple can't measure the curvature because it is too small.
So you have nothing.
But don't worry, we can easily see that water is not magically flat, even at the small scale, by observing things like a meniscus.
Sure, that curvature isn't due to Earth, but it shows your claim that it is magically flat is pure garbage.
I like One Piece, but its RE is laughable at best.
If it is laughable at best, then why does all the available evidence either clearly support a RE, or is unable to distinguish between a RE and FE?
Why it a RE so easily able to explain so much of reality while FE repeatedly fails?
-
There is no curved water. And no hills of water.
Then why do you invoke your delusional parabola? (Added to make more specific) To make your flat earth delusion to act like a spherical earth reality.
Anyway…
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/horizon-perspective-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-perspective
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pontchartrain-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain
Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage
By: Tom Coomes Facebook | Twitter
Posted: Apr 29, 2016 12:46 AM EDT
“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.
To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
-
Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round.
None of that is reality.
It is just an insult to try to ridicule people.
Again, you really have no basis to claim the entire planet that Hyrule is on is flat.
Except all evidence pointing to a flat planet.
Again, it is like looking at water in your sink and claiming that because you can't see the curve Earth must be flat.
That would only be true if we had reason to assume it was first round and second large enough to not see curvature. Neither of these have had any evidence put forth to support.
You actually have to support your claim that it is round.
What it is vastly more likely to be is that FEers are so desperate to pretend Earth is flat that they need to cling to a video game to pretend that promotes the idea of a FE.
Hyrule being flat has nothing to do with Earth being flat. Are you feeling okay? I don't think anyone has tried to draw that connection but you.
Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.
Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation
Sure it is.
It is the bold belief that you have overcome massive "brainwashing", that you are one of the select few "smart enough" to see through all the BS and see the "truth".
Some times it is tied to the belief that the entire universe was made just for us.
Its not that at all, but I'm sure you know the motivations of flat earthers better than flat earthers themselves.
On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.
Well you have one thing right, it certainly is a story.
And considering I have a good idea who you are making up fantasies about, it clearly isn't a true story.
I have no idea what you mean.
-
Except all evidence pointing to a flat planet.
What evidence?
That would only be true if we had reason to assume it was first round and second large enough to not see curvature. Neither of these have had any evidence put forth to support.
You actually have to support your claim that it is round.
No, this is true if someone wishes to boldly assert that the entire planet is flat from a small portion of it.
Why should I have to support my rejection of your claim that it is flat?
That is shifting the burden of proof.
No one knows how large the planet Hyrule is on is.
Is Holodrum and Labrynna on the same planet as Hyrule?
All we know is that the world stretches far beyond the less than 10 km wide area we are able to access in BotW and TotK.
So it is quite like looking at water in your sink, and extrapolating your inability to see any curvature there to claim the entire world is flat.
Hyrule being flat has nothing to do with Earth being flat. Are you feeling okay? I don't think anyone has tried to draw that connection but you.
Are you feeling okay?
The title of the thread:
"Flat earth video game".
The OP:
"This lack of horizon curvature set me thinking about if it was possible that there are FE undertones to the game."
And other posts:
Surely this is solid evidence that a Flat Earth counter-resistance conspiracy exists within the video game industry.
With our technology today it should be no problem to convey the world as spherical. Video games strive to be more and more realistic, yet they continue to ignore the supposedly basic notion that the world is spherical. I credit them with having balls of steel to stand by their convictions in the face of the Global Conspiracy, and only hope our exposing them here doesn't lead to them being shut down by the government, or forced to show the world as it is. My guess is they will leave them alone, but don't be surprised if more spherical worlds pop up in video games in the future.
And all your comparisons, where for it to be round you want it to perfectly match the round Earth, rather than just being round itself with no connection.
So yes, people have drawn that connection, even you.
Its not that at all, but I'm sure you know the motivations of flat earthers better than flat earthers themselves.
Given how plenty of FEers act, it is that, at least for some.
Where they happily declare those that follow the mainstream model to be brainwashed and incapable of understanding.
I have no idea what you mean.
I mean you are inventing motivations for people. You are not pointing it out, you are making it up.
-
Globalist regime has been responsible for a great deal of human cruelty.
That is not the globalist regime.
Stop acting like everything that you don't like is because of the RE.
So no, your comparison is pure BS.
You love to say "pure BS." I wonder what you'd find not to be pure BS? Probably outright propaganda straight from supposedly respected scientists. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
What do you stand for? I stand for truth, even when those around me call me a liar. And I stand for freedom too.
If you stand for truth, why do you continually lie?
Hear the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah told the truth to the king, warning him that his ways would lead to destruction. But there were false prophets who continually called him a liar. It uhhhh... didn't end well for them. The king lived to see the false prophets were false, and then was taken into slavery. The false prophets died when contrary to their message of peace, Israel was attacked.
The point being it is entirely your prerogative whether you want to ignore me when I tell you stuff. But then I void all responsibility when the globalists take over and ruin your life. I did warn your after all.
A lot of the time you even know that what you are spouting is BS, and know the truth, but choose to ignore the truth and spout lies instead.
You wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ass.
As for freedom, you stand for your own freedom and don't care about the freedom of others, especially recognising that freedom is a 2 way street. If you want freedom, it comes with responsibilities to ensure the freedom of others.
Right. I'm using that responsibility to tell you that you're heading straight into slavery. You are 100% free to ignore my words. But your loyalty to Marxist globalist theology is what will undo you.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/22/socialism-fascism-and-communism-enslave-and-they-d/
https://holierthantao.com/2023/04/28/the-dark-underbelly-of-globalization-human-trafficking-and-smuggling/
I have plenty. I'm also sick of repeating myself.
Then stop repeating the same lies.
I'm repeating them because you seem to have trouble understanding.
The bottom line is that if you think water curves, light curves, gravity is a thing... but only when it's convenient
Not only when it is convenient, all the time.
It is just a question of how much.
All the time. Until a jumbo jet weighing hundreds of tons is able fly thousands of feet in the air.
But you said something very interesting there. "How much." Gravity is supposed to be a constant. If you can randomly change the value of gravity, it isn't a constant force but something arbitrary.
Over a 1 m distance (on Earth), you would have a bulge on the order of nm. The ripples on the surface would be vastly more significant.
Quit lying. You can see about 3 miles (4828 meters) on a flat space. Nanometers is conveniently small enough that a 1:1 would result in 4828 nm which converts to 0.000004828 meters. When something is so conveniently small that it cannot be detected with the eye, what is the difference from that and not existing? Because on a high mountain, you can sometimes see 50 or 100 miles away. ((100/3)x4828)=160933.3 nm-> 0.0001609333 m bulge. So on a really high mountain, you still can't see this imaginary bulge.
I probably could explain until I'm blue in the face, but it's easier to call you a corrupt puppet of the state.
Of course it is easy to invent lies about people to dismiss them, than to actually address their arguments.
Actually addressing their argument requires you to read it, understand it, and come up with a rational response.
And that can be quite difficult when you are knowingly lying.
Yes, it can, Jack Black.
"You have no evidence of flat Earth." (shows how it works) "Bah! I didn't see anything!"
No, you don't show how it works. You look for pathetic cop outs, entirely ignore plenty of observations, including at times literally saying you are ignoring it, lying about simple things, all to boldly proclaim Earth is flat.
You have no evidence to support the fantasy that Earth is flat.
You have no evidence to refute a round Earth.
I've been on religious forums and seen the same tactic. "You have no evidence."
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TPyD9Tuctos/UO-9giaHGFI/AAAAAAAAFdM/FHaO8EB2Uy8/s1600/evidence-of-God-94662322702.png)
Your own view of the universe actually shows evidence. But you probly say there's no evidence for this, much less a flat Earth.
We see water curve with the behaviour of objects as they go over the horizon.
In order to avoid this simple fact, you need to invent all sorts of delusional BS to pretend it works.
To try to pretend your claim is justified, you appeal to situations where you simple can't measure the curvature because it is too small.
No, you don't. You see a simple vanishing point. Then you delude yourself into thinking this looks like a curve.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1154167760939647017/sea-and-sky-horizon-photo-706484.jpg)
So you have nothing.
But don't worry, we can easily see that water is not magically flat, even at the small scale, by observing things like a meniscus.
???
(https://www.netmeds.com/images/cms/wysiwyg/blog/2019/12/Torn_Meniscus_big_898.jpg)
Sure, that curvature isn't due to Earth, but it shows your claim that it is magically flat is pure garbage.
There something wrong with your eyes? I can measure a line straight across the horizon above. And here.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1154167761380053053/sunset_horizon_reflections_4k.jpg)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1154167761849819166/wallpapersden.com_sun-on-horizon_1920x1080.jpg)
You with your impossibly small billionth of a meter "bulge" that you can't even see from a hundred-mile view, and you tell me that this line straight across is a "curve" because you don't understand perspective. Do me a favor next time you want to call me a liar and actually bother to figure out how perspective works. Then get your eyes checked.
-
You love to say "pure BS." I wonder what you'd find not to be pure BS?
Honest portrayals of things.
You should try it some time.
Hear the book of Jeremiah.
No thanks. You can keep your fictional stories to yourself.
You are objectively spouting lies all over the place.
You have theses pointed out, yet you keep on making them.
This is not a case of you saying the truth and other people calling you a liar.
This is case of you repeatedly lying and people calling you a liar because of it.
I'm using that responsibility to tell you that you're heading straight into slavery.
You mean you are ignoring that responsibility to pretend you having accountability and responsibility would be slavery.
I'm repeating them because you seem to have trouble understanding.
You are confusing understanding with accepting your delusional BS.
All the time. Until a jumbo jet weighing hundreds of tons is able fly thousands of feet in the air.
By providing a force.
It can only fly because of its engines providing thrust to have airflow over the wings to provide lift.
This is gravity NOT being convenient, yet is still there acting.
Because of gravity the plane needs to burn fuel and have giant wings to stay in the air.
If we could just switch it off when it was inconvenient then a plane would have tiny wings just to control its direction and would be able to throttle down the engines to virtually nothing during cruise.
So yes, ALL THE TIME, including when a Jumbo Jet is burning loads of fuel to generate lift to fight it to stay in the air.
Gravity is supposed to be a constant.
No, it isn't.
That is just another strawman FEers use.
The acceleration (or alternatively the strength of the gravitational field) can be approximated as a single value all over Earth, but that is an approximation.
In reality, it varies with location.
But more importantly, that is only g that is approximated, not the force.
The force is proportional to mass.
Quit lying.
I'm not lying.
I'm pointing out that even while it is curved all the time, that the amount of curvature can be so insignificant that you are unable to detect it.
Conversely, you are lying.
You can see about 3 miles (4828 meters) on a flat space. Nanometers is conveniently small enough that a 1:1 would result in 4828 nm which converts to 0.000004828 meters.
How about you try reality, where at least for small distances it can be approximated as h=d^2/(2R)?
Notice how it is proportional to the square of the distance, not linear? So it isn't 1:1. Also I said bulge not drop.
And I said it was on the order of nm, not 1 nm.
Ignoring the last point, that means you should actually take that 1 nm, and multiply it by (4828*2)^2 = 93,238,336 nm or 0.09 m.
So with Earth having a radius of roughly 6371000 m, over a 0.5 m distance (to get the bulge from the centre to the edge), you get roughly 20 nm.
For 5 km, from you to the horizon, it would be 1.96 m.
At 100 km away it would be 785 m.
But the question is how are you expecting to see this?
What it should appear as is objects disappearing from the bottom up as they go over this bulge.
And guess what? We see that.
When we look at distant objects, with both us and the object above water, we see water blocking the view. i.e. we see the bulge.
Your wilful rejection of it doesn't change that.
Alternatively, you need to set up a system to measure it, where you set up a straight line of sight from 2 points separated by 10 km for the 5 km distance, at equal elevation (e.g. 10 m above sea level) and then measure what altitude above sea level this line is at 5 km (the midpoint, where the bulge is).
When something is so conveniently small that it cannot be detected with the eye, what is the difference from that and not existing?
The effects it has.
You not being able to see it with your eye in your sink doesn't mean it wont have any affect on Earth.
It is what causes things like time zones, and why different locations on Earth have the sun at a different position in the sky.
It is what causes (at least one factor) limitations on distance of wireless transmissions and observations.
Yes, it can, Jack Black.
And that is why you resort to insults, while I explain why you are wrong.
I've been on religious forums and seen the same tactic. "You have no evidence."
Where you promote your religion with no evidence?
If you think that is evidence of a god, then your god is evidence of UBERGOD, and UBERGOD makes your god unneeded.
Your god solves nothing, and just pushes all those problems back.
But this isn't about your religion.
Where is your evidence of a flat Earth? No where.
You need to resort to all sorts of nonsense to try to explain basic things like why the sun sets.
No, you don't. You see a simple vanishing point.
No, we don't.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away.
If it was simply vanishing point, then the sun and these other objects would simply shrink to a point and fade away. They would never appear to sink below the horizon.
Yet that is exactly what we observe. Objects appearing to sink into the horizon while still clearly resolvable.
This shows it is NOT simply vanishing point/perspective.
So no, I don't delude myself into thinking it is a curve. I understand a curve is the only way to explain it.
And thanks for once again showing your blatant dishonesty by looking at the meniscus in the context of anatomy rather than the contest of a liquid.
There something wrong with your eyes? I can measure a line straight across the horizon above. And here.
By just arbitrarily drawing a line that doesn't even exist.
In the image above of water, the horizon actually curves upwards towards the edge, likely due to lens distortion.
You also make no attempt to even verify if you should be able to see the curve from that view.
Remember, the horizon is the same angle of dip all around.
Depending on the camera lens, this will appear as a straight line in the image, and you can do the same with a small ball or a hula hoop.
you tell me that this line straight across is a "curve" because you don't understand perspective.
No, I understand perspective, which is why I recognise it doesn't do what FEers claim.
I also understand that the horizon must be a curve, as you can follow it all around you.
You can't do that with a straight line.
That is why I can call you a liar, when you repeatedly lie about it.
-
You wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ass.
And yet bulmabriefs144, you made repeated false accusations about my videos being false in someway.
So, you’re just a hypocrite. You remind of the pharisees. You think you’re righteous when you make false accusations that I lie. When none are righteous before God.
Is that a false statement. None are righteous before God?
No One Is Righteous
9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203&version=ESV
Why bulmabriefs144 are you worried about your righteousness when debating makes you throw around false accusations of lies, when the point isn’t to be righteous in the first place.
What is gained by your trying to be righteous when it makes you bring false accusations of lies when the shape of the earth has nothing to do with salvation?
-
Hear the book of Jeremiah.
No thanks. You can keep your fictional stories to yourself.
The Bible is actually history, with miracles mixed in. But you'd know that if you actually studied Israel's culture. Joseph? Moses? Actually happened. Egypt has legends of both of these figures. So did the flood. There are water lines on the Sphinx and other ancient monuments. There are huge landmasses that no longer exist.
This is not a case of you saying the truth and other people calling you a liar.
This is case of you repeatedly lying and people calling you a liar because of it.
This is a case of a person either lying to himself or to me calling me a liar because I disagree with his distorted worldview. Groupthink doesn't automatically make lies the truth. If people said that human beings need to kill themselves at age 30 to save the planet, it doesn't matter if one person says this lie or the majority of the population. In fact, lies are even more dangerous when combined with groupthink.
I'm using that responsibility to tell you that you're heading straight into slavery.
You mean you are ignoring that responsibility to pretend you having accountability and responsibility would be slavery.
You're confusing responsibility with "altruism."
(https://www.libertarianism.org/sites/libertarianism.org/files/styles/optimize/public/social-image/arand_copy.jpg?itok=GDtoFaz4)
I've met people like you all my life. You're always telling people they need to do more, or that they need to sacrifice more. You're not willing to change anything, but I need to go along with you. They try to shame Christians (even those who are poor) into giving everything they have.
A widow and a rich liberal are each told by the temple they attend that giving is what God wants. The widow hasn't much money but is convinced to give $10 when she can't spare any money because she's on a fixed income. The rich liberal shames her that she has given so little. Obviously she must be rich, because she is not a liberal! The rich liberal in turn makes a big fuss about the fact that he has given $1000. He virtue signals how generous he's being compared to that stingy widow. But he works for the state. It isn't even really his money.
Fuck your responsibility. My responsibility is to my life, my freedom, and your freedom. If you're embracing a system that will put you in chains within 50 years, like Jeremiah, it is my duty to tell you. That is my responsibility, and as an amateur prophet, I'm doing it.
(https://images.knowing-jesus.com/w/400/46-1%20CORINTHIANS/1%20Corinthians%207-23%20You%20Were%20Bought%20With%20A%20Price%20gold.jpg)
All the time. Until a jumbo jet weighing hundreds of tons is able fly thousands of feet in the air.
By providing a force.
It can only fly because of its engines providing thrust to have airflow over the wings to provide lift.
More damned handwaving. Airflow and thrust is equal to 100+ tons of force? I don't think so! Momentum is mass and velocity, but there isn't enough propulsion to overcome the mass!
This is gravity NOT being convenient, yet is still there acting.
Because of gravity the plane needs to burn fuel and have giant wings to stay in the air.
If we could just switch it off when it was inconvenient then a plane would have tiny wings just to control its direction and would be able to throttle down the engines to virtually nothing during cruise.
So yes, ALL THE TIME, including when a Jumbo Jet is burning loads of fuel to generate lift to fight it to stay in the air.
Gravity is supposed to be a constant.
No, it isn't.
That is just another strawman FEers use.
Yes. It is. Because if there is no gravitational constant, then you have a variable. Variables are effectively arbitrary bullshit. "Today, gravity is 13.586 but tomorrow it will be 231.45 because reasons. Birds won't be able to fly tomorrow." Yeah uhhh, that's pretty much the same as turning it off and on, you're resetting the value so it's convenient. You say I'm doing BS, and you pull shit like this.
Quit lying.
I'm not lying.
I'm pointing out that even while it is curved all the time, that the amount of curvature can be so insignificant that you are unable to detect it.
Conversely, you are lying.
I will tell you that there is a green ant in your living room. It is a microscopic ant though, so you can't see it as it crawls up your leg. Do you believe that this ant exists? You shouldn't. Not only did I make it up, but unlike God where the creation is secondary evidence, you can't see it and there's not sign at all that it exists. This is your curvature. A steaming load of excrement that even the perfect view is too tiny to show.
What it should appear as is objects disappearing from the bottom up as they go over this bulge.
And guess what? We see that.
You don't see objects disappear bottom up. You see objects narrow toward front and center. The last thing you see of a boat is its prow, correct? Just as the first thing you see of a train is its front.
(https://railm.blob.core.windows.net/website/1/galleries/galleries/inside-crossrail-s-tunnels/concreting-train-in-thames-tunnel-212907-22716999173-o.jpg)
Front and center is the headlights. The wheels at "bottom" is back a ways from the headlights. The train needs to get closer to you, or maybe you need to get under the train.
When we look at distant objects, with both us and the object above water, we see water blocking the view. i.e. we see the bulge.
Your wilful rejection of it doesn't change that.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1154285696631189565/sea-and-sky-horizon-photo-706484.jpg)
You are literally looking past a zero degree slope point. Not a bulge. At this point, I know you're lying. You can't be this blind.
-
This is a case of a person either lying to himself or to me calling me a liar because I disagree with his distorted worldview.
I’m I not saved because the world is spherical?
Better than your self righteousness that is meaningless.
Anyway..
Completes Flat-Earther’s $100,000 Challenge, Flat-Earther Refuses To Pay
https://www.iflscience.com/youtuber-successfully-completes-flatearthers-100000-challenge-flatearther-refuses-to-pay-50877
Such a shape is impossible to draw on a flat plane because an equilateral triangle, as described by the flat-Earther, would not have angles bigger (or smaller) than 60 degrees. But on the surface of a sphere, the shape is perfectly feasible.
Having nothing to lose and $100,000 to gain, Wolfie6020 took on the challenge and shared his flight plan in a video posted at the end of October, which has now been watched more than 5.7 million times. The flight path goes from the Galapagos to the Gulf of Guinea in Africa, then all the way to the North Pole, and back down to the Galapagos. Each leg is about 10,000 kilometers (6,215 miles) or roughly one-quarter of the length of the equator.
The video showed Woflie6020 first listing the conditions of the bet as put forward by Flat Out Hero and concluded with these words: “Mr Flat Out Hero, your challenge has been answered. The requirements, as you stated them, have been satisfied! It is now your turn to honor your challenge and pay me the $100,000. I plan to give half of that to the Westmead Children's Hospital and use the other half as prize money in future contests on this channel. So let's see if you're a man of your word and will honor your challenge!”
The shape of the world is spherical bulmabriefs144, you’re the one lying to yourself and fighting tooth and nail over something that has nothing to do with salvation.
Makes one wonder what you’re really running from. Makes one wonder why you cling to useless self righteousness.
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[a] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A38-42&version=ESV
Sailors tried to “walk a mile in FE shoes”, you just actually find your way physically when you treat the world like the sphere it is.
-
The Bible is actually history
It's actually fiction, with little bits of reality sprinkled in. Just like Harry Potter.
This is a case of a person either lying to himself or to me calling me a liar because I disagree with his distorted worldview.
No. Repeating lies wont help you.
It has been explained what it is.
It is you literally lying about things, after you have been repeatedly refuted, to pretend your delusional BS works.
You're confusing responsibility with "altruism."
No, I'm not.
You are confusing "freedom", with a complete lack of responsibility and accountability.
You even suggested those on islands which are consumed by rising sea levels should be the ones to fix the mistakes of people burning loads of fossil fuels.
You want to do whatever you want, with no accountability or responsibility to others.
I've met people like you all my life.
You mean people who can explain why you are wrong?
And refute all your BS?
So you need to resort to lying about them to feel better about yourself?
So you need to resort to inventing all sorts of fantasies about them to feel better about yourself?
If you're embracing a system that will put you in chains within 50 years, like Jeremiah, it is my duty to tell you.
Yet instead of following that duty, you directly oppose it, and try to promote a system that is already doing that.
More damned handwaving.
No. Not handwaving. A clear explanation of why your claims are pure BS.
Planes need wings and thrust to provide lift to counter gravity.
It doesn't matter what delusional BS you want to claim against that.
Yes. It is. Because if there is no gravitational constant, then you have a variable.
There is a constant, in F=GMm/r^2.
But that constant doesn't mean the force is constant.
The force still depends on mass and distance.
Variables are effectively arbitrary bullshit.
So your height is arbitrary BS?
Today you are 1 m, tomorrow you will be 2 cm, the day after you will be 100 km?
It being variable does not make it arbitrary, nor does it make it BS.
But more importantly, we see planes take off, fly at cruise, land and remain on the ground (and repeat).
Clearly their motion is changing, so at least some part of it has to be a variable.
You are just looking for pathetic excuses to reject reality.
"Today, gravity is 13.586 but tomorrow it will be 231.45 because reasons. Birds won't be able to fly tomorrow." Yeah uhhh, that's pretty much the same as turning it off and on, you're resetting the value so it's convenient.
That isn't what I am doing at all.
Yet again you resort to dishonest strawmen, blatantly lying about others, to pretend your delusional BS is true.
You say I'm doing BS, and you pull shit like this.
No, YOU pull shit like that.
YOU are the one literally spouting pure BS because you can't rationally object to what others say.
I will tell you that there is a green ant in your living room.
No, as above, you will make up pure BS and boldly proclaim I am saying things I am not.
but unlike God where the creation is secondary evidence, you can't see it and there's not sign at all that it exists. This is your curvature.
Unlike your god, there is actually evidence for curvature. Plenty of it.
Including plenty that has already been pointed out to you.
Your wilful rejection of this doesn't magically negate it.
Claiming there is no evidence for curvature is you once again lying.
You don't see objects disappear bottom up.
Yes, we do.
Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.
The last thing you see of a boat is its prow, correct?
No, this depends entirely upon the boat.
If the highest part is the prow, then that will be the last thing you see.
But if the highest part is a tower further in or a stack of containers, then that is the last thing you see.
The train needs to get closer to you, or maybe you need to get under the train.
Or, to demonstrate your delusional BS is wrong, you need the train further away.
You are literally looking past a zero degree slope point.
No, we aren't.
Drawing a bunch of random lines on a picture wont save you.
The bulge is the horizon.
The horizon is measured to have an angle of dip.
It is not a "zero degree slope point".
Again, the vanishing point is infinitely far away, and doesn't match the horizon, as already explained and demonstrated repeatedly.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/horizon-perspective-768x768.jpg)
Every time you say it is the vanishing point you are lying.
At this point, I know you're lying. You can't be this blind.
Projecting again I see.
-
This is a case of a person either lying to himself or to me calling me a liar because I disagree with his distorted worldview.
I’m I not saved because the world is spherical?
Better than your self righteousness that is meaningless.
Anyway..
Completes Flat-Earther’s $100,000 Challenge, Flat-Earther Refuses To Pay
https://www.iflscience.com/youtuber-successfully-completes-flatearthers-100000-challenge-flatearther-refuses-to-pay-50877
Such a shape is impossible to draw on a flat plane because an equilateral triangle, as described by the flat-Earther, would not have angles bigger (or smaller) than 60 degrees. But on the surface of a sphere, the shape is perfectly feasible.
Having nothing to lose and $100,000 to gain, Wolfie6020 took on the challenge and shared his flight plan in a video posted at the end of October, which has now been watched more than 5.7 million times. The flight path goes from the Galapagos to the Gulf of Guinea in Africa, then all the way to the North Pole, and back down to the Galapagos. Each leg is about 10,000 kilometers (6,215 miles) or roughly one-quarter of the length of the equator.
The video showed Woflie6020 first listing the conditions of the bet as put forward by Flat Out Hero and concluded with these words: “Mr Flat Out Hero, your challenge has been answered. The requirements, as you stated them, have been satisfied! It is now your turn to honor your challenge and pay me the $100,000. I plan to give half of that to the Westmead Children's Hospital and use the other half as prize money in future contests on this channel. So let's see if you're a man of your word and will honor your challenge!”
The shape of the world is spherical bulmabriefs144, you’re the one lying to yourself and fighting tooth and nail over something that has nothing to do with salvation.
Makes one wonder what you’re really running from. Makes one wonder why you cling to useless self righteousness.
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[a] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A38-42&version=ESV
Sailors tried to “walk a mile in FE shoes”, you just actually find your way physically when you treat the world like the sphere it is.
Actually... Most sailors use sea charts to navigate. Sea charts tend to be flat. Using a globe to navigate introduce distortion errors from curves that aren't there, and you wind up lost or running into rocks. Here's an example.
https://mashable.com/article/flat-earth-international-conference-cruise-gps
Mashable thinks this is a problem. I don't, because I understand that these charts are built on an accurate flat disc model, and they'd be more lost if they pulled out a globe and tried to find their way with that.
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/41495/20221223/eg-dec-24-pancake-map-earth-accurate-picture-world-better.htm
A pancake map is better than a globe. Hmmmmm....
-
The Bible is actually history
It's actually fiction, with little bits of reality sprinkled in. Just like Harry Potter.
It's actually allegory. The people in it, like King David, were real people. But the entire thing is an allegory for relationship between people and their God. King David cheats on his wife with Bathsheba and kills Uriah... just as the Jewish people have been cheating on their God and killing each other for senseless reasons (like earing pork).
You're confusing responsibility with "altruism."
No, I'm not.
You are confusing "freedom", with a complete lack of responsibility and accountability.
You even suggested those on islands which are consumed by rising sea levels should be the ones to fix the mistakes of people burning loads of fossil fuels.
This is a lie. I suggested that the island only fix their own problems, and that we do likewise. The West i s not a babysitter for remote places. We can't even prove they do have "rising water levels" and not mere flood erosion. So this is a pathetic attempt to shame the West into impoverished lifestyle. If we wanted to help such islands, we could take a sand barge, and expand their shores, then plant some coastal grasses like they do in New Jersey. Instead you have this who made up narrative about icecaps melting, as though they don't freeze and thaw on a regular basis.
You want to do whatever you want, with no accountability or responsibility to others.
And you try to bully others into going along with an unproven and unscientific system that is based on consensus. Consensus isn't science. Politicians all need unanimous votes. Media needs consistent news. Real science (which has been subverted by "publish or perish") requires testing results by repeated experiments. There is no room in real science for consensus. Consensys means everyone has been bought off or held at gunpoint, and nobody is repeating the experiment.
Yet instead of following that duty, you directly oppose it, and try to promote a system that is already doing that.
Freedom allows you to think what ypu like, even though you're wrong.
More damned handwaving.
No. Not handwaving. A clear explanation of why your claims are pure BS.
Planes need wings and thrust to provide lift to counter gravity.
It doesn't matter what delusional BS you want to claim against that.
Wings aren't magic. Was it you who told be gravity can't pull a jeep straight up? Well a jumbo jet is a bit heavier than a Jeep, and then it has passengers. Having wings isn't a free pass, as you'd know if you read up on botched flight experiments, many of which involved strapping wings or long wood planks to one's body.
Variables are effectively arbitrary bullshit.
So your height is arbitrary BS?
Today you are 1 m, tomorrow you will be 2 cm, the day after you will be 100 km?
Height is a constant. My height (until I am old and shrink) will be 5'11". Earth's gravity should be a constant, but you've just told me that all bets are off, because you get to decide when and how much gravity applies.
That isn't what I am doing at all.
Exactly what you're doing.
I will tell you that there is a green ant in your living room.
No, as above, you will make up pure BS and boldly proclaim I am saying things I am not.
You make up a bump that is a billionth of a meter. Should I get a microscope and look for this bulge?
but unlike God where the creation is secondary evidence, you can't see it and there's not sign at all that it exists. This is your curvature.
Unlike your god, there is actually evidence for curvature. Plenty of it.
Including plenty that has already been pointed out to you.
Your wilful rejection of this doesn't magically negate it.
Claiming there is no evidence for curvature is you once again lying.
My God has evidence for his existence. He is said to have created all things. And here I look around and see all things. Rocks. Trees. Animals. People. Sky. Sun. All things. God is real. You say there's a curve. I don't see it. Water isn't rolling towards land to cover it, as it should do if I put an onion or pumpkin into a running sink. No matter how much I walk or drive, I don't seem to have to adjust. It's a lie.
You are literally looking past a zero degree slope point.
No, we aren't.
Drawing a bunch of random lines on a picture wont save you.
Calling straight lines to center "random lines." You can't even show this bulge. You naively think that a horizon is like a hill with a dip. But apparently you haven't taken a good look at a real hill
(https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/06/16/35/6163559_ddcbf457.jpg)
There's a dip in this hill, yet the landscape can be seen past it, all the way up to the horizon. This isn't no dip. It's a convergence point. Hence the "random" lines.
-
Actually... Most sailors use sea charts to navigate.
Yes, charts based upon a RE. Not a FE.
Using a globe to navigate introduce distortion errors from curves that aren't there, and you wind up lost or running into rocks.
Wrong again. If you use a globe to navigate, you end up where you expect to (unless you are a fool like Columbus).
If you use a flat map to navigate you have no idea where you are.
Here's an example.
An example of what?
FEers taking technology reliant upon a RE and ignoring that it needs a RE?
And example of your wilful rejection of reality?
How about this, go ditch all the existing systems and make your own GPS receiver, which calculates its position on Earth based upon a flat surface. See how well you do.
Mashable thinks this is a problem. I don't, because I understand that these charts are built on an accurate flat disc model
No, you don't, because you spout delusional BS.
You don't understand that.
There is no accurate flat disc model.
FEers refuse to provide a map, because they know once they do it can easily be refuted.
A pancake map is better than a globe. Hmmmmm....
And more delusional BS.
That article claims it is the first such pancake map, yet it includes a picture of a much older one.
The sole distinction is how they combine the 2 halves. Where they have it back to back.
So this pancake map is not a FE map.
And it is not better than the globe.
They even tell you the metric to measure that. Maps can be graded based upon how much they distort. A globe receives a perfect score of 0, so no distortion. This map receives a score of 0.881. But the dishonest crap you linked to wont say that because that clearly reveals that it is worse than the globe.
It's actually allegory.
i.e. fiction.
A fairy tale, like the boy who cried wolf, an allegory teaching people not to lie.
You apparently haven't read that.
Fiction can use real things. That does not make it history.
The Bible is fiction.
This is a lie. I suggested that the island only fix their own problems, and that we do likewise.
No, my statement was not a lie.
You opposed the idea of climate change refugees and declared that they should plant trees to save themselves.
Another example is blaming the US for stealing the prosperity of remote islands in the South Pacific. Lefties love this mindset. But at the end of the day, if you're living in a remote island, it's time to stop blaming people nowhere near you for stealing your prosperity, and again, start planting trees.
You objected to the idea of big polluters taking responsibility and repairing the environment, and instead wanted those suffering to have to fix it themselves.
You want to be free to do whatever you please, without any responsibility; and if others are harmed by it, you want them to fix it.
So no. I am NOT confusing altruism with taking responsibility.
I am calling you out for actively avoiding reponsibility.
We can't even prove they do have "rising water levels" and not mere flood erosion.
Yes we can, but plenty of different things which measure the sea level.
It isn't just a single location that is being looked at.
It is world wide.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
Again, instead of even considering responsibility, you try to deflect and blame them for the damage the big polluters are causing.
we could take a sand barge, and expand their shores, then plant some coastal grasses like they do in New Jersey.
So instead of doing something which might be an inconvenience and stop the damage, you will just waste money and likely cause massive ecological damage?
And you try to bully others into going along with an unproven and unscientific system that is based on consensus.
No, I object to your BS, including your dismissal of something based upon mountains you ignore because you don't like it.
That scientific consensus is based upon the evidence. Evidence you hate.
There is consensus that the sky normally appears blue during the day.
Where are all the people holding virtually everyone at gunpoint for that?
No where.
-
Freedom allows you to think what ypu like, even though you're wrong.
And it allows other people, like me, to point out that you are wrong, and call you out on your dishonest BS.
Wings aren't magic.
That's right. They rely upon simple physical principles.
The simplest is that it deflects air passing over them downwards, resulting in a reactionary upwards force.
Again, if your dishonest BS was true, and we only used gravity when convenient, we would simply switch it off and have the plane fly without wings. But reality doesn't work that way. Gravity is there even when it isn't convinient.
Was it you who told be gravity can't pull a jeep straight up?
No. It was Data who said a HUMAN can't.
Human's are not pulling or pushing jumbo jets straight up.
The jet uses its engines to generate thrust to push the plane forwards to get airflow over its wings to push down.
If you have a large enough upwards force you can lift the object (or have it break apart as you try).
So more dishonest BS from you.
Height is a constant. My height (until I am old and shrink) will be 5'11".
Considering you were trying to compare objects, it is only fair to do the same.
So we aren't talking about your height. We are talking about height in general.
That is NOT constant. It is variable.
That does not make it arbitrary BS.
But you are still wrong.
The height of a human does vary. As they grow up, and even over the course of a day for a variety of reasons.
Earth's gravity should be a constant, but you've just told me that all bets are off, because you get to decide when and how much gravity applies.
How many times are you planning on repeating this lie?
Again, we do NOT get to decide how much and when gravity applies.
That is determined by the location of the object and its mass.
I have no say in it.
Exactly what you're doing.
Again, repeating the same lie wont help you. It just further demonstrates your dishonesty.
You make up a bump that is a billionth of a meter. Should I get a microscope and look for this bulge?
I didn't make it up.
I told you what it would be, to demonstrate that your inability to see curvature over a tiny distance doesn't mean it isn't there.
You then took "order of" to mean exactly 1, and entirely misrepresented the math to incorrectly extrapolate to larger distances.
My God has evidence for his existence. He is said to have created all things.
And boldly proclaiming it made things does not make those things evidence for its existence.
You would need to demonstrate it actually made it, or explain how it helps. And it doesn't.
Again, there is evidence for the curve, there is none for your god.
You say there's a curve. I don't see it.
Because you don't want to see it.
You want to live in a fantasy land where Earth is flat and made by an evil POS just for us.
But I will stick to reality.
if I put an onion or pumpkin into a running sink.
How many times are you planning on repeating this pathetic lie?
No matter how much I walk or drive, I don't seem to have to adjust.
Why should you have to adjust?
Instead of just boldly appealing to some vague adjustment, try clearly explaining just what adjustment you think you would have to make and why.
Calling straight lines to center "random lines."
They are random lines. They have no physical basis.
They are just your attempt at dismissing reality.
You can't even show this bulge.
Again, go observe an object going over the horizon, disappearing from the bottom up.
Here is an example for you:
https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/toronto-768x768.jpg
See how the bottom is missing? That is the "bulge" of water blocking the view.
You naively think that a horizon is like a hill with a dip. But apparently you haven't taken a good look at a real hill
No. I recognise that Earth is round, so standing on Earth and looking towards the horizon is like standing at the top of a hill and looking down.
And looking at a distant object is like looking at an object on the other side of a hill.
As you have no rational response, you need to ridicule this.
It is not a dip in a hill. It is the angle of dip to the edge of the visible portion of the hill.
This isn't no dip. It's a convergence point.
Again, every time you say it is the vanishing point or convergence point or anything like that, you are lying.
That point is infinitely far away. It is NOT the horizon.
If it was going to be the horizon, the horizon would be at an angle of elevation of 0 degrees, rather than below it.
If it was going to be the cause of the horizon, things would shrink to a point, without the bottom vanishing, yet instead things disappear from the bottom up as if they are sinking into Earth.
Repeating the same pathetic lies just demonstrates your dishonesty. It does not help your case.
Again, pay attention to this image:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/horizon-perspective-768x768.jpg)
If your lies were true, the horizon would be where those red lines meet.
That is the vanishing point, where parallel lines meet.
But the horizon is NOT there. Instead, the horizon is below, clearly demonstrating the horizon is NOT the vanishing point.
So again, every time you boldly proclaim the horizon is the vanishing point you are blatantly lying and showing you care more about propping up your delusional fantasy than you care about the truth.
-
Actually... Most sailors
You have it backwards.
Or this guy wouldn’t have lost his bet.
Flat Earther Offered $100,000 To Anyone Who Could Prove Earth Was Round, Now He's Refusing To Pay
https://www.ladbible.com/news/weird-flat-earther-offered-100000-to-prove-earth-was-round-20181205
😂😂😂😂
-
Actually... Most sailors use sea charts to navigate.
Yes, charts based upon a RE. Not a FE.
Sea charts don't make any assumption about the Earth.
https://map.openseamap.org/
It shows where rocks are. That's it. You are reading RE into this map. Just as I read FE into this map. But the truth is, until a map tries to "correct for a globe", it is completely neutral. The flat map can just as easily make a disc as a globe. Maybe stop trying to make raw data support your conclusions?
No, I object to your BS, including your dismissal of something based upon mountains you ignore because you don't like it.
That scientific consensus is based upon the evidence. Evidence you hate.
It's based on media cronyism and pressure to definance scientists who disagree. Not evidence.
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-news-coverage-conference/
Here the media is telling us they don't push hard enough to propagandize the public. I shudder.
There is consensus that the sky normally appears blue during the day.
Where are all the people holding virtually everyone at gunpoint for that?
No where.
Actually some scientists think the color blue doesn't exist, and it's a result of your eyes doing funny things with light. And one scientist named Wilhelm Reich thought the sky is blue from sexual energy. Consensus? No.
Whwn you can't even agree thar the sky is blue, how are you gonna agree about climate change? Indeed...
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-the-public/when-consensus-climate-not-consensus
At a very sparsely attended press briefing, this morning, Robinson reported that his organization had compiled a list of more than 30,000 scientists who have signed onto a petition saying that “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Golly, supposedly all scientists agree. But here's 30k scientists who very much do not agree.
The reason they can say there's a consensus has more to do with the fact that people who practice any kind of science (even totally unrelated to climate change) numbers about 8.8 million (some estimates say as high as 15 million). 30k is still not even 1% of the total number of scientists.
But there's a trick being played here. Because not all scientists are at all involved in the climate, you're asking "man on the street" opinions of people who are not actually in the field. You can get alot of marine biologists to tell you that the water is kinda polluted, but they don't necessarily know that the climate is in fact changing beyond that. Just that we have pollution.
You would have to find out two things:
(1) Did they actually ask 8.8 million people their opinion on climate change?
(2) What percent of this number of scientists actually dealing climate, and what percent is the opinion of random amateurs to the topic?
Plenty of people trained the in the physical sciences have read climate-science papers or digested reviews of those papers and realize that the IPCC consensus statements’ conclusions are silly, at best, and dangerous at worst, Robinson said. If the IPCC’s conclusions are used to justify regulations that limit use of fossil fuels, this will deny many people across the globe of their “human rights” to a safe and affordable fuel to propel their societies’ growth and development, he charged.
When I (one of perhaps eight to 10 reporters in the audience) asked whether there were any climatologists who had signed the petition, Robinson said yes, 40 of them. Another 341 were meteorologists, and 114 were atmospheric scientists, he said. Add in environmental scientists and the total in this composite category jumps to 3,697. Some 900 were trained in computer science, math, or statistics. Roughly 9,900 were trained as engineers or in general science (whatever that means). An additional 5,690 were trained as physicists, 4,800 as chemists, and 2,923 as biochemists. Several thousand more were trained in still other fields. Of the total, roughly one-third said they held PhDs.
But there’s an important caveat. There’s been no vetting of the petition’s signers to confirm that they indeed trained in the field they claimed to have had. What’s more, Robinson’s group made no attempt to find out whether people worked in the field for which they trained. So someone educated as a physical chemist or computer scientist might actually be working today as a stock broker, pianist, or taxi driver.
The same is true of this 8.8 million "consensus" though. What percent of "scientists" who agree on this aren't real scientists?
I don't hate evidence. I hate "evidence." That is, I hate it when people tell me they've "refuted" me or that there is "evidence". When did you refute me? Where is this evidence? I think if I really pressed you, if there were even a bone of honesty in you, you'd admit "Okay I got nothing." But when you don't have evidence , you instead mock me and call me stupid/crazy.
Btw, the actual number they say who disagree with this "consensus" is 3%. This means there are either alot less real scientists than claimed, or alot more dissenters. And if we scrub the yes votes that do not work in a field relevant to climate change and it cannot be shown that their research at least indirectly proves or disproves climate change (actual climate scientists), the number probably goes closer to 10-25%.
In science, you don't listen to the mob of consensus. You listen to the smartest people in the room. When the smartest people in the room tell you that whether or not climate is changing (I don't believe it is), the "solutions" make the problem far worse, you really ought to listen.
Meanwhile...
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/the-bogus-consensus-argument-on-climate-change/
I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it?
(...)
And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change.
97% of a third of scientists. The other 2/3 were probably afraid of losing their jobs.
Incidentally,
Appelbaum shows the strangely high degree of consensus in the field of economics, including a 1979 survey of economists that “found 98 percent opposed rent controls, 97 percent opposed tariffs, 95 percent favored floating exchange rates, and 90 percent opposed minimum wage laws.”
(...)
Furthermore, a recent book review in The New Republic shows that when it comes to economic science, 97% consensus means nothing, if it doesn’t support progressive politics.
So uhhh, should we all oppose minimum wage since 90% in a survey opposed it?
-
Sea charts don't make any assumption about the Earth.
Depends what scale they are at.
If it is just a tiny 1 by 1 km area, then it would probably be fine. But large scale ones do.
That is because these large scale ones would be massively distorted and broken if they tried to operate with a FE.
It shows where rocks are. That's it.
Do you even bother looking at your link?
It shows far more than that.
It shows were ports are, where various channels are. Where the land is (and cities).
But the truth is, until a map tries to "correct for a globe", it is completely neutral.
You mean until it tries to match reality over a large area.
Maybe stop trying to make raw data support your conclusions?
The map is not raw data.
Raw data would be distances and/or angles between locations.
The map you linked even has latitude and longitude and distance. And we can see how the distance around Earth following a line of latitude shrinks as you move away from the equator, at a rate matching that of a RE.
It's based on media cronyism and pressure to definance scientists who disagree. Not evidence.
Repeating the same lies wont make them true.
It is based upon evidence.
You not liking that will not change it.
Actually some scientists think the color blue doesn't exist, and it's a result of your eyes doing funny things with light. And one scientist named Wilhelm Reich thought the sky is blue from sexual energy. Consensus? No.
So you try to point to some people claiming all sorts of nonsense to claim there isn't consensus?
You a really are grasping at straws.
Consensus does not require complete agreement.
Again, where are all the people, holding people at gunpoint to try to force a consensus that the sky is blue?
No where.
Consensus does not mean it is not supported by evidence.
Golly, supposedly all scientists agree. But here's 30k scientists who very much do not agree.
No, it isn't.
Here is a person claiming that.
Elsewhere it was claimed by him that of his 31k people, only 9k hold a PhD.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110205020750/http://www.mndaily.com/2008/05/28/climate-change-petition-pits-scientists-against-each-other
There is no indication on if these people are actually scientists, or just random people.
If you go into it deeper, you can find more information, including that these are taken from all over the place, including those who did any degree related to science.
i.e. if you went and did a math degree, you can sign the petition, with only an undergrad degree in a tangentially related field (including medicine, math and computer science).
Looking at the breakdown, you have 693 people who did math who signed it, 242 who did computer science, 3046 who did medicine, 9833 who did engineering (either unspecified, electrical or metallurgy), and so on.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120601110230/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf
Not to mention you can easily just fake it and sign as whoever you want.
Past "signatories" include people like the spice girls and Charles Darwin.
They even say they have no way of filtering out fakes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121007010858/http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
In short, the petition is crap.
The reason they can say there's a consensus has more to do with the fact that people who practice any kind of science (even totally unrelated to climate change)
You mean the reason your garbage petition claims there isn't?
But there's a trick being played here. Because not all scientists are at all involved in the climate, you're asking "man on the street" opinions of people who are not actually in the field.
Yes, that is one of the big problems with the petition you are appealing to.
I don't hate evidence.
You only hate evidence when it shows you are wrong.
It really is quite simple, the evidence demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs IR radiation emitted by Earth and re-emits it in all directions.
This means IR radiation that would be escaping Earth and going into space it absorbed, and reemitted back down to Earth (a portion goes down to Earth and a portion goes off to space).
When the majority of the radiation coming into Earth is visible radiation, and the majority going out is IR, this is a very significant effect. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be frozen, at least at night. With it, Earth can be habitable. But if it goes too far, you end up like Venus.
The evidence is also quite clear that we are taking carbon out of the ground and burning it, meaning the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise because of what we did.
The logical consequence of this is that the temperature will rise.
That is what the evidence shows.
You not liking that is your problem.
And if we scrub the yes votes that do not work in a field relevant to climate change and it cannot be shown that their research at least indirectly proves or disproves climate change (actual climate scientists), the number probably goes closer to 10-25%.
So if you be incredibly dishonest; pitting scientists who work in a relevant field who recognise the effects of global warming, vs all "scientists" who think it isn't real.
If you are going to trim the yes votes, you should also trim the no votes.
In science, you don't listen to the mob of consensus. You listen to the smartest people in the room.
No, you listen to the evidence.
When the evidence clearly shows the climate is changing, and mankind is at least responsible in part, you out to listen.
But because you care more about your "freedom" to do as you please, you look for whatever pathetic excuses you can to ignore it.
Meanwhile...
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/the-bogus-consensus-argument-on-climate-change/
And more dishonest BS and cherry picking.
Of those who made a position clear one way or another, 97% indicated humans are contributing to climate change.
I also see you dropped the rest to focus your irrational hatred onto climate change. Does that mean you accept the rest of your claims are pure BS?
And that evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact that Earth is round?
-
All, this is not a thread about whether the earth is flat. Stay on topic in the upper forums.
Jack if you don't stop with this constantly insulting behavior and rhetoric, you will be given a permanent vacation.
This is also not a debate forum. Do so in the correct forum.
This board is for discussion about the Flat Earth Society or the Flat Earth movement in general. For example, if you want to ask questions about The Conspiracy, flat earth believers and their beliefs, or anything else not related to Flat Earth Theory, this is the place for it. If you wish to discuss Flat Earth Theory itself, you should go to Flat Earth Q&A (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=12.0) or Flat Earth Debate (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=10.0). Keep in mind that although somewhat relaxed, this forum is still subject to the Forum Rules (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,43826.0.html#.UK7dDhX9DxQ).
-
I don't see your point. It's a video game. So what?
-
Having played through TotK some more:
The low gravity regions are not related to a different fluid being present.
This is seen in one of the shrines where you can toggle it on and off.
If that was due to the fluid you should expect to see the fluid fly in or fly out. Link can be significantly affected by wind, and a denser wind would affect him more.
And due to all the islands which appear without the spire (there are quite a lot of them), it appears that the spire is not the cause of the levitation.
Instead, it is likely used as a support for the more "natural" looking islands, to hold up the dirt and loose stones.
-
There's a bubble effect when he enters the layer. How can it be anything other than sandwiched layer of viscous (is that the word I'm looking for?) gas? Not only is Link's jumping higher but it appears to be slower, as though he's jumping through something thick like molasses.
-
There's a bubble effect when he enters the layer. How can it be anything other than sandwiched layer of viscous (is that the word I'm looking for?) gas? Not only is Link's jumping higher but it appears to be slower, as though he's jumping through something thick like molasses.
He doesn't appear to go slower.
The only "slow" part is the overall appearance of the jump due to it taking longer to fall back down.
He still runs around the same, and paraglides (horizontally) the same.
How can it be a layer of high density vicious gas, when you can turn it on and off with no apparent fluid flowing in or out?
It behaves as a region of low gravity, which can be toggled on an off.
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.
Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality. Not feel, actually are.
Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round. I imagine your response might be that Time is not a true Scotsman.
But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.
Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.
Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.
On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.
Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.
It's obvious. Which is why I said it. I have the audacity to state the truth in a den of liars. Oh bother, I've touched a nerve again and hurt some feelings. You gonna threaten to ban me again, so you can feel like you have power, again? Sure, sure, you don't have anything you're compensating for.
It's ok to be naive, you don't have to act smart. We think you are OK as you are. Either accept it or stop publically trying to convince yourself of fairy tales.
-
All, this is not a thread about whether the earth is flat. Stay on topic in the upper forums.
😂😂😂😂
What thread ever stays on topic of late? FE is reduced to derailing threads.
-
So ummmm, I figured out how to transfer pictures from Switch to PC. Lacking a cable, I basically had to pull out the memory card and pop it into my computer. Anyway, I got this.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1155903197219668119/2023092512152900-CC47F0DEC75C1FD3B1F95FA9F9D57667.jpg)
So yay, I can export pictures now!
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.
Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality. Not feel, actually are.
Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round. I imagine your response might be that Time is not a true Scotsman.
But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.
Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.
Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.
On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.
Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.
It's obvious. Which is why I said it. I have the audacity to state the truth in a den of liars. Oh bother, I've touched a nerve again and hurt some feelings. You gonna threaten to ban me again, so you can feel like you have power, again? Sure, sure, you don't have anything you're compensating for.
It's ok to be naive, you don't have to act smart. We think you are OK as you are. Either accept it or stop publically trying to convince yourself of fairy tales.
Enjoy your vacation.
-
And due to all the islands which appear without the spire (there are quite a lot of them), it appears that the spire is not the cause of the levitation.
Instead, it is likely used as a support for the more "natural" looking islands, to hold up the dirt and loose stones.
I wouldn't say "quite a lot of them". Here's a side island and a main island.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1157488184922484856/2023092921112100-CC47F0DEC75C1FD3B1F95FA9F9D57667.jpg)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1157488184666640494/2023092920440400-CC47F0DEC75C1FD3B1F95FA9F9D57667.jpg)
More importantly, they are precisely at the spot where the object would need to be held up in order to keep from tipping over.
-
I wouldn't say "quite a lot of them". Here's a side island and a main island.
Now do it during the quest where you need to leave the temple of time, light a few campfires, and then return without touching the ground.
Notice something in common with basically all of these? They have soft dirt/rock above them. In your closeup of below we can see bits of rock where it looks like some may have broken off.
More importantly, they are precisely at the spot where the object would need to be held up in order to keep from tipping over.
That is an entirely baseless claim.
In order to claim that you would need to know exactly what the mass distribution is, and it would need to move around as link and other things on the island move around.
-
The wide angle shot is part of that story having done the "no touching the ground" thing.
What I noticed was that any islands that didn't have spires were tiny and typically very square. And yes, it is important about their shape. Too oblong means that pieces break off.
There are two other structures that don't have spires. They are: Lomei mazes (connection with underground Lomei), and the Spheres (funny how rotating keeps them airborne).
In order to claim that you would need to know exactly what the mass distribution is, and it would need to move around as link and other things on the island move around.
I could tell from a wide shot and a rough estimate of mass. They tend to be extending down from the center of the widest parts.
-
The wide angle shot is part of that story having done the "no touching the ground" thing.
But not during it.
What I noticed was that any islands that didn't have spires were tiny and typically very square.
They varied in size and shape.
What was important was that their base was solid, meaning they didn't need the extra spire for support.
There are two other structures that don't have spires. They are: Lomei mazes (connection with underground Lomei), and the Spheres (funny how rotating keeps them airborne).
The mazes have no physical connection with the land or underground mazes.
The spheres remain airborn regardless of if they are rotating.
There are also several small islands/fragments scattered around without a spire keeping them up.
I could tell from a wide shot and a rough estimate of mass. They tend to be extending down from the center of the widest parts.
A "rough estimate" is not enough to say they are precisely at the spot.
And I see you ignored the fact that things can move around, without the island toppling over or the spire moving.
Again, all this combined indicates that the spires are for supporting the soft land and holding it together. Not for levitation.
-
But isn't that the thing? These islands are NOT moving. There is no orbit, no rotation, and no movement in these islands besides the occasional falling rocks. The map shows them in a certain location, and you can predictably fly to the correct location. Lanaryu's Islands haven't moved to above the southernmost island in the east.
-
But isn't that the thing? These islands are NOT moving. There is no orbit, no rotation, and no movement in these islands besides the occasional falling rocks. The map shows them in a certain location, and you can predictably fly to the correct location. Lanaryu's Islands haven't moved to above the southernmost island in the east.
How does that in any way address what I said?
The point is the spikes are clearly NOT for levitation.
They are not in the perfect spot, as being in the perfect spot would require the spikes (not the entire island) to move around as objects on them move around.
Instead, they remain fixed in place.
Instead, they are more likely to be providing support for the softer material the islands are made out of.
-
How does it not? The spires clearly do hold up or at least balance these islands. The islands ought to follow the orbit of any RE, but they very much stay put. Hyrule is flat and nonmoving. So is Earth.
-
How does it not? The spires clearly do hold up or at least balance these islands. The islands ought to follow the orbit of any RE, but they very much stay put. Hyrule is flat and nonmoving. So is Earth.
The spires appear to provide structural support to the islands. But they don't appear to the cause of the levitation.
So it "holds it up" in the same way duct tape would if the islands were wrapped in duct tape.
What do you mean the islands out to follow the orbit of any RE?
The islands are not orbiting hyrule. They are floating above. You say that is due to technology, I say it is due to magic. As magic fits more in with the game.
Hyrule is certainly not flat, by any stretch of the imagination.
It is far more rough and irregular than any terrain on Earth.
It is only if you ignore all of that and just pretend it is flat, that you can say it is flat.
And we have no idea just how far the world extends beyond the border of the playable area.
As for moving; we have no idea if it is moving or not.
This is because we have nothing to directly measure the motion.
The best we have is the coordinates to measure the motion relative to Hyrule.
But all that tells you is that Hyrule isn't moving relative to Hyrule.
But that tells you nothing.
As for Earth, we have plenty of evidence it is round and moving. And a video game doesn't change that.
-
You're confusing terrain and shape.
Lemme show you something.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1158885298923651072/TerrainVsShape.png)
At all points, the hills and trenches conform to a flat area. Think of the sky islands. The spheres floating in the sky, is it possible to mistake them for the islands? No, this is because the spheres have hard curves and equal 360, while the islands, even if they have hills, ultimately are flat on top. You could have rock walls, hills, or other geological features, and it wouldn't change the shape, only the terrain.
-
I'm pretty convinced that after enough playing if you don't see the "baselines" I was mentioning earlier you must be playing with braile controllers.
-
You're confusing terrain and shape.
No, I'm not.
The terrain is the shape.
You can try to average it to get a better shape, but you aren't even doing that.
Instead, you are entirely ignoring the shape and drawing an arbitrary line.
At all points, the hills and trenches conform to a flat area.
No, they don't; at least not in the game.
The spheres floating in the sky, is it possible to mistake them for the islands?
There you go ignoring scale yet again.
Once more, the world that Hyrule is part of (and Earth) are not tiny balls you can hold in your hand.
A small enough area on a sufficiently large ball is indistinguishable from a flat surface.
If I zoomed in on the ball and just showed you a tiny fraction of it, you would not be able to tell if it is round or flat.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, including with examples. Stop playing dumb.
No, this is because the spheres have hard curves and equal 360, while the islands, even if they have hills, ultimately are flat on top.
No, if they have hills they are NOT flat on top.
Again, you are ignoring the actual shape and just pretending it is flat.
You could have rock walls, hills, or other geological features
And that would change the shape.
I'm pretty convinced that after enough playing if you don't see the "baselines" I was mentioning earlier you must be playing with braile controllers.
And which baselines would that be? I did a quick search and can't seem to find you mention "baselines" at all.
I have played a lot more of the game, and visited lots of areas.
And there is nothing to show the world Hyrule is on is flat.
The local area (that you can access) is rough and irregular, and not good enough to extrapolate to the entire world.
-
I'm pretty convinced that after enough playing if you don't see the "baselines" I was mentioning earlier you must be playing with braile controllers.
Inclined to agree.
Sorry, Jack. You blind.
Terrain is not shape.
(https://www.stickyminds.com/sites/default/files/article/2014/death-star.jpg)
Shape is a sphere. People work inside the death star, but we never see then walk on top of it. Terrain is smooth.
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/Death-Star-II_b5760154.jpeg?region=0%2C68%2C2160%2C1080)
Shape is supposed to be a sphere. Terrain is rough.
(https://pm1.narvii.com/6142/92b028b2a3c4b8ffa44423bfae2ce5c2b3e57493_hq.jpg)
Original sky islands. You can see hills, trenches, and even river troughs. I usually fall in the same river while running across town.
Terrain are the peaks and valleys, the rough or smooth parts within a given shape. They are not, however, the shape itself. Were I to make a map of Discworld, the presence of mountains would not invalidate the shape of Discworld.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/34/3d/b0/343db0a91f6985f889d8d6b2746b462d.jpg)
Indeed, Discworld has at least two mountain ranges. The Ramtops and the mountains near Klatch. Yet someone in canon actually verified that indeed there is a turtle at the edge.
Terrain is not shape.
By the way, there is a fast spinning sphere in Zelda: TOTK. They did this just to troll ppl like you. If you stay put, you will fall off the side.
There is nothing intrinsic about a sphere that lends itself to allow us to stick to its sides.
There is nothing intrinsic about rolling motion that gravity should be produced.
In fact, if I were to stay put on this sphere, Link would probably do his falling yell.
You are in your rights to believe whatever you bloody like, but you can clearly see when things are not so. Unless you are blind.
-
Sorry, Jack. You blind.
Why? You are the one continually repeating falsehoods.
You are the one entirely ignoring what is there, just to draw a straight through nothing.
Terrain is not shape.
Do you know what shape is?
The only way in which terrain is not shape is when you can average it out over a large area, or smooth it out.
If your object is small enough for the terrain to be significant, then it is the shape.
e.g. for Earth, an object roughly a sphere with a radius of 6371 km, even Mount Everest with a peak height of roughly 8.5 km, is 0.1% of the radius. So not much.
For the accessible portion of Hyrule, the vertical distance you can travel on the surface is around 1000 units, the horizontal distance is less than 10 000 units.
That means that height makes up 10% of the horizontal distance.
So Hyrule is not flat.
If you were to look at a sine wave over a single cycle it is clearly not straight.
If you were to look at it over 1 billion cycles (without any stretching), then it would appear as a thick straight line, with the ups and downs being insignificant compared to the length.
If you went to purchase something from a hardware store, and you wanted to purchase a flat piece of timber, and then gave you one with massive peaks and valleys, going to 10% of the length of the piece; would you accept that as flat?
I certainly wouldn't.
Here is a simple dictionary definition of shape for you:
"the external form, contours, or outline of someone or something."
Notice how that doesn't allow you to ignore the terrain?
A mountain makes up the external form, complete with maps often showing this with contour lines.
The terrain makes the shape. You cannot just ignore it if it is significant.
Shape is a sphere.
And your ability to tell it is a sphere depends upon how close you are to it, how much of it you can see, and how big it is; as well as how rough the surface is.
If you are close enough to it, viewing a small enough portion, and the surface is rougher than the drop due to curvature at that point, you are not going to be able to recognise it is a sphere.
People work inside the death star, but we never see then walk on top of it.
So you now yet again appeal to fiction, with fictional artificial gravity which can point whichever way they want.
Not all of it goes "down" the same way.
e.g. the docking ports on the equator are parallel to the equator, and the ships land like that; but the main laser of the death star is not parallel to the equator and yet people work parallel to that.
Artificial gravity points whatever way the plot demands.
Original sky islands. You can see hills, trenches, and even river troughs. I usually fall in the same river while running across town.
And I see that they are not flat.
Here is an example of a flat object:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Empty_wooden_chessboard.jpg/320px-Empty_wooden_chessboard.jpg)
Notice how the top surface appears flat and smooth (other than the cut).
There are no giant hills or valleys.
By the way, there is a fast spinning sphere in Zelda: TOTK.
Where, and why should I care?
Earth is not a fast spinning sphere.
Earth spins slower than the hour hand on a analogue clock.
Earth rotates at roughly 1 revolution every 24 hours (closer to 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds).
If you stay put, you will fall off the side.
You mean you will fall to Hyrule?
There is nothing intrinsic about a sphere that lends itself to allow us to stick to its sides.
There is nothing intrinsic about a sphere that causes you to fly off.
As Username has said, this is not the place to discuss your repeated strawmanning of gravity and spheres.
There is nothing intrinsic about rolling motion that gravity should be produced.
This is not the place for you to repeat your lie about gravity magically being produced from rotation.
No one is suggesting that for the RE, so why do you insist on repeating this same pathetic lie again and again?
You are in your rights to believe whatever you bloody like, but you can clearly see when things are not so. Unless you are blind.
And I can clearly see your claims are not so.
So are you blind?
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Empty_wooden_chessboard.jpg/320px-Empty_wooden_chessboard.jpg)
So suppose you made this board braille with tiny bumps and depressions. It tells you the space is A4 or C7. It also tells you whether the space is brown or blond. There is likewise little braille bumps on each piece, just for you.
Is this chess board round? Is it anything but a square?
Are the pieces not their shape because they have tiny bumps?
This is a bishop.
(https://images1.sw-cdn.net/product/picture/674x501_15308963_9080805_1470584236_1_0.jpg)
This is also a bishop.
(https://www.houseofchess.com/imglib/hoc/CP8474/3/middle)
One is smooth. One is not.
Terrain is about smooth or bumpy. It does not define shape.
-
So suppose you made this board braille with tiny bumps and depressions. It tells you the space is A4 or C7. It also tells you whether the space is brown or blond. There is likewise little braille bumps on each piece, just for you.
Is this chess board round? Is it anything but a square?
So you switch from flat to square?
For flat, the actual topic of discussion, that depends on how significant the bumpbs are.
If the bumps just stick out 1 mm, then you wouldn't be able to notice from a quick glance at it, so overall it would still be flat.
If the bumps are actually the pieces themselves, sticking out a quite substantial distance, then it is not flat.
As for round vs square; that would be more like you putting a large "hill" on each side of the chess board, and smoothing down the corners, so this "terrain" makes the board a circle; with you ignoring that and claiming it is a square.
Or alternatively, it would be like claiming it is just a circle, with 4 large hills which are just terrain, and that "terrain" being a square doesn't change the shape of the board actually being a circle.
Are the pieces not their shape because they have tiny bumps?
Again, we are not talking about tiny bumps.
For the islands, some of the hills you wish to ignore are as large as the island.
One is smooth. One is not.
Both are smooth, just to different levels.
What you are doing is like getting a horse, and claiming it is a bishop, just with some "terrain" which contribute to the shape.
Terrain is about smooth or bumpy. It does not define shape.
Terrain defines shape. Its effect on the overall shape depends upon how significant that terrain is compared to the rest of the object.
-
It's flat too. Flat square with bumps is not suddenly not flat.
If I purchased land in North Dakota (one of the flatter states that isn't also filled with swamps like Florida), and the land was all flat except for a mountain, do we call this "mostly flat"? Or call it a mountainous area? You would call it mountainous, even though it's just the only mountain and no other hills for 50 miles.
Can you actually see the bumps if you're not looking? Do they noticeably affect gameplay?
-
Terrain most definitely gives or determines shape. How significant that terrain defines a particular shape depends entirely on the frame of reference.
-
No, it doesn't.
The overall average terrain determines shape.
(https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/gba/468482-tactics-ogre-the-knight-of-lodis/map/6979?raw=1)
Shape is |\ a right triangle
(https://faqs.neoseeker.com/Games/GBA/tactics_ogre_kol_07a.png)
(https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/gba/468482-tactics-ogre-the-knight-of-lodis/map/7001?raw=1)
Flat. And flat (with some hills and valleys, and a large building).
(http://faqs.neoseeker.com/Games/GBA/tactics_ogre_kol_belleza.png)
Equilateral triangle.
-
It's flat too. Flat square with bumps is not suddenly not flat.
And what if it had a massive bump in the middle, as large as the board is wide? Is that still flat? NO!
Ignoring the parts of the shape you don't like to pretend it is flat is incredibly dishonest.
If I purchased land in North Dakota (one of the flatter states that isn't also filled with swamps like Florida), and the land was all flat except for a mountain
You mean level, following the curve of Earth?
I certainly wouldn't call that flat.
But regardless, this has nothing to do with what we are currently discussing.
The islands, and the playable region of Hyrule are nothing like that.
Can you actually see the bumps if you're not looking? Do they noticeably affect gameplay?
Yes, quite easily, and quite significantly.
e.g. For most locations in the game, you can warp to a sky island and glide/paraglide to it. But Death Mountain is so high you can't.
The overall average terrain determines shape.
The overall average terrain is a point.
You need to decide how you want to average it.
Can you tell us how you will average the height of locations in Hyrule to generate a flat surface, without just averaging it to a single point and constructing a flat surface through that point?
You can easily do this by taking the height map linked before and scaling it down.
For example, here is a link to an original file at some resolution:
https://github.com/MrCheeze/botw-tools/blob/master/heightmap.png
And here are some scaled down versions, scaling by a factor of 4 each time:
(https://i.imgur.com/9iC82dI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/kcdG0N0.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/63UgAN1.png)
Even at the lowest resolution, it is still clearly NOT FLAT
That is what happens when you have such significant terrain.
In order to make it flat, you need to average out the height of Mt Hebra and Death Mountain and the Gerudo Highlands with the depths of the Tanagar Canyon and the Gerudo Desert.
That is not averaging or smoothing.
That is entirely ignoring what the terrain actually is to boldly proclaim it is flat.
-
It's flat too. Flat square with bumps is not suddenly not flat.
And what if it had a massive bump in the middle, as large as the board is wide? Is that still flat? NO!
Listening is a key skill for you to learn in the future.
The overall average terrain determines shape.
Let's explain geometry to you.
(https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/images/degrees-360.gif)
A circle is equal to 360 degrees
What this means is that for something to be a sphere, it must have a 90 degree rise, or in other words, a rise that is equal in height to half the diameter. Okay think about this. Suppose there even is this bulge that you have never been able to prove, so what? Does that prove Earth is a sphere? The Earth's diameter is 7000 MILES. Half of this is a midpoint curve so profound that it would cause water to hill in either direction like the Red Line. Only worse. You have a curve that is taller than the tallest mountain. Excuse me, but I have driven 3000 miles. I know for a fact that there was never any such curve in all that distance.
This is why RE liars always default to "The Earth is really an elliptoid not a sphere," after telling people up and down that it's a sphere. But even if it was the eggiest egg with the longest curve possible to make 360, the figure doesn't work. Even a coin-shaped Earth has a profound side edge. Nice try though.
A chess board that has a huge mound of dirt on it, is nonetheless a chess board. If I drench it in water, and the wood bows, it is a warped chess board. If you added more wood give it a large bump, you could maybe say it's a different shape by design, and call it a domed chess board. But this bump is not a thing, stop trying to make it a thing.
-
hahahaha bulmba to explain geometry and how circles and triangles work!?!?!
maybe she can realize that as the plane ascends into the sky, she draws a circle and a triangle on a piece of paper and realizes that the horizon moves farther out, just like it is expected to do as the triangle gets taller and taller off the circle, the tangent point to the circle gets farther and farther away.
So in the end you don't have a debate point, just a recycled model.
You can do the same on a piece of paper using triangles on a flat level ground. Sky, earth, sky, earth.
Sky
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1156696860191359057/Sky.png)
Earth
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1156696859876794469/Earth.png)
The sky is curved. The ground is not.
Geez, you ppl aren't even helpful when someone wants a favor.
-
Yeah, so?
That has more to do with Paint not cooperating than knowledge of geometry.
Increasingly thinking you should have dropped out from high school, but were instead passed all the way through college because the teachers would be held responsible if you failed.
Meanwhile, I continued my education after college, eventually learning that much of what I was told was crap.
Ultimately, you have a choice. Continue saying cute little paragraphs of "fact-checking" and "bunking" while your life, your happiness, and your freedom gets taken away. Or actually watch while someone else is concerned their own stuff is being taken away and actually understand you're fighting on the wrong side.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
I can read when the writing on the wall says Mene Mene Tekel Parsin. You seem not to understand.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/vop/image/fetch/w_1280,h_852,c_fill,g_center,f_auto//https://bi-admin.bibleinfo.com/sites/default/files/mene-mene-teckle-upharsin.jpg)
This country is becoming broken, and its days are numbers. It will be taken away from those who seek to run the lives of others, and they will not understand what happened.
Repairing this country starts as simple as being able to repair devices
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/right-to-repair-cars-iphones-and-tractors-gains-steam-in-states-and-dc
instead of flooding landfills with millions of old tech. Every new device that doesn't reuse parts means manufacturing cost. It means more pollution and more waste. It means less freedom and less environment, not more.
-
Now, back to topic.
A circle is equal to 360 degrees
What this means is that for something to be a sphere, it must have a 90 degree rise, or in other words, a rise that is equal in height to half the diameter. Okay think about this. Suppose there even is this bulge that you have never been able to prove, so what? Does that prove Earth is a sphere? The Earth's diameter is 7000 MILES. Half of this is a midpoint curve so profound that it would cause water to hill in either direction like the Red Line. Only worse. You have a curve that is taller than the tallest mountain. Excuse me, but I have driven 3000 miles. I know for a fact that there was never any such curve in all that distance.
This is why RE liars always default to "The Earth is really an elliptoid not a sphere," after telling people up and down that it's a sphere. But even if it was the eggiest egg with the longest curve possible to make 360, the figure doesn't work. Even a coin-shaped Earth has a profound side edge. Nice try though.
You've yet to answer this, instead picking at my lack of ability in art programs, as though that changes the angles or proportions any.
-
So YOU want SOMEONE to REGULATE that companies cant purposefully make their products unfixable?
Hmmmm
How interesting.
What a novel idea.
-
Spoken like a true leftist. The left wants to regulate everything, down to my ability to exhale CO2. No, I know that companies used to allow repairs on products. Then everyone from Timex to car companies decided to put chips in their stuff, so now if you so much as swap out the transmission on a car, it will not work. I wamt to abolish those syatems, not regulate. But because those systems are now dependent on chips that shouldn't have been allowed for a free market economy, having the right to repair involves doing something about these chips. When you scratch the leftist, they are never about rights, and always about regulation. The only time I ever want regulation is when the rights have already been lost, and something (like a chip or broadcasting surveillance device), is preventing them for coming back. No, ban the devices restricting freedom, then abolish any laws forbidding freedom. Regulate? Nah. Laws should be written to punish the lawmakers and to make men free.
-
...And you are still dodging and deflecting. Where is this 3000+ mile curve that ought to exist if the Earth is round?
-
This is too unbelievablr
Now you want to abolish chips?
All the manufacturrr did was utilize chips that-also-do-other-things to endorfce their monopolized control of their products.
But you, the leave-bug-corp-alone now wnat to REGULATE what a manufacturer can put in for the benefit of society.
Aaah ok
Glad we agree - regulation when done to protect the peoole is good.
-
For a supposed anti-trust leftist, you're awfully concerned with having businesses preserve their right to monopolize the repairs and manufacture of cars. Two years ago, my dad wanted to split his car with me. We wanted to go to a car dealer, and have their mechanic simply swap out the transmission. About 20 or 30 years ago, this could be done by any pro mechanic. He told us that it now couldn't be done, because while the computer system makes the car read out nonsensical codes like A5FF07 for diagnostics that any decent mechanic could do themselves, it now locks the format of the care in place so that any customizations are not possible without removing the computer and having a brick car. Yes, get rid of these damned chips.
I have the correct priorities, it seems. Protect the rights of business customers. You want to protect the ownership of people who have rigged up cars not to be repaired or customized. And heaven help you if the computer gets hacked and starts rejecting the current setup of the car. You have to replace it.
Because of this computer, instead of just taking the car to a mechanic and having him swap transmission, we had to spend $10,000 to buy a new car. This was two cars that we had to sell, instead of one. One of them still worked, but was just manual transmission.
AGAIN
Using my distractibility to keep from answering my question.
(https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/images/degrees-360.gif)
90 degrees, with 3500 or so rise, when traveling about that distance. Where is it?
-
(https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/images/degrees-360.gif)
90 degrees, with 3500 or so rise, when traveling about that distance. Where is it?
Underneath you, obviously.
You are standing on top of this “rise”, where the 90 degree marker is. What you see from the top of your “rise” is called the horizon, where the surface of the earth curves away from you.
-
No you misinderstand
I am not FOR companies to abuse their customers.
Im POINTING out your hypicrisy and oxymoron loc thinking.
-
Listening is a key skill
Which you appear to entirely lack.
Let's explain geometry to you.
Terrain is geometry.
You ignoring the terrain to claim it is flat is just blatant dishonesty.
This is not just ignoring an insignificant bump. This is ignoring a substantial part of it.
You may as well be claiming a sphere is flat, with a bump on each side.
A circle is equal to 360 degrees
Good, now zoom in on a tiny part of it.
Maybe something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/3O9MrD1.png)
What this means is that for something to be a sphere, it must have a 90 degree rise, or in other words, a rise that is equal in height to half the diameter.
And if you want to see that, you need to be far away.
Alternatively, LOOK DOWN.
Then see that massive amount of Earth that goes from directly below to out in front, that is part of that bulge you are trying to find.
Here is a picture to help you understand:
(https://i.imgur.com/zehmZGo.png)
Which way do you need to look to see that bulge?
If you wish to disagree, feel free to draw yourself standing on Earth and showing what way you think you should need to look.
Suppose there even is this bulge that you have never been able to prove
The curvature of Earth has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
You have been completely incapable of explaining away observations which demonstrate it.
We even have pictures from space:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Does that prove Earth is a sphere?
No, but the fact that it is quite comparable anywhere on Earth makes it quite likely to be roughly spherical.
We also have the shadow of Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse to further support this.
And as above, we have pictures of Earth from space.
The Earth's diameter is 7000 MILES. Half of this is a midpoint curve so profound that it would cause water to hill in either direction like the Red Line.
What red line? And So what?
Excuse me, but I have driven 3000 miles. I know for a fact that there was never any such curve in all that distance.
How?
Based upon your blatant misrepresentation that Earth should behave like a tiny ball, so you should feel like you are climbing a massive mountain; rather than an honest representation of what a level CURVED surface should act like?
This is why RE liars always default to "The Earth is really an elliptoid not a sphere,"
And more delusional BS.
The reason HONEST PEOPLE say that Earth is not a perfect sphere, and it is closer to an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid, is because that is the truth.
Due to the minimal eccentricity, a sphere is a good approximation.
A chess board that has a huge mound of dirt on it, is nonetheless a chess board. If I drench it in water, and the wood bows, it is a warped chess board. If you added more wood give it a large bump, you could maybe say it's a different shape by design, and call it a domed chess board. But this bump is not a thing, stop trying to make it a thing.
And again deflecting from the shape.
Not a chessboard with a mound of dirt, a chessboard with a massive bump in the middle.
I don't care if it would still be a chess board, would it still be flat?
Notice how if it bows, you say it is warped, which is another way of saying not flat.
This "bump" IS a thing. It is the terrain you keep on ignoring.
Meanwhile, I continued my education after college, eventually learning that much of what I was told was crap.
You mean after failing miserably at college you started to de-educate yourself, discarding most of what you learnt as crap.
Not for any rational basis of by actual education, but because you don't like it.
This country is becoming broken, and its days are numbers.
Yes, by people like you.
People who care more about individual liberty than not harming others.
I wamt to abolish those syatems, not regulate.
And it doesn't really matter what you want.
These companies want these systems, because it makes them money.
Why would they stop it just because you want it?
Do you mean you want to force companies to not be able to use those systems? Because that is regulation. You would be regulating companies to prohibit them from doing something.
But because those systems are now dependent on chips that shouldn't have been allowed for a free market economy
No, they shouldn't have been allowed in a regulated economy that cares about end users and their right to own and repair their own products.
But in a free market they are permitted entirely. And then the buyers collective decide with their wallets if they accept it or not.
When you scratch the leftist, they are never about rights, and always about regulation.
And just how do you plan on ensuring those rights without regulation?
The point of regulations is to give you those rights and ensure the companies can't take it away.
The only time I ever want regulation is when the rights have already been lost
At which point it is often too late and you are fighting a losing battle.
It is far better to have those regulations in place prohibiting the destruction of the right before the right is lost.
No, ban the devices restricting freedom
i.e. REGULATE the companies to prohibit them from producing certain products.
Do you understand what regulations are?
For a supposed anti-trust leftist, you're awfully concerned with having businesses preserve their right to monopolize the repairs and manufacture of cars.
Are you sure?
Because I fully support the right to repair and think companies should be obligated (i.e. regulations should exist which require companies to) provide schematics of their products and repair manuals, as well as providing parts; or if they don't, then they should be obligated to repair a device (or replace it with an equivalent or better model, with all features the same or improved) for free.
What this is vastly more likely to be doing is pointing out your hypocrisy.
You claim to oppose regulation, wanting things to be free; but then you cling to things which would require regulation to work.
What we "want" is for you to recognise that you are promoting and calling for regulation of companies to prohibit them from doing certain things; so you can recognise that not all regulation is bad.
But again, this is not the thread for that.
Using my distractibility to keep from answering my question.
Then just stop with all the BS about regulation and focus on your question.
You were the one that decided to bring up right to repair.
-
No you misinderstand
I am not FOR companies to abuse their customers.
Im POINTING out your hypicrisy and oxymoron loc thinking.
But you see, I am pointing out your hypocrisy. You vote for Democrats, thinking them the party of the people. I vote for Republicans, knowing that they were set up under the principles of elitism. You choose electors, you have law and order. Democracy in action is a lynch mob. A Republic in action is a Senate that hasn't been corrupted by vote fixing, but takes to account that there is more rural land than urban (I despise the idea of mini city districts based on population). Republicans tend to do very little, which is exactly what I want them to do (though I would like them to stop this climate crap). But you know what Democrats actually look like? I do. I've been to one's house. Making less than $5000 a year, I went to fix the computer of a lady, who upon driving to a back road in the middle of nowhere, found house that was twice the size of ours. Said house btw is unlisted, the second time she called me, I couldn't get a view of the front drive to verify whether this was the same place. Works just fine for us on Google Maps. The property itself is a huge driveway, with a house about twice as long as ours and about 1.5 times as tall. Yet for all that extra wealth, I have never seen someone so discontent. I wemt to her door hoping to do a job and get paid $20/hr for maybe two hours. Keep in mind I'd wasted about 45 minutes getting there because I got fucking lost, and 1:30 getting dressed (I'm genderfluid and I present as female for work, so this means a fair amount of effort, since I also have to deal with facial hair that alot of women never see their whole life), so I've already risked expense to get to this damned place, and her not welcoming me at the door really hurts my small business. Well, she kinda didn't. Globbed this gross stuff on my hands. I rub it down (I literally feels like I've just rubbed sperm on my hands). Then she says after this trip and getting ready that she won't be able to invite me in with no mask (you need to wear a muzzle like a good little dog). I refuse flatly. She then gives me an ultimatum. Having been already in a mood from all this, I say sardonically, "What if I just stay really far away from you?" Apparently this comment gets me in the door, which says loads about her temperament. I follow her to the computer, where she sprays the keys down, and then makes me wipe my hands with more soap. Okay, I've just been abused four times in under 5 minutes by a lady who has way more material possession than I, but is "rich in things, and poor in soul. " She isn't happy, she is wary at all times, distrustful of people poorer than her. My hands feel sticky against the moist keyboard, as she shows me to her Mac. I bought my computer at $350 or so, making her computer easily cost about 4x mine, but I see no appreciable benefit to this cost. It has less mouse than mine, and I'm having to deal with package after package trying to install her stupid printer. Btw, despite being phobic about germs and space, she is leaning over my shoulder micromanaging me. After only fifteen minutes, she decides she knows more about the Mac than me (fair assessment), and I am told to leave. I have never been so thrilled to be out of a place. About three years later, someone who I suspect might be the same woman, after hearing her talk about how she's been under COVID until recently, and wants me to check out her scanner. This time, I decided it was better to help her over the phone than waste my time for any amount of money, especially since she probably blames those few minutes on her getting sick, and not their moist atmosphere of her house. I initially accepted the job, until a bad hunch made me think "Is this the same woman?" Ultimately , I just referred them to someone else. Even that phone conversation, I got the impression of extreme impatience. This is supposed to be the party of the people. But the people at any leadership level are more detached from everyone, more fearful than everyone else. Oh sure, I have my own desire for privacy, and don't like intrusive technology. I simply don't use an Alexa, and don't care for things that want too much of me. But this was a whole other level of isolationism and fear. This woman wouldn't just plug the device in herself. She had to bother me. The party of the people, they call themselves, but they treat regular people abusively. Or to put it another way... A Chinese proverb talks about the yuanchu phoenix and how it lives only on water and bamboo. A hawk nearby sees a dead sparrow, and squawks at the phoenix, thinking it might try to steal its meal. The phoenix couldn't care less about the dead bird. Go and learn what this means.
-
(https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/images/degrees-360.gif)
90 degrees, with 3500 or so rise, when traveling about that distance. Where is it?
Underneath you, obviously.
You are standing on top of this “rise”, where the 90 degree marker is. What you see from the top of your “rise” is called the horizon, where the surface of the earth curves away from you.
That's unfortunately an answer that doesn't answer anything. Yes, that's what asking the internet reveals, as they too estimate the Earth's core at 3000 miles beneath us. But this is an answer that doesn't account for the extreme amount of pressure that should be at such layers, or the fact that the amount of bend on earth (soil) and water is never perceived or felt. In a flat Earth, there is a horizontal bulge. You can actually see this bulge, simply by standing in place, and drawing a straight line across. From left to right is 180 degrees, and it circles back to 360 (or zero). This means the land widens out in a circle in all directions. But when you start thinking it's a sphere, you run into problems, as the sky domes out only 180 from front to back. There is no similar bulge but instead there is a closeoff point, you know of as vanishing point. Spend a few bucks at a Wal-Mart, and buy a ping pong set. Cut one of the balls in half. Lay one half ball one the table at a point A. Lay the other half ball at point B. Both balls would have a viewpoint virtually identical to what I just described. For realism of the model, I've got props from a train set. Trees, fake rivers and lakes, mountains, and I've gouged a canyon into the table. I have sun and moon suspended on string, and I can move ping pong half A by train to ping pong half B. When I make wooden sphere and try to do this, the model fails starting with the train. The mountains and rivers won't properly mesh, and the ball halves won't stop falling off the sides. Stop doubling down on this, and come play ping pong with me with those other balls.
-
I answered your question.
Just keep playing with your balls. Maybe one day you’ll understand how geometry works.
-
But you see, I am pointing out your hypocrisy.
...
Congrats at yet again failing to do what you claim, and instead pointing out your own hypocrisy.
I know most politicians are corrupt. I don't just blindly follow democrats, and oppose plenty of ideas from the "left".
But you are now complaining about a person invoking their freedom to control who enters their house and the conditions upon which they do?
As for micromanaging people, given how personal a computer can be, it can be quite understandable that they don't want to leave you alone with it.
That's unfortunately an answer that doesn't answer anything.
It directly answers it.
If you are standing on the surface of a sphere, and wish to see that bulge, you need to look down.
You are entirely misrepresenting it to pretend that it should appear in front of you and up high in the air; when that is the complete opposite direction.
Yes, that's what asking the internet reveals, as they too estimate the Earth's core at 3000 miles beneath us.
Based upon simple math of a sphere.
But this is an answer that doesn't account for the extreme amount of pressure that should be at such layers
How?
Just what do you expect this pressure to do?
the fact that the amount of bend on earth (soil) and water is never perceived or felt.
It is perceived, repeatedly. Every time someone watches a sun set, that curvature is perceived, with the sun dropping below the horizon and disappearing from the bottom up.
Every time someone goes to a higher altitude to be able to see further, such as the crow's nest in a ship, or mounting antennas up high, or climbing a mountain, the curvature is perceived.
For a flat Earth there is none of that.
In a flat Earth, there is a horizontal bulge.
No, there isn't.
For a flat Earth, there should be no horizon at all, except the very edge of Earth or horizons formed from mountains.
That is because there is nothing to block your view.
as the sky domes out only 180 from front to back.
If you measure it carefully enough, it doesn't.
Instead, the horizon is observed at an angle of dip all around.
This means the sky is greater than 180 degrees.
you know of as vanishing point.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away.
An object, at the vanishing point, would have an angular size of 0.
It has NOTHING to do with the horizon.
It does not explain why things disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon, while still resolvable.
It does not explain why the horizon exists at all.
Stop clinging to it as if it is your get out of jail free card.
Spend a few bucks at a Wal-Mart, and buy a ping pong set. Cut one of the balls in half. Lay one half ball one the table at a point A. Lay the other half ball at point B. Both balls would have a viewpoint virtually identical to what I just described.
No, they wouldn't.
Instead of being able to see to the edge of some magical parabola, with a close circular horizon around them, they can see all the way to the edge of the table.
If they get higher, they can't see any further, because they can already see to the edge.
Because that is how flat surfaces work.
But if you do it on a sphere, they can only see a portion of that sphere, with the rest being obstructed by the sphere.
And if they get higher, they can see more of the sphere, with increasing height bringing it closer and closer to seeing half of the sphere.
When I make wooden sphere and try to do this, the model fails starting with the train. The mountains and rivers won't properly mesh
We know that a flat surface cannot be mapped to a sphere without distortion (and vice versa).
So if your mountains and rivers are made as a flat mesh to be joined together, that will not work on a sphere except as an approximation for a small enough area (where the required distortions are on the order of the tolerance of the parts).
That is not the sphere failing.
the ball halves won't stop falling off the sides. Stop doubling down on this
Good advice. Stop doubling down on this strawman when it has been repeatedly refuted.
Once more, you are trying to model gravity, while ignoring the gravity of Earth.
Once more, you are trying to pretend the RE model is Earth as a tiny ball sitting on top of a much more massive ball; instead of the reality of Earth being a massive ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
Your tiny ball not having enough mass to hold generate a gravitational field strong enough to overcome the gravitational field of Earth says nothing about the RE model. It in no way shows any problem with the visual observations.
Now care to get back on topic?
This basically sums up how ridiculous your argument is:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZSYmgeU.png)
Its just a "flat" planet, with a bit of "terrain" making it look like a sphere.
-
The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.
-
The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.
Except water appears at multiple different levels. And one even has a constant whirlpool.
You have connected regions of water at different heights; and you have water at the same height, which is connected, which is flowing.
And there are no large swathes of flat land. Even Hyrule field and the Gerudo desert have significant elevation changes which would make the change due to curvature (assuming Hyrule is on a planet with a similar radius as Earth) entirely insignificant.
-
The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.
Except water appears at multiple different levels. And one even has a constant whirlpool.
You have connected regions of water at different heights; and you have water at the same height, which is connected, which is flowing.
And there are no large swathes of flat land. Even Hyrule field and the Gerudo desert have significant elevation changes which would make the change due to curvature (assuming Hyrule is on a planet with a similar radius as Earth) entirely insignificant.
Different levels, but always flat. It is irrelevant that there is a pond on a mountain if we are talking about how all water is not curved.
And yes there are. Just saying they don't exist doesn't contradict the evidence of the height map which clearly shows huge generally flat areas such as Gerudo and HF.
-
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?
Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.
Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality. Not feel, actually are.
Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round. I imagine your response might be that Time is not a true Scotsman.
But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.
Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.
Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.
On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.
Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.
It's obvious. Which is why I said it. I have the audacity to state the truth in a den of liars. Oh bother, I've touched a nerve again and hurt some feelings. You gonna threaten to ban me again, so you can feel like you have power, again? Sure, sure, you don't have anything you're compensating for.
It's ok to be naive, you don't have to act smart. We think you are OK as you are. Either accept it or stop publically trying to convince yourself of fairy tales.
Enjoy your vacation.
Hilarious. Little man.
-
The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.
Except water appears at multiple different levels. And one even has a constant whirlpool.
You have connected regions of water at different heights; and you have water at the same height, which is connected, which is flowing.
And there are no large swathes of flat land. Even Hyrule field and the Gerudo desert have significant elevation changes which would make the change due to curvature (assuming Hyrule is on a planet with a similar radius as Earth) entirely insignificant.
Different levels, but always flat. It is irrelevant that there is a pond on a mountain if we are talking about how all water is not curved.
And yes there are. Just saying they don't exist doesn't contradict the evidence of the height map which clearly shows huge generally flat areas such as Gerudo and HF.
The irony.
Also
The simple minded way you conflate elevation with curvature is so cute.
-
Different levels, but always flat. It is irrelevant that there is a pond on a mountain if we are talking about how all water is not curved.
Except, as above, no, they are not flat. They have different levels even when connected.
And as above, even in connected regions which are flat, they have flowing water.
That shouldn't happen.
And yes there are. Just saying they don't exist doesn't contradict the evidence of the height map which clearly shows huge generally flat areas such as Gerudo and HF.
Just saying they exist doesn't magically make them exist.
The height map clearly shows variations in height over this allegedly flat areas.
Especially note that the height map you linked divides the actual height by 256, flooring it, to remove minor variations.
Yet we will see different shades being used in the Gerudo Desert and Hyrule Field.
Here are 2 alternative ones focusing on Hyrule Field
First, one where the scale was refined to run between 32 and 48 on the original one, so it will cut off too high regions as white and too low regions as black, but show more detail for areas like Hyrule Field and the Gerudo Desert:
(https://i.imgur.com/hRdX92f.png)
Clearly showing it is not flat.
And now a multi-colour one, where the red shows the most significant part of the height and the green shows the least significant part:
(https://i.imgur.com/yR8XR6M.png)
You can't really see much red here, due to the relatively small change in that large scale height, like the original. The more telling part are the fringes, where you see it gradually go from black to green, then sharply cut to black.
That indicates it is going up a slope (or if going the other way it is going back down).
It is not a large flat area.
-
That looks like an attempt to brainwash us by messing with our eyes with a Pattern. Don't do that sorcery again.
You're extrapolating a curve where none exists using elevation averages. But elevation thrown off by the fact that some islands are literally suspended in the air.
I was able to make a flat Earth (well, New Earth) with at least four floating islands in Oracle of Tao. The world had two maps over the course of the story. The first map depicted a falsehood, where the map showed sea all across, but actually navigating the New Earth showed that it not only has edges that are able to curve the path of the boat but also ones where you can fall off into a pit (the game had a waffle pan-shape Earth). Yes, I made a silly flat Earth just to show I could. The second was a hemispheric flat Earth. Oracle of Tao is a video game.
https://rpgmaker.net/games/1760/
If I can make a silly game that nonetheless shows that maps can lie and a round area can be flat, Zelda can definitely make a flat open world with multiple elevations.
-
That looks like an attempt to brainwash us by messing with our eyes with a Pattern. Don't do that sorcery again.
Of course you need an excuse to dismiss it.
It shows that it isn't flat.
It is highlighting the dishonesty of claiming it has large flat areas.
You're extrapolating a curve where none exists using elevation averages.
Quite the opposite.
I'm exposing your dishonesty of pretending it is flat which requires you to entirely ignore the elevations and average it over the entire area to pretend it is flat.
I'm not saying it is curved.
I am saying you have insufficient evidence to show it is flat.
-
"Elevations". Based on flying objects.
Surely you can see how this comes across as dishonest.
I have built an artificial island that is perfectly flat.
But because there are blimps and jets and birds overhead, this is not flat according to your logic.
Disconnection from land means it is not part of the average. Reaverage without that.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d7/2c/7c/d72c7cd5ad92d9f0886d2a3e8c7a22e3.jpg)
Flat with mountains.
-
"Elevations". Based on flying objects.
No, based upon the ground.
Surely you can see how this comes across as dishonest.
I know how you come across as dishonest.
I have built an artificial island that is perfectly flat.
But because there are blimps and jets and birds overhead, this is not flat according to your logic.
No, that is nothing like my logic.
That is your dishonest misrepresentation of my logic, which points out the ground is not flat.
Flat with mountains.
i.e. ignore the entirety of the terrain and boldly proclaim it is flat because you are desperate for it to be.
-
Okay, so you say you're discounting these sky islands.
But you don't decide a structure is round because of terrain, you decide it because of overall shape.
That would be like having several 2 x 4 planks nailed together to form a box a box, and someone saying that because the nails stick up, the structure is not flat. Wrong. We say the structure is flat even if nails stick up. Hell, we say this even when termites have gouged into a chunk of wood before they were sprayed.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/old-boards-nailed-together-place-text-background-image-texture-wooden-planks-91916589.jpg)
This wood has three knots in it, and several cracks.
Do its bumps make it round? No.
How about this? Is it flat or round?
(https://www.wholesalecuttingboards.com/media/ecommerce_productpicture.photo/2603_lifestyle.jpg)
(The answer is yes. It's a disc)
None of this however equals a ball.
This is a ball of wood.
(https://www.aswoodturns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Poplar-Ball-6x-2013-0242-1021x1024.png)
Do you know the difference between this and the two pictures above?
Round Earthers have turned something flat with mountains "round" then go on to claim that something "round" is automatically a "sphere". But picture 1 =/= picture 3, no matter how many bumps it has. That's what's dishonest. The stretching of terms to fit agenda. Even if we can say Earth is round, we mean by that a disc, without clear proof of spherical globularity.
Thank you for playing.
-
see that cut of tree with the bark?
see how the bark is "flat" sections?
now imagine
EEMAGINE in your brain, 1in flat section of bark, 25,000of those 1in sections wrapped around into a circle.
how big a tree taht would be.
and would, if looking closely at a certain chunk of it, would many those 1in sections look relatively "flat" compared to the neighboring piece?
-
But you don't decide a structure is round because of terrain, you decide it because of overall shape.
And the terrain contributes to that overall shape.
What this really means is that you cannot judge the shape of a massive planet by looking at a tiny portion of it.
So looking at this small portion of whatever world they are on does not tell you the shape of the world.
So looking at water in your sink and not being able to see the curve doesn't mean the planet is flat.
Following that rule as simply as possible, this means if you want to determine if Earth is flat or round, from a picture, you need something like this:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2023/10/22/png/epic_1b_20231022010437.png
But what it certainly means is you can't look at a tiny portion of it and say you can't see the curve and proclaim the entire object is flat.
This is a ball of wood.
Now look at a tiny portion of that, and see what it looks like.
This is a ball:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/basketball-1.jpg)
And guess what? So is this:
(https://i.imgur.com/1ifOJEu.png)
Round Earthers have turned something flat with mountains "round"
No, Flat Earthers have taken a very large round object, ignored all bar a tiny portion of it, and then claim that because they can't see the curve the entire object must be flat.
But picture 1 =/= picture 3, no matter how many bumps it has. That's what's dishonest.
Yes, that attempt at comparison is quite dishonest.
So why do you do it?
If you have a truly flat object, you can't just make it look like a ball.
But if you have a ball, you can make it appear as a flat surface.
That is because a sufficient small enough portion of a sufficiently large ball is approximately flat.
Notice the directionality of the relationship?
If it is flat, it should look flat.
Not if it looks flat it must be flat.
Because you can take something that isn't flat, and look at a small enough portion and have it appear flat.
So it is incredibly dishonest to take a picture of a flat object to try to support your false idea that if "it looks flat" it must be flat.
Especially when you admit you need to consider the overall shape, while then ignoring the overall shape.
So how about you stop with the dishonesty?
And as for people saying Earth is round, that is round as a ball.
The stretching of terms to fit agenda. Even if we can say Earth is round, we mean by that a disc, without clear proof of spherical globularity.
If that is the case, we would be living on the rim of the disc, but even that doesn't work.
The evidence showing Earth is round shows curvature about an axis that is parallel to the surface.
Or in simple (and technically incorrect terms) the ground goes down.
A simple example of this is the illumination pattern of the sun and how it is explained by a round surface.
If we were living on the "top" of a disc, with the sun above it, the entire top should be illuminated at once.
If we are living on the rim of a disc, or on a ball, then only half of that will be illuminated at once, and as the sun moves around or the disc/sphere rotates, a different portion will be illuminated.
But a rim would require everywhere at the same longitude to be the same, but it depends on latitude as well so it is round in both directions, making it at least roughly spherical.
Likewise, the horizon and behaviour of objects crossing it and that being roughly the same in all directions again shows it is round like roughly a sphere.
So when people show Earth is round, they are showing it is round like a ball, not like a disc where we are on top.
-
see that cut of tree with the bark?
see how the bark is "flat" sections?
now imagine
EEMAGINE in your brain, 1in flat section of bark, 25,000of those 1in sections wrapped around into a circle.
how big a tree taht would be.
and would, if looking closely at a certain chunk of it, would many those 1in sections look relatively "flat" compared to the neighboring piece?
No.
I know you like talking down to me like I'm intellectually inferior, but the truth is, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand. So I'll talk really slowly.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1166200461070700564/2603_lifestyle.jpg)
A
circle
is
equal yo
360 degrees.
If you
divide
it into
quarters,
you get a
right
angle.
A
right
angle
has a
radius
equal
to its
own
radius.
(That's enough of that)
This means that if the tree trunk has a diameter of 6 feet, 3 feet on the front from the center is 3 feet on the side. But in order to curve like it does, it has to have a hypotenuse that exceeds the radius. So, 3 ft has 4.243 ft of curve. Because I don't buy the pi bullshit formula, this is what we use.
Let's think about this: I say that the Earth should fully 3950 mi of radius, then it is 3950 mi of radius 90 degrees from there, and about 5586 miles of curvature.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/hypotenuse
Even if you manage to say that this radius doesn't count because it's the inside, 5586 - 3950 = 1636. There should be 1636 MILES of curvature. I've driven across the US, roughly 3000 miles. There isn't any such thing.
Also, we don't fucking care that the inside is made of innumerable boards of wood. Because last I checked, if you live on a ball, then you live on the outside of the ball! This means the curve is the maximum it can get. This affects liquids, it affects solids too! A mountain should split apart as its own weight is forced onto both sides of a large hill. Lava from a volcano should not simply roll down a natural hill, but factor in for curvature. Lying by trying to divide the Earth into tiny chunks doesn't change the fact that the curve is even worse than I thought it was.
But around this point, you claim that while the core is a sphere, the Earth is "slightly" elliptical. Is that like "mostly peaceful"?
(https://fee.org/media/38232/mostly-peaceful-violence.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=1800&rnd=132433604910000000)
But let's humor you ad absurdum. As elliptical as I can draw right now.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1166204865517715506/ButACirclesOutsideIsFlat.png)
Notice anything odd about this? Like maybe that despite most of this being a soft curve, you get to the side and "dude, wtf?!?"
Let's agree that the Earth is somewhat rounded. Guess what works alot better than imagining 25,000 sections (actually, it would be about 1316 sections every 90 degrees (3950/3 since we can see about 3 miles on average in a flattish area)). That's 4.243 miles of hypotenuse each chunk. Meanwhile, the formula for curvature is literally about two pages of math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
So, what works better than pretending flat areas are curved and having to figure out where the real formula is?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1166215690626269274/RealModel.png)
Having mountains stand of flat ground, water descend mountains through waterfalls, and not fucking around with people standing on the outside of Earth. Just like gravity, this is the art of using math as smokescreen. When I did the math for gravity, I found the entire thing formula led nowhere. If math involves this many steps, it is used to intimidate, not to actually do anything.
-
hahahaha
you're an amazing person
hahahaha it's too funny for me.
i'm also in north america but i'll await jackB to disect this nonsese.
this will be a good read while i make my morning poop.
hahahah
-
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH holyshit
-
I know you like talking down to me like I'm intellectually inferior, but the truth is, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand. So I'll talk really slowly.
No, that is exactly what YOU are doing. Acting like everyone else is a complete imbecile that fails to comprehend the most basic things; all while you get the most basic things wrong.
I've driven across the US, roughly 3000 miles. There isn't any such thing.
Because you aren't even attempting to look for it, nor do you have instruments sensitive enough to detect it.
What you are doing is like taking a bunch of bark off that tree, as tiny little pieces, and trying to put it together to see if it curves in any direction.
A mountain should split apart as its own weight is forced onto both sides of a large hill.
Why should that cause a mountain to split apart?
Yet again you are just spouting pure garbage with no justification at all.
You can't come up with anything rational to use against the RE so you just spout whatever BS you can come up with.
Lava from a volcano should not simply roll down a natural hill, but factor in for curvature.
Why and how?
Just what magic do you expect it do to?
So, what works better than pretending flat areas are curved and having to figure out where the real formula is?
Accepting that it is curved rather than just pretending.
When I did the math for gravity, I found the entire thing formula led nowhere.
You didn't do math for gravity.
You did math for pure BS.
As a reminder, you decided to use the formula F=GMm/r^2; decide that F must be 1, for absolutely no reason at all; and use that to come up with a pure BS version of "G" as
"G"=G*F r^2/Mm; then subsititute this BS back in to get:
F=(G*F r^2/Mm)*Mm/r^2 = G.
You put garbage in, so you got garbage out.
That is NOT you doing the math for gravity. That is you just spouting garbage.
Now care to address what I said?
How round objects can "appear" flat when you look at a small enough portion of them?
So looking at a tiny portion of Earth (or the world Hyrule is on) is NOT ENOUGH to determine if it is flat or round.
And looking at multiple smaller bits wont help you either.
-
Yeah you laugh at me, but here's the point. You have a lameass idea that you have to wait for someone else to handle cuz you got nothing. JackBlack is on my ignore list, so I'm ignoring him if you got nothing. Anyway, I figure I might answer his objections by accident, so I'll just rant a little. Let's see...
Silly math for curve was what you had. I spent all last night looking for a simple formula to measure the amount of curvature in a 90 degree angle, then in each section. It should have been simple, after all, they are more than happy to tell us the area of a circle. But strangly, I was directed to Calculus III formulas (I stopped math at around PreCalc or Trig, because that was all my course requirement, and I somehow got out of it due to having community college courses) that involved some sort of sine, cosine, and so on relats and went on for quite awhile. I guess it was supposed to be a "proof" but it just proved to me that they couldn't give a simple answer. I come from the Lao Tzu school of though that people who can't give a simple answer are usually lying.
Or the idea that you can somehow have a flat top and a curved as hell sphere.
Or the idea that dividing the Earth into sections that should give the ability to see flat around out of what is supposed to be a curved region. But there is only so much you can break that area down, as we have ability to see certain distance. The entire thing falls like a house of cards though when you consider that the distance of curve from a mountain is sometimes hundreds of miles, leading to a curve that would be too great to see.
You're laughing, but you got nothing. Just as the climate people are bullying folks like me with their 5G shit because they too have nothing. Their climate ideas are bankrupt, so they've decided to zap me to death. Sorry, but wrong ideas will still be wrong.
You can't save the world with solar or wind if it involves clearing trees to do so (CO2 lost from trees makes the air that much worse). You can't save the world with electric cars, because they ultimately turn to wind and solar ostensibly to solve the problem, then because the amount of forests cleared would turn Earth into a wasteland, it ultimately comes back to out of sight power plants that are coal or even nuclear. Face it, none of this helps. So you try to shoot the messenger, and there are probably alot more messengers than you think. Will you go bankrupt trying to kill all the people who oppose you with 5G and vaccines?
By the way, maybe my rant will give you something to talk about. Cuz right now, you just laughing at me and relying on someone else? Kinda pathetic. You rely on Jack Black like I rely on Jesus. But Jesus has taught me that my faith has made me well, that I can (if need be) stand on my own.
But I know he will not abandon me to my enemies. Cuz they got nothing. Even death is nothing to fear. Therefore I will accept death whenever it takes me.
-
haha i got nothing?
no i just wanted to see jack go at it.
either way
skip to 2:05
10,000sided polygon.
for someone who apparently dabbles in CGI, you really are shit for brains to argue that many pieces of straight lines couldn't possibly create a circle.
amazing
-
JackBlack is on my ignore list
Yet you "respond" so often.
Just not on the topic.
Silly math for curve was what you had. I spent all last night looking for a simple formula to measure the amount of curvature in a 90 degree angle, then in each section. It should have been simple, after all, they are more than happy to tell us the area of a circle. But strangly, I was directed to Calculus III formulas (I stopped math at around PreCalc or Trig, because that was all my course requirement, and I somehow got out of it due to having community college courses) that involved some sort of sine, cosine, and so on relats and went on for quite awhile. I guess it was supposed to be a "proof" but it just proved to me that they couldn't give a simple answer.
The math is simple trig.
And there are a few different options (based upon what you want to measure) and a few approximations which can make it even easier.
Assuming you want an angle, and the drop is the height from your feet straight down to a line running perpindicular to straight down to the point on the curve, then it is simply:
h=R*(1-cos(a))
Simple enough for you?
Or don't you like basic trig?
If you want an approximation for that which is valid for short distances, then it is h=d^2/2R
Noting that this uses distance, not angle.
Another simple approximation is that for an observer (eye) at a height of h, the drop from the point directly below them (on a hypothetical curve level with the horizon) to the horizon will be h. So if you stand with your eyes a height of 2 m above sea level looking over an ocean, the horizon will be roughly 5 km away and will have a drop of roughly 2 m, or 4 m from your eye level.
I come from the Lao Tzu school of though that people who can't give a simple answer are usually lying.
So you, being unable to provide simple answers to so many questions, are likely lying?
In reality, not all questions have simple answers.
You can explain how I move my physical mouse it moves the cursor on the screen, in a simple manner which doesn't miss any detail at all? No.
That is a question that necessitates a complex answer. You can give a simple answer, but it would be so simple it is wrong.
Your inability to understand math doesn't mean everyone else is lying.
Or the idea that you can somehow have a flat top and a curved as hell sphere.
No, the idea that you can look at a small enough portion of a sphere, and not be able to tell it is a sphere.
Like this:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/basketball-1.jpg)
and this:
(https://i.imgur.com/1ifOJEu.png)
You have no way to refute it, so you dismiss it.
Or the idea that dividing the Earth into sections that should give the ability to see flat around out of what is supposed to be a curved region.
No, the idea that you are not able to detect the curvature at those distances, as you aren't even trying to use an instrument accurate enough to do so.
The entire thing falls like a house of cards though when you consider that the distance of curve from a mountain is sometimes hundreds of miles, leading to a curve that would be too great to see.
Did you mean too great not to see?
Notice how you just boldly proclaim this as a fact, with nothing to justify it at all?
You already admitted the basic math to determine how much curve is there is beyond you, so how do you even know how much curve there is to see?
Using the simple approximation above, and saying the distance to the horizon is 160 km that would be a drop of roughly 2 km (and likewise it would require an observer height of roughly 2 km.
We can also consider how much of a circle this would be. 160 km in each direction is 320 km from one side to the other. This works out to be roughly 3 degrees.
If you had a perfect spherical surface and take a slice of it, this is what that would look like:
(https://i.imgur.com/il5m5Gg.png)
Instead, you have a mountain in the middle, and you are standing in the middle looking out.
Just how do you plan on seeing this curve?
Here is a rendering giving an example of what it would look like assuming a perfectly smooth sphere viewed from 2 km:
(https://i.imgur.com/KAPULme.png)
And this is from a much greater altitude (35000 km, with the checker blocks larger):
(https://i.imgur.com/OAvKjJB.png)
Just as the climate people are bullying folks like me with their 5G shit because they too have nothing.
You sure do love spouting delusional BS.
If anything, the people who care about the climate/Earth oppose 5G, as it is wasteful.
Those promoting it have nothing to do with climate change.
You can't save the world with solar or wind if it involves clearing trees to do so (CO2 lost from trees makes the air that much worse).
Actually, you can.
It depends upon how much CO2 you save.
And for the most part it is a question of when not if.
This is because if your options are burning fossil fuels which just continually pump out CO2, or wipe out a few trees and replace them with solar panels to provide power to replace that oil based power, then the math can be quite simple.
The time it takes for that to be net neutral is how much "CO2" the trees contained (and under this assumption released) plus the amount of CO2 it took to make and install the solar panels all divided by the rate it is offsetting the production of CO2 from the power plant.
e.g. lets say that forest contained 99 million tonnes of CO2, i.e. cutting it all down and burning it would release that much CO2. That cost of producing and installing and upkeeping the solar panels is a total of 1 million tonnes of CO2.
The power output from the solar panels, as a per year average, would produce the same amount of power as burning 10 million tonnes of CO2.
This our calculation would be (99 + 1)/(10) = 10 years.
So before 10 years, it means more CO2 is in the atmosphere than if you didn't.
After 10 years it means less is there.
The big difference is that wiping out the tress is a one off.
Burning fossil fuels is additive, with more and more CO2 going into the atmosphere.
And this was entirely ignoring what happened to the trees.
Are these trees going to replace other trees that already would have been cut down? If so, the cost associated with cutting them down reduces or disappears entirely.
You rely on Jack Black like I rely on Jesus.
The difference is I am real and here and can actually do things. Your imaginary friend can't help you.
-
haha i got nothing?
no i just wanted to see jack go at it.
either way
skip to 2:05
10,000sided polygon.
for someone who apparently dabbles in CGI, you really are shit for brains to argue that many pieces of straight lines couldn't possibly create a circle.
amazing
No, you aren't getting it. The existence of ten thousand sided polygon (btw, a circle is not a thousand sided polygon, it by definition is considered to be smooth; sides are edges) doesn't mean Earth is a thousand sided polygon. Rather every horizon we see would have to be a side. The problem with this is that perspective is (at least) three miles, barring obstructions and depending on altitude. This means there is a limit to the number of sides, and that limit must allow for each side to be 3 miles or more. And if we accept that being a sphere means the radius at 90° is equal to the radius at starting point, then the hypotenuse of a 3 ft radius tree trunk is an extra 1.243 ft beyond the radius. Without invoking pi and a bunch sketchy thirdhand math, that's what I'd say is the amount of extra curve. With Earth rather than a tree, there ought to be 1636 miles of extra curvature from point A to point B, roughly 3000+ miles away. I have never experienced even part of this, driving from Virginia to California. Further, you can't divide it by sides anyway, because sides are hard edges, and only certain adjacent edges can be seen. I picked up a 1d20 and I could see only 7 sides at a time (less than 1/3 of it). Maybe 8 if I hold it back, but never all 20, if I hold it up to my eyes this goes down to about five. Only adjacent edges. And given sufficient curve, there is a natural limit to the number of edges, no matter how far away (in fact, even across the room, the limit on a 1d20 appears to be 8, the point at where things curve). The problem with this (since I'm entirely sure you will say, "See?") is that how mountains can stretch vision to tens or hundreds of miles away ( if there is a tall object far away to see). We can see mountains from 443 km away from the Pyrenees to the French Alps. In other words, this limit of curvature actually disproves the ability to see that far.
-
Draw a circle of 8,000units diamter
Draw a stick 1 unit high off the edge of the circle.
From top of said stick, draw a line tangent to circumference of circle.
-
Or the idea that you can somehow have a flat top and a curved as hell sphere.
Same debunked argument? Really?
I have gone on more than a few boat rides and yeah it all seems very flat.
And again. With the the navy I was south of the equator.
The FE map makes no sense south of the equator. Distances are wrong and landmass relationships are off.
In addition, FE offers no solution why the North Star and certain constellations are physically blocked from view while in Australia where they should be brought back into view with a telescope.
And again..
Why can people in the Southern Hemisphere look south and see the same stars and constellations.
nobody can prove that the ocean curves around the underside of the equator,
One. How people in the Southern Hemisphere can look south and see the same stars and constellations.
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
Two. The earth’s curvature blocks some northern stars and constellations from view in the Southern Hemisphere.
Three. Yet we all see the same side / surface of the moon
Four. The fact the earth’s curvature physically blocks ships from view where they cannot be brought back into view with zoom.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pq5W3G9.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7L2pQJ6.jpg)
Five. Southern Hemisphere flights…
(https://i.imgur.com/MnOuK7x.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/southern-flight
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/x9ciFjP-dCs/maxresdefault.jpg)
This. In every direction.
This has been answered repeatedly in many ways.
Again…
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
Let's zoom in like a mother and see that indeed small sections of this cylinder are level.
The bubbles of the level are meaningless as employed in this fashion.
For example. If you laid the straight edge on top of a picture frame, or along the edge of a picture frame it would help you level the frame.
The bubbles used in this fashion are useless.
The important part is the straight edge against the tank.
And you ignored this.
What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/horizon-dip-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip
-
Again, this is going quite far from Zelda.
Where are these flat areas you claim exist in Tears of the Kingdom?
How do you know the entire world is flat?
No, you aren't getting it. The existence of ten thousand sided polygon (btw, a circle is not a thousand sided polygon, it by definition is considered to be smooth; sides are edges) doesn't mean Earth is a thousand sided polygon.
There are mutiple ideas of "what is a circle".
One is the limit of an n sided polygon as n goes to infinity.
And a many sided polygon is an approximation for a circle.
And no one is suggesting that the mere existence of such a polygon would mean Earth is that.
The point is that the angle between the sides is tiny.
If you represent a great circle of Earth as a 10 thousand sided polygon, each side would be 4 km long.
The exterior angle at an apex would be 0.009 degrees. It would appear to the naked as pretty much a straight line.
Rather every horizon we see would have to be a side. The problem with this is that perspective is (at least) three miles, barring obstructions and depending on altitude. This means there is a limit to the number of sides, and that limit must allow for each side to be 3 miles or more.
Wrong again. But it does help show how ridiculous your idea of curvature magically making the horizon at 5 km regardless of how high you are.
When you are low enough, the first corner blocks your view.
But if you get higher, you can see past that corner.
e.g. here it is for a 16 sided polygon:
(https://i.imgur.com/hbzLmrW.png)
For this in region A, they can see up to the first corner. After that the polygon blocks the view.
If they are in region B, they can see to the second corner, with the first corner not blocking the view to that portion.
And if we accept that being a sphere means the radius at 90° is equal to the radius at starting point, then the hypotenuse of a 3 ft radius tree trunk is an extra 1.243 ft beyond the radius. Without invoking pi and a bunch sketchy thirdhand math, that's what I'd say is the amount of extra curve. With Earth rather than a tree, there ought to be 1636 miles of extra curvature from point A to point B, roughly 3000+ miles away.
What?
Without invoking math you are just throwing out numbers.
If you have a circle with a radius of 3 units, then a right angle triangle touching the centre and 2 points will have a hypotenuse of 4.243, meaning the hypotenuse is 1.243 units longer than the radius. The arc along this 90 degree section will instead be 4.712 units, or an extra 1.712 units.
But more importantly, this is only for a 90 degree section.
If you want to translate that to Earth, that means you need a distance along the surface of roughly 10 000 km, not 3000 miles.
It is entirely unclear what you mean by "extra curvature".
Do you mean a distance along the surface of 3000 miles should actually be 4636 miles? Because that makes no sense at all.
Yet again you are just spouting nonsense to pretend Earth can't be round.
I picked up a 1d20 and I could see only 7 sides at a time (less than 1/3 of it). Maybe 8 if I hold it back, but never all 20, if I hold it up to my eyes this goes down to about five.
Great job contradicting yourself, on several levels.
This demonstrates clearly that you don't need the side to go all the way to the horizon, and that the distance to the horizon will vary with altitude.
No, you will never see all 20 sides, because the dice will block the view to at least half the sides.
But if you hold it far enough back, and at appropriate positions, you should be able to see 10 sides.
For example, if you start aligned with the centre of one face, if you are close enough you will see 1 side, as you move it further away, you will see the 3 extra sides around it, and then the 6 extra sides around them.
If instead you start at a corner, you start seeing 5 sides, and as you move it away you eventually reach a point where you see an extra 5.
And given sufficient curve, there is a natural limit to the number of edges, no matter how far away
There is no need to invoke a curve specifically for this.
There is a natural limit to how much you can see of any solid object. If the normal of the face is more than 90 degrees away from the direction pointing to you, then to see it you need light to bend or reflect.
And this is not a limit based upon number of edges.
The easy way to understand this is to consider one of the more distant edges.
If you were to truncate a closer corner, in effect adding a corner to it, without making it stick out; why would that have any effect on your ability to see the distant face?
The only way to block that face by changing the geometry (rather than the orientation) is to make a closer face stick out and obstruct the view.
The other simple way to show it is not a matter of edges is to go the other way.
Consider a d4. This only has 4 faces.
You claimed that even when holding the d20 really close you can see 5 faces.
So why is it that I can never see all 4 faces of a d4 at once? Instead, I can see a maximum of 3, and can have it all the way down to 1.
The problem with this (since I'm entirely sure you will say, "See?") is that how mountains can stretch vision to tens or hundreds of miles away ( if there is a tall object far away to see).
No, that is NOT a problem.
That is exactly what is expected.
What would be impossible is to see beyond 10 000 km.
You have had all this refuted before. Why come here and spout the same nonsense, especially when you have already contradicted it above?
-
"Refuted."
Now, when you're done with your sleight of hand trick, the human eye is obstructed by curve...
(we both agree so far)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1166936948556963910/hbzLmrW.png)
...at any altitude!!!
Figure A & C. Despite looking down towards the ground (which I see as flat), the stick man can see down the hill of the curve, just as he could on a hilltop. This is patent nonsense.
Figure B & D, looking straight ahead in either direction. I decided not to try to figure out angles upward. Now, Stickman decides to climb up the foothills and look from mountain. This is Figure E & F. Let's start with Figure E.
You might be tempted to think from the long sight line that Stickman can see farther. No, but I'll get to that.
I have decided to place a small city as a landmark near figure C. Now we have a point at which we can gauge actual distance at. Stickman cannot see farther. In a round(ed) Earth, the horizon is farther from him, but actual view is exactly the same distance, except where obstructed in C.
At point C, distance seen is now shorter than the horizon but still longer than you naturally should be able to see. Btw, all of this is longer than you naturally should be able to see, if we're assuming 3 mile sides and standing on flat ground except E & F.
Okay, so... looking down, the city obstructs sight. Looking straight ahead (on a surface that again, appears to me to be flat), you see over the city as though standing on a hilltop. And I contend that it's not how high up you are on a round Earth but how close to the curve you are standing. I originally had the mountain facing the opposite direction, and realized they could see past the line of horizon for everyone else. So I moved the mountaintop parallel to the stick figure standing in front of the mountain base. Suddenly the curve prevented anything further. You can't see past the city, even if there is like a forest or something. You can only see over the city, at which point, curve forms horizon according to you.
You don't believe me? Tilt your computer sideways! The corner stands.
But let's assume it didn't. We're gonna keep going. I've drawn a volcano on some distant island. However, point F see only sky looking in a straight line. Even point D cannot see it, looking in a straight line (it would be well below them). That means, if we now remove the city, only C & E are even in a position to see it.
Do you see this in reality? No. No, you don't look down to see things off in the distance.
(https://www.wallpaperflare.com/static/55/157/309/mountains-cliff-peak-doi-inthanon-wallpaper.jpg)
Then is it delusional? Yes. Is it BS? Yes.
@JackBlack, is Round Earth theory Delusional BS? You know the answer to this question in your heart and soul.
It's Delusional BS.
In a flat Earth, altitude increases focal length. No curve obstructs path. You do not have to look down to see distant mountains. You can look straight ahead. Horizon doesn't just appear to be farther away (in fact, because it is the sky and not the Earth that curves, horizon always seems the same distance, even though it is not always), objects actually can be 50 or even a hundred miles away. Fun fact. I thought Mount Fuji was right outside Tokyo. Turns out, it's 60+ miles away! If you were looking around a curve, you shouldn't even be able to see it. Not looking down, you can see it looking straight across.
-
wow
dishonesty to the extreme
your volcano is equivalent to approx 40%diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x 40% = 3,200mi high volcano.
your man is 1/6, 17% the approx diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x .17 = 1,333mi high person.
given commercial airliners boing 737 google says fly at altitude 41,000ft = 8mi
woweee...
anyone know of such a thing to be 1,000mi high?!!?!??!?!??
also
hahah wtf is 'F'?
hahahahha you're an amzing person.
is A a point or a line?
is B an angle or a line or a point?
and holyshit wtf is C or D?!?! as theyre are clearly ambiuguously indeterminabel from being an angle, a corner nor a line.
are there any 5,500mile high mountains on earth that a 1,000mi high person has climbed?
amazing!!!!
-
"Refuted."
Now, when you're done with your sleight of hand trick, the human eye is obstructed by curve...
I'm not doing any slight of hand trick.
I even went and directly provided the tangents which limit the vision, to show how you were wrong (i.e. refute your claims).
And you even basically confessed to being wrong when you started discussing the dice.
If your delusional BS was true, you would only ever see 1 face of it.
The one trying a "slight of hand trick" here is you.
Figure A & C. Despite looking down towards the ground (which I see as flat), the stick man can see down the hill of the curve, just as he could on a hilltop. This is patent nonsense.
Why?
Because you say so?
You cannot demonstrate any actual fault with it, so you instead resort to just dismissing it as nonsense.
This indicates you likely know you are spouting pure BS.
You might be tempted to think from the long sight line that Stickman can see farther.
Yes, but it isn't a simple case of greater altitude means they can see further.
Instead it is about the tangents.
Just rejecting that because it does't fit your fantasy wont help you.
I have decided to place a small city as a landmark near figure C. Now we have a point at which we can gauge actual distance at. Stickman cannot see farther. In a round(ed) Earth, the horizon is farther from him, but actual view is exactly the same distance, except where obstructed in C.
Why?
If the horizon is further what magic is stopping him from seeing further?
You are now just spouting pure BS with no justification at all.
At point C, distance seen is now shorter than the horizon but still longer than you naturally should be able to see. Btw, all of this is longer than you naturally should be able to see, if we're assuming 3 mile sides and standing on flat ground except E & F.
The diagram is of a 16 sided shape. That is quite clearly NOT a representation of a round Earth approximated as a polyhedron with 3 mile long sides.
Okay, so... looking down, the city obstructs sight. Looking straight ahead (on a surface that again, appears to me to be flat), you see over the city as though standing on a hilltop. And I contend that it's not how high up you are on a round Earth but how close to the curve you are standing.
That is basically just saying the same thing.
The only distinction is what you are measuring the height of.
Standing on a plateau, several km above sea level wont magically extend your horizon, because you are limited by the plateau.
So the important curve to measure to is the one your line of sight is tangent to.
I originally had the mountain facing the opposite direction, and realized they could see past the line of horizon for everyone else. So I moved the mountaintop parallel to the stick figure standing in front of the mountain base. Suddenly the curve prevented anything further. You can't see past the city, even if there is like a forest or something. You can only see over the city, at which point, curve forms horizon according to you.
So what you are saying, you clearly saw that you were wrong, so you then proceeded to manipulate it to pretend you aren't.
You made the curve at the most distant point the lower person can see to be quite extreme, to make it so a much greater altitude was needed.
But even then, you still just failed, and decided to just draw a line and pretend you can't see past it.
(https://i.imgur.com/R6xFKTC.png)
The higher observer can see past C.
And if you were more honest and made them a bit higher, that would be even more obvious.
What is certainly obvious is that the higher observer can see the top of the volcano, while the lower one can't.
The only way to prevent it is to put something else there to block the view.
You don't believe me? Tilt your computer sideways!
And see just how dishonestly you have made your shape?
Do you see this in reality? No. No, you don't look down to see things off in the distance.
Yes. We do.
Your dishonest, wilful rejection of reality does not change this:
(https://i.imgur.com/V4E1Fg5.png)
Do you know the big difference between your crappy image and Earth?
SCALE!
In your image, the horizontal "diameter" of Earth is 494 px, the vertical one is 405 px; making the "radius" 247 px or 202.5 px respectively.
The distance from the high observer's eye to the ground is roughly 346 px.
That means you have your observer roughly 1.5 times the radius above the planet.
With such significant altitude they will have to look down quite a lot.
For Earth, even Mt Everest is only roughly 8 km above the surface, compared to the radius of roughly 6371 km.
Instead of a factor of 1.5, that is a factor of 0.00125.
Fortunately, simple math (I know, you hate it) easily allows one to determine the angle of dip to the horizon.
Assuming Earth was a perfect sphere with a radius of R, and an observer had an eye height of h, then the angle of dip to the horizon (a) is given by:
cos(a)=R/(R+h)
For the observer on Mt Everest, that is 2.9 degrees.
For an observer at a more reasonable altitude of 1 km, that is ~1 degree.
For someone standing at sea level with a height of 2 m, that is ~0.05 degrees.
Then is it delusional? Yes. Is it BS? Yes.
Your arguments most certainly are, without any shred of integrity.
@JackBlack, is Round Earth theory Delusional BS? You know the answer to this question in your heart and soul.
No, as further evidenced by the level of blatant dishonesty you need to appeal to to pretend there is a problem.
If it truly was delusional BS you wouldn't need to be so dishonest.
In a flat Earth, altitude increases focal length. No curve obstructs path.
There is no reason for altitude to allow you to see further on a FE.
No curve obstructing the path represents a massive problem, as you have NOTHING obstructing the view; yet in reality Earth is clearly observed to obstruct the view.
You do not have to look down to see distant mountains. You can look straight ahead.
This depends on the on where you and the mountains are.
What is certainly true is that to see an object at your altitude or below you, it will be below you.
And likewise, the horizon (other than that formed from mountains or hills or the like) will be below you.
Horizon doesn't just appear to be farther away
Not only does the horizon appear to be further away, it actually is further away.
I thought Mount Fuji was right outside Tokyo. Turns out, it's 60+ miles away! If you were looking around a curve, you shouldn't even be able to see it. Not looking down, you can see it looking straight across.
Mt Fuji, with a peak altitude of 3776.24 m, should have the peak visible to an observer at sea level roughly 219 km away.
At a distance of 100 km, if your eyes were at sea level, only roughly 784 m should be obscured, leaving roughly 3 km visible.
You might hate the math (because of how easily it shows you are blatantly lying to everyone) but without it the best you can get is "I don't know".
Because without the math we can see that getting higher, or making the distant object we are trying to view higher, it can be seen for a greater distance.
Without the math, we don't know what distance is required to hide Mt Fuji.
So contrary to your blatant lie, you should easily be able to see Mt Fuji.
Such blatant disregard for the truth wont help a flat Earth. Instead it just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.
-
"Refuted."
Nothing is refuted by you. There is an actual dip to the horizon.
What is proven? You don’t understand how large the spherical earth is.
Or just willing to ignore reality.
-
Yes, dishonesty to the extreme. You see this yourself, if you turn your comp on its side, but I know you won't do that but instead laugh at me again. You realize I gave you plenty of leeway with the insane height of this volcano (might as well be Death Mountain). And then I gave even more leeway by making the mountain high enough that should give a longer view. But I realized a curve is a curve, and the height lengthens the horizon, not the view. F, btw, is looking straight across. But there's some thing else I noticed. Neither C nor E actually hit line of sight with the volcano. E sees over it by a fair margin. C eventually looks up instead of down. This is the screwy sight physics of a round Earth.
And instead of thanking me for giving you extra opportunity to prove myself wrong, you pick at how my art is bad, and don't really that it was a favor that this mountain and this volcano were absurdly big. Yeah I used point, figure, and line interchangeably. So what. Most of these are lines that end in a point at the horizon. C ends with the city.
wow
dishonesty to the extreme
your volcano is equivalent to approx 40%diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x 40% = 3,200mi high volcano.
your man is 1/6, 17% the approx diameter of the ball earth = 8,000mi x .17 = 1,333mi high person.
given commercial airliners boing 737 google says fly at altitude 41,000ft = 8mi
woweee...
anyone know of such a thing to be 1,000mi high?!!?!??!?!??
also
hahah wtf is 'F'?
hahahahha you're an amzing person.
is A a point or a line?
is B an angle or a line or a point?
and holyshit wtf is C or D?!?! as theyre are clearly ambiuguously indeterminabel from being an angle, a corner nor a line.
are there any 5,500mile high mountains on earth that a 1,000mi high person has climbed?
amazing!!!!
-
Stick to one system of nomenclature.
Lines segment by points A to B.
Or
Lines themselves are marked by label.
Then look at jackBs green lines and then look up how "pirate crows nests" work and ask why neither stickman can see the bottom of the volcano and similarly why ships disappesr bottom first.
Amazing!
Your amazong diagram proves a ball earth.
Glad we now agree on reality.
Next up -politics and environment.
Alsmot there.
-
Yes, dishonesty to the extreme.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/al-biruni-method-768x768.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/al-biruni-method
😁
-
Next up -politics and environment.
Alsmot there.
What? You don’t appreciate the pictures of cross dressing? If you’re going to derail a thread, do it in a dress.
-
Stick to one system of nomenclature.
Nomenclature is made to be broken.
-
Stick to one system of nomenclature.
Nomenclature is made to be broken.
You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken? And it has been for a long long time.
-
Stick to one system of nomenclature.
Nomenclature is made to be broken.
You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken? And it has been for a long long time.
i know i'm a little nonsequitor at times but what are you on about?!
holycrap balls man
hahah
-
Stick to one system of nomenclature.
Nomenclature is made to be broken.
You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken? And it has been for a long long time.
i know i'm a little nonsequitor at times but what are you on about?!
holycrap balls man
hahah
We are often limited by reality. But when it comes to the reality of outer space/ our solar system vs the dome.
If you just stare gaze and buy any decent telescope. It becomes quite apparent there are other planets like Jupiter. The dome in the sense of flat earth is pure BS. The dome is a made up limit.
So, take bulmabriefs144. Wanting to live an expanded life?
bulmabriefs144 that believes their god stuck them in a fish tank. A very limited existence. And ignores the true nature and possibilities of outer space. Where one can see comets. Or study the planet Jupiter with its many moons.
So bulmabriefs144 thinks living one’s best life is to don a piece of cloth for attention and to lie about the very nature of our solar system and creation.
-
Again, where are these flat regions in tears of the kingdom?
Yes, dishonesty to the extreme.
Thanks for summing yourself up.
But I realized a curve is a curve, and the height lengthens the horizon, not the view.
You mean you realised you were wrong, you realised that increasing altitude will allow you to see further, so you felt the need to be as dishonest as possible to pretend it wouldn't.
As shown, even by your own diagram, and your own confession regarding dice, for a round (or even polyhedral) object, the higher you are above it, the more you can see.
Neither C nor E actually hit line of sight with the volcano. E sees over it by a fair margin.
Because they are arbitrary lines drawn in with no basis at all.
That doesn't prove anything except that you are yet again grasping at straws.
This is the screwy sight physics of a round Earth.
There is nothing "screwy" about this.
And instead of thanking me for giving you extra opportunity to prove myself wrong
And I took it and further demonstrated your dishonesty.
don't really that it was a favor that this mountain and this volcano were absurdly big.
How is it a favour?
You appeal to these giant objects to claim you need to look down, to pretend it refutes the RE.
But the only reason you need to look down so much is due to the ridiculous height of the mountain.
If you drew it to scale; you wouldn't need to look down anywhere near that much.
Most of these are lines that end in a point at the horizon.
No, 2 are. The rest just magically end for no reason at all.
Because you want to pretend the horizon is magic and wont let you see further.
-
Stick to one system of nomenclature.
Nomenclature is made to be broken.
You mean like in a solar system where comets zoom around your falsehood that space travel is impossible is to be broken? And it has been for a long long time.
Solar system?
Are you referring to the Nine Realms?
(https://www.myballard.com/wp-content/uploads/69774075_925686857782367_1917384631997431808_o.jpg)
They cannot be traversed, except through the atmospheric bridge.
-
Are you referring to the Nine Realms?
I’m referring to what is actually witnessed when using a telescope at night.
Or phenomena during the day like a solar eclipse.
-
Are you referring to the Nine Realms?
Have an adult read his post to you. He asked you to explain how something that can be observed occurs. Answer the question or show evidence for the nine realms.
So in TOTK, we have falling islands and meteors correct? So how do you actually know that these "meteors" aren't fragments of one of the islands I pointed out? These chunks of rock or ice come from somewhere, correct?
But space as a theory has a number of problems.
Chief among those is that we move around by pushing against surfaces. Jet skis? Push against water. Planes? Push against air. Unless something has a surface to push against (like a "rainbow" bridge between words made of air or water) it just falls. The idea of it moving or rolling forward is absurd.
So if we see comets or meteors moving around, it's because they are interacting with bands of atmosphere connecting worlds.
-
Are you referring to the Nine Realms?
Have an adult read his post to you. He asked you to explain how something that can be observed occurs. Answer the question or show evidence for the nine realms.
So in TOTK, we have falling islands and meteors correct? So how do you actually know that these "meteors" aren't fragments of one of the islands I pointed out? These chunks of rock or ice come from somewhere, correct?
But space as a theory has a number of problems.
Chief among those is that we move around by pushing against surfaces. Jet skis? Push against water. Planes? Push against air. Unless something has a surface to push against (like a "rainbow" bridge between words made of air or water) it just falls. The idea of it moving or rolling forward is absurd.
So if we see comets or meteors moving around, it's because they are interacting with bands of atmosphere connecting worlds.
A bunch of bullshit.
(https://i.imgur.com/qiHVy7r.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/uLbBhqL.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/oTOjze6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4oaGRmo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UaP5qG7.jpg)
Hello? McFly. Why would they need bands of atmosphere if there is no vacuum of space? In what? Your solid dome.
One. The sun illuminates the atmospheres of Saturn and Jupiter. No evidence of bands of atmosphere for comets to travel in. And how would comets stay aloft in bands of atmosphere.
Two. The tails of comets are moved away from the sun by solar wind as they travel around the sun. How would that work in what band of atmosphere in your dome delusion.
Three. No evidence that comets travel around a sun that is orbiting above a flat earth in earth’s atmosphere. Ever indication comets when they travel around the sun, the sun is the center of our solar system, are traveling around a sun 93,000,000 miles away outside earth’s atmosphere and van Allen vents.
Again. One night of star gazing and using a good telescope shows you’re full of shit.
-
[
So if we see comets or meteors moving around,
Shouldn’t your parabola delusion make them invisible anyway. So stupid. I guess you’re just blind to reality. Or live in a basement.
-
So in TOTK, we have falling islands and meteors correct? So how do you actually know that these "meteors" aren't fragments of one of the islands I pointed out? These chunks of rock or ice come from somewhere, correct?
We have sky islands.
Some rocks which fall.
And we have star fragments which fall from above the star
But space as a theory has a number of problems.
Yet you can't show any and instead just make stuff up to pretend there is.
Chief among those is that we move around by pushing against surfaces.
No.
We move by action-reaction pairs.
Push something one way, and it pushes back against us the other way.
For a car, it pushes against the road and the road pushes back.
For a boat, it pushes against the water and the water pushes back.
For a plane, it pushes against the air and it pushes back.
For a rocket, it pushes against high pressure gas which gets ejected.
This is required to get it moving.
But what you appear to be appealing to is the effect of gravity making things fall.
That doesn't magically make it stop moving and fall straight down.
It just changes its direction.
Meteors are in free fall.
Satellites in orbit are in free fall.
So where is the problem?
-
Do you notice the "haze" around Saturn?
That's the light of a holographic projection. Whichever radio tower or whatever installed a projector, and "Omg, look you can see Saturn tonight, at around 8 o clock!" There was an ISS space station supposed to be visible on the beach at Cape May one year at 9 pm. We could have seen it while on vacation.
But my dad, being my dad, wanted to see it from a better beach. We got lost on the road, ended up getting there late to the wrong beach , and then an hour later when I told him I was really pissed at him, but now that years have passed, I'm thankful. It was gone by the time we got to that beach, like it was never there... not over to the side, just gone. I have never seen any of this stuff, Saturn, Venus, the ISS. When the object is supposed to be visible, I'm not involved.
-
Again, what does this have to do with Zelda?
You can't see Saturn in Zelda.
Instead, the main celestial objects are the moon and blood moon (Is that the same moon, or something else) and the sun.
Where are the mystical flat lands you claim exist in Zelda?
Do you notice the "haze" around Saturn?
That's the light of a holographic projection. Whichever radio tower or whatever installed a projector, and "Omg, look you can see Saturn tonight, at around 8 o clock!"
No, that is the result of viewing an object with a small angular size through a lot of atmosphere.
And Saturn, being a planet that is very far away, is visible for roughly half the world at once, for a very long period of time.
It isn't that you can see it around 8 o clock.
Instead, currently (based upon the position of Saturn and Earth in their orbits around the sun) it "rises" shortly after mid day and "sets" shortly after mid night.
However, as it is faint you need it to be night to see it.
That means Saturn is visible from sunset till shortly after mid night.
There was an ISS space station supposed to be visible on the beach at Cape May one year at 9 pm. We could have seen it while on vacation.
But my dad, being my dad, wanted to see it from a better beach. We got lost on the road, ended up getting there late to the wrong beach , and then an hour later when I told him I was really pissed at him, but now that years have passed, I'm thankful. It was gone by the time we got to that beach, like it was never there... not over to the side, just gone. I have never seen any of this stuff, Saturn, Venus, the ISS. When the object is supposed to be visible, I'm not involved.
You have brought that up before, and simple math shows you were too late.
Even without the simple math, the ISS orbital period of roughly 90 minutes means that if you were an hour late, you would have missed it.
Just think, if your dad was better and got you there in time, and you looked in the right place, you would have seen the ISS yourself and maybe not have gone down this path of delusional BS.
Stop hiding behind your wilful ignorance.
-
Do you notice the "haze" around Saturn?
That's the light of a holographic projection.
Your stupid.
The haze created magnifying Saturn through miles of atmosphere, dust, moisture, and ice crystals with using a cell phone whose sensor that isn’t made for astrophotography.
As used in another thread..
The reflection of it simply moves over and around the dome
The closer it gets to the upper dome the less magnified it is due to the acute angle of the layered atmosphere.
As the reflection moves away from you it gets more magnified, meaning it generally holds a size due to that. The same as the other reflection of it. The moon. This is why they're nearly identical in size.
It's not due to millions of miles of space and mammoth sun and small moon garbage.
How far is the dome from the viewer.
If you lived close to the North Pole, the objects in your delusion should be near equal distance from the viewer throughout the night. So they would appear to change size. So the BS effects you invoke would change the size of objects to greater degrees as you get closer to the North Pole. And somehow your BS would have to know what size to make everything to what degree for a variety of temperatures for everyone viewing the sun at any given time from all locations.
But you can’t show any proof of a projection, and where it projects from in your delusion.
Then the projection should light up dust in the atmosphere. Moisture, fog, ice crystals, etc..
(https://i.imgur.com/a3fy0x5.jpg)
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/i/t/h/e/g/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1itir8.png/1493601725649.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium)
https://i.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/92076596/blue-search-lights-light-up-the-sky-above-lower-hutt
(https://i.imgur.com/U2IjOU5.jpg)
And cause multiple reflections..
(https://i.imgur.com/1Knzuq7.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/eMwpzUQ.jpg)
FE with no explanations why the sun becomes physically blocked from view, and its radiation becomes blocked to create night.
With the moon giving every indication it’s a physical object. From its shadowing, how it blocks the radiation of the sun during a solar eclipse, to radar surveys of the moon.
(https://i.imgur.com/PxdKCxl.gif)
All evidence points to the moon and planets as physical bodies. Thinking they are projections is just asinine.
-
Again, what does this have to do with Zelda?
You can't see Saturn in Zelda.
Don't ask me. Data brought up Saturn.
Instead, the main celestial objects are the moon and blood moon (Is that the same moon, or something else) and the sun.
Where are the mystical flat lands you claim exist in Zelda?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1171668196529553408/64fqf0zhri041.png)
So ummm, what defines a round land versus a flat one is a progression toward curve. That is, the further you go east (for example) the more it curves, reaching a curve at the edge. But is that what happens? No. The other option is a center curve, but that don't happen either. It's a sine curve, which averages... flat.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1171674313624141895/64fqf0zhri041.png)
Do you notice the "haze" around Saturn?
That's the light of a holographic projection. Whichever radio tower or whatever installed a projector, and "Omg, look you can see Saturn tonight, at around 8 o clock!"
No, that is the result of viewing an object with a small angular size through a lot of atmosphere.
And Saturn, being a planet that is very far away, is visible for roughly half the world at once, for a very long period of time.
It isn't that you can see it around 8 o clock.
(https://i.imgur.com/qiHVy7r.gif)
That's a wavering image projected using light. You've told me the moon is real. Sure, we'll go with that.
(https://i.imgur.com/uLbBhqL.jpg)
Where then, is the hazy wavering here? Almost as though... Saturn and the moon were two different sorts of objects.
There was an ISS space station supposed to be visible on the beach at Cape May one year at 9 pm. We could have seen it while on vacation.
But my dad, being my dad, wanted to see it from a better beach. We got lost on the road, ended up getting there late to the wrong beach , and then an hour later when I told him I was really pissed at him, but now that years have passed, I'm thankful. It was gone by the time we got to that beach, like it was never there... not over to the side, just gone. I have never seen any of this stuff, Saturn, Venus, the ISS. When the object is supposed to be visible, I'm not involved.
You have brought that up before, and simple math shows you were too late.
Even without the simple math, the ISS orbital period of roughly 90 minutes means that if you were an hour late, you would have missed it.
Just think, if your dad was better and got you there in time, and you looked in the right place, you would have seen the ISS yourself and maybe not have gone down this path of delusional BS.
Stop hiding behind your wilful ignorance.
Willful ignorance. That's a laugh! So, had I been there, I would have been informed this.
"The modular space station has an orbital speed of 7.66 kilometers per second, which is roughly 17,100 mph. It takes the ISS a mere 92.68 minutes to orbit Earth, meaning it goes around Earth nearly 16 times per day."
Yet somehow, it would have stuck around for an hour, like this, rather than whizzing past.
I've seen cars move past at 90 mph. Whether I am looking at said car from the side, from behind, or even from another car going only 60 mph, it very quickly moves outside the horizon. Hell, I've watched planes move from one end of the horizon to another in just a few minutes. Yet it takes an object moving at 17,100 mph across the Earth 93 minutes?
Bull.
Shit.
"Orbital synchronization."
Bull.
Shit.
17,100 mph (ISS) vs 1,037 miles per hour (Earth's spin at the equator) or 66,620 mph (Earth's orbit). In what way are either of these speeds "synced" with these satellites? When you stop smoking crack long enough to understand that Number A =/= Number B, maybe you can start to explain why the ISS shouldn't appear to be pulled backward, or just whiz past before we can see it properly. A "mere" 90 minutes? Bullshit.
Btw, if the sun takes 12 hours to move 7000 miles to the entire diameter of the Earth, out of sight, this is a speed of only 583 mph, not whatever bullshit number someone came up with based on the bullshit distance they also came up with.
Also, you can say whatever you want about me, but if you badmouth my parents, I tell you to go fuck yourself. My dad's up in age, occasionally tells long and boring stories, but you don't have the right to say stuff about the people I care about. Only I can do that. He failed, and I am glad he failed, because it allowed me to put things into perspective. Unlike you, who have a dysfunctional relationship with God because your parents were fundie types, I came to God because of my own experiences. I won't blame God for my parents' failings, and I won't blame my parents for what I now know is a fraud.
These objects are hazy because they aren't real.
(https://www.youredm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/14.jpg)
They intentionally made a hologram of a satellite, close enough for the crowd below to see. You see how this object also has that sorta light haze? That's the diffusion of light from the projector. Now, you may be able to conceal the light source, but the haze remains.
-
So ummm, what defines a round land versus a flat one is a progression toward curve. That is, the further you go east (for example) the more it curves, reaching a curve at the edge. But is that what happens? No. The other option is a center curve, but that don't happen either. It's a sine curve, which averages... flat.
Congrats.
You have a cartoon version which massively simplifies the topography.
Just like when you took a picture of a horizon with loads of mountains, and just drew an arbitrary line through it. You are ignoring the shape to just pretend there is a straight line.
So you still aren't showing any large flat areas.
It is also nothing like a sine wave.
You also don't go anywhere near the edge.
We don't know how far the world stretches beyond the edge of the playable area.
Where then, is the hazy wavering here?
Right here:
(jump to around 1 minute in).
The moon has an angular size of roughly 0.5 degrees.
That is 1800".
Saturn has an angular size which varies from around 15 to 20 ".
So the moon has an angular size roughly 90 times the size of Saturn.
Try an honest comparison next time.
The moon in the picture is 1145px wide.
Saturn is roughly 51px. It should only be ~12.
It also quite clearly is suffering from sensor noise.
Willful ignorance. That's a laugh!
And more wilful ignorance.
You are being wilfully ignorant.
You could easily find out where you could see it, and how long it would be visible for, but you choose not to.
You could have easily done the math to see how late you could be and still hope to see it, but you choose not to.
All because you want to cling to a fantasy of it all being fake.
Yet somehow, it would have stuck around for an hour, like this, rather than whizzing past.
No, it wouldn't. That was the point. You were an hour late. You shouldn't have expected to still be able to see it.
It would be extreme stupidity, delusion, or wilful ignorance to think you should have been able to; or to think that you not seeing it is in any way significant.
Hell, I've watched planes move from one end of the horizon to another in just a few minutes. Yet it takes an object moving at 17,100 mph across the Earth 93 minutes?
And more dishonest BS.
You are comparing the time it takes for a plane to go from one side of your vision to another; with how long it takes the ISS to complete an entire orbit.
It takes the ISS roughly 90 minutes to ORBIT earth, that is to travel all the way around it.
As Earth has a radius of roughly 6371 km, and the ISS has an orbital speed of roughly 8 km/s, with an altitude of 400 km, that means each orbit is roughly 42 500 km, and takes roughly 90 minutes.
Conversely, a plane takes around 2 days.
Again, are you capable of making an honest comparison?
Or are you only capable of blatantly lying to everyone?
"Orbital synchronization."
Where are you pulling that from?
The ISS is not in a geosynchronous orbit.
It looks like you are yet again trying to lie to everyone.
Also, you can say whatever you want about me, but if you badmouth my parents
If you don't want me to "badmouth" him, don't bring him up and talk about how he failed so you remained wilfully ignorant of reality, and spout such dishonest, delusional BS.
you, who have a dysfunctional relationship with God
I don't have any relationship with your imaginary fiend.
Why would I?
The one with the dysfunctional relationship with your imagination is you.
And yet again, you invent delusional BS which requires you to have entirely ignored what I said.
I won't blame my parents for what I now know is a fraud.
You should, because if it wasn't for your father failing, i.e. if your father was better, you would have been able to see the ISS yourself.
And then you wouldn't be so quick to lie to everyone by claiming to know it is a fraud.
Your wilful ignorance does not make it fraud.
These objects are hazy because they aren't real.
There are plenty of reasons for things to be hazy.
They intentionally made a hologram of a satellite
No, they projected an image onto a screen.
What screen are they using for your fantasy?
-
That's the light of a holographic projection. Whichever radio tower or whatever installed a projector, and "Omg, look you can see Saturn
Yeap. You’re just stupid.
Saturn was around before the technology existed you invoke.
There is nothing like this to project Saturday.
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/i/t/h/e/g/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1itir8.png/1493601725649.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium)
-
Willful ignorance.
Thst’s what makes bulmabriefs144 stupid and dumb. And evidently too lazy to leave the basement. And too lazy to apply a little logic.
-
That's a laugh!
Still see you got that laughably debunked video at the bottom of your post. Man bulmabriefs144, your conned and brainwashed by a guy on YouTube? A man? Why is it you always have to find a man to validate you? Because you’re just a girl too afraid to go out into the world?
Take this pink ribbon off my eyes
I'm exposed and it's no big surprise
Don't you think I know exactly where I stand?
This world is forcing me to hold your hand
'Cause I'm just a girl, oh, little old me
Well, don't let me out of your sight
Oh, I'm just a girl, all pretty and petite
So don't let me have any rights
Oh, I've had it up to here
The moment that I step outside
So many reasons for me to run and hide
I can't do the little things I hold so dear
'Cause it's all those little things that I fear
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Gwen Stefani / Thomas Dumont
Just a Girl lyrics © Kobalt Music Publishing Ltd.
-
Okay, now suppose we aren't able to see a hologram by naked eye, but certain telescopes only can capture the image, as was more consistent in my youth. "We can observe this object at a certain time of day with this expensive telescope that is powered by battery pack. With your naked eye or with an analog telescope, you can't see anything, this is why you should buy this expensive electronic telescope." You know what was also a thing during my youth? And yes, it does relate to Nintendo and video games. As far back as Super Nintendo, they had two ways of making timed events. Far East of Eden had festivals based on the day or hour, and even will grant awards on my birthday. They do this by a real time clock chip. But more importantly, a number of games were St Gigas, running off of a "satellite" radio frequency, a certain broadcast for certain games. Now that broadcast is gone, but the tech was able to be emulated to update games on schedule. If a radio signal can update something without a visible antenna, then yes, you can have something receive a radio frequency to project images that are basically early AR. By 3DS, AR was a known phenomenon, with games like Bravely Default showing the heroine Agnes Oblige getting swallowed up if the right AR card is shown. I didn't have said card, but I managed to print the image on regular paper from the library (basically QR technology, it looked at it and recognized it). So yeah, even back in the days of SNES, they could have shown us a satellite moving by either slowly or quickly. It's funny how when you see satellites shine in the sky as they move past, there always seems to be a radio tower somewhere nearby...
-
Okay, now suppose we aren't able to see a hologram by naked eye, but certain telescopes only can capture the image, as was more consistent in my youth. "We can observe this object at a certain time of day with this expensive telescope that is powered by battery pack. With your naked eye or with an analog telescope, you can't see anything, this is why you should buy this expensive electronic telescope." You know what was also a thing during my youth? And yes, it does relate to Nintendo and video games. As far back as Super Nintendo, they had two ways of making timed events. Far East of Eden had festivals based on the day or hour, and even will grant awards on my birthday. They do this by a real time clock chip. But more importantly, a number of games were St Gigas, running off of a "satellite" radio frequency, a certain broadcast for certain games. Now that broadcast is gone, but the tech was able to be emulated to update games on schedule. If a radio signal can update something without a visible antenna, then yes, you can have something receive a radio frequency to project images that are basically early AR. By 3DS, AR was a known phenomenon, with games like Bravely Default showing the heroine Agnes Oblige getting swallowed up if the right AR card is shown. I didn't have said card, but I managed to print the image on regular paper from the library (basically QR technology, it looked at it and recognized it). So yeah, even back in the days of SNES, they could have shown us a satellite moving by either slowly or quickly. It's funny how when you see satellites shine in the sky as they move past, there always seems to be a radio tower somewhere nearby...
What the fuck was that?
If you think this.
That's the light of a holographic projection. Whichever radio tower or whatever installed a projector, and "Omg, look you can see Saturn
Then where ever it originated would do this.
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/i/t/h/e/g/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1itir8.png/1493601725649.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium)
-
Okay, now suppose we aren't able to see a hologram by naked eye,
By the why jackass. You can see Saturn with the naked eye in the night sky.
You should actually get out and star gaze a few times each month for a few years. You might learn something. But that would mean you would have to quiet your mind, have patience, open your mind, and stop listening to the instant gratification provided by the cons on YouTube telling you what you want to believe.
-
Discovery of Saturn
Saturn is one of the 5 planets visible with the unaided eye. In fact, it often appears as one of the brightest stars in the sky, and so ancient people have known about Saturn for thousands of years. In fact, it’s impossible to know who made the Saturn discovery.
The Romans named Saturn after their god of the harvest and time, the same entity as the Greek God Chronos.
The first observation of Saturn through a telescope was made by Galileo Galilei in 1610. His first telescope was so crude that he wasn’t able to distinguish the planet’s rings; instead he thought the planet might have ears or two large moons on either side of it. When he looked at Saturn a few years later, the moons had disappeared, but this was just because the angle of Saturn had changed, and the rings were being seen edge on.
The Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens observed Saturn in 1659, and solved the mystery, realizing that the “arms” around Saturn were really a system of rings. He also was the first to observe Saturn’s moon Titan.
Better and better telescopes helped reveal that the rings were really a system of particles, and Jean-Dominique Cassini discovered 4 other major moons of Saturn: Iapetus, Rhea, Tethys and Dione.
https://www.universetoday.com/15315/discovery-of-saturn/
-
Still no examples of these large flat plains you claim exist. I wonder why?
Okay, now suppose we aren't able to see a hologram by naked eye, but certain telescopes only can capture the image, as was more consistent in my youth. "We can observe this object at a certain time of day with this expensive telescope that is powered by battery pack. With your naked eye or with an analog telescope, you can't see anything, this is why you should buy this expensive electronic telescope."
And again you appeal to paranoid, delusional BS.
Again, for something like Saturn, you can see it for hours on end.
Like I said before, currently it is visible from around sunset to just after mid-night.
No, you do NOT need an electric telescope. You can easily see it with an analogue one, you just need to know where to point it.
And that is what the electronics typically go to for a telescope, pointing it in a certain direction, and tracking objects.
But you can even make your own equatorial mount telescope.
Tracking can be very important for small angular size objects.
Again, Saturn has an angular size of roughly 15-20".
Earth rotates roughly 15 degrees per hour, which is 15" per second.
So the rotation of Earth makes Saturn appear to move its angular width every second.
No, you can't see it with the naked eye other than as a bright point. That is because of its small angular size.
Again, it is 15-20".
That is equivalent to roughly a 1 m object at 10 km, or a 1 mm object at 10 m.
It's funny how when you see satellites shine in the sky as they move past, there always seems to be a radio tower somewhere nearby...
No, it is still pathetic, and just more desperation from you.
You have only been near radio towers. But they are not needed.
You can go out to the middle of the ocean and still see it.
If your paranoid, delusional BS was true, you would be able to buy one of these telescopes and take it apart (even if it is breaking it) and show the image projection devices inside it.
For a 3DS, that is trivial, it has a screen which shows images.
For a telescope, it is much harder, especially for those without a camera.
There is no device inside to generate an image.
If you were skilled with electronics and programming, you might also be able to make it generate your own images.
You could even do that by monitoring the radio you claim cause the images to appear, and generating your own radio waves with the appropriate signal embedded in.
You could also demonstrate the dependence on radio signals by using a faraday cage to block radio waves.
But instead, you have absolutely nothing to support your paranoid delusional BS. Instead you just baselessly assert because you are grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend reality is wrong and your delusional fantasy is true.
-
For a 3DS, that is trivial, it has a screen which shows images.
For a telescope, it is much harder, especially for those without a camera.
There is no device inside to generate an image.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-smart-telescope
The best smart telescopes make it easy to observe and photograph faint deep sky objects even from cities
Almost as though the smart telescope had software to help projecting objects... Just think, a telescope picks up a signal telling it what to display. And no, thinking back on this, no way was Nintendo able to rent a "satellite" back before they were a multibillion company. They were however, able to rent a radio station system.
What's the difference between a game you can play for one hour a week, and a "planet" that shows up once every few years?
Keep in mind, this was the mid-1990s. And using a jazz station.
A company like NASA who actively wants to perpetuate a hoax? Easy peasy.
-
Almost as though the smart telescope had software to help projecting objects...
Before my current telescope which does tracking for planets and stars, my last telescope was completely manual. I could look up, see how bright Saturn is, identify Saturn with the naked eye, then use the telescope to zoom in to the point to see the rings and moons of Saturn.
My current telescope has nothing “electric” or “smart” for imaging. I don’t have to use the tracking arm to see Saturn.
-
a "planet" that shows up once every few years?
Saturn is visible for whole months each year. Year to year. When I can’t see Saturn because of the day and rotation of the earth, those on the night side can see Saturn often when I can’t.
-
The best smart telescopes make it easy to observe and photograph faint deep sky objects even from cities
Almost as though the smart telescope had software to help projecting objects
Spouting more delusional BS wont help you.
Again, it is easy because it finds them for you.
That is the purpose of a smart telescope, to know where it is, and know where it is pointing, so it can point towards the object you want to find, instead of you having to find it yourself.
Again, you do not need a smart telescope. A dumb old analogue one will work fine, but then YOU have to figure out what way to point it, and YOU have to do the tracking.
If you truly believe that a smart telescope has a magic projector in it, then go buy one and prove it; instead of just spouting paranoid delusional BS.
What's the difference between a game you can play for one hour a week, and a "planet" that shows up once every few years?
And what planet would that be?
Again, there isn't any which just appears for a brief window.
Again, Saturn is visible for multiple hours.
Again, you don't need a smart telescope to see it.
You are just spouting whatever paranoid delusional BS you can come up with to reject reality.
-
Again, it is easy because it finds them for you.
it finds them for you
it finds them
finds
It makes them. It doesn't find them.
Way back when, only the highest tech electronic telescopes could "see" things like Mars, Venus, or Saturn. The others, we were told, were probably not good enough to see such things. Then around 4G era, we were told that certain nights it was gonna be close enough or bright enough to be seen by the naked eye. And not for a few seconds, mind you, as rotation competed with orbits but for like an hour or so. Long enough that you were sure to focus on this bright object, pull out a telescope, and look at it.
How convenient! Only, when we still had a (low tech) telescope years ago, I'd sometimes swear I pointed right to it, but much like a vampire or other nonsense that falls before the Truth of the Cross, it didn't hold up under glass. At the time, I though maybe I didn't focus on it right. Now I know better.
You ever see the film They Live? Imagine if you will 700 million people being shown the same thing, believing it to be real, being programmed to believe in it. Could you just as easily hypnotize people into seeing things a certain way? How radio-based holograms work.
My current telescope has nothing “electric” or “smart” for imaging. I don’t have to use the tracking arm to see Saturn.
By any chance, were you near a radio broadcasting tower?
https://www.softschools.com/inventions/history/holograms_history/236/
3D holograms have been a reality since the laser, at around 1962, it says.
In 1957, Sputnik was launched, and some well-placed people claimed to have seen it with their naked eye. Back then, trick photography and superimposition was method of choice, as well as the emperor's new clothes effect using peer pressure. Publish a good picture of it in the newspaper, and most people will forget they didn't see it.
Technology moves on, and we move from top telescopes at NASA using stickers, to high grade electronic telescopes, to even analog telescopes and the naked eye.
https://www.space.com/hologram-doctor-space-station-nasa-astronauts
If you can broadcast the image of a doctor in the ISS space station, why can't you broadcast the image of this space station? Oh sure, there's a "real" ISS. It is a set piece recorded into the hologram projector, which is then sent to wherever is supposed to be able to see this thing. Ditto for Saturn.
-
Way back when, only the highest tech electronic telescopes could "see" things like Mars, Venus, or Saturn.
What the hell you blathering about.
Again..
In the 90’s there was nothing electronic concerning my telescope. Could see Saturn and its rings just fine.
My current telescope can position itself through internal calculations. It is wireless in no way. The actual imaging is all manual, nothing electronic about it.
Again..
Discovery of Saturn
Saturn is one of the 5 planets visible with the unaided eye. In fact, it often appears as one of the brightest stars in the sky, and so ancient people have known about Saturn for thousands of years. In fact, it’s impossible to know who made the Saturn discovery.
The Romans named Saturn after their god of the harvest and time, the same entity as the Greek God Chronos.
The first observation of Saturn through a telescope was made by Galileo Galilei in 1610. His first telescope was so crude that he wasn’t able to distinguish the planet’s rings; instead he thought the planet might have ears or two large moons on either side of it. When he looked at Saturn a few years later, the moons had disappeared, but this was just because the angle of Saturn had changed, and the rings were being seen edge on.
The Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens observed Saturn in 1659, and solved the mystery, realizing that the “arms” around Saturn were really a system of rings. He also was the first to observe Saturn’s moon Titan.
Better and better telescopes helped reveal that the rings were really a system of particles, and Jean-Dominique Cassini discovered 4 other major moons of Saturn: Iapetus, Rhea, Tethys and Dione.
https://www.universetoday.com/15315/discovery-of-saturn/
-
3D holograms have been a reality since the laser, at around 1962, it says.
Do you understand how holograms are project and how the “screen” works. Especially for 1962.
And. Again. Something would have to project through miles of earths atmosphere. Through dust, moisture, rain, snow, ice crystals.
What happens when you shine a bright light only a few thousand feet.
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/i/t/h/e/g/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1itir8.png/1493601725649.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium)
In 1957, Sputnik was launched, and some well-placed people claimed to have seen it with their naked eye. Back then, trick photography and superimposition was method of choice, as well as the emperor's new clothes effect using peer pressure. Publish a good picture of it in the newspaper, and most people will forget they didn't see it.
Your ignoring Sputnik was tracked and triangulated by its broadcast. Sputnik was a physical object broadcasting from its orbit around the eath.
St. Joe's High School
Radio Club
Cleveland, Ohio
Call Letters: W8KTZ
TRACKING SPUTNIK!
The St Joe's High School Radio Club (SJHRC) prevailed from 1951 to 1979.
During that time about 150 students learned Morse Code, got licenses, built and repaired transmitters and receivers, and performed public-service work, such as providing communications for special events, conducting Halloween Vandal Patrols, participating in Civil Defense drills and RACES --the Radio Amateur Communications Emergency Service.
On October 4, 1957, the Russians jump-started the "Space Race" by launching Sputnik, the first space satellite!
The students had tunable receivers, rotate-able antennas, and the manpower to immediately start tracking the signals; --and they recorded the beeps on magnetic tape, and immediately noticed and reconciled the "Doppler Shift" of the RF carrier!
The tracking stations for the "official" planned U.S. satellite launch program were equipped with dedicated fix-tuned receivers and special antennas set for 110 MHz and NOT the "more accessible" 20.005 MHz and 40.002 MHz frequencies the Russians blatantly had chosen for their worldwide public-relations coup!
By the time the U.S. Govt. (Navy) equipment could be changed over, the SJHRC had recorded thousands of feet of tape.
Sputnik was battery-powered, and the 20 MHz signal started to falter in just 8 days. Each of the signals came from a separate power-hungry Vacuum Tube Transmitter as transistors were only just being developed.
When the FBI came to take the 20,000 feet of tape for analysis, they said the club even beat the Navy station by 4 hours!
https://sjhrc.org/
Tracking Sputnik I’s Orbit
On the night of October 4th, students quickly assembled the antennas in the south yard of the Observatory. Sputnik transmitted its signal on a different frequency, but Swenson was quickly able to obtain another receiver and the students began recording the signals from “an enormous lavatory roll,” in the south yard. The interferometer made crude position measurements of Sputnik along with Doppler tracking data. Students also made visual observations using other instruments, such as theodolites, astronomical clocks, and WWV time signal receivers available at the Observatory.
Astronomers were among the few who knew celestial mechanics, so department chair George McVitte and astronomers Stanley Wyatt and Ivan King used the data to derive Sputnik’s orbital elements, with help from mathematician Donald Gillies and physicist James Snyder, who programed the ILLIAC I computer. The result was an ephemeris, or astronomical data set describing the orbit and position of the satellite in the sky, within two days of its launch and published in Nature by November of 1957.
https://distributedmuseum.illinois.edu/exhibit/tracking_sputnik_is_orbit/#:~:text=The%20interferometer%20made%20crude%20position,receivers%20available%20at%20the%20Observatory.
-
Technology moves on,
Yes. Space junk is now tracked by radar.
Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris
D. Mehrholz, L. Leushacke
FGAN Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques, Wachtberg, Germany
W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf
European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, Germany
https://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet109/chapter16_bul109.pdf
Among the more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, only about 6% are operational satellites and the remainder is space debris. Europe currently has no operational space surveillance system, but a powerful radar facility for the detection and tracking of space debris and the imaging of space objects is available in the form of the 34 m dish radar at the Research Establishment for Applied Science (FGAN) at Wachtberg near Bonn, in Germany.
-
Technology moves on,
And. Again. When I was in the navy in the 2000’s we could receive communications from satellites. No towers in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. There were no “air platforms”. Platforms that could be triangulated by their broadcasts, would need extensive maintenance, and would show up on radar, and whose positions would have to be known for aviation activities (military and civilian) and weapons testing.
-
By any chance, were you near a radio broadcasting tower?
Which has what to do with Saturn that can be seen for hours across the USA in the night sky from month to month.
By the naked eye and magnified. Before there ever were “towers”.
Got proof of thousands of towers working in concert acting like search lights to project a seamless image of Saturn. And the entire night sky.
-
Which has what to do with Saturn that can be seen for hours across the USA in the night sky from month to month.
I am so glad you asked!
You see, Saturn's orbit is 9.69 km/s or 2236.9 mph.
And Earth's rotation is 1000+ mph.
And the Earth's orbit is roughly 67,000 mph.
So it you have an object spinning around, its directional facing and the object moving across, and somehow you're expecting to see this for hours. Shouldn't you only be able to see it during a brief window as the Earth zooms past the planet of Saturn? Not counting the whole turning away the direction faced from it.
Remove the thousands place of the mph. An car moves along a slightly curved road at 67 mph without stopping. Meanwhile, a hiker walks along with his backpack at 2 mph. Do you think the car really can see the hiker for very long before it moves out of sight of the hiker? Yet somehow, you multiply this by 1000, and this seems plausible to you?
Holograms can be seen for hours despite supposed speed and direction issues. Real world physics says that if a car can't stay in sight of a hiker or a cat for more than a few minutes, it is impossible for two planets to do so.
-
I am so glad you asked!
Because earth is turned away usually many hours away from the sun for what we call night. To see Saturn very far off. While they both orbit the sun.
Any other stupidity from you?
Now.
All proof is Saturn is a physical object orbiting the sun.
Not a projection from a tower doing this…
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/i/t/h/e/g/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.1itir8.png/1493601725649.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium)
All the while Saturn has been visible to the naked eye.
Discovery of Saturn
Saturn is one of the 5 planets visible with the unaided eye. In fact, it often appears as one of the brightest stars in the sky, and so ancient people have known about Saturn for thousands of years. In fact, it’s impossible to know who made the Saturn discovery.
The Romans named Saturn after their god of the harvest and time, the same entity as the Greek God Chronos.
The first observation of Saturn through a telescope was made by Galileo Galilei in 1610. His first telescope was so crude that he wasn’t able to distinguish the planet’s rings; instead he thought the planet might have ears or two large moons on either side of it. When he looked at Saturn a few years later, the moons had disappeared, but this was just because the angle of Saturn had changed, and the rings were being seen edge on.
The Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens observed Saturn in 1659, and solved the mystery, realizing that the “arms” around Saturn were really a system of rings. He also was the first to observe Saturn’s moon Titan.
Better and better telescopes helped reveal that the rings were really a system of particles, and Jean-Dominique Cassini discovered 4 other major moons of Saturn: Iapetus, Rhea, Tethys and Dione.
https://www.universetoday.com/15315/discovery-of-saturn/
-
And still no large flat areas identified. I wonder why? Is it because you know there aren't any?
Again, it is easy because it finds them for you.
It makes them. It doesn't find them.
Repeating the same lie isn't going to help you.
You have clearly made up a delusional fantasy and are now sticking to it.
Again, YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE A SMART TELESCOPE TO SEE PLANETS!
If you want to claim smart telescopes are magically projecting them, then PROVE IT!
Get a smart telescope and break it apart to show what is making the image.
Way back when, only the highest tech electronic telescopes could "see" things like Mars, Venus, or Saturn.
When?
The year 1000?
How convenient! Only, when we still had a (low tech) telescope years ago, I'd sometimes swear I pointed right to it
But you didn't.
Swearing you pointed right to it doesn't mean you did.
Telescopes magnify the view, and that includes any error in alignment.
So if you were slightly off with your alignment without the telescope, the magnified view would be even further off.
That is where "smart" telescopes help, as they help you align it.
I though maybe I didn't focus on it right. Now I know better.
You mean now you cling to paranoid delusional BS with no connection to reality?
That isn't knowing better. That is being wilfully ignorant.
You have come up a fantasy which makes you happy, so you now just wilfully reject reality.
By any chance, were you near a radio broadcasting tower?
Why do you ask? Do you think they can magically effect analogue telescopes?
If you want to go down that path of insanity, why not just claim aliens were magically doing it all thousands of years ago.
In 1957, Sputnik was launched, and some well-placed people claimed to have seen it with their naked eye. Back then, trick photography and superimposition was method of choice, as well as the emperor's new clothes effect using peer pressure. Publish a good picture of it in the newspaper, and most people will forget they didn't see it.
You mean people saw the bright spot with their naked eye; but you don't like that because it doesn't fit your fantasy, so you invent delusional BS to pretend it is fake.
If you can broadcast the image of a doctor in the ISS space station, why can't you broadcast the image of this space station?
Because you need something to then display the image. Something you refuse to identify.
-
You see, Saturn's orbit is 9.69 km/s or 2236.9 mph.
And Earth's rotation is 1000+ mph.
And the Earth's orbit is roughly 67,000 mph.
Congratulations on providing a bunch of numbers which you then entirely misrepresent to provide pure BS.
You don't even make any attempt at all to convert that into how long you should be able to see it for. Instead you just provide a bunch of numbers and claim that means you shouldn't be able to see it for hours.
And you entirely ignore the distance.
Why not try an honest comparison for once in your life?
Consider a distant mountain, one off a few 10s of km. As you drive along, how long does it take for it to go out of your vision?
Saturn orbits the sun at a distance which varies from roughly 1 350 000 000 km to 1 500 000 000 km.
Earth orbits the sun at a distance of roughly 150 000 000 km.
Assuming the closest possible configurations, some key points would be when there orbits are aligned and they are travelling together; when they are opposed and travelling against each other; and when they are at 90 degrees.
But rather than doing all that, I will just go straight to the hypothetical worse case, which is worse than any possibility in reality.
A case of Earth and Saturn being in line, on the same side of the sun, but travelling in opposite directions.
This would mean the relative speed of Saturn is ~40 km/s, with a distance of 1.2 billion km.
We can easily scale this down to something more realistic.
Instead of using billions of km for distance, we can scale it down to say 12 km.
That is scaling down by a factor of 1/100 million.
So we need to do the same for speed.
Well the speed was 40 km/hr.
That divided by 100 million is 0.4 mm per second or roughly 1.5 m per hour.
So go find an object 12 km away, and then walk past it at a speed of roughly 1.5 m per hour, and see how long you can see it for.
We can also directly calculate the angular velocity at this position by considering how far it travels in 1 second and the distance.
tan(a)=l/d
i.e. the angular velocity is atan(40 / 1 200 000 000)
That is ~0.0069 " per second.
That works out to be ~25 " per hour.
So it would be moving roughly its angular size every 30 minutes to an hour.
That is NOT the main effect.
Instead, the main effect is simply from Earth's rotation, at ~15 degrees per hour.
That means Saturn will appear to move at roughly 15 degrees per hour. So it would be in the sky for roughly 12 hours (it varies depending on alignment and latitude, but lets keep it simple for now).
So yes, you WOULD expect to be able to see Saturn for hours.
Currently it rises shortly after mid-day and sets shortly after mid-night.
Just like the distant stars, it is too faint to be seen during the day as the light from the sun scattering in the atmosphere is much brighter.
So you can see it from sunset to just after midnight.
Remove the thousands place of the mph. An car moves along a slightly curved road at 67 mph without stopping. Meanwhile, a hiker walks along with his backpack at 2 mph. Do you think the car really can see the hiker for very long before it moves out of sight of the hiker? Yet somehow, you multiply this by 1000, and this seems plausible to you?
And again, notice what you have left out in your blatant dishonesty?
The distance to the hiker.
If you are scaling distance by a factor of 1000 (which includes scaling down the speed), then you do the same for the distance.
So this hiker is walking along 1.2 million km away from you.
That is clearly not possible to do on Earth, so we need to scale it down some more.
We could do the above, scaling it by a factor of 1:100 000 000.
That then needs the hiker to be 12 km away.
Then you, being Earth are walking along at a speed of 1.08 m per hour, around a circle with a radius of 1.5 km.
The hiker is 12 away, walking around a circle with a radius of 13.5 km. They are walking at a staggering rate of 0.36 m per hour.
Think you would be able to see them for a long time? I do.
Note a few key things about this:
It takes an entire year for the car to complete a circuit.
It takes the hiker roughly 30 years.
And the higher is very far away. The distance to the hiker is roughly 12 000 times the distance the car travels in an hour.
You can also scale it down further if you want, by an extra factor of 1000.
That way the hiker is 12 m away, the orbit the car traces has a radius of 1.5 m. But you travel 1.08 mm an hour.
Holograms can be seen for hours despite supposed speed and direction issues. Real world physics says that if a car can't stay in sight of a hiker or a cat for more than a few minutes, it is impossible for two planets to do so.
What direction issues?
You entirely ignored direction, to just appeal to speeds, to present that pile of dishonest BS.
Real world physics (and basic math, which yes I know you hate because of how easily it shows you are spouting pure BS) clearly shows it is entirely possible.
-
Which has what to do with Saturn that can be seen for hours across the USA in the night sky from month to month.
I am so glad you asked!
You see, Saturn's orbit is 9.69 km/s or 2236.9 mph.
And Earth's rotation is 1000+ mph.
And the Earth's orbit is roughly 67,000 mph.
So it you have an object spinning around, its directional facing and the object moving across, and somehow you're expecting to see this for hours. Shouldn't you only be able to see it during a brief window as the Earth zooms past the planet of Saturn? Not counting the whole turning away the direction faced from it.
Remove the thousands place of the mph. An car moves along a slightly curved road at 67 mph without stopping. Meanwhile, a hiker walks along with his backpack at 2 mph. Do you think the car really can see the hiker for very long before it moves out of sight of the hiker? Yet somehow, you multiply this by 1000, and this seems plausible to you?
Holograms can be seen for hours despite supposed speed and direction issues. Real world physics says that if a car can't stay in sight of a hiker or a cat for more than a few minutes, it is impossible for two planets to do so.
Yeah, I'm quoting myself. As right now, all of you are untrustworthy, so there is nothing good to quote.
My parents drove off to the airport this last week. I watched them go and decided to make a count. Not only was the view lateral, but the road curves slightly. I got to 13 before I couldn't see them anymore. This at about 30 mph, with me as a still target. The whole science of this is based on nonsense equations like scaling distance. I'm gonna add more zeroes to this equation, and that's gonna impress/intimidate you.
At about eight years old, when told to guess how many marbles were in a bottle, most of us said "a hundred billion zillion!" Then in math class, we learned to estimate based on (I say estimate, as there is the possibility of a few marbles out of place, despite the math) rows, columns, and stacks of marbles.
But astronomers are still fond of pushing huge numbers that don't make practical sense. Look, I took biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and astronomy. I wasn't raised in a commune, nor told to memorize Bible verses. But I also know that by the measure of my own vision, there is a flaw in what I can see. Without glasses, I can barely read book titles or numbers on a digital clock at fifteen feet away. And viewing the earth and sky, like most people, I can see only a few miles away.
But ohhh, suddenly we humans can see objects light years (which NASA says is 6 trillion miles) away. Numbers have been inflated in a manner similar to a fish story.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/big-fish-eeltie-say.jpg)
Yeah sure, I totally believe you when you say that the nearest stars we can see are 4.3 light years away (24 trillion miles). It makes a nice story, but there's no proof of distance. What, did you get a big ruler? No? Then you have only the word of a telescope manufacturer that his telescope allows you to see object 30 light years away. On a high mountain, with no obstructions, the best we humans have ever done is maybe two or three hundred miles. There are no obstructions looking out into space... unless you want to count atmosphere. Does the air suddenly go away at night? We have thick atmosphere that blocks view even to drones flying up a bit.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/75637/how-high-can-an-airplane-be-spotted-with-eyesight
...it can be really hard to find that plane when it 3+ miles away (~15,000 feet). That would be near ideal conditions. Get a bright background behind and the plane above, and it gets much harder.
15,000 ft. But you just fiddle with size and tell us that something is visible 24 trillion miles away.
-
Yet we should believe in your transdimensional god and your day of the week gender?
Similarly unsimilarly, just because your brain cant conprehend a number doesnt mean ot doesnt exist.
-
Yeah, I'm quoting myself. As right now, all of you are untrustworthy, so there is nothing good to quote.
You mean you are quoting yourself, because you can't honestly respond to what has been said.
For example, you still can't show these large flat areas you claim exist.
You can't deal with the refutation of your dishonest BS where you used linear velocities and entirely ignored distance to reach a conclusion which is not supported at all; whereas if you did it honestly you would see you are spouting BS.
And you realise just how pathetic your position looks so you don't even attempt to respond and justify your previous BS about how the motion of the various objects should make it vanish and instead go far an entirely different dishonest pile of BS to claim you shouldn't be able to see it at all.
It just reeks of desperation and shows just how truly dishonest you are.
The whole science of this is based on nonsense equations like scaling distance.
You mean the actual science is based upon an honest representation to show what it should be, rather than entirely ignoring distance.
Whereas your dishonest, delusional BS means that it doesn't matter if you have an object 1 cm in front of your face or 1 km away; if you take a start looking directly at it, and take a single step to the side either both should disappear or neither should.
Reality shows your dishonest BS is wrong, and that distance does matter.
You ignoring it yet again, just shows how dishonest you are. How you are willing to blatantly lie to everyone to pretend your delusional BS is true; and you will just ignore any refutation of your BS because you cannot honestly refute it. You know you are lying to everyone.
But astronomers are still fond of pushing huge numbers that don't make practical sense.
Why don't they make sense?
Why not be honest for once?
They publish numbers, based upon observations, which you simply don't like.
Because of how much you hate them because they don't match your fantasy, you lie about them.
Look, I took biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and astronomy.
And apparently fail at the basics. So I assume you didn't pass.
Without glasses, I can barely read book titles or numbers on a digital clock at fifteen feet away. And viewing the earth and sky, like most people, I can see only a few miles away.
And yet again, appealing to the same already refuted BS.
Your eyes have a limit in terms of resolution.
This means for small objects, like the lettering on books, you can only clearly make out and identify from a few feet away.
But much larger objects you can see further.
By your own admission, you state you can see miles away, while you state you can only resolve book titles from 15 feet away.
Eye sight charts also demonstrate this, with people poor eyesight needing objects to be larger to be able to resolve them and not being able to resolve the tiny letters on the bottom of the chart.
If it truly was your vision is bad so you can't see objects, then either you should be able to read those book titles when they are a few miles away, or you should be able to see NOTHING beyond 15 feet.
So your own admission proves your claims are pure BS.
Your ability to see an object depends upon how large it is, how far away it is, how bright it is, how bright the surroundings are, and if there is anything blocking the view.
You can normally only see objects near the surface of Earth for a few miles, before the curvature blocks the view.
Go up higher and you can see further.
Look up, where Earth isn't in the way, and you can see further, like the Moon.
On a high mountain, with no obstructions, the best we humans have ever done is maybe two or three hundred miles.
Yet again, showing your claim that your eyes are magic and magically can't see things after a certain distance is pure BS.
Showing once again the "few miles" you appealed to before is NOT a result of your eyes, but is a result of Earth blocking the view.
But when you start looking through a dense atmosphere, over a distance of several hundred km, you end up with that blurring light so much you can't see through it.
Just like a dense fog.
We don't have that problem when looking up into space, because we aren't going through that dense atmosphere for several hundred km. As the altitude increases, the air is less dense and scatters light less.
Does the air suddenly go away at night?
No. But the sun, the object with the greatest apparent brightness to us, other than small lights, illuminates the atmosphere, scattering light, making fainter objects impossible to see.
We have thick atmosphere that blocks view even to drones flying up a bit.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/75637/how-high-can-an-airplane-be-spotted-with-eyesight
Wrong again.
The drones are small, and quickly aren't resolvable.
And notice how you entirely ignore an honest answer from your link?
This does not imply that you cannot see the airplane at a greater distance any more. It just means you cannot resolve it any more, i.e. it will appear as a faint dot.
Once more, this has NOTHING to do with your eyes magically not being able to see beyond a certain distance.
Instead, it is a small object, which gets too small to resolve.
Again, your ability to see something depends upon how large it is, how far away it is, how bright it is, how bright the surroundings are, and if there is anything blocking the view.
If something is bright enough, and there is nothing blocking the view, then the larger it is the further away it can be resolved. And that is quite simple math/physics. If you double the size, you double the distance it can be resolved, because if an object is twice as far but twice as large, it has the same angular size.
Now, are you going to stop with the dishonest BS?
Or will you continue to lie to everyone to show how dishonest and desperate you are?
-
Yet we should believe in your transdimensional god and your day of the week gender?
Similarly unsimilarly, just because your brain cant comprehend a number doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
It's not that I can't comprehend a number. It's that the number itself is bogus.
If we said the furthest satellite from Earth is... (checks internet) Voyager 1 at 15,105,614,850 miles away, and did some math (Fermi method: It's been gone for roughly 46 years, so 46 years x 365 days in a year x 24 hours in a day x mph... 15,105,614,850 / 402960 = 37486.6360185 mph), I would quickly decide that the speed of such a satellite is completely absurd.
It's not that I cannot imagine that. I certainly can, and I quickly imagine that at this speed, Voyager 1 would have to be pushed like crazy by something because there isn't enough fuel in the world to generate that kind of propulsion.
Just one problem. It's gotta push against something right? Well, since I don't think outer space means no resistance but quite the opposite, I do not see momentum continuing but rather Voyager 1 having fallen back to Earth long ago.
And there's another problem. Because my buoyant model of space doesn't support moving into areas without atmosphere, we have to look at how that process works in atmosphere, theorizing that it hit this speed while in atmosphere and momentum carried it somehow despite resistance. The problem there is that in atmosphere, friction would possibly cause it to be crushed (wind resistance) or burst into flames. Yeah I can imagine it. I can imagine it being destroyed a number of ways.
Made up numbers can be exposed for what they are: a scientist's son being asked to come up with a number, writing down 200 billion gazillion, removing the gazillion, and then adding numbers other than zero to make it look scientific.
Court astrologers. This is what these people are and have always been.
(https://www.fulltable.com/ak/BBB/13.jpeg)
Nope the silly egret robe and funny hat. This man studies the Earth using a presupposed notion of it being round, not by actually exploring the Earth.
Astronomers is a name they adopted to come across as scientific, but I know history and know that chemistry grew out of the superstition of alchemy while astronomy came from astrology. It still is stuck in its pagan roots though. They've been feeding us nonsense in hopes we believe their view of the world. Truly I say to you, the "astronomers" of today are no better than the astrologers that divided the year into 12 animals.
https://www.mic.com/articles/155350/why-is-astrology-fake-nasa-tumblr-post-explains
No matter how much they claim different. Same nonsense repackaged as science.
-
Great that you arbitrarily "decided" the number is absurd.
Just like you aebitrarily "decised" you want to be a male today and a female tomorrow?
Like changig a hat.
"Adding digits to make it look more scientific?"
No
You confuse improved precision with faking it.
Feel free to DISprove the numbers as that would be easier than making them up.
-
It's not that I can't comprehend a number. It's that the number itself is bogus.
It isn't that it is bogus. It is that it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.
If we said the furthest satellite from Earth is... (checks internet) Voyager 1 at 15,105,614,850 miles away, and did some math (Fermi method: It's been gone for roughly 46 years, so 46 years x 365 days in a year x 24 hours in a day x mph... 15,105,614,850 / 402960 = 37486.6360185 mph), I would quickly decide that the speed of such a satellite is completely absurd.
Voyager is a space probe, not a satellite. That is because it isn't orbiting.
But notice how again you just dismiss it as absurd? Earth orbits the sun at roughly 30 km/s That is 108 000 km/hr, or roughly 67 500 archaic units per hour.
You even stated that before.
So something launched from Earth's orbit, slowing down to roughly half that orbital velocity is absurd?
Or do you also think Earth's orbital velocity is absurd?
There is nothing absurd about the speed.
You cannot show a fault with it.
You just dismiss it because you don't like it.
It's not that I cannot imagine that. I certainly can, and I quickly imagine that at this speed, Voyager 1 would have to be pushed like crazy by something because there isn't enough fuel in the world to generate that kind of propulsion.
Based upon what?
Your irrational hatred of reality?
Just one problem. It's gotta push against something right? Well, since I don't think outer space means no resistance but quite the opposite, I do not see momentum continuing but rather Voyager 1 having fallen back to Earth long ago.
Why?
It had to push against something to get moving.
That would be the rocket that launched it.
It then used gravitational assists from various planets to keep moving.
And yet again, you just assert BS with no justification.
Why should it have fallen back to Earth?
It was launched well above escape velocity. There is no reason at all for it to fall back to Earth.
It is even well above the escape velocity of the solar system, meaning it wont be falling back into the sun either.
And we don't need to stick to what YOU think.
It doesn't matter if YOU think outer space means magical resistance.
Reality shows the air resistance of a vacuum is negligible. That means there is basically nothing to slow it down other than gravity, unless it collides with something.
So again, why should it have fallen back down to Earth?
And there's another problem. Because my buoyant model of space doesn't support
Which is entirely a problem for you and your delusional model.
It is NOT a problem for reality, as your model has no connection to reality.
This also means we don't need to cling to your delusional BS of it needing to speed up in an atmosphere. Instead, it can be outside the atmosphere and still use a rocket to go faster.
I can imagine it being destroyed a number of ways.
And your imagination says nothing about reality.
Made up numbers can be exposed for what they are
And is that way you are unable to expose any issue with Voyager, and instead need to repeatedly appeal to your imagination?
Because the numbers aren't fake.
Meanwhile all the numbers you spout are BS and can be exposed as such?
Likewise, your BS claims can also be exposed.
So well that you need to flee from them and jump to yet another topic.
After entirely failing to show any large flat areas in Hyrule, you switched to claiming Saturn can't be seen the way it is because of how fast it is moving, while entirely ignoring scale. And when that dishonest BS of yours was exposed for the dishonest BS it is, you switched again to claiming you can't see because of distance. And when that dishonest BS was exposed for the dishonest BS it is, you switch topic yet again to Voyager.
When will you have the integrity to stick to the topic and accept your BS is wrong, or at the very least attempt to defend your dishonest BS in an honest way?
They've been feeding us nonsense in hopes we believe their view of the world.
You not liking it doesn't make it nonsense.
So yet again, you entirely fail to justify your delusional BS. You don't demonstrate the number is bogus, you just object to it because you don't like it, because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.
-
You not liking it doesn't make it nonsense.
Right, what makes it nonsense is that it is nonsense.
Even if we could somehow excuse the absolutely huge numbers, they are numerologically significant.
15,105,614,850
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerology
1- Alone/Only
5- My
1- Best
0- Beginning
1- My
6- Fortune & Happiness
148- Wealth for (one) lifetime
5- My
0- Beginning
This number entirely describes someone (NASA) and their get-rich-quick plan to monetary happiness. I don't believe in magic numbers. But an entire culture uses the fact that 4 ( 四 ) sounds like death ( 死 ) to an almost superstitious level. Are you aware that elevators in some countries skip certain floors?
When a number translates to a legit message, it ought to be time to stop placing your faith in the so-called "science" of these numbers. Whether for distance or time or speed or whatever.
Or do you also think Earth's orbital velocity is absurd?
Yes, I do. The fastest hurricane speed is 345 ("life-death-my/not") km/h. The rotation speed alone is over 1037 mph. Then we get into the orbit speed which is 66,600 mph (read "number of the Beast" x 100). I neither believe in this, nor do I believe in the apocalypse (I'm as skeptical of that).
No, I don't believe in the numbers at all. Wizards passing notes to each other.
Now let's look again at what this astrologer has missed by believing (and pushing) this nonsense.
(https://www.fulltable.com/ak/BBB/13.jpeg)
He's holding what appears to be a compass with a solar cross.
(https://img.etsystatic.com/il/a76487/1143085923/il_fullxfull.1143085923_tp6c.jpg?version=0)
The solar cross is not like the Christian cross, it represents the four seasons and the circuit of the sun. But if we combine this with the angle ruler (don't remember the name offhand) on the wall behind him...
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1176755766405898290/ParabolaAgain.png)
Just as when superstitious men stop fighting God and look around, they see the Cross is right in front of them, when they stop embracing the false teaching of globalism, the actual answer is on what they aren't focused on. The parabola is real. The curvature is not. By the way, this is how you divide a circle, not using pi, which would render a triangle inside a circle by using 3.14. Like this:
(https://howchimp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/triangle-with-circle.jpg)
This btw, is called a thaumaturgic circle. It's been used for summoning in at least two movies. It's also the symbol of Alcoholics Anonymous, proving that this is an evil group, which is why they use the term "higher power" (a vague term favored by Freemasons) rather than actually mentioning God.
https://www.reddit.com/r/alcoholicsanonymous/comments/c4ql3e/aa_and_the_freemasons/
I'm not the first person to think this, apparently.
This is distinct from the more proper Trinity symbol (I even accept the Triforce as better symbol, as some versions of Link did seem to be Christian before the Hylian religion supplanted it).
The ground is divided into four quadrants, not three.
https://tauday.com/tau-manifesto
A cross, not a triangle. Not that I don't approve of the Triune, but that symbol above ain't it.
-
Right, what makes it nonsense is that it is nonsense.
No. That is just your admission that it isn't nonsense and you hate it.
You would actually need something to show it is nonsense. But you have nothing.
All you can do is object that you don't like it.
they are numerologically significant.
So you try to claim something is nonsense, by appealing to pure BS?
BS which will happily manipulate numbers however they please, to get whatever BS conclusion they want, with no justification for why the numbers should be like that.
Just look at your BS, you take most of the numbers as single numbers, but then combine 3 of them together.
And you aren't even consistent in the meaning.
You have the number 1 appear 3 times, with different meaning.
Not to mention you literally just pull a number from no where with no explanation of what it is.
Looking back it is your claimed distance to Voyager 1, but where did you pull it from? Especially given that number is constantly changing.
Yes, I do. The fastest hurricane speed is 345 ("life-death-my/not") km/h. The rotation speed alone is over 1037 mph. Then we get into the orbit speed which is 66,600 mph
Congrats on listing a bunch of speed that prove nothing.
(read "number of the Beast" x 100).
If you don't want the "number of the Beast" how about you stop with the archaic BS and use the metric system?
It is ~30 km/s, which is ~ 108000 km/hr.
I neither believe in this
And your disbelief doesn't make it false.
You not liking it doesn't make it false.
Can you show any actual fault with it?
NO!
Now let's look again at what this astrologer has missed by believing (and pushing) this nonsense.
You mean lets yet again flee from the issue because you cannot justify your BS at all, EVER!
when they stop embracing the false teaching of globalism
You mean when they flee from reality and try to embrace delusional BS?
You are yet to show any fault with the RE model.
Conversely, plenty of problems with your BS have been demonstated.
The one with the false teaching here is you.
The parabola is real. The curvature is not.
Then why are you completely incapable of providing any evidence for your delusional parabola or defending it against the multitude of faults that it has been shown to have?
Why are you entirely incapable of showing any fault with the curvature and instead need to resort to pathetic lies which are trivial to refute?
All the evidence shows the curvature is real and your parabola is delusional BS.
Again, can you show these large flat areas of Hyrule?
If not, can you admit your claims about Saturn are pure BS based upon wilfully misrepresenting the scale to make an incredibly dishonest comparison?
If not, can you admit your BS about magically limited vision is clearly BS as it is refuted by countless observations, including your own admission that you can see things much further than you can see other things.
-
Right, what makes it nonsense is that it is nonsense.
No. That is just your admission that it isn't nonsense and you hate it.
You would actually need something to show it is nonsense. But you have nothing.
All you can do is object that you don't like it.
Hereafter, I proved that entire thing can be broken down into magical thinking. Meaning that far from being svience, it was all just superstition. The next Voyager distance will be another long set of numbers, this one using Hebrew gematria.
they are numerologically significant.
So you try to claim something is nonsense, by appealing to pure BS?
BS which will happily manipulate numbers however they please, to get whatever BS conclusion they want, with no justification for why the numbers should be like that.
Just look at your BS, you take most of the numbers as single numbers, but then combine 3 of them together.
And you aren't even consistent in the meaning.
You have the number 1 appear 3 times, with different meaning.
Not to mention you literally just pull a number from no where with no explanation of what it is.
Looking back it is your claimed distance to Voyager 1, but where did you pull it from? Especially given that number is constantly changing.
It was from Wikipedia. That day.
https://www.astrology.com/horoscope/daily.html
In what way is that different from a horoscope of the day? It's not. This is your daily message from the number wizards.
Yes, I do. The fastest hurricane speed is 345 ("life-death-my/not") km/h. The rotation speed alone is over 1037 mph. Then we get into the orbit speed which is 66,600 mph
Congrats on listing a bunch of speed that prove nothing.
The point being that a hurricane (I think I meant tornado but anyway) will rip your body into shreds. And we have the entire Earth go at this speed multiplied a few times. And then pulled along at far greater speed.
Yet Earth always seems to have fairly gentle weather. It has droughts, days without wind, something that would happen if Earth wasn't in constant spin but rather the sky around us was able to move any direction it wished.
(read "number of the Beast" x 100).
If you don't want the "number of the Beast" how about you stop with the archaic BS and use the metric system?
It is ~30 km/s, which is ~ 108000 km/hr.
Hahahahaha. Yeah, uhhhh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/108_(number)
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mystical108
108 is the number of temptations humans face in the Buddhist concept of reality (this world, known as Desire Realm). Doubled, that number is equal to 6x6x6. Yes, you cannot make this stuff up.
And you literally have 3 x 10. Ten is an occult mystical number not shared by the Judeo-Christian tradition. We based measurements on the human body. It is also designed so it can be divided into 1/3, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, and so on. Inches and feet are quite useful for real world measurements. The metric system was an end result of the French Revolution, a brutal peasant uprising that resulted not only in much of French being shot in violent conflict, but also random people being beheaded. It was then imposed on the other nations not by any real science but largely by force.
Free men oppose measurements by fiat. Obviously, we should embrace feet, which was based on some random king's foot. Or cubits, the distance from middle finger to elbow on some ideal perfect human.
But anyway. All of these numbers are made by Freemasons passing funny numbers around. Not by true science, which would toss all of this into the dumpster. There is no evidence of this orbit or rotation. The stars have remained in the same place for thousands of years.
I neither believe in this
And your disbelief doesn't make it false.
You not liking it doesn't make it false.
Can you show any actual fault with it?
NO!
I just did. The entire thing is broken down into numerology.
Now let's look again at what this astrologer has missed by believing (and pushing) this nonsense.
You mean lets yet again flee from the issue because you cannot justify your BS at all, EVER!
Shhhh, no need to shout. It's all gonna be okay.
The parabola is real. The curvature is not.
Then why are you completely incapable of providing any evidence for your delusional parabola or defending it against the multitude of faults that it has been shown to have?
Why are you entirely incapable of showing any fault with the curvature and instead need to resort to pathetic lies which are trivial to refute?
The fault to the curvature is that there is no evidence it exists. It's based on a misreading of line of sight, where you think objects are dipping into a hill, when actually they are shrinking due to diminishing angle.
Using that guy's tool (I still can't think of its name, but I wanna say protractor), I can go up to a tree and handily draw a line to the top. Then I can back and notice that the same line to the tree diminishes. No tricky curve beneath my feet, angle reduces due to distance. The way you perceive the world is just taught to you wrong. That's all.
The other fault to the curvature is that it's propped up by literal wizards, generations of families who throw around symbolic numbers and giggle a bit everytime the number 167 (sounds like "dick" in Chinese) appears. When you toss these numbers aside, you get to deal with real math and science, which insists science ought to match what you see, and not tell you that even though you see flat surface and the sun going across the Earth, it's really the Earth that is moving and it's a sphere.
Oh yes, I've shown why there is no curvature till I'm blue in the face, starting with the fact that a real sphere would have profound angular curves every 3000 miles which don't work with actual trips across the country. And Earth's water at the very least ought to spin around the surface of Earth if not drip straight down it, causing endless destructive flooding and displaced tidal activity. But Earth's water is completely consistent with a still and nonmoving mass, having only minor tidal activity. You ignore the science and throw these mystical numbers at me.
-
Numerology????
Just because you and us know that numerology is nonsense doesnt mean you need to project those feelings towards those astronomical numbers fhat 'sound fake" to you.
-
Hereafter, I proved that entire thing can be broken down into magical thinking.
No, you didn't.
You proved you can pretend it is all magical thinking.
But you haven't shown any fault with the numbers or the science behind them.
Deflecting to BS like numerology just shows you have no case.
It was from Wikipedia. That day.
Yet you didn't provide a link, and still don't.
So I still dismiss it as you just making up a number like you do so often.
The point being that a hurricane (I think I meant tornado but anyway) will rip your body into shreds.
Due to the RELATIVE motion.
Understand that key part?
Speed itself is not a problem.
Jet planes travel at roughly 1000 km/hr. Yet people happily sit on them, walk back and forth down the isle, and so on with no problem at all.
They are being ripped apart by the speed, because speed isn't the problem.
Relative speed is.
So again, you are spouting a bunch of numbers that prove nothing.
You are dishonestly appealing to things which seem fast to pretend Earth can't be going that fast.
But you aren't demonstrating any problem with it.
Again, you don't like so you dismiss it.
It has droughts, days without wind, something that would happen if Earth wasn't in constant spin but rather the sky around us was able to move any direction it wished.
PROVE IT!
Stop just asserting delusional BS and start proving your claims.
108 is the number of temptations
i.e. more numerology BS.
This just demonstrates just how much BS it is.
You happily switch it up to whatever BS you can think of to pretend it is BS without showing any fault.
You can take any number and manipulate to get whatever BS you want.
Yes, you cannot make this stuff up.
Yes, you can. As you just did.
And as you just further demonstrated how you get to whatever number you want.
You don't have 666 handed to you on a plate, just BS with the numbers until you do.
Arbitrarily multiply it by 2 and look at a particular factorisation.
There is no reason to do any of that.
You just do it to try to dismiss it as BS.
Inches and feet are quite useful for real world measurements.
No, they aren't. Especially not when you want to try to switch between units.
There is no evidence of this orbit or rotation. The stars have remained in the same place for thousands of years.
You repeating the same dishonest BS doesn't make it true.
There are mountains of evidence for the orbit and rotation.
Yet again you entirely ignore distance or scale to pretend it is a problem, and you blatantly lie by claiming the stars have remained in the same place.
The stars have been observed to move. There is stellar parallax, stellar aberration, and the proper motion of stars.
So yet again, you just assert BS to pretend there is a problem.
All while fleeing from your previously refuted BS.
I just did. The entire thing is broken down into numerology.
No, you didn't.
You appealed to numerology as if it proves anything.
It doesn't.
You haven't shown any fault with the science behind it.
According to your delusional BS, if I am trying to measure the distance between 2 points, and I get a really long tape measure and measure it to be 666 m, it is fake.
That is insanity.
You being able to just lie about numbers and manipulate them however you please proves NOTHING except your desperation.
Numerology is pure BS about manipulating however you please to get whatever conclusion you please.
There is no method to that madness.
It is mess around with the numbers until you get what you want.
The fault to the curvature is that there is no evidence it exists.
Except the mountains of evidence you ignore.
Such as how the distance to the horizon is based upon your altitude in a manner consistent with curvature.
The measurable angle of dip to the horizon, again consistent with curvature, including how it increases with increasing elevation.
How objects (including the sun) disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon.
How tall buildings are visible beyond the horizon, but the bottom of them obscured by Earth as if the building have sunk into Earth.
How celestial objects, clearly a great distance away due to their apparent brightness and apparent size and shape (for stars that would be constellations) not changing significantly throughout the day or being different between different observers; yet they appear at different angles relative to Earth's surface clearly showing the angle of Earth's surface changes based upon location.
Mapping efforts with the numbers only fitting a round surface.
The multitude of flight paths, which only make sense on a RE.
The fact that there are 2 celestial poles always 180 degrees apart which the stars appear to rotate around, with you being able to entire circle either one keeping it to one side of you.
The illumination pattern of the sun, specifically the areas it lights up.
The measurements showing the rotation of Earth such as laser ring gyroscopes and Focault's pendulum, and how that varies with latitude.
And literal photos of earth from space clearly showing the curve.
There is so much evidence of curvature it isn't funny.
It's based on a misreading of line of sight, where you think objects are dipping into a hill, when actually they are shrinking due to diminishing angle.
As explained to you repeatedly, if they were merely shrinking, the bottom wouldn't disappear and they wouldn't appear to sink into Earth.
The other fault to the curvature is that it's propped up by literal wizards
Literal wizards don't exist.
But that wouldn't be a fault to it.
If literal wizards "propped up" the idea that humans exist, would you then boldly declare that they don't?
When you toss these numbers aside, you get to deal with real math and science, which insists science ought to match what you see
Which the RE does, while your delusional BS does not. You are the one refusing to engage with real math and science, because it doesn't match your fantasy.
-
Oh yes, I've shown why there is no curvature till I'm blue in the face
No, you haven't.
Again, all you have done is repeat the same pathetic lies which have been refuted countless times.
starting with the fact that a real sphere would have profound angular curves every 3000 miles
No, that would be something more like a cube.
A real sphere doesn't not magically stay flat for 3000 miles and then magically curve.
A real sphere has that curve continually.
So if you want to see that profound curve, you need to be able to see those 3000 archaic units.
e.g. from space, where you easily can.
And Earth's water at the very least ought to spin around the surface of Earth if not drip straight down it
And again, you just assert delusional nonsense with no justification.
For a RE, down is towards the centre.
There is no magical universal down.
If you wish to claim there is, you need to show there is, not just boldly assert it.
You want to pretend the south pole is magically the bottom of Earth, but there is absolutely no reason for that.
So no, there is absolutely no reason for water to magically pool at the south pole and then fly up into space. That is just your delusional BS.
As for spin, in what way?
Do you mean it should fly up into space? Because we have been over that as well, the rotation is far too slow, at a rate of ~1 revolution per day.
But Earth's water is completely consistent with a still and nonmoving mass, having only minor tidal activity.
It is also completely consistent with a round and rotating Earth, and you are yet to show any fault with that.
You ignore the science and throw these mystical numbers at me.
That would be you.
Ignoring all the science, and appealing to numerology to pretend things are BS.
Just pulling numbers from no where to pretend there is a problem.
Making bold assertions based upon absolutely nothing except your delusional fantasy.
Real science and math shows you are wrong.
Just like it did above which you decided to flee from.
Remember how you dishonestly appealed to the linear velocities of Saturn and Earth to pretend you wouldn't be able to see Saturn from Earth for any significant period of time?
Remember how you dishonestly compared it to seeing a hitchhiker that is very close as you drive around a curve while entirely ignoring the scale and how your pathetic "model" doesn't match what is expected for Earth and Saturn at all?
Remember how when that was pointed out you just fled like the dishonest coward you are; trying to switch to an entirely different argument rather than admit you are knowingly spouting pure BS?
-
Numerology????
Just because you and us know that numerology is nonsense doesnt mean you need to project those feelings towards those astronomical numbers fhat 'sound fake" to you.
So you expect me to believe this is a real number when not only the imperial unit but also the metric has a mystical number?
Nah, this is clearly freemasonry at work.
These are astrological numbers, not astronomical numbers.
-
So you expect me to believe this is a real number when not only the imperial unit but also the metric has a mystical number?
With numerology, ALL NUMBERS ARE MYSTICAL!
You can take any number and just magically make it mystical by manipulating it however you please and using whatever BS numerology system you please.
And you are still yet to provide a source for your number.
If it was on Wikipedia, you would be able to provide the snapshot of the page.
I desire you to provide a legitimate reason to defend your position, not just appeal to BS numerology.
Just like I desire you to get back on topic, and point out these large flat sections or admit that there aren't any.
Like I desire you to address your blatant misrepresentation of Saturn and accept your pathetic model is in no way comparable to the real system due to the complete lack of scale, where you do not scale the distance and speed equally.
Like I desire you to accept that fact that your vision is not magically limited, and if an object is big enough and/or bright enough you will be able to see it, even if it is incredibly far away, as demonstrated by your inability to see tiny things when they are a moderate distance away while you can still see much larger things much further away.
And so on.
But I expect (given your history) that you will continue with this dishonest BS, deflecting from the refutations of your BS by bringing up other crap instead.
-
Some are more mystical numbers than others. If I type 789, the only significance it has is a kid's joke ("why are the numbers afraid of seven?")
But the odds of one number being around 666 (we don't could zeros) and another being 108 make it rather obvious that this number is intentionally planned so people like me can be creeped out while those wearing outfits like this
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/c6/8d/57c68d84b51cf6c678f6bf16512c9da7.jpg)
high five each other at the larger public not noticing these numbers as signals.
-
But the odds of one number being around 666 (we don't could zeros) and another being 108 make it rather obvious that this number is intentionally planned
No, it doesn't.
If you take 108 and convert to normal units, you get 67. So it is quite likely for one number to be around 666 and another around 108.
You are dishonestly rounding it to pretend it is bad.
And given how many different units you can use, it is almost certain you can get some BS number from it.
That is why numerology is BS.
You don't even care for it being 666.
You happily do whatever you want to the number, to get whatever BS you want out of it.
And you don't even care what the actual numbers are. You are happy to just arbitrarily "round" it to 666 because it is close enough.
If it is 66600 miles per hour, then it is 107000 km/hr (or more accurately 107182.31 km/hr).
If it is 108000 km/hr, then it is 67100 miles per hour (or more accurately 67108.0888 miles per hour).
You also claim to ignore 0s, but say it is 108, instead of 18.
Again, you do what you want to get whatever BS you want.
You use it as a pathetic excuse to reject reality.
Now again, care to try rationally defending your dishonest BS?
Or owning up to your numerous prior BS and admitting it was BS?
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1184226361947213915/math-piano.jpg)
Math ultimately is a series of bullshit estimates. How do we know how far away the Earth is from the sun? Did someone risk life and limb to fly to the sun? No. Some "genius" sat in a study somewhere, and estimated from a very limited range point the amount. Same for the bottom of the ocean. How do we know its depth? We have Navy people (non-disclosure agreements) and the ultra-rich using submarines, which are unaffordable for the rest of us. Nobody has visited the Earth's core cuz lava. South Pole? By invitation only, thanks to a treaty. When we can't even be sure how deep or wide this world is, how can we trust the nonsense about our sun's distance? But but astronauts! They know what they are talking about (nondisclosure agreement & connections to Masonry)!
And then later we show shots of vehicles going into space (after Hollywood is able to convincingly produce shots of space travel despite not having a real ship). Here, have you even seen Orbiter 9?
Unless I got the wrong video, the girl in question is convinced she is in space. The "shuttle" does all the prep work to convince her that she's somewhere she isn't. Turns she's in an underground bunker, and the other "astronaut" arrives by truck.
Even if these numbers weren't numerology, they would still be nonsense.
Here's a nice formula, right?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184231140454826054/formula.jpg)
What if I told you this formula was actually alchemy? You know, that superstitious nonsense about lead into gold?
-
Math ultimately is a series of bullshit estimates.
No. Math is a way of performing calculations with numbers to get other numbers.
Just like if you want to know how tall a building is, you don't need to get a ruler to measure it, instead you can measure to some short distance away from it, and observe the angle to the top, to calculate the distance.
Or to see how far away a plane is, you can time how long it takes for light to go back and forth and calculate the distance based upon the speed of light.
You not liking it because it doesn't match your fantasy doesn't mean it is BS estimates.
How do we know how far away the Earth is from the sun?
We knew it must be very far from multiple observations which have been explained to you before.
We could get a lower bound based upon measurements of the angle of separation of the moon and sun during a quarter moon.
But the distance was first determined accurately by observations of the transit of Venus from multiple locations on Earth, a known distance apart, followed by the application of simple geometry.
We can also get it from measured stellar aberration and the known length of a year.
This is not a BS estimate.
It is a calculation based upon measured values.
If you don't trust it, you can go and do it all yourself (with the help of a friend).
Same for the bottom of the ocean. How do we know its depth?
Sonar.
Even if these numbers weren't numerology, they would still be nonsense.
You not liking it doesn't make it nonsense.
Here's a nice formula, right?
No, the closest thing to a formula there is maxZ = Sum(s).
With no indication of what any of it is meant to be.
But you trying to provide a BS formula, doesn't negate the formulae based upon reality.
-
So youre saying if your ruler doesnt measure to the atom then the measuremnt is bullshit?
Ah there was afunny YT about how carpenter and other trades cut wood.
Cant find it...
Imagine it.
-
Here's a nice formula, right?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184231140454826054/formula.jpg)
What if I told you this formula was actually alchemy? You know, that superstitious nonsense about lead into gold?
LOL. You have an actual source for this being alchemy and not some random bit of clip art you found?
What if I told you that anyone with a high school education would instantly recognize that as a mismash of random math, geometry, chemistry and some illegible scrawling and means nothing at all?
Just because you can't understand math doesn't mean it's not real. It's a you problem. Again.
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184673466763464784/image.png)
LOL. You have an actual source for this being alchemy and not some random bit of clip art you found?
What if I told you that anyone with a high school education would instantly recognize that as a mismash of random math, geometry, chemistry and some illegible scrawling and means nothing at all?
Which is to say alchemy. Alchemy was a random mix of religion (mostly Kabbalah and Gnostic), chemistry, physics, and astrology. Alchemy combines the movements of the sun and moon with ideas about philosophy and spiritual growth. It's exactly easier to call it nonsense.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/85/14/49/851449bd7b25b7327c307c27ea57d31a.gif)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xKfYeSFgNHw/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/history/carnegie/newton/alchemy.jpg)
I've actually studied alchemy, both the Chinese and the Paracelsus type.
The last one here is by "Sir" Isaac Newton. Most of the famous "scientists" were actually occultists.
If you see a formula that overlaps with lot of disciplines, makes a half-sense but not really, or uses weird symbols like this stuff, yeah. I know phony numbers when I see them, in the same way I know alchemy, astrology, phrenology, and cheiromancy when I see it.
For the record, I took math up to trig. This is real math and science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
In theory, you would be able to use the Fermi method to solve for things like the distance of the sun. But the reason I "don't understand the math" (translation: know it is wrong) is because we have incomplete values, or values that we are told we know but not told how it is even possible to know.
Just as a flurry of mathematical gibberish that faith is required to accept it (read: alchemy) is nonsense, any Fermi formula where the value is either not defined or defined by people not by observations. If you are able to count the number of individual molecules of carbon in a square foot of air, you could in theory use the Fermi method to compare a volcano to all the cars in the world. But we do not know how many cars there are in the world, because some people have ten cars for showing to their rich friends, some have two, and some have none nor do their friends; nor do we know per square foot how much CO2 is near a given space near a volcano. Similarly, while we can guess the distance, this is inherently based on a stubborn assumption we have about whether the Earth is flat or round. My math teacher? "Never assume. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me." So I don't assume. Flat Earth seems more reasonable for a lot of reasons, but I don't trust math either for or against RE.
Yes, there is math and science to analyze orders of magnitude like distance and time and all the rest. But without complete information, it is a guess. Or a lie. Do we have complete information about climate change or globalism? No, we do not. We have at least a fifty years of doctored graphs for the first one, and at least 400 years of Masons and other spooks trying to brainwash us on the latter. You're welcome to assume math and science based on outright misinformation, but I think I'll tell you...
(https://c.tenor.com/O_oky6gtatUAAAAC/tenor.gif)
-
If you see a formula that overlaps with lot of disciplines, makes a half-sense but not really, or uses weird symbols like this stuff, yeah. I know phony numbers when I see them, in the same way I know alchemy, astrology, phrenology, and cheiromancy when I see it.
Yet you are yet to show how it doesn't make sense.
For the record, I took math up to trig. This is real math and science.
And yet you fail at basic trig.
In theory, you would be able to use the Fermi method to solve for things like the distance of the sun. But the reason I "don't understand the math" (translation: know it is wrong) is because we have incomplete values, or values that we are told we know but not told how it is even possible to know.
The issue is you don't like the answers, so you dismiss it as nonsense, quite often with incredibly dishonest BS.
Similarly, while we can guess the distance
We can do more than just guess.
We can calculate it from observations.
this is inherently based on a stubborn assumption we have about whether the Earth is flat or round.
You mean it is based upon parts of reality that you hate, so you want to pretend it is just an assumption.
Earth being round is NOT an assumption. It is a conclusion based upon mountains of evidence.
So I don't assume.
Instead you repeatedly lie.
Flat Earth seems more reasonable
That sure sound like an assumption, especially given all your "reasons" are blatant lies or blatant misrepresentations of reality, the RE model or the FE model.
There is NOTHING to indicate a FE is more reasonable.
The only basis for that is a pathetic assumption that flat is the default and wilful ignorance.
But without complete information, it is a guess. Or a lie.
No, it is an estimation, with a level of uncertainty.
I don't need complete information on the exact distance between 2 points down to the atom, to be able to have a reasonably accurate distance to know how long a wire has to be to connect them.
I don't need all the information on exactly how much power a computer would use to determine what wattage power supply I need to have it operate well.
We have at least a fifty years of doctored graphs for the first one
You mean graphs you hate, which you doctored to pretend there isn't a problem.
and at least 400 years of Masons and other spooks trying to brainwash us on the latter.
You mean mountains of evidence gathered over thousands of years, including simple experiments you can do yourself; which you are desperate to reject because you can't handle reality?
You're welcome to assume math and science based on outright misinformation
I wont, which is why I reject your BS.
(https://c.tenor.com/O_oky6gtatUAAAAC/tenor.gif)
Well you got that right, you certainly have enough crazy for everyone.
-
Now, is it possible to get around in TOTK/BOTW? Yes. Is it possible to know how high the sky extends? Yes, because people actually did it. How deep? It's been explored. The map is flat because you can fall off the edge of the land of Hyrule and those other lands are basically "west of Westeros". There is no sign of a wraparound, sofor all we know, Hyrule is just one part of an infinite plane of isekai worlds.
We don't need fake math to estimate the length/width/height of Hyrule. Using Link himself as a model against the coordinates, you are able to figure out the height of Hyrule by multiplying (Link's height x max coordinate) and its width by (Link's width x radial max coordinate x 2 (for diameter)).
We can discover Hyrule by exploring. Sitting in your room doing math about Earth's distance from the sun is delusion. Not real measurement. By the way, how exactly can you be sure of the distance to the "South Pole" if the government has treaties (and don't even deny these, you can look them up on Wikipedia) against the public visiting Antarctica? A radial measurement from equator north only works for an assumption that the Earth is not a series of widening concentric circles. If you base all your math on lies and assumptions that other people tell you, then you always get the results they want.
-
So now you go back to the same refuted BS about Zelda, after continually failing to justify your claims about numbers being fake?
Now, is it possible to get around in TOTK/BOTW?
Yes, but only to a certain entirely artificial limit made for the game world.
Can we see lands stretching beyond that limit? Yes.
Is this the same limit as BotW? No.
sofor all we know, Hyrule is just one part of an infinite plane of isekai worlds.
Which is just a fancy way of saying you have no idea at all.
So for all we know, Hyrule is just one part of a big spherical world.
Claiming it is flat is no more justified than claiming it is round.
We don't need fake math to estimate the length/width/height of Hyrule.
No, instead you can easily use a minigame which tells you distance to determine a distance on the map and then use that.
We find out the game world is tiny. Less than 10 km wide.
Sitting in your room doing math about Earth's distance from the sun is delusion. Not real measurement.
You not liking reality doesn't make it nonsense.
People used real measurements to calculate the distance.
That is not delusional.
That is basic math.
By the way, how exactly can you be sure of the distance to the "South Pole" if the government has treaties (and don't even deny these, you can look them up on Wikipedia) against the public visiting Antarctica?
They don't. That is a blatant lie continually repeated by FEers that don't even bother to look at the treaty.
The treaty prohibits MILITARY and damaging the ecosystem.
Members of the public can go.
A radial measurement from equator north only works for an assumption that the Earth is not a series of widening concentric circles.
And you don't need to go all the way to the south pole to recognise it is shrinking as you go south.
Especially as there is a south celestial pole which can be seen due south of all observers once they reach the equator, where you can film a time-lapse of star trails and see them appearing to circle a point, the same point for everyone.
That means there is a point due south of everyone.
If you base all your math on lies and assumptions that other people tell you, then you always get the results they want.
Is that why you never get reality? Because all you have are lies and assumptions?
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184673466763464784/image.png)
LOL. You have an actual source for this being alchemy and not some random bit of clip art you found?
What if I told you that anyone with a high school education would instantly recognize that as a mismash of random math, geometry, chemistry and some illegible scrawling and means nothing at all?
Which is to say alchemy. Alchemy was a random mix of religion (mostly Kabbalah and Gnostic), chemistry, physics, and astrology. Alchemy combines the movements of the sun and moon with ideas about philosophy and spiritual growth. It's exactly easier to call it nonsense.
So you do NOT have an actual source for your bit of clip art being actual alchemy. How shocking.
What you have is a google search NOT showing the image you posted, and links to other images that are also NOT the source.
You posted some random clip art you found on a random discord channel, called it alchemy, and have no idea where it actually came from.
Come back when you have an actual source for that image.
Once again, you not understanding how math works doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means you can't understand it.
-
So you do NOT have an actual source for your bit of clip art being actual alchemy. How shocking.
What you have is a google search NOT showing the image you posted, and links to other images that are also NOT the source.
You posted some random clip art you found on a random discord channel, called it alchemy, and have no idea where it actually came from.
Come back when you have an actual source for that image.
Once again, you not understanding how math works doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means you can't understand it.
They appear to be using discord to host their images.
The image is 3rd from the left in the top row.
This appears to be the original source:
https://stamperiab2b.com/shop-by-category/stencils/thick-stencils/size-cm-20x25/4447-thick-stencil-cm-20x25-alchemy-formulas
-
So you do NOT have an actual source for your bit of clip art being actual alchemy. How shocking.
What you have is a google search NOT showing the image you posted, and links to other images that are also NOT the source.
And what would you consider an "actual source"? The original name of the picture is alchemyformula(somenumber).jpg, was found through a search specifically for alchemy formula among other alchemy pictures, its very nature seems to be related to chemistry and the physics of atoms.
So unless you can tell me what alchemy isn't, yeah it's alchemy.
Apparently your robot eyes can't detect the third image on the page, the black and white image identical to what I posted.
I posted that on Discord because it's a go-to for rehosting pictures since alot of the image sites have gone down over the years.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184673466763464784/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1184231140454826054/formula.jpg)
Same image.
Once again, you not understanding how math works doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means you can't understand it.
I actually do understand it. I also understand that there is a concept in called proof of impossibility, or, "this problem cannot be solved from the information given."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Suppose I make a problem like this...
A train carrying passengers is traveling on a route moving at 65 mph, while in the opposite direction a train carrying coal to the depot is moving at 25 mph. In a nearby road, a bus is moving in the same direction as the train, but is going only 40 mph. How many people total are wearing red?
I cannot solve this problem using the information given because it is incomplete.
Okay, now suppose I have a problem like this.
As everyone knows, the moon is made from green cheese, and a bunny rabbit lives on the moon and pounds rice to make treats. Given that the cheese has a density of roughly 10 lb per sq ft, and the moon's surface area is 14.6 million square miles, how much does all of this weigh. Remember to add the weight of one bunny plus roughly 300 tons of rice to your total, as well as the pounding tool and the bucket.
I probably could solve this problem given the internet and the ability to look up random information (bucket weighs 5 to 15 lb if made out of wood, the rice mallet called an usu which I cannot find a weight to but looks to be about 3 to 8 lb, whereas the breed of rabbit big enough to lift such a mallet is about 12 lb), but its premise is nonsense. The moon is not made from green cheese, and there is no bunny on the moon pounding rice. Therefore some problems should not be solved except for curiosity, because their premise is built on lies or fables.
Yes, I understand the math of a round Earth. But the math is based on crackpot delusions of globalist nutters, so I have zero interest in solving even if the math is complete, which it isn't.
Yeah, I do understand math. And I understand when it's fake or incomplete.
-
I actually do understand it. I also understand that there is a concept in called proof of impossibility, or, "this problem cannot be solved from the information given."
The problem is when you take a problem where people do have the information, you just choose to be wilfully ignorant of it, to pretend the answer is all made up nonsense.
Yes, I understand the math of a round Earth. But the math is based on crackpot delusions of globalist nutters, so I have zero interest in solving even if the math is complete, which it isn't.
No, the math is based upon observations and measurements of the real world, in a consistent framework that matches reality.
But you hate that reality, so you have no interest in solving it and instead will repeatedly lie about it.
-
Bull carp.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FO4p9p4PJXc/maxresdefault.jpg)
You don't believe because of your own observations. You believe because of old dead guys, so of whom have pretty flimsy rationale for their theory.
I based Flat Earth on my OWN observations. I can see that this Earth is a disc around myself, and that the sun seems to move as a parallel process. I can probably make an animation of it on RpgMaker, it you want. It would just involve pulling a parallax screen around in a circle. This doesn't match the horizontal spin at all, and the size of the sun is absurd. Especially when it perfectly matches the moon in allbut amount of light
-
RpgMaker 2003 being an extremely retro engine, uses 320 x 240 screen depth. So in a screen of 15 squares, having a view of the horizon means I have to do this. Green is the transparency, black is where I intend the picture to cut off.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186038134111223818/HorizonLine.png)
Now, if we are spinning around the sun, and the Earth is much smaller than the sun but at a distance to it, we can clearly see what actually would happen on a round Earth with regard to perspective. RpgMaker has experience spinning around. This part was automated so long as I drew a sun to move.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186034875308982313/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186034968426725477/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035012810854541/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035072067965019/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035120231166002/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035177504387282/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035241241018478/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035297369215057/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035367669923941/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035415875080312/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035606950777022/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035673032052756/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186035778225176668/image.png)
Is the sun setting here? No, it's moving offscreen. But in a manner consistent with the Earth spinning around and not consistent with with what we actually see, which is quite literally the sun circling the Earth.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186042072818520184/SunPath.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186042073376370788/SunPath3.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186042073728684162/SunPath5.png)
As you can see, I'm very much in the animation process of this. But it's real. Well, inasmuch as disc facing a parallax screen is real.
-
You don't believe because of your own observations. You believe because of old dead guys, so of whom have pretty flimsy rationale for their theory.
Every observation I have made is entirely consistent with a RE.
There is no observation I have ever made which is not consistent with a RE.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of observations I have made which are not consistent with a FE.
So the bullcrap is coming from you.
Even if other people have also contributed, my own observations would prevent me from accepting a FE and lead me to believe Earth is round.
I based Flat Earth on my OWN observations. I can see that this Earth is a disc around myself, and that the sun seems to move as a parallel process. I can probably make an animation of it on RpgMaker, it you want. It would just involve pulling a parallax screen around in a circle. This doesn't match the horizontal spin at all, and the size of the sun is absurd. Especially when it perfectly matches the moon in allbut amount of light
See, and this is more BS from you.
In order for me to see Earth as a flat disc, I would expect to see to the edge, or at least to a mountain above me.
Instead, I see it to some quite limited range, with me moving around allowing me to see a different area. With me going up higher allowing me to see further.
This entirely consistent with observations of a ball. Where the closer I am to a ball, the less of it I see, and as I move around, I see different areas.
Likewise, the sun, it does not appear to be circling overhead.
A very simple observation of the sun is that it appears to set going below Earth.
This observation is directly opposed to the common FE models, so people like you need to invent so much extra BS to pretend it works.
There is nothing absurd about the size of the sun or moon, and even if it was, that still wouldn't magically make Earth flat.
Is the sun setting here? No, it's moving offscreen. But in a manner consistent with the Earth spinning around and not consistent with with what we actually see, which is quite literally the sun circling the Earth.
No, what we see here is consistent with someone at the south pole.
https://twistedsifter.com/videos/24-hours-of-sun-timelapse-antarctica-by-robert-schwarz/
I assume that is why you appealed to the BS horizontal rotation?
The rotation of Earth is about its axis.
That axis is only purely vertical at the poles.
For someone at the equator, that axis is horizontal.
What we see is the sun appear to circle Earth, and for those not at the poles, that plane is quite clearly not horizontal. For most observers, that plane quite clearly intersects Earth.
-
No, it's not! Your own theory says that Earth spins on its axis. No matter what angle you tilt it as, circular spin on a circular sphere translates into a straight line. Big sun plus straight line is what I programmed in my game. Essentially the sun is a still object that starts offscreen, and is pulls in a spin until it is offscreen the other way.
I programmed the screen to spin as you say the Earth does. I also sized it consistent with the notion that light does not dissipate over time, and that the sun despite supposed to be a distant object, appears to be at a size relative to distance. The end result is precisely effect. I actually shrunk it down, as its real size should be bigger than the screen.
Then I made a clockwork sun that simply moves according path instead of the room spinning.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344119128309780/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344119459651594/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344119837130802/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344120176885770/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344120541782086/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344120931844247/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344121401622578/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344121787482222/image.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/906913486028832832/1186344122194346015/image.png)
Conclusion? An area spinning about doesn't produce anything resembling the sun's path. Only by having the sun actually move can you get the distinct arc seen when you sit on a beach.
In order for me to see Earth as a flat disc, I would expect to see to the edge, or at least to a mountain above me.
Because you don't understand what I've tried to tell you for several threads now. A disc is a straight line in all directions. You can see the Earth as a disc by literally spinning in place and observing horizontal curvature.
I assume that is why you appealed to the BS horizontal rotation?
The rotation of Earth is about its axis.
That axis is only purely vertical at the poles.
For someone at the equator, that axis is horizontal.
A sphere rotates on an axis, yes, but that translates into a STRAIGHT LINE motion across the Earth. No amount of tilt does anything but move the sun lower or higher.
You can actually detect curvature of perspective rather clearly, as you look around a room. See? Even people making expressions know that horizontal perspective is curved. And when pressed on the Earth being round, people always refer to horizontal curve, or passing through the North Pole. But when asked why planes don't fly through the South Pole, there are excuses after excuses.
- "
Due to the windy and snowy conditions of the Antarctic mountains..." but there are planes that fly over the Andes, Swiss Alps, and over Himalayas. Our plane when flying to China flew over snow. Bullcrap. - "
There might be a whiteout" again true of any cold region. - "
And land there might expose passengers to harsh conditions" Yeah, I'm sure passenger safety is number 1 priority. - "
Penguins won't like it" There are other regions planes fly over that have endangered species - Actual reason? There are legit treaties in place to prevent casual flight over that area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System)
- They go on to talk about flying over the North and South Poles. But we have guidance systems, and we flew over the North Pole when heading to China. Flying over the South Pole? No, they take a long way around (across for southern flights). Because there isn't a South Pole. Compasses dip south of the equator because they are far away from the magnetic pull, not because there is a southern pull.
-
No, it's not! Your own theory says that Earth spins on its axis.
Yes, it's axis.
And what you have drawn is an axis which is vertical, at the location of the observer.
You have entirely ignored that the observer location moving around the RE will have the axis at a different angle to it.
If you like, you can keep the sun doing what it is doing, and instead change the orientation of the ground, as that is how the RE works.
Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/O9CxykP.png)
This is why your simulations are entirely useless. Because they aren't actually simulating anything, they are just drawing whatever BS you want to happen.
No matter what angle you tilt it as, circular spin on a circular sphere translates into a straight line.
But the direction of that line changes.
I actually shrunk it down, as its real size should be bigger than the screen.
Based upon what?
Yet again, you just spout pure BS.
The real angular size of the sun, based upon its physical size and distance should be roughly 0.5 degrees.
Then I made a clockwork sun that simply moves according path instead of the room spinning.
Where again you don't actually simulate anything and instead just draw in an arbitrary path which you want to display, so you can pretend your delusional BS works.
Conclusion?
You happily draw whatever BS you want to pretend to get whatever result you want, with no connection to reality or any model.
Because you don't understand what I've tried to tell you for several threads now.
No, because I do understand, and I don't just accept your delusional BS.
A flat surface does not produce a horizon except the edge.
That means if Earth was flat, I would see to the edge, either the actual edge of the FE disc, or mountains or the like.
Conversely a round surface DOES produce a horizon. I can easily see this on a hill, but I can also verify it from just using a small sphere (the larger the better).
Looking at that sphere, I can't see all of it. Part of the sphere blocks the view to more distant parts. I can see up to a certain distance from my eye in all directions.
That distance is dictated by a line tangent to the sphere from my eye.
That distance is an equal distance all around, creating a circular horizon, just like observed in reality.
A disc is a straight line in all directions. You can see the Earth as a disc by literally spinning in place and observing horizontal curvature.
No, you can't.
The fact you see a horizon, the same distance in all directions, shows that Earth is round, not flat.
A sphere rotates on an axis, yes, but that translates into a STRAIGHT LINE motion across the Earth. No amount of tilt does anything but move the sun lower or higher.
It changes the direction.
You can even try this yourself, go get a ball, attach a camera to it, and then rotate it so the camera is on the equator.
You can actually detect curvature of perspective rather clearly, as you look around a room.
No, you can't.
Not unless by that you mean things converging to a point, never reversing direction.
What you can do, is repeatedly lie by pretending the curvature of Earth is magically curvature of perspective.
And when pressed on the Earth being round, people always refer to horizontal curve
No, that would be the dishonest FEers, who demand to see a clearly visible circle in one direction on the horizon, instead of realising to see that you need to look down with a wide FOV.
Instead, quite often a vertical curve is also noted, such as the vertical curve which obstructs the view to distant objects.
But when asked why planes don't fly through the South Pole
A simple reason is given that there is no need to.
What route goes directly through the south pole which would have a large amount of traffic? NONE!
Instead, routes just go quite far south without going through the pole.
These routes are still a massive problem for a FE.
There are legit treaties in place to prevent casual flight over that area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System)
How about instead of just linking to the wikipedia page on the treaty, you tell us exactly what section says this?
Here is a link to the text of the main Antarctic treaty:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty
No, they take a long way around (across for southern flights).
No, they take the short way around.
Because there isn't a South Pole.
Then why does all the evidence show there is one?
Including how lines of latitude decrease in size as you go south?
And everyone at the equator or below can look due south at night and see the stars appear to circle a point?
Yet again, instead of dealing with your prior BS, you just throw loads more on to pretend Earth can't be round.
-
This is why your simulations are entirely useless. Because they aren't actually simulating anything, they are just drawing whatever BS you want to happen.
I'm simulating this.
(https://alearningfamily.com/main/wp-content/uploads/RotationSlyavulaEducationCR.jpg)
Carousel or Merry-Go-Round goes a similar rotating motion. (Start at about 5:00 for someone actually inside the ride)
You suddenly employ curved ground when all this time you've been showing me to that metal barrel where the individual grates are locally flat (consummate liar, aren't we?) and instead tell be that the round pitch of the s
As it goes around, look at any object and see if it moves in your arc. No, it appears to move continuously straight ahead when looking straight ahead, and going past straight across when from the side. You're expecting that the tilt would cause the object known as the sun to dip as you move around. But actually, you stop facing the sun when you move from the upper tilt to lower tilt. The position is simply wrong.
I'll add the sun so you understand what I mean.
But the direction of that line changes.
No, it really doesn't. The object in question would appear to be dragged rather than moving of its own accord.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186436158641668227/RotationSlyavulaEducationCR.jpg)
You would see straight across with only a minor dip at the periphery. But what we instead see every day is a profound curve, with the sun appearing 90 degrees from its original location.
-
I'm simulating this.
(https://alearningfamily.com/main/wp-content/uploads/RotationSlyavulaEducationCR.jpg)
Now consider someone on the equator. Which way is the red arrow going for them?
For example, someone in Africa.
They see the red line go up into the sky, pass overhead and then go down on the other side.
Matching what is observed, and showing what you provided before only applies to certain locations, and you claim about everywhere being sideways is pure BS.
Carousel or Merry-Go-Round goes a similar rotating motion.
Again, FOR THE POLES!
Not everywhere.
Again, what is the angle of the axis of rotation relative to the local up/down for these people?
It is parallel.
What is it for an observer on Earth?
Well that depends upon their location, specifically their latitude. At a latitude of 90 degrees, it is parallel. At a latitude of 0 it is perpendicular.
Why not try something else, like a Ferris wheel?
For example:
Look at how the centre of the ferris wheel appears to move, where it appears to circle vertically.
Or alternatively, put the camera sideways.
You suddenly employ curved ground when all this time you've been showing me to that metal barrel where the individual grates are locally flat
Great job entirely failing to understand the point.
The point of that is showing that if you consider any tiny portion of the curve, you can't tell it is curved.
But if you look at the entire thing, you can see the curve.
If you go around enough, you will be at a different angle.
No, it appears to move continuously straight ahead when looking straight ahead, and going past straight across when from the side.
Just like for an observer at the pole.
You're expecting that the tilt would cause the object known as the sun to dip as you move around.
I'm expecting that tilt to change the axis that it appears to be moving in, ranging from horizontal to vertical.
But actually, you stop facing the sun when you move from the upper tilt to lower tilt. The position is simply wrong.
Why?
Because you say so?
Because you need to spout pathetic lies about the RE to pretend there is a problem, because an honest analysis shows you are lying?
Here, instead of doing something useless like adding the sun, I will copy the axis around to show you what I mean:
(https://i.imgur.com/phgP07M.png)
Notice how at the poles, the axis is perpendicular to the ground, making the sun appear to move in a horizontal circle.
But for everywhere else, it isn't.
Instead, for everywhere else, the axis is NOT perpendicular. That means the sun will NOT appear to move in a horizontal circle.
Instead, it will appear to move in a circle at some angle.
At the equator the axis is parallel, so the sun will appear to move in a vertical circle.
This is incredibly simple to understand. Stop playing dumb.
No, it really doesn't.
Yes, it does.
Lying will not save you.
If the sun is rotating about an axis perpendicular to the ground, and you then consider a different location, with the ground at a different angle, then the axis cannot be perpendicular to the ground.
But what we instead see every day is a profound curve, with the sun appearing 90 degrees from its original location.
Just what is this meant to mean?
We typically see the sun move far more than 90 degrees.
During the southern summer, the azimuth appears to change by over 180 degrees.
-
On a RE at sea level, you are told that because of the angle of curvature, you cannot see more than 3 miles. But on a clea day, people were able to see the shores of Chiacgo 57 miles away.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186538333594193961/DistanceToChicago.png)
Instead of admitting this fraud for what it was, reporters doubled down and called it a mirage.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1186538333912956980/Mirage.png)
Oh and btw? They mention the azimuth equidistant map. It is a flat Earth map!
Frozen oxygen, not H2O is (probly) what the ice in "Antarctica" is made of.
https://temperatureask.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sky-ice/
It's a real term, but they blame it on Rayleigh scattering.
-
So you have realised your dishonest delusional BS with the sun stands no chance, so you just ditch it as if you never brought it up and move on to more dishonest delusional BS?
Why not stick to it? Or go back to thread on it and explain how your FE magic works?
The behaviour of the sun is consistent with a RE, not a FE.
On a RE at sea level, you are told that because of the angle of curvature, you cannot see more than 3 miles.
No, you are not.
That lie of yours has been exposed repeatedly.
Instead, you are told that for an observer height of roughly 2 m, the HORIZON is roughly 5 km away.
You can still see things beyond the horizon if they are high enough.
And if you go higher you can see further.
And that is without considering refraction.
Refraction is variable and can allow you to see further.
But on a clea day, people were able to see the shores of Chiacgo 57 miles away.
No they weren't.
They were able to see the skyline, on a day with significant refraction.
They were not able to see the shore.
Instead, it looks like the city sunk, with only the tops of the buildings visible.
Where did it go?
Your video also lies, claiming that the top of the tallest building should be 900 feet below the horizon.
But even if you pretend the observer height was 0, using the approximation of 8 inches per mile squared, you end up with 2166 ft for the drop.
The tallest building is 1451 ft (Willis Tower) not including the tip. That would put it 715 ft below the horizon.
Why is your video already so far off. 715 is quite different to 900.
And it just gets worse.
That was for an observer height of 0. But the park has a peak of roughly 128 ft above lake michigan. If you take that, and an observer height of 5 ft, that gives you a total height of 133 ft. That puts the horizon out to roughly 14 miles. That would mean you only have 43 miles beyond the horizon making the building sink.
That gives you 1233 ft hidden.
But as Willis Tower is 1451 ft, it isn't enough to hide it.
Oh and btw? They mention the azimuth equidistant map. It is a flat Earth map!
No, it is a RE map which FEers have taken to pretend it is a map of a flat Earth, even though it only matches reality when apply the distortions due to it being a projection.
Frozen oxygen, not H2O is (probly) what the ice in "Antarctica" is made of.
No, it isn't cold enough for that.
-
Unlike the so-called outer space, the Arctic Circle (I suppose we can agree on that term, even though you are talking about a circle that traps ice, and I am talking about a circle that contains this world) is humid. That is, air is thick enough that extreme temperatures matter.
Yes, they say that the temperature at which oxygen freezes is about 50 Kelvin. But your basis for this is what people have told you. Neither you nor I have touched solid oxygen. Maybe dry ice or liquid nitrogen not being touched is the closest we've come. But the FE has a different entire concept of how cold the outside of Earth gets. The edge of Earth is literally approaching absolute zero. The seas near Antarctica themselves are -60 F, and the penguins we see in pictures of "Antarctica" live further north. Yes, there is a tourist Antarctica and a real Antarctica. Kinda like Hawaii. Outside the resorts of Hawaii, you see something much different.
A cold wall cold enough to repair itself if taken down? Yup, we're in full-on Game of Thrones here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/could-a-game-of-thrones-ice-wall-exist-in-real-life/2017/12/15/f8eda2ee-e031-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html
Spoiler: they say it can't, because their model is based on the idea that "Antarctica" has much higher temperatures , instead of getting progressively colder the further you go towards the edge. They actually use the word "magic" to highlight how impossible it is.
Proof the media doesn't really believe in science. It is entirely possible for the outside edge of earth to be permafrost, even without invoking a blue ice made from oxygen. Glaciers themselves can be like giant walls. Not impossible. No, why they say this is impossible is because their sun is outside the Earth, where as a FE sun can entirely be possible as inside the Earth. They also assume it's made out of water, as water has different melt behavior than ultracold air. Which fully explains why there is an ice wall the further south you get. So without further ado...
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article14163970.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Flat-Earthers-are-planning-trip-to-Antarctica-to-reach-end-of-the-world.jpg)
-
So no comment at all on you just fleeing from topics that show your claims are pure BS, and that the sun shows Earth isn't flat and that you are desperately lying to try to prop up a FE fantasy?
Unlike the so-called outer space, the Arctic Circle (I suppose we can agree on that term, even though you are talking about a circle that traps ice, and I am talking about a circle that contains this world) is humid. That is, air is thick enough that extreme temperatures matter.
No, the Arctic circle, because of how cold it is, is not very humid at all.
Yes, they say that the temperature at which oxygen freezes is about 50 Kelvin. But your basis for this is what people have told you.
You sure do love pretending that no one has any idea about anything, and a bunch of random people just made up numbers and went with it.
But that isn't the case.
There are plenty of things I have got from my own experience.
And while I haven't played around with solid oxygen, I have seen both liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen.
But the FE has a different entire concept of how cold the outside of Earth gets.
So you are saying the ice of Antarctica is oxygen based upon pure fantasy? Without any connection to reality?
And then appealing to a story of magic to try to prop it up?
Well we can just entirely skip over that load of BS.
Proof the media doesn't really believe in science. It is entirely possible for the outside edge of earth to be permafrost
No, that is proof you don't believe in science.
If you did accept science, you would accept Earth is round and that there isn't a magical outside edge.
Not accepting your fantasy does not mean not accepting science.
But most of Antarctica is covered by permafrost. Because it is frozen all year round.
No, why they say this is impossible is because their sun is outside the Earth
No, they don't.
It is because Earth is too close to the sun to have oxygen based ice.
They also assume it's made out of water, as water has different melt behavior than ultracold air.
They know it is made of water. It isn't an assumption.
-
So you do NOT have an actual source for your bit of clip art being actual alchemy. How shocking.
What you have is a google search NOT showing the image you posted, and links to other images that are also NOT the source.
And what would you consider an "actual source"? The original name of the picture is alchemyformula(somenumber).jpg, was found through a search specifically for alchemy formula among other alchemy pictures, its very nature seems to be related to chemistry and the physics of atoms.
LOL, right. You are claiming this is alchemy, I'm saying it's a bit of nonsense clip art because that's where it came from. JackBLack found the same source I did.
You on the other hand, all you have is that the filename has the word alchemy in it. Well, the cartoon Fullmetal Alchemist has the word in it, are you going to claim that show is fact and not fiction and evidence that math is wrong because a dude can throw fire around and someone else inhabits a suit of armor? It would make as much sense as your current argument, I'll give you that.
The fact that you are just pulling unsourced random pictures off of Discord and proclaiming them to be authentic evidence of alchemy and magic and math is pretty absurd.
So unless you can tell me what alchemy isn't, yeah it's alchemy.
Nah. You made the claim it's alchemy, it's your responsibility to prove it. I can show you a picture of Bruce Campbell and claim he's a shapeshifting magical alien insect overlord but that doesn't make me right unless you can prove it wrong. You need more remedial logic lessons.
-
So you do NOT have an actual source for your bit of clip art being actual alchemy. How shocking.
What you have is a google search NOT showing the image you posted, and links to other images that are also NOT the source.
And what would you consider an "actual source"? The original name of the picture is alchemyformula(somenumber).jpg, was found through a search specifically for alchemy formula among other alchemy pictures, its very nature seems to be related to chemistry and the physics of atoms.
LOL, right. You are claiming this is alchemy, I'm saying it's a bit of nonsense clip art because that's where it came from. JackBLack found the same source I did.
You on the other hand, all you have is that the filename has the word alchemy in it. Well, the cartoon Fullmetal Alchemist has the word in it, are you going to claim that show is fact and not fiction and evidence that math is wrong because a dude can throw fire around and someone else inhabits a suit of armor? It would make as much sense as your current argument, I'll give you that.
The fact that you are just pulling unsourced random pictures off of Discord and proclaiming them to be authentic evidence of alchemy and magic and math is pretty absurd.
So unless you can tell me what alchemy isn't, yeah it's alchemy.
Nah. You made the claim it's alchemy, it's your responsibility to prove it. I can show you a picture of Bruce Campbell and claim he's a shapeshifting magical alien insect overlord but that doesn't make me right unless you can prove it wrong. You need more remedial logic lessons.
I think you may have missed the point.
They aren't saying alchemy is real.
They are saying alchemy has formulae in it.
So formulae are nonsense.
Because they can't show anything wrong with the math for a RE, which shows their fantasy is wrong, they are reduced to trying to dismiss all of math because the BS of alchemy uses it.
-
LOL, right. You are claiming this is alchemy, I'm saying it's a bit of nonsense clip art because that's where it came from. JackBLack found the same source I did.
So consensus must mean you're brilliant. After all, it's not like history bears out dumb consensus decisions or anything.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/2022/01/25/7-reasons-why-decision-making-by-consensus-is-a-bad-idea-and-what-to-do-instead/?sh=153b68282943
Oh wait, I believe Poland lost its land for awhile, because its policy was unanimous voting. "A nearby country is invading us, should we go to war against them?" One person, "Nah." So they get taken over and lost their country.
So unless you can tell me what alchemy isn't, yeah it's alchemy.
Nah. You made the claim it's alchemy, it's your responsibility to prove it. I can show you a picture of Bruce Campbell and claim he's a shapeshifting magical alien insect overlord but that doesn't make me right unless you can prove it wrong. You need more remedial logic lessons.
Ah that's nice. Passing the buck back to me. So you don't know what alchemy is, and expect me to know.
Fine, then.
Alchemy is a semi-scientific pseudoscientific movement that predated chemistry and physics. It overlaps into religion, because alchemy is essentially about making the physical world change according to spiritual growth. That is, there are schools of inner and outer alchemy. Inner alchemy is entirely about spiritual change. Outer alchemy is about material change. Each atom has a symbol and a sort of nature (I dunno how to put it). So Sulfur can be compared to a person's personality in that they are a corrosive temperament and they need to evolve themselves to be more like Gold (this is inner alchemy, to turn oneself from "base material" into "noble material"). The idea of inner alchemy is that through study and spiritual growth, one can become immortal.
Outer alchemy is what gets all the press. Stuff like turning lead into gold or universal solvents.
In China, alchemy led to the death of the First Emperor, as he got doped out on mercury and searched for Mount Kunlun.
Alchemy is nonsense. The idea of grace means there is nothing you can do to be more pure than what God already loves. Oh, you can give effort, just as you can donate money to charity to help the poor. But at the end of the day, inner alchemy's premise is broken.
Likewise, outer alchemy, while some processes have led to advances in chemistry or physics (notably gunpowder or in 1941 using particle accelerators gold was able to be synthesized). But the basic premise involves a search for perfection that just isn't in the world. Just as you can't make cement so hard that it will never break down.
Whenever you see a paper with overlap of chemistry, physics, philosophy, and religious disciplines, you have to first check it against being alchemy. If I showed you a picture of astrology, you would be able to know it pertains to astrology without giving me a challenge to prove it right?
(https://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/0/30/caSdWp.png)
I know this is astrology, you know it's astrology. Neither of us has to prove it.
(https://article-imgs.scribdassets.com/5g9bivy83k7pt20v/images/file4BOBQA8D.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3c/2c/0e/3c2c0e3680c8bd47a8c70bd13e086c0c--healing-quotes-art-elements.jpg)
I know this is alchemy (another picture), but you don't seem to understand what alchemy looks like.
Why do I have to prove something, when it is your ignorance that keeps you from knowing it?
You don't think it is? You prove why not!
They are saying alchemy has formulae in it.
So formulae are nonsense.
Because they can't show anything wrong with the math for a RE, which shows their fantasy is wrong, they are reduced to trying to dismiss all of math because the BS of alchemy uses it.
Close. But not right.
I am saying that when formulae become more for symbolic purpose, the formula is basically just a code.
Among one of the uses of alchemy was to smokescreen heretical religious beliefs from the church by disguising them as science or math. Of all things, we see this use in Full Metal Alchemist. Edward is given a formula for the Philosopher's Stone that appears to be a recipe book. Until he looks at the "recipes" against their chemical formulas, and turns it into chemical symbol, and eventually discovers what Philosopher's Stone is made from.
In much the same way, when one demystifies the astronomy of Earth's supposed orbit and rotation, we understand that all of this is just a rehash of previous pagan cosmologies. I have no use for your faith system, and even less use for you trying to give me fake math to hide what is actually something else.
(https://quizizz.com/media/resource/gs/quizizz-media/quizzes/11461d65-16fd-439e-b8c9-c217bf503f53)
There are discernible math processes here, correct? But if they aren't actually doing anything, would you say this is real math?
I'm also saying that the formulas we are given have variables and values that are inserted into the formula, that in fact appeared out of thin air.
There is plenty wrong with RE. Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon, not only does it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon, not only is it completely crazy as we would far more like fall off the Earth (to quote a RE meme about FE) on the underside of a RE, but it's morally wrong, as it puts our entire government in the hands of NASA and their sweet sweet space money.
-
And still not addressing your lies about the apparent motion of the sun.
Alchemy is nonsense. The idea of grace
So to try to show that alchemy is nonsense, you appeal to other religious nonsense?
Close. But not right.
I am saying that when formulae become more for symbolic purpose, the formula is basically just a code.
No, you aren't.
You are rejecting calculations of distances because they don't match your fantasy, even though these calculations are based upon simple geometry and empirical observations.
In much the same way, when one demystifies the astronomy of Earth's supposed orbit and rotation, we understand that all of this is just a rehash of previous pagan cosmologies.
There is nothing to demystify.
It is all explained quite well.
And you disliking it doesn't magically make it pagan cosmologies or a faith system.
Again, this is just your pathetic dismissal of reality.
There are discernible math processes here, correct? But if they aren't actually doing anything, would you say this is real math?
And again, you are doing the same thing.
You are trying to bring up crap math, to dismiss math you don't like.
How about you stop with the pathetic comparisons and instead try objecting to the actual math used to show it is nonsense?
There is plenty wrong with RE.
Yet you cannot show a single fault and instead need to repeat the same pathetic lies.
Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon
How?
It can be used to accurate predict the location of the sun and moon, and the model is consistent with the observed angular sizes.
it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon
Yet all the evidence shows it is.
This is just you saying you don't like reality.
You not liking it is not a fault with the RE model. It is a fault with you.
we would far more like fall off the Earth
Why?
What magic is making us fall?
Where would we fall to?
the underside of a RE
There is no underside to the RE.
Again, this is you trying to insert your delusional BS of a magical universal down which you have absolutely no evidence for.
it's morally wrong
The RE makes no claims at all about morality.
Again, this is just you hating the model and hating things which people have done based upon the model.
So you are still yet to show a single fault.
Your most recent attempt which was in any way fleshed out was blatantly lying about how the sun would appear, where instead of honestly representing the RE, where the angle of the axis of rotation relative to the surface changes with latitude, you just lied and pretended everyone lives on the south pole regardless of where on Earth they are.
When that lie was pointed out, and explained to be a lie, you just doubled down on your lies and made more and more excuses.
Until you eventually gave up and fled the issue.
This shows problems with you, not a single fault with the RE.
-
This is because alchemy (the inner alchemy, not the base outer alchemy that ultimately became chemistry) is about spiritual transformation. Alchemy is a sorta religion. I guess. But just as scientific premise needs to be sound (imagine making a hypothesis about the behavior of magnets when misunderstanding fundamentally how magnets work), a religious premise needs good theology.
So yes, alchemy is nonsense, and I will appeal to "other nonsense" to show it.
I already addressed the motion of the sun. If an object is still, and we spin around it, the perspective is a straight line across at different heights. By contrast, if anobject circles overhead of us before angling out due to the range of Earth, we view it as an arc. You can accept it or reject it, but I have told you why this is. An arc is a rotary (like those old telephones) motion, but the motion of a sphere rotating is lateral motion.
9 "planets", Nine Realms. Norse mythology. Yggdrasil, the World Tree. That's what "astronomy" is soft-selling, belief in a pagan multiverse.
I'm trying to impress upon you that the "math I don't like" is crap math. It's crap math because where there should question marks, and where we should just say "we don't know how far the sun is from the Earth" we instead say, "Oh easy, we know the Earth is 150 million km." Liar. There is no way you have that information ! You made it up, and the public just swallows this lie because it sounds like a nice number.
-
This is because alchemy
No, this has nothing at all to do with alchemy.
You just bring up alchemy to try to dismiss reality.
Again, BS using math doesn't make all math BS.
Lying about how numbers are derived to pretend it is all circular doesn't magically negate how it is actually done.
I already addressed the motion of the sun.
By blatantly lying about it, having your BS refuted, and then fleeing from it.
Again, this is the orientation of the axis of rotation relative to various points on the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/phgP07M.png)
Notice how it is only the poles where it is perpendicular to the surface?
That means your "model" only works for the poles.
For other locations, the axis is tilted meaning the sun will not appear to be moving in a horizontal path.
For the equator (on the equinox) it will appear to move in a vertical path, rising in the east, passing directly overhead and setting in the west.
Conversely, if the sun was above a flat plane, circling overhead, it would never go out of view.
You blatantly lying about this will not change that.
An arc is a rotary
Like the ROTATION of Earth.
Which is only lateral at the poles.
9 "planets", Nine Realms. Norse mythology.
With those 8 planets quite different to the various realms of Norse mythology.
So nothing to do with it.
Again, you are trying to make connections with BS to dismiss reality you don't like.
I'm trying to impress upon you that the "math I don't like" is crap math.
No, you are trying to pretend it is.
Because you can't show anything wrong with it.
It's crap math because where there should question marks
As soon as you have a measurement from reality, there will be uncertainty associated with it, or "question marks". Any math based upon that will likewise have uncertainty.
where we should just say "we don't know how far the sun is from the Earth"
Why should we say that lie?
Again, you not liking reality, that reality not fitting in with your delusional fantasy, doesn't magically change reality.
In reality, we know how far away Earth is from the sun, at least fairly accurately. 150 000 000 km is a nice round number, because it is a rounded number, as the distance between the Earth and sun varies.
There is no way you have that information
No, there is no way YOU have that information, as you are wilfully ignorant and reject any part of reality you don't like.
But I explained several ways to get that distance. You just ignore it because it doesn't match your fantasy.
Again, the speed of light can be directly measured, as can the angle for stellar aberration.
This allows us to directly calculate the speed of Earth in its orbit, and from that calculate the orbital distance.
Alternatively, empirical measurements to determine how gravity works allows us to develop Kepler's laws, and from that obtain the ratio of the distance between the sun and Venus to the distance between the sun and Earth.
Many measurements allow us to determine the size of Earth and from that the distance between 2 points on Earth.
Then observations of these points of the transit of Venus let us construct a simple set of triangles to determine the absolute distance between the Earth and the sun, and between Earth and Venus and between the sun and Venus.
Likewise, we can measure the parallax of the moon to determine the distance to the moon, and then determine the angle between the sun and moon during a quarter moon to determine the distance to the sun. But due to how close to 90 degrees that is, that measurement will have a lot of error, effectively providing a lower bound on the distance.
Again, you not liking that we can measure things in reality to show your fantasy is garbage doesn't magically make the math crap.
So stop appealing to alchemy and any other BS as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and in no way helps show the math is crap.
-
Why should you say that "lie"? Because that is truth. At a particular point in time, even if we did accept the orbital rotation idea, the Earth might be closer or farther, meaning you DON'T know that Earth is whatever number you put.
As for you not believing I can know this information, it's called looking things up on the internet. You can get a ton of trivia information like "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
A more concrete answer was published by the Associated Press in 1988, which reported that a New York fish and wildlife technician named Richard Thomas had calculated the volume of dirt in a typical 25–30-foot (7.6–9.1 m) long woodchuck burrow and had determined that if the woodchuck had moved an equivalent volume of wood, it could move "about 700 pounds (320 kg) on a good day, with the wind at his back". Another study, which considered "chuck" to be the opposite of upchucking, determined that a woodchuck could ingest 361.9237001 cm3 (22.08593926 cu in) of wood per day.
I'm going with the ingestion answer.
But the point being, can we trust this number? Is it based on real study of woodchucks? What about a woodchuck that is abnormally hungry or is on a diet? Is that an average? Is there a range? Or do all woodchucks chuck exactly this amount of wood? See this is the trouble with decimal points, they put a scientific polish on what is actually just estimate. "Roughly 360" really what this decimaled number means, but we've put an exact number to it.
What even is a cubic inch? These are assigned measures. A cubic inch is an inch cubed, but that's not what I am asking. When you ask what an inch or a mile is, you get an answer in feet or cm, respectively. It's a reference, not a fine measure. I've worked with measurements when using a ruler to cut wood to length for various projects.
But when COVID hit, people were showing fully that they don't understand how far six feet was. It was a distance equal to their level in comfort. So, when we cannot even give a real answer to how far away should you stand from another person, where do you get off saying you "know" this?
Truth is admitting when you don't know things. Liars double down and try to convince people thet are smarter than they are. You just look dumber when doubling down, tbh.
I don't know how far the sun is from me. You don't know how far it is. Kepler doesn't know either. He just has fancier tools, is all.
Also, this is a lateral spin. If you sit in a bedroom, like I do right now, and spin around the room, this is a lateral spin. I see my lamp, then a bookcase, the door to my room (opened), another shelf containing books and dvds, a painting of Chinese landscape (it was a mass production from a tutoring trip to China after college), my closet, my dresser, another door to my room, window behind me, wall behind me, and back to lamp. That's a lateral spin. Even objects above me (there's a picture of an owl) do not rise and fall like sun supposedly does.
In order to see the sun rise and fall, you would need extremely sharp (almost hairpin) turn, quite unlike the regular lateral spin. Rotary spin might work, but that is on the side rather than facing the sun then gradually facing away (quite unlike how you described). But we don't have rotary spin either, or the sky should at times appear to be upside down. It also doesn't adequately explain how you would lose sight of a much bigger sun.
Or... you could be just watching the sun at rotary orbit around you.
"When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras."
(A variant expression of Occam's Razor)
Coined in the late 1940s by Dr. Theodore Woodward, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
(medicine, informal) When diagnosing a patient's symptoms, common ailments should be considered as more probable than rare ones.
Horses? Or zebras? When watching an object such as a car move, more likely you aren't on a conveyor moving past the car in the opposite direction at 60 mph because the rest of the scenery isn't racing by as you would clearly see when sitting in the passenger seat of a car. If your surroundings see still, and a object moves, the object is moving, not you.
Do I know exactly how the sun behaves? No, unlike some people, I know that truth is not pretending to knowledge. But I can see that one of these things is not the case. Both lateral and rotary rotation fail to adequately explain why an object appears to arc across the sky. Lateral because it should be traveling in a flat motion, rotary because you would not lose sight of it.
A much smaller sun, on the other hand, could simply arc out of sight.
-
Ah that's nice. Passing the buck back to me. So you don't know what alchemy is, and expect me to know.
You made the claim that the image was alchemy and somehow math is wrong, so you have prove YOUR claim. That's how this whole thing works.
Alchemy is a semi-scientific pseudoscientific movement that predated chemistry and physics. [...]
Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of unrelated stuff cut because it has nothing to do with proving that the image you posted is alchemy. And yes, alchemy is garbage, so what? So is homeopathy. The only one using alchemy as an example of anything here is you.
If you're going to just post random nonsense images and make weird claims about them while having no idea where they even came from, I can do that too.
So here is a totally serious flat earth argument that real flat earthers claim and is proof that the flat earth theory is nonsense and you all think we live on a giant turtle. If you disagree... well then PROVE IT.
(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aqeEwvP_460swp.webp)
See how easy that is? I just showed all flat earth arguments are nonsense with a random image I found on the internet and made up stuff about. Whee.
There is plenty wrong with RE. Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon, not only does it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon, not only is it completely crazy as we would far more like fall off the Earth (to quote a RE meme about FE) on the underside of a RE, but it's morally wrong, as it puts our entire government in the hands of NASA and their sweet sweet space money.
Wot ???
-
Why should you say that "lie"? Because that is truth.
No, it isn't.
Your wilful ignorance doesn't mean we don't know.
At a particular point in time, even if we did accept the orbital rotation idea, the Earth might be closer or farther, meaning you DON'T know that Earth is whatever number you put.
If you want to play with this idea, then you don't know anything, as all measurements have some level of uncertainty.
But to sane people, that level of uncertainty doesn't mean we don't know. It means we know it is in some range.
As for you not believing I can know this information, it's called looking things up on the internet.
No, it's called if you don't trust anyone, you can go through all the experiments yourself, to get your own observations to calculate the distance yourself.
Although you will need a buddy.
But the point being, can we trust this number?
Again, if you don't trust it, go get the measurements yourself.
Stop pretending that because you are wilfully ignorant and you don't trust anyone with any piece of information which doesn't fit your fantasy that that means no one can possibly know.
Truth is admitting when you don't know things. Liars double down and try to convince people thet are smarter than they are.
Yes, liars like you sure want to pretend they are smart.
Again, your wilful ignorance doesn't mean no one can know.
Falsely claiming they don't know is you lying.
Also, this is a lateral spin. If you sit in a bedroom, like I do right now, and spin around the room, this is a lateral spin.
I know what a "lateral spin" is. The problem for your lies is that on Earth you only get a lateral spin at the poles. For everywhere else that axis of rotation is not perpindicular to the level refrence.
Again, this simple diagram shows you are lying (and this response shows you are just doubling down on your lie):
https://i.imgur.com/phgP07M.png
Again, look at the equator. The axis is parallel to the ground there, not perpendicular to it. So it is a vertical spin.
In order to see the sun rise and fall, you would need extremely sharp (almost hairpin) turn
Or, you can have the axis at an angle. For example, you can have a vertical spin for someone at the equator.
Again, take your stupid lateral spin, and mount a camera at an angle. A simple one would be sideways. Then look at the footage from it. You will see things appear to rise (or set, depending on which way the camera is facing).
But we don't have rotary spin either, or the sky should at times appear to be upside down.
And how would you define "upside down"? Do you mean how you can look to the east horizon at night, shortly after sunset to see a constellation, and then look to the west horizon shortly before sunrise and see that same constellation appear upside down?
It also doesn't adequately explain how you would lose sight of a much bigger sun.
And here you go with doubling down on more pathetic lies.
Just what is there to explain?
Go stand with your face against a wall. Then turn to face away from the wall. Can you still see it? NO!
You aren't looking at it, it is not in your FOV, so you can't see it.
The sun is not magic like you want to pretend.
Unless you are looking towards it such that it is inside your FOV, you will not see it.
And with an angular size of ~0.5 degrees, that is quite easy to do.
Or... you could be just watching the sun at rotary orbit around you.
By this I assume you mean your delusional BS?
If so, no.
That doesn't match is observed at all.
If it was doing that I would expect to always be able to see it (if I'm looking in the right direction), with its apparent size and speed varying throughout the day as it circles around.
"When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras."
Yes, so when we see the sun appear to go below Earth, with Earth obstructing the view, we accept that Earth is obstructing the view and that the angle of elevation of the sun is negative.
We do not think it is above us, with some pure magic magically causing it to magically appear as if it is below us and magically appear as if Earth is blocking the view.
Occam's Razor destroys the FE, because the FE needs so much convoluted BS to pretend it can work to have observations match what is expected for a RE.
Do I know exactly how the sun behaves?
You sure act like it, boldly proclaiming such utter crap, without any possibility of you being wrong, boldly proclaiming the same crap even after it has been refuted.
But I can see that one of these things is not the case.
Yes, your delusional model.
The RE model works just fine.
-
Ah that's nice. Passing the buck back to me. So you don't know what alchemy is, and expect me to know.
You made the claim that the image was alchemy and somehow math is wrong, so you have prove YOUR claim. That's how this whole thing works.
Alchemy is a semi-scientific pseudoscientific movement that predated chemistry and physics. [...]
Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of unrelated stuff cut because it has nothing to do with proving that the image you posted is alchemy. And yes, alchemy is garbage, so what? So is homeopathy. The only one using alchemy as an example of anything here is you.
If you're going to just post random nonsense images and make weird claims about them while having no idea where they even came from, I can do that too.
So here is a totally serious flat earth argument that real flat earthers claim and is proof that the flat earth theory is nonsense and you all think we live on a giant turtle. If you disagree... well then PROVE IT.
(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aqeEwvP_460swp.webp)
See how easy that is? I just showed all flat earth arguments are nonsense with a random image I found on the internet and made up stuff about. Whee.
There is plenty wrong with RE. Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon, not only does it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon, not only is it completely crazy as we would far more like fall off the Earth (to quote a RE meme about FE) on the underside of a RE, but it's morally wrong, as it puts our entire government in the hands of NASA and their sweet sweet space money.
Wot ???
Yes yes, prove it. Like "I don't know anything about alchemy because I was maybe a C student who had no interest beyong the classroom and I fully believe what I have been taught, but I'll ask someone who spent hours in the library looking up something they are interested in to prove that when they say something is alchemy, they mean it." Seems like if you don't know alchemy when you see it, I don't have to cater to your ignorance.
The "unrelated stuff" as you put it, is definitional. If you want to stay ignorant, that's on you but the point I was making with this explanation was that a thing which meets those categories is by definition alchemy.
I already proved it. You're so ignorant you can't see it, and ask for proof.
Discworld is a work of parody. It takes the flat Earth to its conclusion by use of hyperbole. In actual fact, the light from the moon wouldn't show the shape of the Earth, flat with turtle and elephants, just flat, or round. It doesn't reflect light from the sun, it gives off its own light. How do I know? I actually looked dead straight at the moon for about an hour coming home from visiting my sister, and my eyes still work. I also never at any point saw the Earth's shape reflected. Not only is the light of the moon safe to view for long term (even glare from a metal object that the sun hits is enough to strongly irritate your eyes, but the moon's light is cool and pleasant, a totally different wavelength and intensity than the sun, a light that doesn't seem to radiate the eyes), but I was able to see that the moon is flat. One of the RE scientists said that we can prove the Earth is sphere by looking at how much a sphere the moon is. Okay, great. But the moon is a flat disc, contrary to doctored images from NASA and National Geographic showing it as three dimensional object. I have an hour of looking straight at it that proves otherwise. What they have is digital artwork.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/43a1a3523af941a87e3b16e3c278f5b2a05102a0/c=2-0-1022-576/local/-/media/2018/04/11/TreasureCoast/TreasureCoast/636590501623948096-moon.jpg?width=3200&height=1680&fit=crop)
Artwork.
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/moon-over-mountains-picture-id162515751?k=20&m=162515751&s=612x612&w=0&h=iKw57R2aYuoO7ceerTRqYUqXYm5hOwWlvt_ptD8z-AA=)
The closest thing to last night's full moon. Except ours had clouda all dramatically around it.
"If the the moon is a sphere, then naturally the Earth is a sphere. " Too bad the moon is not a sphere.
But thanks for proving something else! Yoy have proved how easy it is to make a fake image. So here's a model of the moon, available for purchase.
(https://p.turbosquid.com/ts-thumb/gk/Hctp78/R2jq4n4z/001sren_moon/jpg/1383389030/1920x1080/fit_q87/55e2bdf2253caf8fda9c646358e50466b32c710b/001sren_moon.jpg)
Wanna find out how easy it is for me to add this in as a layer, and put it into a space picture?
-
I notice you have yet again fled from all your prior delusional BS and are now jumping topic yet again to lie about reality to pretend there is a different problem with the RE model.
I already proved it. You're so ignorant you can't see it, and ask for proof.
I don't really care if you proved it was alchemy, it doesn't help you prove your claim.
You have not proven any fault with the RE model.
It doesn't reflect light from the sun, it gives off its own light.
Then why does all the evidence show it does?
The phases of the moon are entirely consistent with it being illuminated by the sun, and the lunar eclipse is consistent with Earth's shadow obstructing the path of the light from the sun to the moon.
We even see shadows on the moon consistent with the moon being illuminated from the sun.
There is no evidence at all that it gives off its own visible light.
I actually looked dead straight at the moon for about an hour coming home from visiting my sister, and my eyes still work.
Which proves nothing at all.
You can do the same with a piece of paper illuminated by the sun during the day.
When the light from the sun hits an object, the light scatters (diffuse reflection) on the surface, with some absorbed by the object, significantly reducing the intensity by the time it gets to your eye.
A similar effect is seen with lasers. Pointing a laser at your eye can result in blindness with the light appearing extremely bright, but if it reflects off a surface it is much safer.
The exception is when you have an object that undergoes specular reflection, like a mirror, where it is reflected specularly rather than diffusely. This allows the light to remain coherent and intense.
And for transparent objects which just refract the light, like a magnifying glass.
So great job just proving your own dishonesty.
I also never at any point saw the Earth's shape reflected.
Why would you?
Was it during a lunar eclipse where the shadow of Earth obstructs the light?
If not, you aren't going to see Earth's shape on the moon.
even glare from a metal object that the sun hits
Metal objects typically allow specular reflection.
Try it with dirt, something similar to the moon.
a totally different wavelength and intensity than the sun
No, not a totally different wavelength.
Both the sun and moon cast fairly white light.
If you wish to claim that it is different, you would need to present spectra of the sun and moon to show that.
And you would expect the moon to absorb some wavelengths as it isn't perfectly white, so the spectra likely wont be a perfect match.
Again, just like a piece of paper will have a different spectrum.
And it should have a lower intensity.
So again, you are just proving your dishonesty.
By your dishonest BS, a sheet of paper sitting in the sun is not reflecting the sun's light and instead is magically producing its own light.
Do you not realise how insane that is?
a light that doesn't seem to radiate
A light, by definition, is radiation.
but I was able to see that the moon is flat.
How?
Staring at the moon for an hour doesn't magically prove it is flat.
Taking photos of it over the course of a month, or taking photos from quite far away places on Earth can get you a much better idea, as then you observe that different people see slightly different views, and the view changes over the month, as if the ball is shifting around.
You can also tell it isn't flat due to how shadows are cast on it.
There is nothing to indicate the moon is flat, and plenty to indicate it is round.
-
a light that doesn't seem to radiate
A light, by definition, is radiation.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
Ionizing radiation is what I'm referring to. Radiation from a source that harms the body. A light type that does not harm the eyes is a light source that does not give off radiation. Yes, all light may be radiation, but it's a matter of whether it transfers radiation to the eyes.
But feel free to test the difference between the sun and moon if you are inclined to believe that sunlight and moonlight are the same.
-
Ionizing radiation is what I'm referring to.
So you admit that radiation like that coming from a 5G transmitter isn't ionising and isn't bad?
And you are still wrong. If visible radiation is intense enough, it can harm the eye and cause blindness.
A laser is a simple example of that. If you stare directly into a high power laser you will go blind, even if that laser is just emitting visible (i.e. non ionising) radiation.
But feel free to test the difference between the sun and moon if you are inclined to believe that sunlight and moonlight are the same.
You were the one making the BS claim, so the burden is on you to prove it.
As the moon scatters the light from the sun, the intensity of all radiation is significantly reduced.
Even during a full moon, doing a rough estimate, the radius of the moon is roughly 1737 km. But Earth is roughly 350 000 to 400 000 km away.
That alone already cuts the light down by a factor of 0.000025.
Assuming that was all there was, with the moon not absorbing any light, and ignoring the fact that the moon is collecting the light as a circle, yet scattering it as a sphere, that means an entire 24 hour period exposed to moonlight from a full moon, is equivalent to roughly 2 seconds in the sun.
So that is not going to be enough to be significant at all.
So yet again, you have spouted absolute BS to pretend your delusional fantasy is true and pretend there is a problem for a RE, and when refuted, you just come up with this crap?
You have no evidence at all that the moon gives off its own light or is flat.
All the available evidence clearly demonstrates that the moon reflects/scatters the light from the sun, and is round.
-
Yes yes, prove it. Like "I don't know anything about alchemy because I was maybe a C student who had no interest beyong the classroom and I fully believe what I have been taught, but I'll ask someone who spent hours in the library looking up something they are interested in to prove that when they say something is alchemy, they mean it." Seems like if you don't know alchemy when you see it, I don't have to cater to your ignorance.
The "unrelated stuff" as you put it, is definitional. If you want to stay ignorant, that's on you but the point I was making with this explanation was that a thing which meets those categories is by definition alchemy.
I already proved it. You're so ignorant you can't see it, and ask for proof.
You proved nothing. You posted some random clipart that you yourself have no idea where it came from, who made it or why, and tried to use it to claim math was wrong.
But this is the kind of insanity I'd expect.
Discworld is a work of parody.
You uh, do understand that the Earth being carried on the back of a turtle was an idea formed long before Discworld borrowed it? Do you really think Pratchett invited that idea?
This just shows your ignorance of the world yet again.
-
I proved nothing of the sort. Hinduism, right?
https://www.ulc.org/ulc-blog/comparative-religion-the-world-turtle
You didn't ask.
I'm a history major and a religion minor. Formerly a science minor, until I got scared off by organic chemistry. "But you aced the first test!" the teacher said. Yeah after studying for most of the week and not feeling confident I could continue to do so.
You don't even understand why I used it. So let's use something different.
So this thing in school you learned about how to process numbers turned out to be a terrible idea to start with because a student is far more likely to mean 84+86+87/3 as an average (84+86+87)/3 than 84+86+(87/3).
It didn't stop there. You probably learned that the Crusades were Christianity's fault for being terrible zealots starting a "pilgrimage" that turned into a bloody holy war, and not Islam staging a 1400+ year coup against the world instead of the Pope having enough.
So, I've just informed you that two of your teachers (history and math) taught you crap. And I'm sure you know your religion teacher is obviously wrong. Your sociology teacher is a damned racist, classifying people into categories, and you philosophy teacher wants to talk about trees falling in forests and whether or not they can be heard.
But I obviously don't know what I'm talking about when I say that maybe you can question tour science teacher when he tells you that on NASA's authority, he knows the Earth is a sphere.
-
History major who learned zero critical thinking
Amazing
-
I proved nothing of the sort.
All you have proven is your own dishonesty and inability to honestly and rationally defend your beliefs.
Hinduism
Has nothing to do with your wilful rejection of reality.
a student is far more likely to mean 84+86+87/3 as an average (84+86+87)/3 than 84+86+(87/3).
And if that student was competent, that student would use brackets.
Your hatred of math doesn't make it fake.
So, I've just informed you that two of your teachers (history and math) taught you crap.
No, you have shown that you don't like what you were taught.
So much so that you fail at trivial math.
-
History major who learned zero critical thinking
Amazing
You have been taught by teachers what critical thinking is supposed to be. You haven't been taught actual critical thinking, just to believe that you are somehow doing critical thinking when you are doing nothing of the sort. That is truly amazing.
Critical thinking is the ability to question what you have been taught.
I have more critical thinking in my little finger than you have in your entire body.
You assume I have been brainwashed by some cult of FE ppl or something. You forget, until around 3 or 4 years ago, I never questioned RE. But I had already figured out that even things I learned in history classes could be crap. History has a class called Historiography, where this was actually discussed (as an object lesson, in History of the Peloponnesian War, the writer consults with the oracles about the outcome of the war, and the book abruptly ends, as the oracles had some bad news that turned out right).
When you cannot reject what you are taught, when you can't think of at least three different options (including that other people may be right), you cannot talk to me about critical thinking, as you have astounding lack of self-awareness.
I know how to reject what I thought I knew. Are you sure you do?
-
You have been taught by teachers what critical thinking is supposed to be. You haven't been taught actual critical thinking, just to believe that you are somehow doing critical thinking when you are doing nothing of the sort. That is truly amazing.
That's not amazing, that is projecting.
Critical thinking is not merely rejecting things you have been taught because you don't like it.
Critical thinking doesn't only apply to things you have been taught.
It applies to everything.
It is about applying rational thought to things.
As an example, you showed some BS alchemy, and tried to use it to dismiss all of math.
But applying critical thinking to that means that you understand that just because it is being misused in this case does not mean it is all wrong. You aren't showing a fundamental flaw with math, you are just showing a bad application.
Likewise, look at your pathetic attempt to discredit observations of Saturn, by comparing it to you driving along a road beside a hitchhiker, entirely ignoring distance and scale.
Or your attempt to pretend everyone on Earth lives at the south pole, by repeatedly ignoring that the angle of the axis of rotation of Earth is at a different angle relative to down depending upon observer location.
Critical thinking clearly demonstrates what you are spouting is pure BS.
Likewise, people have taught me that I need water to live, weather that be from literally drinking water, or consuming it in other forms.
Just mindlessly rejecting that with no basis at all, when so much evidence supports that fact (including people dying from dehydration), is NOT critical thinking.
So you appear entirely incapable of critical thinking.
You spout all sorts of delusional BS to pretend your fantasy works and pretend there are problems with the RE, without any rational thought being applied.
You assume I have been brainwashed by some cult of FE ppl or something.
Because that is how you act.
You reject reality at all costs to cling to your fantasy.
You cannot show any fault with reality, nor can you actually defend the FE.
Previously accepting Earth is round doesn't mean you can't be conned into a FE cult.
I had already figured out that even things I learned in history classes could be crap.
If only there were some simple saying people could have used for ages to make that clear.
Maybe you can make one and try to make it popular.
How about "History is written by the victor."
That isn't anything new. People have known that historical accounts will always lack some information and may present things incorrectly.
When you cannot reject what you are taught, when you can't think of at least three different options (including that other people may be right), you cannot talk to me about critical thinking, as you have astounding lack of self-awareness.
We can, we just aren't going to reject what we have been taught when so far it is the best explanation we have.
The only way for Earth to be flat is if nature itself is conspiring to make it appear round. As all observations are consistent with a RE, while plenty are inconsistent with a FE.
Can you do what you suggest?
Consider the possibility that you are wrong, and that Earth is round?
-
The crossdressing conservative caling out others for lack of self awareness
Mmmmmmm
-
You see that kids?
That's called an ad hominem argument.
A logical fallacy of one who has effectively lost an argument. Whether I am black, a woman, or a sea turtle, nothing about who I am has any relevance to whether I am right or not.
Cassandra: Troy is doomed.
Townsperson: Why listen to her?!? She's a woman!
Yes, I am a crossdresser. Yes, I am a conservative. You inherent argument is that somehow these are incompatible with logic. But they aren't. The woke left employs identity politics (basically the heir of this exact ad hominem logic) to tell me that if I am a crossdresser, I ought to automatically agree with their policies. But their policies have literally screwed me out of work in the past, between high taxes and restrictions in how I do business.
The conservatives didn't mind that I was a crossdresser, as long as I was a fanatical leftist. Or they didn't mind, as long as I didn't go into bathrooms and molest their kids. Or they did mind due to religious reasons, and told me so. What they never did, however, was pretend to be my ally while making things harder for me. $250k for misgendering? That causes backlash! I now need to be worried about hate crimes. Free transitions? I don't want one, so that means higher taxes.
Again.
Critical thinking is the ability to question what you have been taught.
Have you been questioning the RE dogma taught by NASA, numerous major magazines, and probably most schools? Then you're in the brainwashed majority, not the freethinking minority.
Say what you want about atheists, you could probably argue that in a world of religious people, they are freethinkers. But that's true until religion itself is in the minority, then the freethinkers are those who buck the prevailing idea.
So when you accuse others of lacking awareness, and you don't realize how your own ideas sound like parroted nonsense, then yes you are profoundly lacking in that department.
Critical thinking is not merely rejecting things you have been taught because you don't like it.
Critical thinking doesn't only apply to things you have been taught.
It applies to everything.
It is about applying rational thought to things.
An irrational person can easily be convinced to attach the idea that something is rational just because everyone believes it, or because it has the trappings of "rational". Math is a good way to make something appear rational.
But critical thinking is not about accepting that something is rational, it's about accepting rational thinking by disputing ideas that are a bit too carefully prepared.
Suppose a cult made a convincing and perfectly rational-sounding persuasion for jumping off a 150 ft bridge. They use classic Stoic arguments about how poverty, illness, and death are actually not evil
https://www.thoughtco.com/stoics-and-moral-philosophy-4068536
then gradually twist the argument until it suits their purpose of everyone but the cult leader jumping off this bridge today. The reason they aren't there also has a rational excuse. It's not because they are a psychopath bent on deriving pleasure from the pain and death of others. No, they had a business event, and couldn't get away.
If everyone around you jumped off a bridge, would you do it? The answer should be no, no matter how logical their argument seemed. Anything else is not critical thinking but peer pressure disguised as logic.
Thankfully, peer pressure can work both ways. "I don't want to jump off this bridge. Do you?" And gradually the crowd realizes that everyone pressured everyone else.
I don't want higher taxes, more regulation, and to have to deal with strange immigrants camping out in my town. And I don't want human trafficking. Do you?
-
That's called an ad hominem argument.
No, it isn't. Because they aren't using that to say your argument is wrong.
They are doing it to point out your hypocrisy.
And notice how you decide to focus on that, to completely ignore the refutation of your BS, and as an excuse to repeat the same pathetic BS.
Critical thinking is the ability to question what you have been taught.
And notice the key part? QUESTION! Not merely reject.
It is also far more than just questioning.
It is applying thought to the issue to consider it.
And it applies to EVERYTHING, including things you come up with yourself, and what other people claim. It is not applied only to things you have been taught.
If you just decide to reject the RE, and claim there is a magical parabola that solves all the problems, then you have NOT applied critical thought, and have shown no signs of critical thinking.
Critical thinking would involve evaluating both.
For example, consider the sun and the horizon.
The RE has the distance to the horizon simply being the distance at which a line from your eye to Earth is tangent to Earth.
You have a magical dome which for some reason magically limits your vision, with that distance changing depending upon how high you are, for no reason at all.
Why do far away objects disappear, and appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up?
You claim they are just outside the parabola and are magically hidden from view. This doesn't explain why it disappears from the bottom up, or why it appears to sink. Instead, your parabola should show the exact opposite, with it disappearing from the top down, as the top leaves the parabola before the bottom.
The RE, has Earth block the view, which results in an object being hidden from the bottom up.
The higher the object is, the further away it can be before it is gone from view (and vice versa).
Then we go to objects high in the sky.
A plane can be seen for much further than a boat.
For the RE, this is exactly what we would expect - as above, the higher an object is, the further away it can be seen.
Now we try with your nonsense - the plane is above the parabola so it shouldn't be seen at all.
And with the sun, the RE model has it appear to set as Earth blocks the view.
But you claim it magically projects, but how?
It clearly can't just be going in a straight line to the eye because that would produce the same as if the parabola wasn't there.
You want to pretend it goes straight down, but that would mean you could only see it when it is above a region within 5 km of you, making you only see it for a tiny portion of the day.
So using critical thinking, we question the RE model, recognise that it works to explain reality, so we continue to accept it.
And using critical thinking, we evaluate your claims, recognise it doesn't work to explain reality at all, so we reject it as the delusional BS it is.
Again, critical thinking means questioning, not rejecting. And questioning means if there are answers, you accept them; you don't just reject them because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
Then you're in the brainwashed majority, not the freethinking minority.
Again, it is not a simple case of brainwashed majority vs freethinking minority.
You can easily have a brainwashed minority with a freethinking majority.
The majority thinking something is true does not mean you must be brainwashed to think it is true, or to be a free thinker you need to reject it, or to use critical thinking you must reject it.
Even with your strawman definition of critical thinking, it is questioning, nor rejecting.
then the freethinkers are those who buck the prevailing idea.
Again, they aren't.
If they buck the prevailing idea and replace it with delusional nonsense, they aren't free thinkers. They are just a smaller set of brainwashed or delusional fools.
your own ideas sound like parroted nonsense
They don't.
Where is the nonsense?
You are desperate to dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot show a single fault.
Instead you just repeat the same pathetic lies again and again.
An irrational person can easily be convinced to attach the idea that something is rational just because everyone believes it, or because it has the trappings of "rational".
You mean like you have done repeatedly with your entirely irrational rejection of the RE?
Just because it has the trappings of allegedly rational arguments opposing the RE, where you need to repeatedly flee from the refutations of those arguments?
But critical thinking is not about accepting that something is rational, it's about accepting rational thinking by disputing ideas that are a bit too carefully prepared.
It has nothing to do with how carefully prepared the ideas are.
It is about applying rational thought to the issue to try to determine what is true.
Arguments being developed to promote the truth for thousands of years does not make it critical thinking to reject and ignore them all to replace reality with a fantasy.
Suppose a cult made a convincing and perfectly rational-sounding persuasion for jumping off a 150 ft bridge.
Again, rational-sounding is not the issue, rational is.
So what you really need me to do is imagine a fantasy where a falsehood is propped up by a rational argument and there is no rational argument to counter it.
And a problem with trying to tell people what to do is the massive is-ought problem.
Rational thought only gets you so far.
It can tell what is. But it cannot tell you what you ought to do, because that is going to be based upon a subjective, i.e. NOT RATIONAL, preference.
Also note that this cult would fit your BS idea of "Critical thinking".
You are rejecting the "brainwashed majority" that thinks jumping of a bridge is a bad idea, and instead going with the "free thinking minority".
Again, your repeated irrational rejection of the RE, complete with repeating the same refuted arguments multiple times; and you then presenting your fantasy as a solution, and ignoring all the problems with it is NOT a sign of critical thinking. It is the exact opposite, a sign of a complete absence of critical thinking from you.
And notice how basically this entire post of yours, is just a long ad-hominem.
You suggest that if you agree with the majority, then you are brainwashed and not displaying any critical thinking; and that if you instead reject it, you are a free-thinker who shows critical thinking.
You don't show anything wrong with what the majority believes, nor support your alternative.
You just throw out insults and claim to be better.
-
Well you obviously didnt pray hard enough to convert your sexual perversion into a stroct hetero male should be male binary view point.
Watching all them china cartoons has twisted your mind.
And the word you wanted was oxymoron.
Conservatives are many faceted.
Financial.
Regulation.
Religion.
Sex.
Thinking you have the business side of the beliefs means youre accepted by those who hold a majority of the views means you have a lack of self awareness
Which was the original argument.
Hence no, not ad hom, but oxymoron.
-
If you aren't free to also occasionally reject what you have been taught, the ability to question isn't worth anything.
Order of Operations is a wonderful tool for doing math problems, but if it becomes a stumbling block and you're not able to intelligently use it, you're better off ignoring it entirely.
History without historiography is just a tool for propaganda of whatever group is teaching history. Without the ability to realistically say "Robert E Lee was a regular person," you either get sucked into the camp of those who worship at his altar or those woke who now want to destroy all statues to him.
Science if used as a tool of consensus rather than correctly using the scientific method, ceases to be science. The scientific method consists of setting a hypothesis, making experiments, testing them against the hypothesis, and revising the hypothesis. This is a hint. The goal of science is not to come to consensus but to test hypotheses. Any scientific "law" that you weren't alive to see proven is something that stupid dead people came up with. It needs to be tested by living people to be sure somewhere along the way crooked science using the peer pressure effect wasn't done.
Consensus "science" often works like this. Al Gore slips some money to several climate scientists, or maybe a magazine offers to fund their research if they get a certain result on the next climate conference. Amazing! 98% of all scientists agree that the Earth's climate is in trouble! Just as 98% of all scientists (after NASA slips them a few bucks) agree that the Earth is flat. That most people believe in something does not mean it's right. Even if they have never been handed money, the majority believes the Earth is round because there is nothing at state to them. They do not realize (yet) that globalism is a threat to their freedom.
-
If you aren't free to also occasionally reject what you have been taught, the ability to question isn't worth anything.
You are free to reject whatever you want, and other people are free to object to your irrational rejection.
If you aren't free to accept what you have been taught, then the ability to question isn't worth anything.
Questioning requires you to be able to accept or reject or ask further questions based upon the answers to those questions.
The scientific method consists of setting a hypothesis, making experiments, testing them against the hypothesis, and revising the hypothesis.
That's right, and the RE passes those just fine, but the FE does not.
The FE has failed so many tests it isn't funny.
Any scientific "law" that you weren't alive to see proven is something that stupid dead people came up with. It needs to be tested by living people to be sure somewhere along the way crooked science using the peer pressure effect wasn't done.
And if you try to do that by yourself, then you will die before you are done. If you try to have a group of people doing it, then as they die more people need to join to continue the process, and you are just wasting loads of time and resources.
Some things are fairly well established and used in every day life without issue.
Some things are fairly well established, and done by school kids to learn science.
Even if they have never been handed money, the majority believes the Earth is round because there is nothing at state to them.
And they can be divided into 2 groups, those that really don't give a damn at all, and those that recognise the RE makes sense and explains what is observed.
They do not realize (yet) that globalism is a threat to their freedom.
That isn't something for them to realise.
That is just your paranoid, delusional BS which you continually use to try to attack the RE because you have run out of excuses.
-
"Not able to use order of operations?"
Math is a language.
Syntax.
Pedmas is an agreed consensus so that different people can obtain the same answrr and same desired result.
Like driving.
Like spelling.
Imagine a computer software that ddint follow the code in order.
Imagine you google dirdctions to a place you never been to, decide to arbitraliy tunr left and right - would youget there?
Wow
"Repeatable"
Its not blind concensus on a hypothesis.
Its tested against variables.
Its repeatable.
Thats the scientific method.
Your nonsense is untestable and not repeatble.
-
And they can be divided into 2 groups, those that really don't give a damn at all, and those that recognise the RE makes sense and explains what is observed.
More like those agree because they don't give a damn, and those who are either bribed or useful idiots of the globalist movement. So basically: 80% don't care, 5% are giving money to push this narrative, 5% taking money to push this narrative, and the remaining 10% truly believe in this (idiots).
Also, not helping your case. If the greater public doesn't really believe out of a sense that RE makes sense but because they "don't really give a damn at all", then you've already lost the discussion.
100% of the flat Earthers recognize the RE doesn't make sense. And there is no real merch market for flat Earth. A few tee shirts or snowglobes, some Youtubers, but no NASA-equivalent to RE in the FE group. Also, the Youtubers risk being banned with every video they do, as Youtube already puts up a disclaimer, and probably has "spreading misinformation" as a bannable offense. So think about this, even if they earn money, they are willing to risk deplatforming. And they are ignoring payouts to sell-out their ideas and recant. They are committed to what they believe.
Pedmas is an agreed consensus so that different people can obtain the same answrr and same desired result.
You are really stupid. Sorry.
PEDMAS (not lowercase btw, it's an acronym) is a guideline. Not an absolute law. It's worthless for averages. It's worthless for word problems. It's worthless for situations where you happen to know that numbers ought to be grouped a certain way.
When you don't have the ability to reject or question what you are taught, you shouldn't be taught anything. Not even how to read. If you are a sheep, you ought to remain as dumb as a sheep, and be given a skill for a trade. Politicizing ignorant people is how we have disastrous social policies like trying to take wealth of the rich (the rich start scheming to hide their wealth, or simply stop working, until everyone is poor) or opening the borders of a country (the country gets owned by another land).
-
Good point!
Im going to arbitrarily use + vs × when it suits me.
Because adding is way easier tahn mulitplying and theyre basically the same symbol anyways.
Just one on a slant.
-
More like those agree because they don't give a damn, and those who are either bribed or useful idiots of the globalist movement.
No, like exactly what I said.
Your irrational hatred of the RE doesn't mean people do not recognise it as a model which works to describe reality, and that it works far better than any alternative.
People do not need to be idiots or bribed to accept the truth.
Considering you are yet to show a single fault with the RE, nor are you able to defend the FE, it is far more likely that the FEers are the conmen or useful idiots.
Also, not helping your case. If the greater public doesn't really believe out of a sense that RE makes sense but because they "don't really give a damn at all", then you've already lost the discussion.
No, I haven't. That is because as you said, real science is not about consensus.
100% of the flat Earthers recognize the RE doesn't make sense.
No, they don't. Not a single FEer I have ever heard from recognises any part of the RE that doesn't make sense.
Instead, they have either fallen for a lie, have been brainwashed/deluded, or are conmen blatantly lying about the RE.
And there is no real merch market for flat Earth.
They don't need a massive market. All they need to do is con a few fools into watching their crap and buying their crap and they can live happily.
Also, the Youtubers risk being banned with every video they do, as Youtube already puts up a disclaimer, and probably has "spreading misinformation" as a bannable offense.
No, they don't.
Only specific types of misinformation is a violation of the community guidelines.
And they are ignoring payouts to sell-out their ideas and recant.
Who is offering them pay-outs?
They are committed to what they believe.
Which doesn't mean that what they believe is justified. And in fact it actually shows the opposite.
Some of these people do not care what the evidence shows, they have decided what they want to believe, and they will stick to it.
That is not critical thought. That is not science.
2 great examples of this are shown in the documentary about FEers - Behind the curve.
Bob Knodel believed his own BS so much that he spent $20 000 on a laser ring gyroscope, expecting to be able to prove Earth is stationary.
And what happened?
He detected an ~15 degree per hour drift, entirely consistent with the rotation of Earth.
But instead of accepting what that meant, he decided to look for excuses for how Earth could still be flat.
Just like some people in the past did when aether was shown to be garbage.
A quote from him was "We obviously were not willing to accept that"
Likewise Mark Sargent had a simple experiment, pass light through 2 holes. If Earth is flat, the distant light would need to be the same altitude as the holes, If Earth was round, it would have to be higher.
And what happens?
The light is not seen when level. It has to be raised up.
And what is the response? "Interesting".
Using critical thought, using the scientific method, we establish hypothesis and test them.
In the first case:
for a round, rotating Earth, the instrument should measure a 15 degree per hour drift.
for a flat stationary Earth, the instrument should detect no drift.
The hypotheses are established. We test them, and find a 15 degree per hour drift.
The RE model passed the test. The FE model failed.
In the second case:
For a round Earth, the light should need to be raised higher to pass through the holes and be observed on the camera. (As they didn't state distances, can't calculate how much. If you were close enough the amount would be negligible.)
For a flat Earth, the light should shine through the hole when held at the same height.
The hypotheses are established. We test them, and find that the light needs to be raised to see it through the holes.
The RE model passed the test. The FE model failed.
Anyone using critical thought with these experiments would recognise they show massive problems for the FE and support/confirm the RE.
But brainwashed/deluded fools will desperately seek excuses for why it still works with their fantasy.
PEDMAS (not lowercase btw, it's an acronym) is a guideline. Not an absolute law.
Just like languages. It is a way to help you communicate what you mean.
If you violate these guidelines, people may recognise what you mean or they may have no idea. In the worst case they may think you mean something entirely different from what you actually meant.
It's worthless for averages. It's worthless for word problems. It's worthless for situations where you happen to know that numbers ought to be grouped a certain way.
You mean you don't like it for averages.
If you don't want to use it, then be explicit. Otherwise it is just confusing.
e.g. What if I want to know what $1.5 + $2.80 + $25.7 / 3 is? What if I changed it to $1.5 + $2.80 + $25.7 * (1/3)
Am I trying to find the average of these 3 prices? Or am I trying to find a sum which uses a third of the final amount?
What about $1.5*2 + $2.8 + $12*3?. Am I trying to find what is actually shown, 41.8? Or am I trying to find a more ridiculous ($1.5*2 + $2.8 + $12)*3?
Without an understood order of operations any of the options is reasonable. That means if we reject the order of operations, you end up with having no idea what is meant by these.
So you either accept an order of operations to communicate with others; or you reject it and use notation which is unambiguous or risk being misunderstood.
For example, if you change it to words, you can entirely ignore the ambiguity.
e.g. the average of one dollar 50, 2 dollars 80 and 25 dollars 70; or the total of one dollar 50, 2 dollars 80 and a third of 25 dollars 70.
When you don't have the ability to reject or question what you are taught, you shouldn't be taught anything. Not even how to read. If you are a sheep, you ought to remain as dumb as a sheep, and be given a skill for a trade.
So people like you, who show a complete inability to reject things like the flat Earth, should be kept as dumb as sheep?
-
Good point!
Im going to arbitrarily use + vs × when it suits me.
Because adding is way easier tahn mulitplying and theyre basically the same symbol anyways.
Just one on a slant.
You can't even spell "than" right. Or "they're". Or "multiplying."
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The danger comes of thinking you know things. Wisdom comes of knowing you know nothing.
Here.
(https://mushroomexam.com/pluginfile.php/1312/mod_page/content/44/Destroying%20Angel%20look-alikes.png?time=1691794490442)
I am totally certain these are harmless field mushrooms, and not Destroying Angel.
Or you could learn to use addition and multiplication, and use good practice, remembering to group mathematical equations properly (87+85+84)/3 instead of the fucking lazy 87+85+84/3 that bred the need for PEMDAS in the first place. Using caution and proper practice is the end result of experience. And experience is the result of wisdom. Wisdom is proper humility of knowing you know nothing.
You learn science by repeated tests. That is to say, by trial and error, and getting things wrong.
Dumbasses will get things wrong, yet double down, and tell everyone they got things right.
I happen to know I was sure for years the Earth was round. I was wrong. And I admit it.
So go ahead, have a tasty mushroom. You will tell me that I am overreacting for not trusting the science of mycology that you studied for half a semester. Just as I should trust the astronomy of your 5th grade science teacher who first told you the Earth is round and orbits the sun.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1192691842119123054/Screenshot_2024-01-04_at_23-51-02_Fungi_Poisonous_Mushroom_Look_Alikes.png)
Eat up! :P
-
You can't even spell "than" right. Or "they're". Or "multiplying."
So you are happy to throw things like pedmas out the window, but demand perfect spelling?
At least in this case there is no ambiguity over what is meant, unlike your nonsense where you want people to be mind readers to tell exactly what you mean?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The danger comes of thinking you know things.
Like you "think you know" things which you clearly don't?
Or you could learn to use addition and multiplication, and use good practice, remembering to group mathematical equations properly (87+85+84)/3 instead of the fucking lazy 87+85+84/3 that bred the need for PEMDAS in the first place.
So you are saying we should use pedmas, to avoid the need for pedmas?
Dumbasses will get things wrong, yet double down, and tell everyone they got things right.
Like you do, repeatedly.
Repeating the same pathetic, refuted lies as if it magically means Earth is flat.
Just like you are doing now, claiming to have been wrong about Earth being round.
You might not have had a justified belief, but you were not wrong to accept Earth is round.
But you most certainly are wrong now you are claiming it is flat.
-
PEDMAS (not lowercase btw, it's an acronym) is a guideline. Not an absolute law. It's worthless for averages. It's worthless for word problems. It's worthless for situations where you happen to know that numbers ought to be grouped a certain way.
Symbols are a guideline.
Grammar is a guideline.
Spelling is a guideline.
Syntax is a guideline.
Lines and signs on the road are a guideline.
The 10commandments are a guideline.
Im a free thinker
I see you using paranetheses in an attempt to show how to properly communicate how averages work.
( ...the literal first letter of pedmas
edit: haha i see jackB got it).
But you couldve used it in a word problem and said:
"What is the average of these three numbers: 82, 81, 80?"
instwad of
"(82+81+80)/3 = ?"
Avoiding confusion is turning people into sheep.
Comminist mind control.
-
You learn science by repeated tests. That is to say, by trial and error, and getting things wrong.
So go ahead, have a tasty mushroom.
So your version of science everyone should try the deadly mushroom for themselves, not trust the consensus that it is a bad idea. If you survive , great you can now repeat the test by trying again.
(https://i.redd.it/trying-to-teach-flerfs-v0-j0zmj5d3um8b1.jpg?s=9c4053aa5910ada1d6d084297401768a76327606)
Actually my point was that if a group of ppl all agreed that a Death Cap was a straw mushroom, should you take their word for it because they show you their credentials? Credentials ultimately are a piece of paper.
You should ultimately check the mushroom's underside, run all the safety steps, and not trust a mob of people in lab coats.
Or you can let them tell you that they've all agreed that they're straw mushrooms. If you're not 1000% sure, better not to eat mushrooms.
There are old cautious mushroom pickers, and young confident mushroom pickers. Guess what's missing.
But thanks for that meme. I got a good laugh out of that one.
Symbols are a guideline.
Grammar is a guideline.
Spelling is a guideline.
Syntax is a guideline.
Lines and signs on the road are a guideline.
The 10commandments are a guideline.
Im a free thinker
I see you using paranetheses in an attempt to show how to properly communicate how averages work.
( ...the literal first letter of pedmas)
Funny story about the Ten Commandments. The first set of commandments was literally destroyed when the people did everything wrong. In other words, the first set could have been "be awesome to each other" but Moses got pissed and God got pissed, and then we have 10 rules for life in this world.
Yes, I included Parentheses. I did so not as a mistake but to prove the point. If you use proper mathematical grouping, there is 100% no need for the rest of PEDMAS.
When you understand the law, there is no point to have it imposed on you.
-
Being able to articulate a natural law doesnt negate its existence.
Thingw fall - being able to articulate why or how fast wasnt required for things to fall.
However
Articulating a c9nvention so two people communicating are able to communicate wothout confusion requires consensus.
"Watch MY six (not YOUR 6) "
"CW vs CWW" and "turn left on main (if coming from the East) vs turn south on main" are all convention to avoid confusion.
-
Actually my point was that if a group of ppl all agreed that a Death Cap was a straw mushroom, should you take their word for it because they show you their credentials? Credentials ultimately are a piece of paper.
I don't eat mushrooms, problem solved.
But that isn't your point.
Your point is to reject reality.
So if they pick up a death cap, clearly identify it as such, and explain how they know, you will accuse them of lying, claim it is actually a straw mushroom and they are just part of a conspiracy to prevent you from eating it, and then eat it anyway, and die.
You don't need to just accept that Earth is round based upon their credentials. You can do the experiments yourself and realise the RE model works, and your model is BS which doesn't work at all.
I did so not as a mistake but to prove the point. If you use proper mathematical grouping, there is 100% no need for the rest of PEDMAS.
So how would you express
$1.50*2 + $3.50 + $8.90*2 ?
Or $100 - $57.5 + $50 - $28?
Like that, or with brackets?
And if you are going to use brackets for everything, you just reduce it to P. Skipping the EDMAS.
-
Being able to articulate a natural law doesnt negate its existence.
Thingw fall - being able to articulate why or how fast wasnt required for things to fall.
However
Articulating a c9nvention so two people communicating are able to communicate wothout confusion requires consensus.
"Watch MY six (not YOUR 6) "
"CW vs CWW" and "turn left on main (if coming from the East) vs turn south on main" are all convention to avoid confusion.
Yes, we have conventions based on things to avoid confusion. But if we start to mistake conventions for knowledge, we are in for a world of hurt.
A very colorful safety video shows what happens if a factory starts doing sloppy safety procedure.
Just because regular knowledge seems to work, doesn't mean you couldn't get RE wrong and instead fly off the edge of the Earth. Safety matters!
-
I dunno what youre on about.
Theres a difference between an agreed upon convention for inproved comminication
Vs
Agreed upon facts based on independentaly repeatable and verifiable experiments.
-
Yes, we have conventions based on things to avoid confusion. But if we start to mistake conventions for knowledge, we are in for a world of hurt.
So why did you bring it up when we were discussing knowledge, and how you repeatedly fail to apply critical thought to things concerning the shape of Earth, where you irrationally reject the RE without critical thought and happily accept nonsense for a FE without critical thought?
Just because regular knowledge seems to work, doesn't mean you couldn't get RE wrong and instead fly off the edge of the Earth. Safety matters!
No, the fact that Earth is round prevents that.
-
I sure do reject "critical thought". Note the scare quotes.
I dunno what youre on about.
Yes, I know.
It's a bad habit in so called 'academic society' that they speak and listen to something they don't know. They're confused but not willing to admit it.
Come back when you understand better.
No, the fact that Earth is round prevents that.
If gravity really worked, then between central gravity being overruled by the universe's gravity (the universe is flat) and the southern hemisphere being the underside of Earth, everyone below the equator should fall off. This is basic logic, and the lot of you call me irrational when this idea is way more irrational.
Pro-tip: if Earth is flat, all humans standing on it are standing upright. There is no way to fall off the edge of a flat Earth, contrary to the wives' tales spun by RE ppl. There are plenty of ways to fatally exit the Earth according to RE, however.
comminication
Is that where we all become commies?
-
Why would australians fall UP into the sky?
See goes back to conventions.
-
If the Earth is round and the universe is flat, we are essentially looking at this model.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1193363937236893827/RoundEarthFlatUniverse.png)
We are normally talking about three dimensional space when we say Earth is flat, but the term "the universe is flat" is either meaningless (probably), or it pertains to the universe being like a shallow pool where spheres bob up to the surface as they are less dense than the universe, and therefore surface to the top as buoyancy is true. But if gravity is true, there is more ambient mass (yes, even despite massive empty space) in the entirety of the universe, and living things ought to gravitate out toward the nearest dense star or planet or whatever the hell else.
1.317 × 1025 lbs for the Earth.
4.18 × 1027 lbs for Jupiter
4.385 × 1030 lbs for the sun.
Living beings have a mass of roughly 150 lb, meaning if you were tempted to think Earth should simply rotate and humans just stick to Earth, the 4 x 105 difference between the Earth and sun in lb means a 400,000 times difference in mass.
If the sun has powerful enough gravity to pull the Earth around with it, it has powerful enough gravity to cause all humans to fall out of Earth, and you thinking down is up simply isn't gonna cut it. You would fall off the Earth, into the sun, and burn to a crisp.
Not that I believe in gravity. Again. Buoyancy is what makes things sink or float.
-
I sure do reject "critical thought". Note the scare quotes.
No, you reject actual critical thought.
This is because it destroys your fantasy and your claims.
So you need to pretend to have "critical thought" which is really nothing wilful, irrational rejection of reality.
If gravity really worked, then between central gravity being overruled by the universe's gravity
See, this is a great example of you rejecting critical thought.
You take this BS and keep on repeating it even though it has been refuted.
That is not applying critical thought.
Again, the universe is in all directions, so the gravitational attraction cancels out. The main source of gravity near Earth's surface is Earth, so objects have a force trying to accelerate them towards Earth.
So those in the southern hemisphere would fall towards Earth, i.e. down.
If you were applying critical thought you would ask yourself 2 simple questions:
1 - Why is the southern hemisphere the bottom?
2 - What is making them fall/where are they falling to?
You are basically saying Earth is flat and the universe should magically work according to your flat Earth fantasy where there is a magical universal down and things magically fall to that, so earth can't be flat.
That is entirely ignoring how gravity actually works, and is basically saying "Earth is flat so it can't be a sphere".
It is pure nonsense and shows a complete lack of critical thought.
And the fact you keep doing it even after it has been refuted shows either extreme stupidity with being entirely incapable of comprehending such simple topics; or extreme dishonest, where you know you are spouting pure BS, yet continue to do so.
We are normally talking about three dimensional space when we say Earth is flat, but the term "the universe is flat" is either meaningless (probably), or it pertains to the universe being like a shallow pool where spheres bob up to the surface as they are less dense than the universe
Repeating the same refuted BS wont help you.
Neither of those options are true.
As above, it simply means it is Euclidean.
At the large scale it is hypothetically possible for the universe to be spherical, flat or hyperbolic.
If it was spherical if you travelled far enough in one direction you would return to your starting point. It would also mean if 2 people started off separated by some distance and travelled in the same direction they would eventually meet.
For a hyperbolic universe it means that those 2 travellers would get further apart.
It also relates to if it is expected to eventually collapse in on itself, expand gradually slowing down or continuing to expand at an accelerating rate without end.
This has a very simple and easy to understand meaning, nothing like your dishonest BS.
Again, this has already been explained to you, but because it doesn't help your fantasy you entirely ignore it refusing to apply any critical thought.
But if gravity is true, there is more ambient mass
Again, there are 2 terms, m and r.
Specifically of the form m/r^2.
That means if you double the distance, you need to multiply the mass by 4.
And it is a vector quantity, so that means direction matters.
If you have 2 masses which are of equal mass and distance, but they are 180 degrees apart, then they pull in opposite directions and the net force is 0.
Again you demonstrate a complete lack of critical thought.
And again, this has already been explained to you, with you just repeating the same dishonest refuted BS.
Showing either incredible stupidity, or incredible dishonesty.
living things ought to gravitate out toward the nearest dense star or planet or whatever the hell else.
i.e. things near Earth should gravitate towards Earth.
the 4 x 105 difference between the Earth and sun in lb means a 400,000 times difference in mass.
And again, distance matters:
6371 km for Earth, 150 000 000 km for the sun.
That ~24 000 times extra distance, when squared goes to a factor of ~550 000 000. More than your factor of 400 000 for mass.
So that means the attraction to the sun is less than the attraction to Earth.
If the sun has powerful enough gravity to pull the Earth around with it, it has powerful enough gravity to cause all humans to fall out of Earth, and you thinking down is up simply isn't gonna cut it. You would fall off the Earth, into the sun, and burn to a crisp.
No, it doesn't. As explained repeatedly.
Also note that this contradicts your idea of things falling off the southern hemisphere.
That would be simply those in the day fall.
But Earth is in free fall accelerating towards the sun, just like all the people on Earth are accelerating towards the sun.
If you would like a better argument, use the moon. That way you actually have to go do the tidal force to show the moon shouldn't fly away from Earth.
Again. Buoyancy is what makes things sink or float.
No, buoyancy, which is a direct result of gravity, is what makes things float. Gravity is what makes them sink.
Without gravity there would be no buoyancy and floating and sinking would have no meaning.
-
If you were applying critical thought you would ask yourself 2 simple questions:
1 - Why is the southern hemisphere the bottom?
2 - What is making them fall/where are they falling to?
So much "critical thought." ???
1. By convention, words mean things. Maybe in woke town, you can call the universe flat, and not have peoole imagine a ball (the Earth) sitting on a carpet, just as you can call a person beautiful (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qI-nbsjeosg/W2DvBbVAnqI/AAAAAAAAARU/7saznfESNk8dvBn7VMLcAnCHURi702ZXQCLcBGAs/s1600/worlds-most-beautiful-eyes-800x600.jpg) and not have them imagine a gross fat chick (https://media.thechalkboardmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/30000736/body-positivity-1.jpg). But south of the equator in a globe means the area below, under, south of the equator. If an object is a globe, naturally it goes outward, then inward. This is common sense, not even science. It's also proof that you are either selling something or very deeply brainwashed/deluded, that you don't understand south is the underside. You can use you finger to touch a picture of a globe and get that if "south" is the "top" then you have an upside-down globe. But even if you have an upside down globe, by the convention of how words are used, the underside is always called "south." On a pancake, outside is south.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1193552634464972821/South.png)
2. It doesn't. This is YOUR theory, that I'm picking at. My theory has no reason why humans would fall out. You theory, gravity, has lesser objects gravitating to greater objects, meaning the sun as bigger than the Earth and humans, would naturally pull humans off the edge. Only if the sun was like my sun, Earth center of the system and much larger than the sun, would you be able to stay on YOUR Earth.
Such critical thinking.
-
meaning the sun as bigger than the Earth and humans, would naturally pull humans off the edge.
Exactly why in the heliocentric model.
What keeps “your sun” producing radiation and in orbit around the earth in atmosphere and inside the van Allen belts that explains the northern and southern lights, why radiation of the sun is blocked from the night side of the earth, and solar and lunar eclipses.
It doesn’t
The heliocentric model does. Without ad hoc and contradictory magical BS.
The heliocentric model also explains why objects accelerate towards earth. You have not provided a force that makes objects fall and accelerate towards earth. Why there is the direction of down. You have ignored the needed force. And created falsehoods.
And still see you are brainwashed by that debunked video.
-
that you don't understand south
Where FE produces no meaningful reason a compass works as witnessed
Nothing with the FE makes meaningful navigation and distances as witnessed and documented by the very real travel in the southern hemisphere of the spherical earth.
Just star gazing at southern constitution from the southern hemisphere kills FE.
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
With the spherical earth explaining why certain stars and constellations are blocked from view in the southern hemisphere. Like why the northern star gets lower and lower on the horizon without changing magnitude of brightness as one travels south across the equator until the curvature of the earth blocks it from view.
-
So much "critical thought." ???
That two posts, ten small paragraphs, two illustrations kills and debunks flat earth.
-
Yes the convention of UP is AWAY from the center of the earth and if you were in auatralia, aouthern hemoaphere you wouldnt fall up to tuebaky, youd center of earth.
Up on a flat map is north on the map, but horizontal on the surface to anybody actually walking around.
As jack mentioned in a very wordy way gravity decreases with distance.
The sun being very far away pulls the earth.
But little humans standing on the very surface of the earth (very close distance) are MORE drawn to the earth because we re on it.
Finish you math.
Find out with pull woild be stronger on the 150lb human?
Earth or sun?
Pull = gMm/r^2
Hurray
-
And still see you are brainwashed by that debunked video.
You are still threatened by that video.
I have done the math, and it works.
That two posts, ten small paragraphs, two illustrations kills and debunks flat earth.
Obviously, it doesn't. Or we wouldn't still be debating here.
What, you think I'm just too stubborn to notice I'm wrong? No, I'm stubborn about a lot of things, but I always seek out the truth. You still probably "mask up, vaxx up" like a good little servant of the state.
Assuming you actually know globalism is wrong, it doesn't occur to you that following globalism in hopes of a glorious socialist revolution doesn't bear out in history (as we told our nephew earlier this week, revolutions always do in the original members). Assuming you don't know, you are an even bigger dupe, as you are pushing a system you don't even understand is a lie.
(https://i.imgur.com/6XylL3b.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7mN5e0S.jpg)
These two illustrations?
First of all "without using science."
Science
n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
The word origin of science is "to know."
When you stop using science to prove or disprove things, what are you using? Urban legends? The only valid thing outside of science is logic or common sense.
So let's do this without science.
You have picture 1, two people looking inward in a round Earth, but clearly they can't do that in a flat Earth! Or maybe that's exactly what they are doing, and there is no reason they couldn't. Starting with picture 2.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1193647738911457461/7mN5e0S.jpg)
You're right, that was easy! Didn't take science at all.
The "Southern Cross" doesn't actually point south at all. It points toward a central spot above you. In fact, if I had to guess, "Polaris" is actually the convergence of stars in a constellation, and people in the north are simply too close to realize that this cross is not a single star at all. Similar to how certain paintings, you have to back up to see the larger picture.
Southern Cross = Polaris = Star of Bethlehem
In all cases, the Cross led people to where they want to go. As Jesus has always done.
https://yellowstonetheology.org/jesus-as-our-north-star-southern-cross/
Happy Epiphany!
(https://static.vecteezy.com/system/resources/previews/000/147/612/original/happy-epiphany-day-vector.jpg)
Now, let's tackle the first picture.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1193659389731684433/6XylL3b.png)
The hill I am speaking of, is of course the curvature that you yourselves refer to. Yes, you basically debunked yourself. Congratulations!
So what about this debunked anything? I just didn't feel like dealing with that. So I ignored it.
-
So much "critical thought." ???
Yes, you do continue to refuse to apply it.
1. By convention, words mean things.
Yes, that is true words do mean things, by convention, and this can also vary depending on context.
In math, when you are dealing with types of geometry, there are 3 common types.
Flat geometry, also known as Euclidean, spherical and hyperbolic.
There are also more complex ones where it is not the same. For example, the geometry of the surface of a standard torus.
If you applied critical thought you would recognise that we see stars in all directions, and these people are fully aware of that, so it makes no sense for them to be claiming Earth is flat like a sheet. They clearly mean something else. You would then investigate, maybe even taking the simple of going to Wikipedia and reading what they actually mean. You would then be able to learn this above convention.
But that wouldn't help your argument. So you instead choose to not use any critical thought and instead interpret this in the way in which you can ridicule the RE the most.
But for the questions which you can't answer, the convention is also simple.
North is dictated by the right hand rule.
Make a thumbs up gesture with your right hand. Align your fingers such that they wrap around in the direction of rotation. Your thumb points north.
This says nothing about what is actually up or down.
You can also do a thumbs down gesture with your right hand. Now north is pointing down.
Down has meaning based upon context. In the context of objects near Earth, down is towards is towards the centre of Earth.
Maybe in woke town, you can call the universe flat, and not have peoole imagine a ball (the Earth) sitting on a carpet
You mean an intellectual situation where people understand what words mean and can apply critical thought; as opposed to a childish situation where people like you just want to try to mock it.
But south of the equator in a globe means the area below, under, south of the equator.
No, it just means south.
You are the one trying to pretend it means under or below.
Under the equator, is more of the equator.
We have been over this, in order to have any part of a globe be an underside you need to orient it with respect to something.
You have nothing to do that with.
And to demonstrate the complete lack of critical thought on your part, you happily switch between things allegedly falling south, and things allegedly falling into the sun, which are entirely different directions.
It is entirely by convention that the north is often shown at the top. But that was not always the case, and there is objective basis for it. It is just as valid to have the south at the top. Or to have an azimuthal projection centred on some point.
It's also proof that you are either selling something or very deeply brainwashed/deluded, that you don't understand south is the underside.
No, it is proof that you are desperately grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend there is a problem with the RE model, because you can't find any.
It also shows a complete lack of critical thought.
If you were actually applying critical thought, you would ask why is south the bottom?
If I take a basketball, I can orient it however I want, and just whatever point is down is the bottom.
I can then take it and flip it around, and then that point which used to be the bottom is now the top.
I can even take a globe model of Earth and orient it however I please, for example, doing one of your crappy strawmen experiments which I put things on it, but because I am holding it with the north side down, things fall to the north, with things falling away from the north side while things stay sitting on the south.
The bottom of the ball only makes sense with reference to something else.
So if you applied critical thought you would recognise that south being the bottom can only make sense if you have something to orient it with. In the RE model, there is nothing, so it is not the bottom.
If you take a globe and have it upside down, it may look a little strange, but objectively there is nothing wrong with it.
2. It doesn't. This is YOUR theory, that I'm picking at.
No it isn't.
It is a pathetic strawman where your take your delusional BS and try to force a RE into it to pretend there is a problem.
With the mainstream model (my theory if you must), things fall due to gravity. Near the Earth gravity pulls things towards Earth. So those in the south should fall to Earth, not magically fall to the south away from Earth.
My theory has no reason why humans would fall out.
You don't have a theory. You have a pile of self-contradictory nonsense with no chance to match reality.
Your nonsense has no reason why people should fall either. You just assert they magically do.
You theory, gravity, has lesser objects gravitating to greater objects, meaning the sun as bigger than the Earth and humans, would naturally pull humans off the edge.
Again, that is your strawman, not the mainstream model.
In the mainstream model the force of gravity, as its simplest for a discussion like that, is a force of attraction between all masses, given by F=GMm/d^2.
Again, notice the key part you are overlooking d (sometimes expressed as r).
It isn't just mass, it is also the distance between the objects
As has been demonstrated to you repeatedly, for an object near the surface of Earth, the gravitational attraction to Earth is much greater than the gravitational attraction to the sun, so objects fall to Earth, not the sun.
You repeatedly lying about it, repeatedly ignoring the distance is you setting up a pathetic strawman to pretend there is a problem because you cannot show an actual problem.
And has been explained to you repeatedly, Earth is in free fall.
Earth and everything on it is accelerating towards the sun as it circles it in an orbit.
In order to have things pulled off Earth while in free fall you need the tidal force to be greater.
This can be calculated as finding the difference between the acceleration at the centre of Earth and an object on the surface, or by F=2GMmr/d^3 where r is the radius of the secondary (Earth in this case) and d is the distance between the primary (the sun) and the secondary. M is also referring to the mass of the primary.
You have had all of this explained before yet entirely ignore it to repeat the same pathetic strawman.
So yet again you display a complete lack of any critical thought.
Instead you keep repeating the same refuted BS like a brainwashed fool; or a conman trying to brainwash fools; or like a pathetic troll.
-
I have done the math, and it works.
Care to provide the math to demonstrate that? Because every attempt of you "doing the math" so far has been a complete failure.
What, you think I'm just too stubborn to notice I'm wrong?
That question remains.
Are you a brainwashed fool or too stupid to realise you are wrong?
Or do you fully realise you are wrong, you are just happy to lie to everyone for some purpose, potentially to try to con people into joining your cult, potentially you are just a pathetic troll.
But what is abundantly clear, is that you are not seeking the truth and not applying critical thought.
These two illustrations?
Clearly demonstrating a problem for the common FE garbage.
The common FE garbage has the south as a rim, where each person is looking in a different direction.
People in the south, looking to the south (not the north like your dishonest BS shows) see the south celestial pole.
This makes no sense of a FE.
But it makes perfect sense on a RE.
First of all "without using science."
Which in this case is quite poorly stated. What they mean is that you don't just need to accept what you have been told and use complicated instruments, etc.
You can just take some simple observations which destroy the FE fantasy.
You have picture 1, two people looking inward in a round Earth, but clearly they can't do that in a flat Earth!
No, what you have are people looking TO THE SOUTH!
For a FE, that is outwards.
For a RE, that is towards the south pole.
What you are trying to say is that when you go to look south, you are so incredibly stupid and incompetent that you end up looking north.
Do you not realise the level of stupidity that needs?
Southern Cross = Polaris = Star of Bethlehem
No, they are fundamentally different stars and constellations.
You are now just spouting whatever delusional BS you can think of to pretend the FE fantasy works, again without applying any critical thought.
Now, let's tackle the first picture.
With more dishonest, delusional BS, showing a complete lack of any critical thought.
These people are not looking straight up to see the south celestial pole.
They are looking to the south.
If you really wanted to do this properly, you would produce something more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/pap2wYG.png)
(I even defied convention and put S at the top to show the stupidity of your stupidity.
There are too people looking south. If we ignore what direction they are looking, then the RE allows them to see roughly half of the sky.
The person on the left of the image can see anywhere in the blue region.
The person on the right of the image can see anywhere in the red region.
And in the purple region, both can see.
But now focus on direction. Both are looking to the south.
I have provided an example of such a sight line (not too scale, to look to the south celestial pole it would be much further into the purple region).
They can both clearly see the object in the purple section at the point of intersection of the 2 grey lines.
The curvature of Earth does not block the view. It only blocks the view in the black regions.
The hill I am speaking of, is of course the curvature that you yourselves refer to. Yes, you basically debunked yourself. Congratulations!
No, the "hill" you are referring to is pure magic.
What you are referring to effectively amounts to this dishonest BS:
(https://i.imgur.com/wsq3clE.png)
You rely upon the hill being pure magic and magically blocking the view to any object beyond it, even though there is no way for it to physically block the view.
Your dishonest BS is like saying a 1m tall hill in front of a 100 m tall building will magically the building from view.
You must really suck at hide and seek, probably just standing behind a table in plain view and expect the table to magically hide you.
So no, you haven't debunked the RE, nor have we debunked the RE.
You have just yet again shown how dishonest, brainwashed or stupid you are.
And importantly, you have yet again shown a complete lack of any critical thought.
So what about this debunked anything? I just didn't feel like dealing with that. So I ignored it.
The fact that multiple people, a significant distance around Earth looking south can see the same stars, shows beyond any doubt that the south converges to a point, entirely refuting the common FE garbage with the south is a rim.
It remains debunked, and your dishonest BS of pretending that even though they are looking south they are actually looking north is just pathetic desperation which doesn't defend the FE at all.
Likewise, your blatant lies about the RE, pretending they are looking straight up instead of to the south does not debunk or refute the RE; and likewise your lies about your magical infinite hill doesn't refute the RE either.
So it remains with the RE model working to describe reality with you yet to show a single fault, and the FE failing at almost every hurdle.
-
[]
You are still threatened by that video.
I’m not threatened by the video, it’s debunked.
You bulmabriefs144 are the one that crutches on lies and falsehoods. And has to change the subject and run away from threads. Like the sun would visibly turn north after passing California on a flat earth. You can’t draw how a lunar eclipse for a flat earth is possible.
Spherical earth in a Heliocentric model is the proven, tested, and demonstrable reality.
Flat earth was a study for my why people believe what they do.
Now it’s a study how flat earther’s lie to themselves.
-
Why is it debunked?
"Because I say it is debunked." ;D
Yeaaaaaaahhh, no.
-
Why is it debunked?
As already explained, for perspective, the same thing causing the apparent elevation to shrink also causes the apparent height to shrink.
You can't have one without the other.
You can think about it like this:
Say you have a 10 m tall object which is sitting 100 m above the ground, as you move away from it, both of these distances appear to shrink, the 10 m height of the object as well as the 100 m elevation.
Or as a simpler one, consider a person, the sun is their head, and the elevation of the sun is their body.
What you are suggesting is like saying that as the person walks off into the distance, their body appears to shrink while their head remains the same size.
This is shown to be pure BS from plenty of everyday observations.
If the sun is setting due to perspective then it must shrink as well.
If as you say (and the RE model says) the distance to the sun remains basically the same, then it is NOT appearing to sink due to perspective, but because relative to us it is tracing out a circular path and relative to us it is going "down".
Likewise, the FE is debunked by the stars, because 2 people on a FE that would need to be looking outwards in entirely different directions when looking south, see the same thing.
The real question is why is it not debunked? Because you need it to not be for your delusional fantasy to work? Because if it is debunked your delusional fantasy comes crashing down?
Yeaaaaaaahhh, no.
It is debunked. You not liking that fact wont change it.
-
Why is it debunked?
"Because I say it is debunked." ;D
Yeaaaaaaahhh, no.
As proven and demonstrated in the thread listed below you couldn’t make your case in…
Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92080.0
bulmabriefs144, once again trying to change the subject to one of their lies.
-
Oh ummm, and remember I said RE astronomy is basically alchemy?
Here is a self-proclaimed alchemist literally explaining the difference between Truth and Father, and at one point has shows the model of the world as a ball inside a flask.
(http://www.golob-gm.si/4-three-standard-stoppages-marcel-duchamp/l-3-Mercurius-in-the-bottle-Alchemical-Thought-of-Marcel-Duchamp.jpg)
In addition to a few Freemasonic symbols. This alchemist at least can say Jesus's name without flinching.
(Other videos on this subject, btw)
So yes, everything about this is nonsense math, not real information. Real math has a purpose, alchemy is designed to transform things from what they are into what they "should" be.
But the Earth is what it is. Trying to warp how it is through weird idealism is just silly. The purpose of science is to study and understand the world, and maybe improve the lives over others. The purpose of alchemy is to transform the world or the self. And not all transformations are good. Some pave over the reality of things. For example, I am a crossdresser because I understand that I was born a male, and I am a male, but I like to look pretty inasmuch as I am capable. The alchemist mindset is to use "science" to transform fertile males into sterile "females" by convincing them they are something they are not. Likewise, the alchemist mindset tried to transform free men set free by Jesus Christ by virtue of being born after his death and resurrection into slaves through the masking practice of COVID. Masks are occult symbols always concerned with deception and transformation.
But things are as they are.
The Earth is flat. Not a spinning aimless orb in an uncaring system.
We are free beings. Not slaves who eat bugs and veggie mush patties, and are not allowed to breathe fresh air.
Men can dress like women, and even look pretty with makeup, but biologically, they are not able to bear children.
אני מי שאני
The way around being punished by the Truth in FMA was to accept things as they are, and stop using alchemy to try to change them. This is consistent with understanding actual science. Does this mean the end of all technological progress? Not at all! But you must understand that alchemy is a fake science based on philosophy. In order to invent real things, you must understand how things actually are, identify problems, and solve them.
Problem: Transgender women are not real women, no matter how they might want to be. The litmus test of a real woman is the ability to become pregnant
Alchemical solution: Do a surgery that gives a man a nice body, but loses them the ability to give or bear children. Essentially, a well-disguised castration.
Scientific solution: Actually invent a means to solve said problem created by the alchemical solution. Possibly accept that even if a biological solution to this problem could be found, the end result is that there is something mentally or spiritually different about being a woman, and the transgender person will never feel right in their own body, and a better solution would be therapy for body dysmorphic disorder. Or this solution plus that. I dunno. The point is, one of these attempts an actual cure, the other covers the real problem with transformation.
-
Oh ummm, and remember I said RE astronomy is basically alchemy?
Yes, I remember how you were unable to show a fault with RE astronomy; how you lied by entirely misrepresenting scale to pretend there is a problem when there is none; and then used a pathetic comparison to alchemy to try to dismiss the math that showed you were wrong.
But I notice how you again decide to bring this up to deflect from your inability to defend the FE and your inability to refute the RE.
I don't care about alchemy. It has nothing to do with the topic.
But the Earth is what it is. Trying to warp how it is through weird idealism is just silly. The purpose of science is to study and understand the world, and maybe improve the lives over others.
So stop pretending it is flat because that would be simpler and better, and instead accept it for how it is.
The alchemist mindset is to use "science" to transform fertile males into sterile "females" by convincing them they are something they are not.
No, the freedom based mindset is allowing people to modify their bodies (or allowing them to consent to others modifying their body and having such procedure carried out) to change it to be how they want it to be.
If someone wants their penis removed, their freedom says they can.
Science is not about convincing them they are something they are not.
But that also has nothing to do with this topic.
The Earth is flat.
Yet all the evidence which can determine one way or another shows it is not.
For example, the stars you have yet again fled from.
in an uncaring system.
And that is really the issue for you.
You can't handle reality, so you try to escape to a fantasy.
Now again, care to address any of the multitude of issues raised for the FE?
The most recent being the existence of the south celestial pole, which your attempt to explain involves people looking the wrong way.
-
Oh ummm, and remember I said RE astronomy is basically alchemy?
Yes, I remember how you were unable to show a fault with RE astronomy; how you lied by entirely misrepresenting scale to pretend there is a problem when there is none; and then used a pathetic comparison to alchemy to try to dismiss the math that showed you were wrong.
Who says? That was what you believed ought to be the case, so that is what you heard.
In actual fact, I found a great deal of problems with RE astronomy.
1. The problem of perfect position. When you look at the sun and the moon in the sky, a passing glance (as more than that for one of them damages your eyes) tells you that the two appear to be the same size. Yet regardless of whether Earth is normal or sidereal, is tilting up or down, at its most or least distant this always appears the case.
2. The problem of teleportation. With this so-called perfect position that renders two objects of greatly different sizes to appear different sizes, there are strange contradictions. Such as the sun supposedly reflecting its light to the moon while both can be up in the sky and casting their own light. Or, I love this one, this lunar eclipse that you keep asking about (because it's hard to draw plausibly) as if to prove anything is supposed to be in a position where it receives the sun's light but just sort of "teleports" into place.
Let me explain this. Solar eclipse happens during new moon usually, lunar during full moon. A scientist (a real one) explained that the reason they were frightened was not because they knew nothing about eclipses, as Babylonians before them had made actual math to calculate the eclipse events accurately. it was because this darkness had to be something other than a solar eclipse, as Passover fell during the full moon. So let's get this straight... At the new moon, the sun is reflecting nothing from the moon, yet the model draws the moon right in the path of the sun. At the full moon, the moon is reflecting sunlight, yet the model draws it on the opposite side of Earth. Shouldn't it be the opposite way around?
3. The problem of unmoving stars. Yes, the parallax of the stars rotates around. But no matter where Ursa Minor or Orion or Little Dipper is in the sky, it's pretty much the distinctive shape. You're supposed to believe the sun moves around the galaxy while the Earth orbits it. Yet this would cause lose of position, which in turn causes loss of shape. Little Dipper, for instance. If you can see it for part of the year (let's say summer), at spring it should be 90° from its original position.
(https://earthsky.org/upl/2022/04/NEW-Big-Dipper-to-find-Polaris.jpg)
(https://earthsky.org/upl/2022/06/North-June.jpg)
Problem solved, right? Wrong. I don't mean turning 90°, as would happen if the objects are simply turning object the sky. I mean we should be viewing these stars from the side, because our entire position has changed. Further, each year we are moved away (828,000 km/hr x 24 hr in a day x 365 days in a year) 7,253,280,000 km (4.506979 x 10+9) away from its original position. Yet while next year's stars should look a little smaller, and a little dimmer, as even moving 300 ft away affects the size of an uncovered light bulb's light ring, somehow this is never mentioned.
4. The problem of contradiction. We are told that light extends forever, and this is how these stars appear perfect, no matter what distance they are. But then we're back to the size of the sun again, which shrinks to moon size at 93 million miles away. Yet at 4,506,979,000 miles away (I think I got the decimal right, that's billion) the size of stars is unaffected. Seems legit.
I've been telling you stuff like this in this thread, and in the one I just made, and you have heard what you want to hear. Just as all of us do, when we blank out part of an argument because there is space only for so much wall of text. But to say that I never was unable to show fault is a lie. Maybe you could say you refuted all of those, but I very definitely saw fault.
-
Who says?
Any honest, rational person who has seen what you have said and the response to it.
In actual fact, I found a great deal of problems with RE astronomy.
Correction: You have several lies which have been refuted which you repeat.
1. The problem of perfect position. When you look at the sun and the moon in the sky, a passing glance (as more than that for one of them damages your eyes) tells you that the two appear to be the same size. Yet regardless of whether Earth is normal or sidereal, is tilting up or down, at its most or least distant this always appears the case.
A cursory glance is not enough to tell if it is perfect.
The fact we have both total eclipses with a large region of totality, and annular eclipses demonstrates beyond any doubt that they are NOT the same size, and that the relative sizes vary.
But as already explained, regardless of what you want to have, you have some ratio of sizes and some ratio of distances.
This is NOT magically a problem for the RE and magically not for the FE. Both have the same question of why?
And it clearly is not because they are the same size and same distance.
And this is far more of a problem for your delusional BS.
With the RE, the distance remains almost the same, so the angular size remains almost the same.
But with the FE with an incredibly close sun and moon, the distance to them would change dramatically so the angular size would as well.
So that is lie number 1.
2. The problem of teleportation. With this so-called perfect position that renders two objects of greatly different sizes to appear different sizes, there are strange contradictions. Such as the sun supposedly reflecting its light to the moon while both can be up in the sky and casting their own light. Or, I love this one, this lunar eclipse that you keep asking about (because it's hard to draw plausibly) as if to prove anything is supposed to be in a position where it receives the sun's light but just sort of "teleports" into place.
And lie number 2. That is what is needed with your fantasy.
No magical teleportation is needed with the RE.
The sun shines light onto the moon and we can see it.
If you need an example, go hold up a ball near a light, and look at how the ball looks. You will see how as you change the angular separation between the ball and the light, the ball will go through phases.
There is nothing magical about seeing the moon illuminated by the sun while also seeing the sun.
But if you want to see the moon mostly illuminated, they need to be basically opposite each other.
Your fantasy entirely fails to explain the moon phases.
If the moon casts its own light, then the phases make no sense at all.
And there is no reason for everyone on Earth to see the same phase.
Likewise, while you can potentially explain a solar eclipse with the moon blocking the light from the sun, you can't explain a lunar eclipse.
And that lunar eclipse is trivial to draw if you use reality.
And again, no teleportation is required.
Let me explain this. Solar eclipse happens during new moon usually, lunar during full moon.
Yes, as already explained.
Solar eclipses happen during a new moon, when the moon passes between us and the sun, so the moon blocks the light from the sun from reaching Earth.
Lunar eclipses happen during a full moon, when the moon is on the opposite side of Earth to the sun, so Earth blocks the light from the sun from reaching the moon.
Nothing hard to understand.
It only becomes a massive problem when you pretend Earth is a pizza with the sun and moon circling overhead.
Passover
There is no need to bring your religious BS into this.
If your religion contradicts reality, your religion is wrong.
At the new moon, the sun is reflecting nothing from the moon, yet the model draws the moon right in the path of the sun. At the full moon, the moon is reflecting sunlight, yet the model draws it on the opposite side of Earth. Shouldn't it be the opposite way around?
I take it you have no idea how illumination works.
Again, go get that ball, and a light.
Hold the ball up in front of your eyes blocking the path to the light.
Is the ball reflecting light to you? No.
Hold it slightly off, so you can now see the light, and the ball is just beside it (but still a decent distance between the ball and the light).
Now how does the ball appear? For the most part, still dark, at best you get a small sliver of light on the edge.
Now hold the ball almost directly opposite the light, but just out of your shadow. Now what do you see? Basically the entire ball lit up.
Your statement is a blatant lie which shows either extreme dishonesty or a complete lack of understanding of how light works.
Just consider how insane it is by switching the moon to a wall.
According to you, if you have a person standing looking at a wall, then if you have a light in the room behind the person (but not directly behind so they aren't in shadow) then the wall should be in complete darkness. Conversely, if you put the light on the opposite side of the wall, so the wall should block all the light, then the wall should magically be illuminated?
It is so insane it isn't funny. It is contradicted by countless everyday experiences.
When you want to be able to see in a room, do you turn a light on in the room, or a turn a light on outside?
So no. It should NOT be the other way around.
-
3. The problem of unmoving stars. Yes, the parallax of the stars rotates around. But no matter where Ursa Minor or Orion or Little Dipper is in the sky, it's pretty much the distinctive shape. You're supposed to believe the sun moves around the galaxy while the Earth orbits it. Yet this would cause lose of position, which in turn causes loss of shape. Little Dipper, for instance. If you can see it for part of the year (let's say summer), at spring it should be 90° from its original position.
Problem solved, right? Wrong. I don't mean turning 90°, as would happen if the objects are simply turning object the sky. I mean we should be viewing these stars from the side, because our entire position has changed.
And another lie.
This has already been explained to you repeatedly.
Again, due to the distances involved, the change over a short period of time is negligible.
But over time (thousands of years) the stars have changed position significantly.
Why should it be 90 degrees from its original position? What do you even mean by that? Relative to what?
Why don't you try drawing a diagram, including showing Earth, showing what you mean.
Are you suggesting something like this (like many lying FEers do):
(https://i.imgur.com/vZzO2oj.png)
Where Earth has moved dramatically relative to the stars and should now be looking at it from a different angle?
If so, look at how far Earth has moved compared to the distance to the stars.
Note that these stars would be inside Earth's orbit or very close to it.
There is 1 star that is affected like that. That is what gave rise to the zodiac. That star is commonly called the sun.
For most stars, the change in position is negligible.
It would be like looking at a distant building or mountain or the moon, first through your left eye, and then through your right.
This is not a 90 degree change like you claim.
If you mean something else then draw it.
Further, each year we are moved away (828,000 km/hr x 24 hr in a day x 365 days in a year) 7,253,280,000 km (4.506979 x 10+9) away from its original position. Yet while next year's stars should look a little smaller, and a little dimmer, as even moving 300 ft away affects the size of an uncovered light bulb's light ring, somehow this is never mentioned.
And many problems with this lie.
Firstly, yes, moving away from a nearby light source will make it appear dimmer.
Again, most light sources will have their light spread out over a roughly spherical area so follow an inverse square law.
So if you have a reference distance, r0, you can get a rough idea of what intensity to expect at some other distance, r.
Specifically, the intensity as a proportion of the original should be given by r0^2/r^2 = (r0/r)^2.
So if you start with a light at 5 m, and then go to 100 m, you are looking at the resulting intensity being roughly 0.25% of the original.
But notice how this depends on the original location.
I would say just taking your numbers, but you have 2 different numbers. Why?
Calculating it from the 250 km/s motion of the sun through the galaxy, we end up with roughly 7.884*10^9 km.
If we entirely ignore the motion of everything else, then the nearest star (other than the sun), proxima centauri started out at 4.2 light years away. That is roughly 3.974*10^13 km.
So that means r0 = 3.974*10^13 km; and r = 3.974*10^13 km + 7.884*10^9 km = 3.9747884e+13.
So calculating the ratio of intensity we get 99.96%.
And that was just for the closest star Stars further away would be even less effected.
But importantly, another fact you entirely ignore is that the other stars are moving as well.
The closest ones, like proxima centauri, for the most part are moving with us; like 2 cars on a highway.
So that means the actual change in distance is much less than the above.
For proxima centauri, from wikipedia, the radial velocity is 22 km/s.
That gives a change over the course of a year of ~30 000 000 km.
That gives a resulting intensity of 99.99985%.
And that would require you to very accurately measure the intensity at the start of a year, and then the same time next year, to see that tiny change.
4. The problem of contradiction. We are told that light extends forever, and this is how these stars appear perfect, no matter what distance they are. But then we're back to the size of the sun again, which shrinks to moon size at 93 million miles away. Yet at 4,506,979,000 miles away (I think I got the decimal right, that's billion) the size of stars is unaffected. Seems legit.
Yes, you have been told correctly that light continues to travel until it is absorbed.
You then entirely ignore the actual meaning of that and instead magically pretend that that means every light source should be a magical laser shining directly into your eyes.
You entirely ignore how angular size and vision works.
We see stars other than the sun as unresolvable points of light.
Those distant stars shrink to a point.
Just what makes you say the star is unaffected?
There is no contradiction here.
I've been telling you stuff like this in this thread
Yes, you have been repeating these lies throughout the sight.
And you then entirely ignore the refutation of your BS and repeat the same lies again later.
But to say that I never was unable to show fault is a lie. Maybe you could say you refuted all of those, but I very definitely saw fault.
No, saying you have shown a fault is a lie.
You have spouted a bunch of lies, but you have not shown any fault.
You thinking you saw a fault doesn't mean it is a fault.
If your claims of faults have been refuted that means you haven't shown a fault.
So my statement was correct.
You have not shown any fault or flaw with the RE model.
Instead, you have spouted a load of BS to pretend there are problems.
But you desperately wanting that BS to be a problem doesn't mean it is one.
-
Can we maybe merge all the topics about Minecraft/Narnia/etc into "Flat Earth Portrayed In Culture"? That's a general enough thread to include all books and movies and video games.