The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: zorbakim on June 28, 2019, 06:08:18 PM

Title: HOMO-CENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH
Post by: zorbakim on June 28, 2019, 06:08:18 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9URlJah.jpg)
HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2)

My book has been published.
I am presenting a new flat earth model in this book.

The earth is flat, but it has no form.
The same is true of the earth as if the water were not in form.
So how does the world work?
This is because it is a two-dimensional torus.
That doesn't mean it's doughnut-shaped.
The sun, which went west, comes east again like a game screen.
That is the characteristic of our world.
Time and space, or the world is constantly renewed like that.

<Table of Contents>

Preface
1. Appearance and reality
    The secret of 0.1°
    Eratosthenes' strange sundial
      The truth of a sundial
2. Homocentric Universe
    Holographic universe
      North-South angle difference
      East-West time difference
      Lorentz force
      2-dimensional torus
      Sky and Earth as space
      Round Sky and Square Earth
      Harmony of Round Sky and Square Earth
      Moon illusion
    Multiverse
      Renewal of the world
3. True face of the Earth
    The Earth has no shape
    To save the phenomena
      Duhem-Quine thesis
Footnote

Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on June 28, 2019, 06:51:02 PM
Skipping your ad BS

The earth is flat, but it has no form.
No, all the evidence shows it is round, and has form.
If it has no form, it can't be flat.

This is because it is a two-dimensional torus.
That would be an annulus. But we know Earth isn't that as we can circumnavigate it in any direction.
Did you mean a flat torus?
If so, that is still wrong. That is because when we go north, we are still north.
If it was a flat torus going north would result in us ending up to the south.

The topology you are looking for is a spherical shell.
i.e. Earth is round.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on June 28, 2019, 08:07:10 PM
Skipping your ad BS
The topology you are looking for is a spherical shell.
i.e. Earth is round.
Nope. Stop talk BS. You are the only BS here. He says true and the earth seems homocentric more than sphere.
All evidences prove the earth is NOT round. All measurements prove this. By using ships behind the waves because of perspective you can not claim the earth's being round scam.
Ie the earth is not round. Stop lying. Leave him alone.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on June 28, 2019, 08:47:20 PM
My book has been published.

Congratulations. I hope you success.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on June 28, 2019, 09:32:32 PM
All evidences prove the earth is NOT round. All measurements prove this.
Then why have you been completely unable to provide a single piece of evidence that Earth isn't round?
Why have you been unable to provide a single measurement which shows Earth isn't round?
Why do you instead need to resort to plenty of lies, such as your failed map which does not accurately show the location and size of various places, and your lies about perspective?

I'm not the one lying here.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: rabinoz on June 28, 2019, 10:23:50 PM
Nope. Stop talk BS. You are the only BS here. He says true and the earth seems homocentric more than sphere.
All evidences earth is NOT round[/b].]prove the earth is NOT round.  (http://prove the [b)
I thought the the Flat Earth was supposed to be round like this!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k5azcyxtrnmqzcf/1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world%20-%20round.jpg?dl=1)
That looks round to be.

So it your Flat Earth isn't round what shape is it? Square?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on June 28, 2019, 11:07:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9URlJah.jpg)
HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2)

My book has been published.
I am presenting a new flat earth model in this book.

The earth is flat, but it has no form.
The same is true of the earth as if the water were not in form.
So how does the world work?
This is because it is a two-dimensional torus.
That doesn't mean it's doughnut-shaped.
The sun, which went west, comes east again like a game screen.
That is the characteristic of our world.
Time and space, or the world is constantly renewed like that.

<Table of Contents>

Preface
1. Appearance and reality
    The secret of 0.1°
    Eratosthenes' strange sundial
      The truth of a sundial
2. Homocentric Universe
    Holographic universe
      North-South angle difference
      East-West time difference
      Lorentz force
      2-dimensional torus
      Sky and Earth as space
      Round Sky and Square Earth
      Harmony of Round Sky and Square Earth
      Moon illusion
    Multiverse
      Renewal of the world
3. True face of the Earth
    The Earth has no shape
    To save the phenomena
      Duhem-Quine thesis
Footnote


Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)

The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.


The SAME world.
(They don't have their own worlds each.)
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on June 29, 2019, 01:49:10 AM
My book has been published.

Congratulations. I hope you success.

Thanks, wise :)
I can feel your sincerity and kindness.

Leave Jack alone.
I don't deal with him.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on June 29, 2019, 01:55:15 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/9URlJah.jpg)
HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TLZGKY9/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1561768569&s=digital-text&sr=1-2)

My book has been published.
I am presenting a new flat earth model in this book.

The earth is flat, but it has no form.
The same is true of the earth as if the water were not in form.
So how does the world work?
This is because it is a two-dimensional torus.
That doesn't mean it's doughnut-shaped.
The sun, which went west, comes east again like a game screen.
That is the characteristic of our world.
Time and space, or the world is constantly renewed like that.

<Table of Contents>

Preface
1. Appearance and reality
    The secret of 0.1°
    Eratosthenes' strange sundial
      The truth of a sundial
2. Homocentric Universe
    Holographic universe
      North-South angle difference
      East-West time difference
      Lorentz force
      2-dimensional torus
      Sky and Earth as space
      Round Sky and Square Earth
      Harmony of Round Sky and Square Earth
      Moon illusion
    Multiverse
      Renewal of the world
3. True face of the Earth
    The Earth has no shape
    To save the phenomena
      Duhem-Quine thesis
Footnote


Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)

The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.


That is the secret of world harmony.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz also spoke of the harmony of the world.
But he fell short of cosmology.
Homocetric universe is the only way to tell the secret.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on June 29, 2019, 02:51:20 AM
I don't deal with him.
Yes, you seem to like avoiding those that show your claims to be nonsense.
That wont stop me pointing out your BS.

You are yet to provide a single reason why the current RE model is wrong, nor address the mountains of issues with what you have presented.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on June 29, 2019, 03:00:09 PM

Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)

The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.


That is the secret of world harmony.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz also spoke of the harmony of the world.
But he fell short of cosmology.
Homocetric universe is the only way to tell the secret.

I already asked you if two people are 10 000 miles away from each other, which one is at the center?
You blured the answer.

And all this time you are talking about perception by humans, not about the world itself.

~~~~~

Sound is independent vibration of air even when we are not there to hear it.
Wave splashing will spread through the air long after we perish and the word "splashing" gets forgotten.
Things don't have to be named or perceived to exist.

~~~~~

If "the Earth has no shape", how come you attribute the Flat shape to it?
Or the book is just poetry (or "poetry") and your activities on this forum were just an advertisement?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Danang on June 29, 2019, 09:09:50 PM
Indeed more perspectives are needed to better understand the universe.
The more points of view the better.

Congrats and keep it up, Zorbakim!

Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Smoke Machine on June 30, 2019, 12:36:23 AM
Zorbakim, the LGBTI community all around the globe, salutes you with your newest book! (I love how you've incorporated all the colors of the LGBTI rainbow on the front cover, and used "flat earth" as a metaphor for old discriminations)

I honestly hadn't realised the entire flat earth community was so heavily involved with the underground gay/queer culture, that a book need be written about it! I guess I can be forgiven, considering it was underground. This is a daring and bold move on your part, zorbakim, jumping out of the closet like this! Congrats, I'm looking forward to reading more about the 'homocentric' view of the universe!

It's all starting to make sense now!
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on June 30, 2019, 01:54:24 AM

Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)

The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.


That is the secret of world harmony.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz also spoke of the harmony of the world.
But he fell short of cosmology.
Homocetric universe is the only way to tell the secret.

I already asked you if two people are 10 000 miles away from each other, which one is at the center?
If "the Earth has no shape", how come you attribute the Flat shape to it?
I think I already told you.
Everyone is the center of the world.
The earth is not an object but space.
The sky is also space.
The sky(universe) is flat.
That means there is no curvature.
That is a fact that has already been scientifically proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe)
The same is true of the earth.

The sky is the space above and the earth is the space below.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on June 30, 2019, 02:03:33 AM

Harmony of square box and round pizza. :)

The whole problem comes when you try to explain how
two or more people simultaneously observe the same world
standing hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.


That is the secret of world harmony.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz also spoke of the harmony of the world.
But he fell short of cosmology.
Homocetric universe is the only way to tell the secret.

I already asked you if two people are 10 000 miles away from each other, which one is at the center?
If "the Earth has no shape", how come you attribute the Flat shape to it?
I think I already told you.
Everyone is the center of the world.
The earth is not an object but space.
The sky is also space.
The sky(universe) is flat.
That means there is no curvature.
That is a fact that has already been scientifically proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe)
The same is true of the earth.

The sky is the space above and the earth is the space below.

That is why I pointed out that you blured the answer.
How many centers the Universe can have?
Why are they called "center"?
How can two individuals far apart be both in the center?

Looks like you still didn't explain to yourself the difference between "the world" and "the perception of the world".

~~~~~

To define "space above" and "earth below" you first have to have "up" and "down" defined.
As we all know, the main definition of those is based on observation: things fall from "up" to "down".
They follow verticals.
And don't forget that two verticals far enough from each other are not paralel.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on June 30, 2019, 02:05:49 AM
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.

RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)

Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on June 30, 2019, 02:08:58 AM
Indeed more perspectives are needed to better understand the universe.
The more points of view the better.

Congrats and keep it up, Zorbakim!
Thanks, Danang.
You're right.
We need more perspectives to understand this world.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on June 30, 2019, 02:51:02 AM
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.

RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)

Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.

Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".

Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".

Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.

On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.


Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.

The way you present them they are not really compatible.

(http://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm_2015/Courses/GSP_216_Online/images/visible-table.png)

~~~~~

There are two main principles of color mixing: additive and subtractive.

Quote
Additive color mixing is the kind of mixing you get if you overlap spotlights in a dark room.
The commonly used additive primary colors are red, green and blue,
and if you overlap all three in effectively equal mixture, you get white light.

Quote
Subtractive color mixing is the kind of mixing you get if you illuminate colored filters with white
light from behind. The commonly used subtractive primary colors are cyan, magenta and yellow,
and if you overlap all three in effectively equal mixture, all the light is subtracted giving black.

As you can see, in both cases green is not a mixture of red and blue.

(https://previews.123rf.com/images/alisovna/alisovna1604/alisovna160400005/55816907-color-mixing-color-synthesis-additive-and-subtractive-color-models-rgb-and-cmyk-with-three-primary-c.jpg)

~~~~~

What you are trying to do here is to channel the interpretation of facts deeper into spirituality.

I don't know how much is a pure spirituality in the scope of this forum.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on June 30, 2019, 03:23:26 AM
Everyone is the center of the world.
And as you have already been told, this only makes sense if you are saying there is no centre.

The earth is not an object but space.
No, Earth is an object in space.
It is not the space itself.
If you want to talk about space, use the word already agreed upon. Don't blatantly misrepresent what you are talking about.

The sky(universe) is flat.
That means there is no curvature.
That is a fact that has already been scientifically proven.
Space is assumed to be flat as there is no detectable curvature, even at the large scale of the universe.
But that is space, not Earth.
Earth is round. That has been scientifically "proven" (note, science doesn't deal with proof, but with disproof).

The same is true of the earth.
No. Earth is fundamentally different.
Earth is an object in space. Yes, the curvature of space near Earth is mostly insignificant, but the curvature of the surface of Earth is not.

RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)
Not only is this pure garbage, it is a direct contradiction.
If Green is a combination of red and blue (yang and yin) then it isn't a primary colour.
In reality red, green and blue are the primary colours (for light emitting) due to your eyes having receptors for these colours.

Yin and Yang has nothing to do with it.

Leave religion (or other forms of "spirituality") out of science. They have no place there.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on June 30, 2019, 03:08:49 PM
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.

RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)

Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.

Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".

Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".

Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.

On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.


Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.

Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.
The world is a relationship.
Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on June 30, 2019, 03:17:49 PM
Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.
Why not?
The world is material.
There is no reason to insert spiritual BS into it.

Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.
The celestial sphere is nothing more than a consequence of Earth rotating about its axis, with stars in all directions.

Also, quite the dishonest double standard where you happily go and pretend that because space is Euclidean that means Earth is flat, while rejecting the same kind of comparison (which is far more valid) between the celestial sphere and Earth.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Themightykabool on June 30, 2019, 06:58:30 PM
Can you define homocentric?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 01, 2019, 12:29:18 AM
Can you define homocentric?
It means that man is central.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on July 01, 2019, 01:07:05 AM
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.

RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)

Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.

Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".

Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".

Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.

On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.


Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.

Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.
The world is a relationship.
Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.

Assigning Yang to sky and Yin to Earth is not materialistic at all.
Yin and Yang are principles by which humans (still) try to give emotional explanations to the world around.

What is materialistic is the Universe that surrounds us.
We can either limit ourselves to just own, personal point of view (declare our ego to be the center of everything), or
we can exchange data, have views from more than one point and build a bigger, more accurate (less limited) picture.


~~~~~

"Celestial sphere" is the term originating in Geocentrism, not in Flat model.
Ancient Flat model before Plato and Aristotle had Dome, not Spheres.
(Looks like the term "the seventh heaven" came from superficial understanding of Geocentrism among common people.)

In Geocentrism there is Earth as the sphere in the center of heavens and
several crystal spheres, each carrying own set of celestial bodies.

Quote
Instead of bands, Plato's student Eudoxus developed a planetary model using concentric spheres
for all the planets, with three spheres each for his models of the Moon and the Sun and four each for
the models of the other five planets, thus making 26 spheres in all.
Callippus modified this system, using five spheres for his models of the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars
and retaining four spheres for the models of Jupiter and Saturn, thus making 33 spheres in all. Each planet is
attached to the innermost of its own particular set of spheres.
Although the models of Eudoxus and Callippus qualitatively describe the major features of the motion of the planets,
they fail to account exactly for these motions and therefore cannot provide quantitative predictions. Although
historians of Greek science have traditionally considered these models to be merely geometrical representations,
recent studies have proposed that they were also intended to be physically real or have withheld judgment,
noting the limited evidence to resolve the question.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres)
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 02, 2019, 03:38:05 AM
RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.

RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)

Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.

Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".

Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".

Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.

On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.


Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.

Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.
The world is a relationship.
Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.

Assigning Yang to sky and Yin to Earth is not materialistic at all.
Yin and Yang are principles by which humans (still) try to give emotional explanations to the world around.

What is materialistic is the Universe that surrounds us.
We can either limit ourselves to just own, personal point of view (declare our ego to be the center of everything), or
we can exchange data, have views from more than one point and build a bigger, more accurate (less limited) picture.


~~~~~

"Celestial sphere" is the term originating in Geocentrism, not in Flat model.
Ancient Flat model before Plato and Aristotle had Dome, not Spheres.
(Looks like the term "the seventh heaven" came from superficial understanding of Geocentrism among common people.)

In Geocentrism there is Earth as the sphere in the center of heavens and
several crystal spheres, each carrying own set of celestial bodies.

Quote
Instead of bands, Plato's student Eudoxus developed a planetary model using concentric spheres
for all the planets, with three spheres each for his models of the Moon and the Sun and four each for
the models of the other five planets, thus making 26 spheres in all.
Callippus modified this system, using five spheres for his models of the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars
and retaining four spheres for the models of Jupiter and Saturn, thus making 33 spheres in all. Each planet is
attached to the innermost of its own particular set of spheres.
Although the models of Eudoxus and Callippus qualitatively describe the major features of the motion of the planets,
they fail to account exactly for these motions and therefore cannot provide quantitative predictions. Although
historians of Greek science have traditionally considered these models to be merely geometrical representations,
recent studies have proposed that they were also intended to be physically real or have withheld judgment,
noting the limited evidence to resolve the question.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres)

Of course, yin and yang theory is is far from materialism.
I thought you were into materialistic thinking.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 02, 2019, 03:57:19 AM
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.
Yes, that was the ancient FE model, where Earth was tiny.
For the newer FE model it is a celestial disk instead.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on July 02, 2019, 09:26:57 AM
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.

Since the earliest Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmographies the Flat Earth model
"imagined the Earth to be a disc floating on water with an arched firmament above it
that separated the Earth from the heavens".

Arched Firmament is Dome, not Sphere. :)

Please tell me what do you mean by "lower part of the foot".
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 11:47:03 PM
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.
Yes, that was the ancient FE model, where Earth was tiny.
For the newer FE model it is a celestial disk instead.

This is how you want to think FE'rs. This knowledge is wrong and aiming manipulation. Celestial sphere still is the most known and accepted model. You don't want him to success, you are jealous.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 12:43:59 AM
This is how you want to think FE'rs. This knowledge is wrong and aiming manipulation.
No it isn't.
The celestial sphere had the stars on it, and rotated such that different stars were above Earth or below Earth. This rotated almost once every 24 hours (slightly faster), with the stars above Earth visible and the stars not above Earth, not visible. The sun was one such star, but special as it moved along the celestial sphere.
Additionally, this sphere rotated at an angle.

This matches quite well with reality when you just consider a small portion of Earth, but fails massively for the common FE model.
The sun is one simple example.
For the ancient FE model, with the celestial sphere, the rotation of the celestial sphere would put the sun below Earth for a significant period each day, but for the modern FE models the sun remains perpetually above Earth.
The same is true of the vast majority of stars. They would be above or below Earth with the celestial sphere, but now they remain above Earth, circling around like a disc.

So no, the modern FE model doesn't have a celestial sphere. It has a disc.

If you wish to assert you still have a celestial sphere, please explain just how it works.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 12:47:48 AM
there is no need to argue for it. I know how we think as a flat earther. you claim otherwise. I did not read all your BS because your arguments are wrong. We are not what you think of us. you write imaginative things, we don't care. You think you've decided on our behalf. You should see a doctor.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 12:52:24 AM
there is no need to argue for it.
Then run along.

If you want anyone to take your claims seriously, you will need more than just your baseless assertion.

The simple fact is the FE models of today do not use anything like the celestial sphere.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 12:54:23 AM
there is no need to argue for it.
Then run along.
No. Keep your suggestions to yourself. I am waiting to answer of Macarios to reply my suggestion. You may be disrespect person not respect others but I am not you. I respect opinion Macarios, and your thoughts have been declared null and void.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 03, 2019, 01:32:13 AM
Can you define homocentric?
It means that man is central.

is your house in the center of your property?
what does it matter that man is central to the universe?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 03, 2019, 06:11:45 AM
Can you define homocentric?
It means that man is central.

is your house in the center of your property?
what does it matter that man is central to the universe?
In other words, the universe originates from me.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 03, 2019, 06:21:53 AM
In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.

Since the earliest Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmographies the Flat Earth model
"imagined the Earth to be a disc floating on water with an arched firmament above it
that separated the Earth from the heavens".

Arched Firmament is Dome, not Sphere. :)

Please tell me what do you mean by "lower part of the foot".

In his publication of AD 120 called The Spiritual Constitution of the Universe (靈憲, Ling Xian, lit. "Sublime Model"),[18][63] Zhang Heng theorized that the universe was like an egg "as round as a crossbow pellet" with the stars on the shell and the Earth as the central yolk. This universe theory is congruent with the geocentric model as opposed to the heliocentric model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Heng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Heng)

But Zhang Heng's theory is different from the geocentric model.
He rightly viewed the earth as flat.

"lower part of the foot" means the lower part of the earth.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 06:25:07 AM
In other words, the universe originates from me.

Is there a difference between humans with regard to being real or simulation. If it was; so how many of the people in this earth do you think is real and how many is simulation? And I wonder this one. Is God real, simulation, we or anyone who directs this simulation? I have some thoughts but I wonder yours. Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 03, 2019, 06:27:22 AM
Then we should call it zorbs egocentric book of nonsense.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 03, 2019, 06:33:21 AM
In other words, the universe originates from me.

Is there a difference between humans with regard to being real or simulation. If it was; so how many of the people in this earth do you think is real and how many is simulation? And I wonder this one. Is God real, simulation, we or anyone who directs this simulation? I have some thoughts but I wonder yours. Thanks in advance.

I think as follows:
We're all real.
We are all the protagonists of our lives.
God is real.
Because we are the incarnation of God.
In other words, we are all sons of God.
That is the teachings of Jesus.
This is true in all religions.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 03, 2019, 06:34:50 AM
Then we should call it zorbs egocentric book of nonsense.
You can't love others if you don't love yourself.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 06:38:21 AM
I think as follows:
We're all real.
We are all the protagonists of our lives.
God is real.
Because we are the incarnation of God.
In other words, we are all sons of God.
That is the teachings of Jesus.
This is true in all religions.
We're all real: I think as so too.
God is real: Is God governs this earth be a simulation or somebody imitate him, can it be?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 03, 2019, 06:44:55 AM
The universe either originates feom Gods big bang or from you.
You have placed yourslef at the center because of your ego and hubris.
I remind you what happened to Babel.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 02:53:19 PM
In other words, the universe originates from me.
Well as people have existed long before you (As have other parts of the universe) we can clearly tell that is BS.

Earth as the central yolk
...
He rightly viewed the earth as flat.
Last time I checked, a yolk isn't flat.

These are all part of the game. God wanted us to worship him. This is what we do. we are not competing with it. this is a theoretical discussion. God can stop it if He wants to. but he wants us to write it because time has come and he wants people to know the truth. if you try to stop it, it will stop you. Babylon may be your end, not ours. Who can be more cruel than the one who prevents people from knowing the truth? This is what all you angry globularists here are trying to prevent people learn the truth. Why did not you angry globularists remember God till now and prevent people learn the truth?
If your imaginary fiend actually existed and wanted people to know the truth, then it could easily make itself known to everyone in a way that there would be no doubt. Unless you think your imaginary is pathetic and powerless.
You also directly contradict yourself.
You say that if we try to stop you spreading your nonsense, your imaginary sugar daddy will step in and stop us, but claim that we are trying to do that, yet he hasn't stepped in to stop us.

And no, we are the ones promoting the truth.
You are the one trying to bury it and lead people away from truth and into fantasy.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 04, 2019, 01:07:17 AM
I think as follows:
We're all real.
We are all the protagonists of our lives.
God is real.
Because we are the incarnation of God.
In other words, we are all sons of God.
That is the teachings of Jesus.
This is true in all religions.
We're all real: I think as so too.
God is real: Is God governs this earth be a simulation or somebody imitate him, can it be?

It's a difficult question.
In essence, Westerners and Asians have different ideas about God.
The God of Christianity is a transcendent being.
But the God of East Asians is an inherent being.
The god of Asia is not too far away. He is sometimes my friend, parent and me.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 04, 2019, 01:41:03 AM
If your imaginary fiend actually existed and wanted people to know the truth, then it could easily make itself known to everyone in a way that there would be no doubt. Unless you think your imaginary is pathetic and powerless.
You also directly contradict yourself.
You say that if we try to stop you spreading your nonsense, your imaginary sugar daddy will step in and stop us, but claim that we are trying to do that, yet he hasn't stepped in to stop us.

And no, we are the ones promoting the truth.
You are the one trying to bury it and lead people away from truth and into fantasy.

I remind you what happened to Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah. one day you will inevitably face the God you have rejected and ridiculed. If this is a claim, so get all in!

I claim that in a very short time, relying on God's existence and helping us, I claim he will punish you for denying him, ridiculing, and doing it here. you can argue otherwise, your devil friends can join the same mockery. can you make a bet about this, if you have enough courage. so far you could never defeat me in any way. I challenge you to this, and this time I do it in a matter of God. I know it, it won't go you away. make a bet and face to your destiny.

thank you for giving me this opportunity. I wonder, is he still with me? we'll see soon. don't flee, okay? Don't be a coward. Get duel and prove God's not being exist here. With this victory, the atheists will erect your statue; or you will be one of history in my tens of similar memories. Deal with it! Do best your speech of challenge!
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 04, 2019, 02:06:05 AM
I remind you what happened to Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah
You mean you will try to scare me with fictional stories that show your god is an evil POS that no decent human being would ever worship.
I don't fear your imaginary fiend, and even if it was real, I wouldn't worship it as it is an evil POS.


so far you could never defeat me in any way
You have been repeatedly defeated. You just repeatedly lie and say you haven't been.
I can't think of a single time you engaged in a debate (or anything close to it) and weren't defeated.
Even in quite simple topics, like the discussion of accelerometers, you resorted to such insane BS anyone could have easily defeated you.
You are only slightly less impotent than your god, and only by virtue of actually existing and being able to interact with the world.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 04, 2019, 02:57:25 AM
You mean you will try to scare me with fictional stories that show your god is an evil POS that no decent human being would ever worship.
I mean you have disrespected the God and will pay it.
I don't fear your imaginary fiend, and even if it was real, I wouldn't worship it as it is an evil POS.
God is not imaginary. You don't realize him because he treats you the way you believe.
You have been repeatedly defeated.
Nope. Never. repeating same BS more than I talk and making word salad or blabbing does not mean you defeated me in any way. Definitely you did not do it at all. Stop lying.
You just repeatedly lie and say you haven't been.
The only liar is you here, you are even lying about God's existance.
I can't think of a single time you engaged in a debate (or anything close to it) and weren't defeated.
This can be only in your dreams. Wake up, grow up.
Even in quite simple topics, like the discussion of accelerometers, you resorted to such insane BS anyone could have easily defeated you.
I have defeated you repeatedly with evidences but you deny the facts depends on your BS baseless thoughts and evil claims.
You are only slightly less impotent than your god, and only by virtue of actually existing and being able to interact with the world.
Can I get this as you have scared of unexpected and terrible happen to you, and hence you deny the challenge? You have agreed you lost, right? God is exist so you have scared something happens to you, right? If God does not exist so why do you afraid for? Is it because you are actually believing God but playing the role of you are not because somebody gave you a role of you playing atheist?

I claim that in a very short time, relying on God's existence and helping us, I claim he will punish you for denying him, ridiculing, and doing it here.
...
I challenge you to this,
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 04, 2019, 04:36:23 AM
Deluding yourself into thinking you have defeated me (or anyone here) doesn't mean you have. It just means you are lying to yourself as well as us.

hence you deny the challenge?
Your challenge was nothing more than a claim that your imaginary fiend was going to beat me up.
That isn't a challenge for me, it is a challenge for you and your imagination.
It is just a pathetic threat that I am not stupid enough to be scared of.

Now how about you try and explain how your celestial sphere works?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 04, 2019, 04:41:29 AM
Deluding yourself into thinking you have defeated me (or anyone here) doesn't mean you have. It just means you are lying to yourself as well as us.

hence you deny the challenge?
Your challenge was nothing more than a claim that your imaginary fiend was going to beat me up.
That isn't a challenge for me, it is a challenge for you and your imagination.
It is just a pathetic threat that I am not stupid enough to be scared of.

Now how about you try and explain how your celestial sphere works?

So you have to agree my challenge. Because I challenge you by using the name of God. If it is imaginary and it was my dream it will be an easy victory for you, right? So why are you still resisting against the challenge? Whay are you scared? Are you scared of a dream? Come here and duel like a man. Questions will be later.

It is a challenge for you. I challenge you. I am real. If you're scared and want to retreat, you can say that.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 08:03:43 AM
These are all part of the game. God wanted us to worship him. This is what we do. we are not competing with it. this is a theoretical discussion. God can stop it if He wants to. but he wants us to write it because time has come and he wants people to know the truth. if you try to stop it, it will stop you. Babylon may be your end, not ours. Who can be more cruel than the one who prevents people from knowing the truth? This is what all you angry globularists here are trying to prevent people learn the truth. Why did not you angry globularists remember God till now and prevent people learn the truth?
It is unfortunate, that you cannot see you the truth, that is staring you in your face.
You refuse to see the evidence, that is all around you. I could list this evidence, but then you'll call them lies.
Until you come out of the cave of  flat Earth, you will not see the globe.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Smoke Machine on July 04, 2019, 10:22:55 AM
Zorbakim, despite or maybe because of, my last post about your multiple meaning book title, I am going to buy your book.

From a certain spiritual point of view, I agree with what you say. Any human anywhere is the centre of 'their' universe at any one time. Your consciousness is the centre of your universe. This is true.

Now, would you like to hear something beautiful about the globe model? Any human being on the planet at any one time, is always at the top of the Earth. You cannot be anywhere on a globe where the earth is not curving away from under you. Thus, you are always the highest point. You are literally always on top of the world and the rest of the world is beneath you. In this way, the globe model also makes every person significant.

Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 04, 2019, 12:36:31 PM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 04, 2019, 12:37:24 PM
Key word "decided".
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 04, 2019, 12:38:33 PM
key word "globe earth cave"
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 04, 2019, 02:15:07 PM
So why are you still resisting against the challenge?
Because it isn't a challenge.
It is nothing more than a pathetic empty threat.
A challenge for me would require me to do something.

Now how about you try and explain how your celestial sphere works?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 04, 2019, 04:44:35 PM
If jackB dies, it could be reasoned an act of god.
Be it tomorrow or 10yrs.
Wise wins.
Hahah
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 05, 2019, 01:23:45 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on July 05, 2019, 01:51:27 AM
"We have quarried, investigated, compared, and DECIDED the "true shape" of the Earth as flat..."

All you have to do now is to force others to disregard the fats and measures and give in to your decision. :)

Back in 1600 AD the most powerful organisation in the world was Roman Catholic Church.
(Although still not strong enough to subdue Anglicans and Lutherans back.)

The Church tried to stop the progress (Heliocentrism) and force people back into Geocentrism.
(Flat Earthers are trying even more: to cancel the last 2500 years and erase even Geocentrism.)

But they also couldn't hide the facts.
"Eppur si muove."

The planet itself is too big and nobody's DECISION can hide it from the people.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 05, 2019, 04:58:49 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/9NfnwON.jpg)
The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.
In other words, the surface of a doughnut is like a flat surface, mathematically without curvature.
But if you go straight along the surface of the doughnut, you'll be back in place.
The doughnut's surface is flat and finite, but if you go straight, like a sphere, you can get back in place.
This is called a two-dimensional torus in mathematical terms.

The Earth is like that.
The Earth is flat and finite, but if we go straight, we can get back to where we are.
So far, we've believed that this is because the Earth is round like a ball.
We didn't think about a two-dimensional torus.

But don't  mistake the Earth for looking like a donut just because it's a two-dimensional torus.
They're both in the same topology, not the same shape.

So why does the Earth have this trait?
That's because the Earth is not an object, it's a space.
Space is a relationship.
The relationship between me and you, animals and plants, wind and clouds, mountains and valleys is the space.
So, without those elements, there's no space.
The change of space is time.
So, time and space are the same thing.
So the world is a space, a time and a relationship.

Time changes periodically.
Day and night, and season show it well.
Space and time are the same, so space also changes periodically.
It's easy to think about the fact that trees change regularly according to the seasons.
Periodic change and flow is like the progression of light.
So the world is light.

So if we go straight in the world, we'll reach the cycle and get back to where we are.
The space cycle, which is equivalent to a day in time, is 40,000 kilometers.
So if we travel 40,000 kilometers, we're back in place.

In short, the Earth is a space where the sky, the earth, and all the elements in it are involved.
It's a space, so it has no shape.
But it's finite, flat and without curvature.
It's already been scientifically proven that there's no curvature in the sky.
The space has a cycle like time.
That's true world.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 05, 2019, 11:21:55 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 05, 2019, 04:31:48 PM
The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.
No, it is curved.
It has both principle and Gaussian curvature.

It is not flat in any way.

The simple way to demonstrate this is with a triangle.
For a "flat" surface (that is one with 0 Gaussian curvature), the angle sum will always be 180 degrees. For a surface with constant positive Gaussian curvature, it will be more than 180 degrees. For a surface with constant negative Gaussian curvature it will be less than 180 degrees. For a surface where the Gaussian curvature varies (such as a simple torus) it will vary depending upon the curvature of the area the triangle spans.

So now lets make a triangle.
The "equator" corresponds to a straight line. So that can be one line.
Now we pick a point on this and draw another line at a right angle.
We will continue this up to the top of the torus, and then put in another right angle.
Then we follow this line back down, and get back to the equator, at some angle.
We can easily show that this some angle is not 0, as that would mean the top has to be at the equator.
This means our angle sum will be 90+90+some angle. This is over 180 degrees and thus the surface is not flat.

The other way of showing it is measuring the distance between parallel lines.
The simple lines to show this with are those which go perpendicular to the equator.
For simplicity rather than considering a bunch, I will just add up the angles between them all to get a complete revolution.
For the outside of the torus, this sum will be 2*pi*R, where R is the outer radius of the torus.
For the inside of the torus this will will be 2*pi*r, where r is the inner radius of the torus.

This means that in order for them to be the same, the torus must have the same inner and outer radius.
In our space that corresponds to a single line, not a torus.

A "torus" which is flat is a flat torus.
This cannot be embedded in our 3D space, as it is physically impossible to do so.
This is the space of packman.
If you go off the right side, you appear at the left side. If you go off the top you appear at the bottom.

If you lived in the appropriate space you could even construct this from a sheet of paper.
The first step can be done in our space, by joining the 2 sides of the page together into a cylinder.
If you would like a "flat" shape that can be embedded in our space, the surface of an infinite cylinder is one.
This now has principle curvature, which depends upon the space it is put in, but it has 0 Gaussian curvature.

To complete the flat torus, you need to join the 2 ends of the cylinder together, without bending it, which simply cannot be done in our space.

Either way, WHO CARES?
This is not the shape of the surface of Earth.

First, an important point, just like the flat paper representation, all triangles drawn on this surface will have an angle sum of 180 degrees.
This does not apply for Earth.
For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.

But more importantly, Earth isn't a torus.
Again, the simple way to focus on it is the flat paper representation.
When you go off the right (or east), you come back in from the left (or west). This part does match Earth.
But then when you go off the top (or north), you come back in from the bottom (or south). This doesn't match Earth.
Instead when you go up north, you came back from the north at a different location.
So Earth isn't any kind of torus. (As this applies for all, not just a flat torus).

Earth is topologically a sphere. And while there is a flat torus, there is no flat sphere.

In other words, Earth's surface is curved, not flat.
It is a non-flat surface mathematically with curvature, and not just principle curvature which would allow it to be a flat surface, but Gaussian curvature which prevents it from being so.

I already pointed this out at the start of the thread.
So why wait so long just to bring up this BS again?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 08, 2019, 03:59:00 PM
The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.
For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 08, 2019, 04:07:49 PM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Stash on July 08, 2019, 04:48:54 PM
The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.
For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.

Yes there is something like that in reality:

(https://i.imgur.com/UrlOUtm.jpg)
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 09, 2019, 03:33:30 AM
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
The fact that you have to insult me like that to try and dismiss me rather than deal with the arguments presented shows that it is quite likely the opposite.

I'm not the liar here.
I'm not the one pretending Earth is a torus.
I'm not the one pretending that all tori are flat.

The simple fact is Earth is topologically equivalent to a sphere.
You can even get this just by noting connections without direct measurements.
There is no flat sphere.

You ignoring reality doesn't make me a liar.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 09, 2019, 03:50:59 AM
You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.
The fact that you have to insult me like that to try and dismiss me rather than deal with the arguments presented shows that it is quite likely the opposite.

I'm not the liar here.
I'm not the one pretending Earth is a torus.
I'm not the one pretending that all tori are flat.

The simple fact is Earth is topologically equivalent to a sphere.
You can even get this just by noting connections without direct measurements.
There is no flat sphere.

You ignoring reality doesn't make me a liar.

Zorbakim says true like everytime he says. You're a liar and he is not insulting you. You are the one who ignores the reality and insults believers here only in anger of them because you are doing wrong and they are good. Your insults to believers does not magically make the earth round. It will never happen. Stop that childish behave and grow up. Then you can learn and let others learn something from discussings between believers and real researchers. I hope you short-circuit and never work again.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 09, 2019, 04:00:35 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 09, 2019, 04:20:20 AM
You're a liar
And there you go chiming in with insults and no rational arguments.

If you want to claim I am a liar, prove it.
Show that you can get a flat sphere.
Show that Earth is topologically equivalent to a torus.
Go ahead and try. You will not succeed.

Calling me a liar because you cannot refute me is insulting me, and it is an ad-hom.

Follow your own advice and grow up and stop ignoring reality.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 09, 2019, 04:27:50 AM
Calling me a liar because ...

I am calling you a liar because you are so. Your changing my reason in your own benefits does not magically make my reason as how you want them to be.

Why are you here? Why are you here, you are here only annoying and harrassing the believers as soon as possible. you are waging war against believers in your own little secret war room. And you're running this war with your own lies. Repeating the same lies 40 times does not make them convincing. If that were the case, you would have fooled one believer here with 10000 lies. Do you remember that you managed to deceive any believer? You've been here for years. no. not even one. you are wasting your time as well as wasting the time of believers. I guess your mission is to waste of time. If would here be a real flat earth society management so you and ignorant angry globularistss like you would not stay here and sent out in a flash. But you are here because they are serving you.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 09, 2019, 04:43:53 AM
I am calling you a liar because you are so.
No. You call me a liar because you are unable to rationally defend your claims or refute mine. So you lie and say I am a liar to pretend you have a reason to dismiss my claims.

Again, if I actually was a liar you would easily be able to prove it.
You would be able to show that a sphere can be flat, or that Earth is topologically a torus.
Yet you don't even attempt to, likely because you know stand no chance.

Why are you here?
Because unlike you I care about the truth.
All it takes for BS to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.

Now, care to actually try and refute what I have said, or will you just continue with more pathetic insults?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 09, 2019, 04:51:56 AM
I am calling you a liar because you are so.
No. You call me a liar because you are unable to rationally defend your claims or refute mine.
Yes. Everybody who follow our talkings can easily understand that I've directly said your being a liar after I saw you've blamed zorbakim's insulting you. So, you are blind that do not aware what you are writing. It was not my claim your being liar in this issue, zorbakim's claim. I am supporting him because you are so.

It is countlessly proven your being a liar does not need a new proof. Everything about you is a lie. You are a lying machine.

I proved the earth's being flat. Your being unable to understand it does not magically make them absent. Just proves your being blind can't see them.

You don't care the truth at all. You are the who is fighting to destroy the truth and change it with your globularist lies.

The only one here has pathetic insults is you are. Are you ready to stop your pathetic agressivity against believers, those you clearly see your agressivity don't work at all?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Stash on July 09, 2019, 04:35:18 PM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.

Umm, have you ever looked at a Google Street View camera. It has multiple cameras shooting at different angles where the images are then stitched together. There's nothing odd about the pictures you posted. One camera looking straight to the side view and one on either side of it angled ahead and one angled behind. As well they are wide angle lenses with some distortion that any wide angle lens creates. There's no mystery here.

(https://images.theconversation.com/files/170629/original/file-20170523-5743-11bzhyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip)
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 10, 2019, 01:38:11 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 10, 2019, 01:54:48 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 12, 2019, 01:04:48 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 12, 2019, 01:26:10 AM
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
Yes, because that is what all the evidence indicates, and how cameras and the eye works.
The light comes in at a particular direction.
Your eye/camera senses that direction due to specific photosensitive cells detecting that light and creating an electrical signal.
If something spans a large angle, it will stimulate a lot of those cells and be detected as that large angle.
If it only spans a small angle, then it will stimulate a smaller region of cells and be detected as a smaller angle.

It can also easily be explained based upon breaking the object into smaller pieces.
The top of the object is detected in one direction.
The bottom is detected in another.
The angular size is based upon the difference between these directions.

But I think it's because of the light pressure.
Which would make it proportional to intensity, unless you wanted to invent some new magic light pressure.
The problem is that it isn't.
A bright object can appear to span a small angular size, while a much darker object spans a much larger size.
More importantly, intensity typically drops as 1/r2, not 1/r.

So that doesn't fit reality at all.

There is no problem just using angular size as modern science knows it works.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 12, 2019, 01:52:58 AM
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
Yes, because that is what all the evidence indicates, and how cameras and the eye works.
The light comes in at a particular direction.
Your eye/camera senses that direction due to specific photosensitive cells detecting that light and creating an electrical signal.
If something spans a large angle, it will stimulate a lot of those cells and be detected as that large angle.
If it only spans a small angle, then it will stimulate a smaller region of cells and be detected as a smaller angle.

It can also easily be explained based upon breaking the object into smaller pieces.
The top of the object is detected in one direction.
The bottom is detected in another.
The angular size is based upon the difference between these directions.

But I think it's because of the light pressure.
Which would make it proportional to intensity, unless you wanted to invent some new magic light pressure.
The problem is that it isn't.
A bright object can appear to span a small angular size, while a much darker object spans a much larger size.
More importantly, intensity typically drops as 1/r2, not 1/r.

So that doesn't fit reality at all.

There is no problem just using angular size as modern science knows it works.
No, there are many problems using an angular size
(https://i.imgur.com/k9AkD3Z.jpg)
If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.
As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
So our view is tangent?
Absolutely not.
Therefore, a modern visual theory is wrong.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 12, 2019, 02:10:18 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 12, 2019, 03:05:49 AM
No, there are many problems using an angular size
Really? I am yet to find one which isn't caused by people making mistakes.
The only thing that comes close is the limit of resolution where very small objects cannot be resolved and either appear larger than they are (if they are bright enough) or they aren't noticed at all (if they aren't bright enough).

If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.
Only as an approximation for distant objects.
If the object is close enough then doubling the distance will not cut the size in half.
The simple way to show this is to first consider an object 1024 m away which takes up 1 degree. (that is roughly 18 m tall).
Now we repeatedly half the distance and double the angular size and consider what happens. (the faster way is to note it is based upon the assumption that the size times the distance is constant, and thus we can just flip it and get it to be 1024 degrees, but lets do it the long way for completeness and to avoid any arguments)

512 m gives 2 degrees.
256 m gives 4 degrees.
128 m gives 8 degrees.
64 m gives 16 degrees.
32 m gives 32 degrees.
16 m gives 64 degrees.
8 m gives 128 degrees.
4 m gives 256 degrees, more than covering an entire side of your vision. This is only possible if you are inside it.
2 m gives 512 degrees. This is more than physically possible. Even if you were inside an object with no opening, it would only be 360 degrees.
1 m gives 1024 degrees. This is just insanity.

So clearly objects cannot simply half the angle angle when the distance is doubled.
If you think I am being unfair with my initial conditions then just take any object, and do the same. A tall building viewed from a distance is a good start.

The origin for this is the small x approximation for the tangent function.
When x is small, tan(x)~=x.
In reality, tan(a)=h/d.
The small x approximation means that a~=h/d, but only when a is small, which requires h/d to be small.

We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
The inverse tangent (which is what I am assuming you are using) is that angle.
If they don't match, you have done something wrong.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 13, 2019, 12:52:44 AM
No, there are many problems using an angular size
Really? I am yet to find one which isn't caused by people making mistakes.
The only thing that comes close is the limit of resolution where very small objects cannot be resolved and either appear larger than they are (if they are bright enough) or they aren't noticed at all (if they aren't bright enough).

If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.
Only as an approximation for distant objects.
If the object is close enough then doubling the distance will not cut the size in half.
The simple way to show this is to first consider an object 1024 m away which takes up 1 degree. (that is roughly 18 m tall).
Now we repeatedly half the distance and double the angular size and consider what happens. (the faster way is to note it is based upon the assumption that the size times the distance is constant, and thus we can just flip it and get it to be 1024 degrees, but lets do it the long way for completeness and to avoid any arguments)

512 m gives 2 degrees.
256 m gives 4 degrees.
128 m gives 8 degrees.
64 m gives 16 degrees.
32 m gives 32 degrees.
16 m gives 64 degrees.
8 m gives 128 degrees.
4 m gives 256 degrees, more than covering an entire side of your vision. This is only possible if you are inside it.
2 m gives 512 degrees. This is more than physically possible. Even if you were inside an object with no opening, it would only be 360 degrees.
1 m gives 1024 degrees. This is just insanity.

So clearly objects cannot simply half the angle angle when the distance is doubled.
If you think I am being unfair with my initial conditions then just take any object, and do the same. A tall building viewed from a distance is a good start.

The origin for this is the small x approximation for the tangent function.
When x is small, tan(x)~=x.
In reality, tan(a)=h/d.
The small x approximation means that a~=h/d, but only when a is small, which requires h/d to be small.

We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
The inverse tangent (which is what I am assuming you are using) is that angle.
If they don't match, you have done something wrong.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 13, 2019, 01:00:33 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 01:13:26 AM
...
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 01:16:18 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?

PS: Corrections made.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: rabinoz on July 13, 2019, 03:48:56 AM
We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
That is the same result JackBlack gave, look.
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
When the "16 m tall object" is 16 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/16) = (arc tan 1) = 45.0° and
when the "16 m tall object" is 32 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/32) = (arc tan 1/2) = 26.6°.

Why do you say is that wrong?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 13, 2019, 04:28:05 AM
Sorry
You can only see the dimension if you live in or outside said dimension.

We live in a 3d existence caught in a 4d event horizon.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 13, 2019, 08:46:50 AM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?

PS: Corrections made.
You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 13, 2019, 08:49:57 AM
We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
That is the same result JackBlack gave, look.
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
When the "16 m tall object" is 16 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/16) = (arc tan 1) = 45.0° and
when the "16 m tall object" is 32 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan 16/32) = (arc tan 1/2) = 26.6°.

Why do you say is that wrong?
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 01:10:57 PM
Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.
I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?
I think it's better not to talk to such people. ;D

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/LNOUeb.png)

*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747
Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery.  :)

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?
Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?

PS: Corrections made.
You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.

I think we agree on a lot of issues. in fact this should have been the case for others. but as I said sometime, they don't have the intelligence and maturity to understand what we're talking about. anyways.

I thought we might be on a point or line and that came to me as well. I set out that the sunlight behaved in two dimensions as if it were on a screen. but it may be a two-dimensional shape that is shown to me even though I am at one point. there are certain minor errors. but the creators of the simulation seem like worked seriously to make it realistic. I think that the creators of the simulation are confused in God's position, just as we do.

The commandments of God are certain. but they both deliberately misrepresented the commandments of God and caused different religions. frankly, they did not want all people to believe in God at once. I don't understand why they do it, and because I don't, I'm opposed to this behavior.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Macarios on July 13, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.


That was not the question.

The question was:
"Why you say that what he said was wrong, when  you just repeat the same thing as 'correction' to his values?"

He said:
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6

And you 'correct' him:
Quote from: zorbakim
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 01:27:01 PM
When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.


That was not the question.

The question was:
"Why you say that what he said was wrong, when  you just repeat the same thing as 'correction' to his values?"

He said:
Quote from: JackBlack
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6

And you 'correct' him:
Quote from: zorbakim
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?

Perhaps he does not see this question has enough value to reply. because repeating same facts but you are unable to get it, so there is no point to repeat it. the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2019, 06:24:29 PM
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
Other than rounding differently, that is what I said.
The point is objects don't appear to have their apparent (angular) size cut in half when the distance is doubled when they are close.
Again, you can easily show this cannot be the case by going the other way, i.e. halving the distance.
I already showed that and you just ignored it and said I am wrong.

Take an object that is 16 m away and 16 m tall, above your eyeline.
That makes it 45 degrees.
According to your claim, at 8 m away it would need to cover from straight out, to straight up, but it doesn't.
Halving the distance again to 4 m it now would also need to appear behind you according to you. This makes no sense.

The apparent size of the object is the angular size.

Doubling the distance resulting in the object appearing half the size only works for small distant objects. Not close ones.


the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.
No, it doesn't need to be "halfway" to be straight.
That is because a distance away from you will also appear to shrink as it gets further away.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 11:22:57 PM
the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.
No, it doesn't need to be "halfway" to be straight.
That is because a distance away from you will also appear to shrink as it gets further away.

Yes it does need. Your baselessly claim does not magically make it does not need. If there is an object between you and what you are looking to prevent you from seeing it, you cannot see it. that is also the case if you connect it with a straight line. because as I have clearly proved but you denied that because you are ignorant, the figure that appears on this paper can never look that way.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 15, 2019, 12:20:18 AM
You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?
Other than rounding differently, that is what I said.
The point is objects don't appear to have their apparent (angular) size cut in half when the distance is doubled when they are close.
Again, you can easily show this cannot be the case by going the other way, i.e. halving the distance.
I already showed that and you just ignored it and said I am wrong.

Take an object that is 16 m away and 16 m tall, above your eyeline.
That makes it 45 degrees.
According to your claim, at 8 m away it would need to cover from straight out, to straight up, but it doesn't.
Halving the distance again to 4 m it now would also need to appear behind you according to you. This makes no sense.

The apparent size of the object is the angular size.

Doubling the distance resulting in the object appearing half the size only works for small distant objects. Not close ones.
You don't understand me.
I've never said, "the apparent size of the object is the angular size".
That's your argument.
You are confusing physical and visual sizes.
So there's a contradiction like what you said.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 15, 2019, 01:21:44 AM
You don't understand me.
I've never said, "the apparent size of the object is the angular size".
That's your argument.
You are confusing physical and visual sizes.
So there's a contradiction like what you said.
No, I do understand you.
Your argument is that angular size isn't the apparent size.
This is based upon your claim that when the distance doubles the size is halved. But that isn't the case at all.
Again, take a 16 m tall object at 16 m. It takes up roughly 45 degrees, and that is its apparent size as it takes up 1/8 of your vision.
When it is brought to 8 m, it doesn't take up 1/4 of your vision.
When it is brought to 4 m it doesn't take up 1/2 of your vision.
When it is brought to 2 m it doesn't take up your entire vision.

There is no contradiction in modern understanding.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 15, 2019, 12:52:08 PM
It is one of my main theories. I'll create more detailed working includes how angular view works.

Today it was 15 July remembrance day of fetö coup try and our 251 martyres dead while stopping the coup. So it was holiday.

I'm planning a work about Mu continent one more time. After that I'll return the angular size problem and show you why can not you see it by convincing technical details. I know angry globularist people will not be convinced because they have programmed to not get convinced by flat earthers, but it will be easy to get convincing for ordinary people.

Stand by...
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 12:35:52 AM
First we have to determine what you think you to see and what you see in fact.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/9OV8K4.png)

You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.

The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.

Get remember this page:

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/427UA4.png)

we are unable to read the most down words on this paper. however, this is not due to the sensitivity of the eye, but the sensitivity of the computer screen. To measure it yourself, move away from an A4 sheet with a lettering and try to read it. then measure the distance from which you can no longer read the text. you can measure the sensitivity of your eye using the relation between this distance and the font size.

I did this experiment for you. I have opened a book. The words on it was 2 milimetres. I have began to move away from the book. When I came to a distance of 3 meters, I realized that I could not read the articles anymore.

Lets calculate sensitivity of my, an average human eye:

Distance to paper: 3 metres.
Highness of word: 2 mm.

Sensitivity of eye: 2mm. / (3m. x 1000) = 0,0007.

This value is also the distance we can no longer see on the skyline of an object approaching the skyline. What we need to do for this is to correct the skyline angle which should be 90 degrees with this value.

90 degrees - 90*0,0007 = 89,94 °  (for wave)
90 degrees + 90*0,0007 = 90,06 °  (for ship)

We understand that we cannot see the sensitivity of 0.06 degrees. with it, we can compute a common angle where we cannot distinguish between wave and ship. this will increase both values. in other words, we will assume that we can now see a distance from which we cannot notice two objects.

Corrected values. We can not distinguish wave and skyline whenever they are in angularly:

89,97 °  (for wave)
90,03 °  (for ship)

in other words, when an object reaches a horizontal angle of 89.94°, we now see it contiguous with the skyline.

Lets calculate distances for wave and ship seperately where we see them adjacent to skyline:

Calculating distance we see 1 metre wave adjacent to skyline

α +  β= arctan (L/2) + arctan (1/L) = 89,97°

>> L ~= 2000 metres.

After 2000 meters, we can no longer distinguish waves from other objects in the skyline. This value can be calculated differently according to your eye sensitivity.

Calculating distance we see 5 metres ship adjacent to skyline

α +  β= arctan (L/2) + arctan (1/L) = 90,03°

>> L ~= 4000 metres.

If we can not see this ship has 5 meter highness after 4 kms anymore because of we can not to distinguish it with a 1 meter wave in 2 kms distance.

Since our horizontal vision sensitivity has disappeared earlier, we now see both objects horizontally, so the ship begins to disappear behind the wave.

If you want to see the ship, even so you can use a camera has zoom property. but this is limited by the sensitivity of the camera. no matter how powerful a camera you have, the sensitivity will decrease at some point and you will see the ship disappearing behind the waves. this is not because the world is spherical, but because your angle of vision is limited to the tangent function and your sensitivity to observation is limited. As shown in the example, a tool can help you increase your visual sight. in this case, you can see that the object that just disappeared behind the waves is still in place.

in short, seeing a distant object is about property of seeing, it has nothing to do with the fact that the object is really visible.

Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 01:19:12 AM
You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.
I am yet to find a single person that thinks this.
Instead they think the light travels in a straight line to their eye.
Taking that 2D case of yours, what you actually see is a series of 1D lines which each subtend some angle.
You don't see it from the side at all, and you definitely don't see yourself (unless you are looking in a mirror).
But at  least you now have the sea coming up to eye level, rather than objects magically teleporting down.

The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.
The appropriate terminology is angular resolution.
The angular resolution is what angle 2 objects need to be separated by in order to be able to resolve them as 2 objects.
For humans this is roughly 1 minute of arc, with things like binoculars and telescopes allowing you to resolve much smaller angles.

Also note that reading is a poor test for this as you need to distinguish what letter is what. If it is just a case of seeing the letter instead of reading it, it is much easier.
Even seeing a letter sticking up above a black line.

Sensitivity of eye: 2mm. / (3m. x 1000) = 0,0007.
This equates to roughly 2.3 minutes of arc or 0.04 degrees.

This means using your numbers, we would expect to see any object which is at least 0.04 degrees.

Since our horizontal vision sensitivity has disappeared earlier, we now see both objects horizontally, so the ship begins to disappear behind the wave.
No, if it is just a case of being too small to resolve, it fades to a blur and is no longer visible.
The wave has nothing to do with it.
Even without the wave there, you wouldn't see it.
More importantly, it wouldn't make it disappear from the bottom up.

So no, the fact that objects disappear from the bottom up has everything to do with Earth being round.
It isn't being hidden by a wave, nor is it due to limited angular resolution.
This is quite clear due to how well resolved the objects are in the many examples provided, and that the object and viewer are above the waves.

No one has ever been able to bring an object hidden by the horizon back into view by a device with better angular resolution.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 01:24:52 AM
No one has ever been able to bring an object hidden by the horizon back into view by a device with better angular resolution.

Nope. Sounds like you did not watch the video. The observer in video is clearly bringing the object back by zooming it after it has disappeared in skyline.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 01:48:36 AM
Nope. Sounds like you did not watch the video. The observer in video is clearly bringing the object back by zooming it after it has disappeared in skyline.
No, I did watch the video, and it matches what I said.
The object does not disappear from the bottom up.
It simply gets too small to resolves.

In that case, the curvature has nothing to do with it as it isn't hidden by the horizon.

That is never used as evidence of the curvature of Earth.
What is are objects hidden from the bottom up.

What you need to provide to show the curvature of Earth has nothing to do with that and instead it is just magic perspective is to start zoomed right in on an object so you can clearly see it, then zoom out and have it disappear from the bottom up.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 03:46:59 AM
First we have to determine what you think you to see and what you see in fact.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/9OV8K4.png)

You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.
No. On a flat earth there is no a curve like that at the the skyline. Are you sure that you aren't trying to draw the Globe?

Quote from: wise
The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.
I need no education on that,  thank you.

But haven't you heard of telescopes and high-power zoom lenses on modern cameras.

These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)
The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times bette resolution than the unaided eye.


Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... MCtheEmcee1


Quote from: wise

All that video shows is that you can't see a small boat that's become smaller that the eye's (or camera's) resolution - but we already knew that!

It is nothing like a large ship being partly hidden by the curve thst I showed.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 04:04:13 AM
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)

I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.

As the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 04:08:56 AM
I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.
It has been proven, and you just ignore it.
We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.
We can see all the way to the near ship without any problem.
It is only the ship that is over the horizon that isn't visible.

If it was some magic behind the first ship you would clearly see it as a large wave behind that ship.

So the waves are clearly not the issue.
The clearly visible and resolvable containers on the ship shows angular resolution is not the issue.
You need a better reason for why the bottom is not visible.
The sane explanation is that the water is getting in the way due to the curvature of Earth.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 04:11:04 AM
I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.
It has been proven, and you just ignore it.
We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.

All viewers of this page clearly see that you are not providing any evidence prove its altitude but only claiming i,t was but I have denied it.

Your baselessly claiming its existance does not magically an absent object to exist. Where is it? Why can not you show it? Because you know, it is absent. Stop to deceive yourself. Your supporting his baseless claim with another lie proves you have no arguments but just lies and boydster.

Then all of them prove the earth is flat. Even existance of boydster proves the earth's being flat.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 04:34:13 AM
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)

I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure.
Rubbish! Read this again!
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
Quote from: wise
It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.
Rubbish! The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and there are clearly no waves anywhere near that height look at the photos and the video.
Any large waves would hide both the bulk carrier and the container ship. So stop making up these silly excuses.

Quote from: wise
As the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.
No they do not!
Don't be silly, the "big ship", the bulk carrier EPIC, is moored and "does not pass!"
Look at the video again and don't you dare say that you can't watch it because you posted your own YouTube video!
The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times better resolution than the unaided eye.


Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... MCtheEmcee1

Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 04:41:30 AM
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg
         
And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg



I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure.

Rubbish! Read this again!
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
Quote from: wise
It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.

Rubbish! The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and there are clearly no waves anywhere near that height look at the photos and the video.
Any large waves would hide both the bulk carrier and the container ship. So stop making up these silly excuses.

Quote from: wise
As the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.

No they do not!
Don't be silly, the "big ship", the bulk carrier EPIC, is moored and "does not pass!"
Look at the video again and don't you dare say that you can't watch it because you posted your own YouTube video!
The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times better resolution than the unaided eye.


Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... MCtheEmcee1


Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.

Claiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level, it still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 05:37:43 AM
Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.
What else should I say when you claims are meaningless?

Quote from: wise
Claiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level,
It makes little difference. There are no big waves anywhere and the bulk ore carrier is clearly all visible and beyond it the hull of the container ship is hidden.

There are no 10 or 20 m waves there!

But you obviously did not watch the video and read the explanation under it so look again!

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)...

Quote
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018 (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw&feature=youtu.be)
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

The person that took the video stated that: "The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL." So 10 metres Above Mean Sea Level as I said!

Quote from: wise
it still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.
I'm not cornered! I'm just tired of your continually denying the obvious!

You've got your evidence now admit that there are clearly no waves hiding either ship!
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 05:55:23 AM
Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.
What else should I say when you claims are meaningless?

Quote from: wise
Claiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level,
It makes little difference. There are no big waves anywhere and the bulk ore carrier is clearly all visible and beyond it the hull of the container ship is hidden.

There are no 10 or 20 m waves there!

But you obviously did not watch the video and read the explanation under it so look again!

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)...

Quote
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018 (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw&feature=youtu.be)
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

The person that took the video stated that: "The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL." So 10 metres Above Mean Sea Level as I said!

Quote from: wise
it still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.
I'm not cornered! I'm just tired of your continually denying the obvious!

You've got your evidence now admit that there are clearly no waves hiding either ship!
I can not watch a video again which I can not watch it for the first time. As far as I see from your talkings, you say some numbers on it and some talkings.

This is not an enough evidence somebody says or shows some numbers there. They can be easily manipulated by changing the software settings. the height of the observation point from the sea should be demonstrated comparable to the objects around it, as the following example.



The man uses above camera does not need where the observe point, because we clearly see him at the land level pier on the beach.

Again, insulting me does not magically your argments stronger but it is a proof how you are cornered, hence the earth is flat. All fair viewers of this conversation will be sure why the earth is flat, and what kind of nonsences we are dealing every day.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 02:20:15 PM
All viewers of this page clearly see that you are not providing any evidence prove its altitude but only claiming i,t was but I have denied it.
Yes, you have denied it. Your denial means nothing as you have no rational objection.
I have clearly explained why we know the waves aren't the issue and you just ignore it.

We don't need some external source to tell us how high the person was. We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.

Now how about you address the rest of my post, where I clearly address your objections?

We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.
We can see all the way to the near ship without any problem.
It is only the ship that is over the horizon that isn't visible.

If it was some magic behind the first ship you would clearly see it as a large wave behind that ship.

So the waves are clearly not the issue.
The clearly visible and resolvable containers on the ship shows angular resolution is not the issue.
You need a better reason for why the bottom is not visible.
The sane explanation is that the water is getting in the way due to the curvature of Earth.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 02:39:37 PM
Yes, you have denied it.
I did not ask you whether I denied anything or I did not.
Your denial means nothing as you have no rational objection.
My denial means I denied it as you read. There isn't anything there its being a rational objection or not. Is it there? When you stop to talk wast in vain?
I have clearly explained why we know the waves aren't the issue and you just ignore it.
You are thinking you have explaned does not magically it as a rational explanation. I have not to agree your BS explanations supported by anger of boydster.
We don't need some external source to tell us how high the person was.
No, we need. Otherwise we can not get your being how a liar.
We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.
They are clearly the issue. They are appearently onstructing the ship, we clearly see it hence the observe point is not higher than the highest wave caused by the big ship passing there.
Now how about you address the rest of my post, where I clearly address your objections?
I have replied, boydster deleted. I have replied, your slave deleted. I have replie, somebody deleted. I don't remember whether I have replied or not. Because you have many slaves here you say go, then it goes; come, then it comes. Stop to use our moderation as your slaves. They are free people, not your slaves. If you're paying their wages, at least employ honest people.
We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.
We clearly see a grand ship passing then massive waves happen. Otherwise, can not you a time to see the ship behind but not another ship passing in front of it. Because you know the front ship causes massive waves then obstruct to see the ship behind.
We can see all the way to the near ship without any problem.
Yes because another bigger ship doesn't passing in front of it.
It is only the ship that is over the horizon that isn't visible.
It is not at the horizon, it is at behind the waves created by big ship. On the other hand the altitude of the observer obviously seem not enough high.
If it was some magic behind the first ship you would clearly see it as a large wave behind that ship.
We call it as a big ship caused big waves, but not as magic. No need to magic but you need to magic to explain the lies.
So the waves are clearly not the issue.
You have proved nothing, so that the waves are the main issue till you prove the opposite.
The clearly visible and resolvable containers on the ship shows angular resolution is not the issue.
Yeah, the problem is waves obsturck the ship. Can you define the angular resolution what does here.
You need a better reason for why the bottom is not visible.
Nope. The explanations are enough but you are ignoring the facts of life.
The sane explanation is that the water is getting in the way due to the curvature of Earth.
your propaganda based on lies and denial of truth does not magically reinforce your arguments. The earth still is flat whether you deny it or you do not.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 03:49:12 PM
We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.
They are clearly the issue. They are appearently onstructing the ship, we clearly see it hence the observe point is not higher than the highest wave caused by the big ship passing there.
No, that is your baseless assertion which you have backed up with nothing.
We clearly do not see any significant waves in the photo.
We can see the water line on the closer ship. There is no massive wave behind it to obscure the distant ship.
That means the waves are not the issue.

If you want to assert that they are the issue you will need far more than that assertion.

We clearly see a grand ship passing then massive waves happen.
Because you know the front ship causes massive waves then obstruct to see the ship behind.
No, they don't.
There are no massive waves there.
If there was they would be clearly visible.
Please point where in the picture these "massive" waves are.

Also, if there was going to be these massive waves, why would they only go behind the ship?
Why not in front as well?

You have proved nothing, so that the waves are the main issue till you prove the opposite.
I have proven it quite conclusively.
All you have done is just dismiss everything and repeatedly assert there are some magical massive waves which are not observed in the photo at all.

If you want to assert there are some massive waves you need to explain why these massive waves are not visible.

The distant ship is clearly at a lower angle of elevation than the near ship. This is due to the curvature of Earth.
There are no massive waves getting in the way.
The only sane explanation is that the Earth is curved.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 18, 2019, 11:23:16 PM
There are no massive waves getting in the way.

it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.

I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: rabinoz on July 19, 2019, 01:04:29 AM
There are no massive waves getting in the way.
it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.
I'm answering because I posted the photos and the video and the notes under the video were:
Quote
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018 (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw&feature=youtu.be)
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.

Note that "The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004]." and so is not creating a wave. so the water is not swelling and cannot be blocking the image.

Try again.

Quote from: wise
I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.
You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Stash on July 19, 2019, 01:04:53 AM
There are no massive waves getting in the way.

it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.

I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.

Where are these 'massive' waves you speak of? I don't see so much as a ripple of a wake in the water from the ship in front. There's no wake.

(https://i.imgur.com/rz3b6Jd.png?1)
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on July 19, 2019, 01:17:54 AM
You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."
I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: Stash on July 19, 2019, 01:54:57 AM
You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."
I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?

There is no ship 'wandering around'. There is a ship, in the foreground, moored, stationary. Behind it, off in the distance is a ship moving from left to right doing what shipping ships do.

The ship in the background is obscured by the horizon. No 'massive' waves are visible to the casual observer. If you could point out where you claim to see 'massive' waves that would be great. In the mean time, there are none. So in the absence of 'massive' waves one needs to reconcile how the ship in the background can be obscured, to the point of where it looks like it's sinking, by the horizon. Simple as that.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 19, 2019, 01:57:38 AM
water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.
Again, there is no significant swelling in the photo.
I have proven that there are no waves to block the distant ship.

Again, if there was a massive wave it would be clearly visible in the photo.
It would appear as a large wave behind the near ship going quite high compared to the near ship.

I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?
You are claiming there are massive waves which hide the distant ship.
They are not in the photo at all.
The burden is on you to prove that these massive invisible waves are there and blocking the view.

If you really need to deny the globe a far better option is to claim that the distant ship is actually underwater/sinking.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM
The waves close to me look bigger.
Visual size is determined by light pressure.
It has nothing to do with the incident angle of light.
A lot of optical action takes place near the eye level.
Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
It is important to remember that the horizon is not a single line.
The visual horizon is physically tens of kilometers long.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on July 31, 2019, 03:05:32 AM
The waves close to me look bigger.
Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Visual size is determined by light pressure.
Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: wise on October 01, 2019, 05:27:17 AM
You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.

Thanks for idea. When I was looking at your past posts, then I've saw this one. I guess I've solved the problem of something. I think one of the problem is drinking. Drinking isn't a problem in fact, but a problem for this life. When we drink, we start to see close objects closer, and far objects motional. because in this case the brain cannot perform its full function and reduces external command. therefore it will either run slower or use its own internal resources. In other words, when a man is drunk, his brain will work more slowly and at the same time, what he sees is more real than what he sees when he is sober. I think that was the answer. So, if I really try to drink, how is the system affected? Is there a risk of total collapse? I'd appreciate it if you could come up with some enlightening ideas.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on November 12, 2019, 01:20:26 AM
The waves close to me look bigger.
Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Visual size is determined by light pressure.
Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on November 12, 2019, 01:26:22 AM
The waves close to me look bigger.
Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Visual size is determined by light pressure.
Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.
I never said it did.
I said the objects have a visual size.

Now care to respond to what I said?
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on November 22, 2019, 01:52:42 AM
The waves close to me look bigger.
Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Visual size is determined by light pressure.
Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.
I never said it did.
I said the objects have a visual size.

Now care to respond to what I said?
Yes, you said
"Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light."

But the incoming rays of light is just geometry.
Have you ever seen rays of light coming in through your eyes?
The essence of light is the wave.
Geometry is just interpretation.
Therefore, the size of things must also be found in the characteristics of waves.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on November 22, 2019, 12:51:05 PM
Yes, you said
"Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light."
Notice the difference?
Visual size, not the size of light.
They are quite different.

But the incoming rays of light is just geometry.
Yes, it is just geometry which determines how large an angle that object subtends and thus its visual size.

It is also what determines the direction to an object.
And the 2 are fundamentally related.
If the object is in a particular direction, you look in that direction to see it (or more technically if the rays of light are coming from a particular direction, you look in that direction).
If the bottom and top of the object are in slightly different directions, then you look in slightly different directions to see it, and that difference is its angular size.

This is what actually makes sense.
The visual size of an object is dependent upon the difference in direction to the various parts of it.
If there is a small difference in direction, the object has a small visual size. If there is a large difference in direction the object has a large visual size.

The only limitations to this are when it becomes too small to resolve due to the diffraction of light as it enters your eyes, at which point it will appear as an unresolved point, or when there is very significant glare, but the angular size when you remove the glare (such as by using a filter) remains as it should be.

The brightness of an object (or another such nonsense) has no effect on the visual size (other than due to glare). An easy way to confirm this is right in front of your.
Turn off your monitor and look at it.
Then turn it on with a white image.
The visual remains the same.
The amount of light coming from the screen has no effect.

The essence of light is the wave.
So you reject the wave particle duality of light?
The designers of solar panels, LEDs and so much more would very strongly disagree with you.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: zorbakim on November 28, 2019, 02:37:53 AM
Yes, you said
"Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light."
The essence of light is the wave.
So you reject the wave particle duality of light?
The designers of solar panels, LEDs and so much more would very strongly disagree with you.

Wave is the essence of light and particle is phenomenon of light.
By the way, let's say another reason why the Earth is flat.

No curvature has ever been found in a survey conducted in Earth's space.
According to modern science, universal space is also flat.
In other words, the space surrounding the Earth is all flat without curvature.

It is a contradiction that the earth is round in a flat space.
If the earth is round, the space surrounding it should also be round.
Therefore, the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)
Post by: JackBlack on November 28, 2019, 03:25:58 AM
Wave is the essence of light and particle is phenomenon of light.
No, the essence of light is that it is a particle, which due the nature of all particles, has wave properties as well.


By the way, let's say another reason why the Earth is flat.
Why not stay on the current topic?
Again, it is basic geometry which determines the apparent size of any resolved object.
For example, if the top of the object has an angle of elevation of 10 degrees, and the bottom is -1 degrees, then the visual size is 11 degrees.
This has nothing to do with the intensity of the light or its "pressure".

No curvature has ever been found in a survey conducted in Earth's space.
You mean space. No need to appeal to Earth. But so what?
That just means that space is Euclidean, i.e. parallel lines remaining parallel.
That means nothing at all about the shape of Earth.

Go and get a ball, like a basketball and then see if you can find any evidence of the curvature of space around the ball. You wont.
However, what has been found is curvature of space time, and of the surface of Earth.