Remarkably, you are remaining steadfast in your willful ignorance, incapable of simple comprehension, resorting to making a claim I wrote something I did not write.
Hi Pot.
I provided a quote of what you said.
Here it is again:
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.
This is what you said, and it is completely incorrect.
When I pointed out that that would only work for the equator, you then responded back with this:
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead. That means, it applies everywhere there are observers located on the flat earth.
So no, I am directly responding to what you have said.
Now, because it shown to be BS, you are pretending you never said it.
This shows just how pathetic and desperate your position really is.
Likewise, you position is so pathetic you need to outright reject parts of reality to pretend your fantasy works.
That sure sound like wilful ignorance to me.
Correct. I did write x.
Meant to write z.
More to the point, you probably know exactly what was meant to communicated and this is just another example of you feigning awareness of the point in effort to score points in your fucked up game.
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
Relevant as it shows your claim doesn't work, it shows your attempt to save the FE doesn't work.
Again, you just dismissing everything as irrelevant because it shows your fantasy is wrong just further shows how desperate and pathetic your position is.
LOL!
Doubling down.
Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.
That isn't how the burden of proof works. If you want to claim such garbage, then you provide evidence of that.
Only ones on the equator would agree with your nonsense, and that would be with the caveat that it only applies on the equator.
It is here.
I wrote what I wrote.
That is not backing up your claim that every mathematician would agree with you.
Just more assertions will not help you.
I do not need to "back up" my claim.
I claimed it, you have a choice to accept it or not.
I DNGAF what you do, quite honestly.
You are a pathetic DARPA AI bot.
Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.
This wasn't the statement you claimed every mathematician would agree with.
Even with that, I highly doubt any mathematician would describe it as "moving in a cylindrical fashion".
Instead I think they would be more likely to describe the points as moving in a circular fashion.
Again, you are wrong.
What I wrote is axiomatic.
For a cylinder, you would expect all those circles to be the same size.
But if you are only taking points that lie directly along the z axis, what you are describing is a line. Then depending on how they move they could describe a few different shapes. Keeping it to your previous claim of rotation about the x axis they would form a disc, not a cylinder.
And again, that only works for the equator.
It works for all points in the z-axis moving above an x-y plane.
Either pony up with something salient in a rebuttal or just stfu.
You were provided with rebuttals.
When you couldn't deal with them, you just through out insults and dismissed them as irrelevant.
Here is a brief argument which goes over those key points:
On Earth, the real Earth that people live on, stars appear to trace a circle around 2 points in the sky, one due north, one due south.
As they appear to trace circles, that means you are looking at them from a negligible distance away from the axis of rotation, such a small distance away that it would not significantly affect the apparent direction of the central point about which the stars appear to rotate.
This means the axis of rotation is aligned with a line going directly from your eyes to that point the stars appear to rotate around.
But the point the stars appear to rotate around appears at a different angle of elevation, with this variance relating quite well to latitude.
This means the angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies with latitude.
This means the angle of Earth surface at one latitude is different to the angle of Earth's surface at another latitude.
This means Earth can't be flat.
The earth is fla.
Deal with it.
Since I know you have nothing salient, and I know you are incapable of stfu, everyone here can look forward to more of your dumb stuff.
And more pathetic projection.
And a weak repetition of a worthless trop from a truly weak mind
The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space
But we aren't dealing with points that are m units from the x axis.
And as pointed out, it isn't simply rotating about the x axis.
Instead the sky appears to rotate about the N-S axis of Earth. Which doesn't work for a FE with N in the centre.
You offer nothing, as all observers on the flat earth see exactly what I wrote is occurring.
You lose.
Go play tiddly winks with JJ.
He needs entertainment.
Show Posts
Let's see what you're really made of. In reality I'm guessing you have no balls and no spine. Prove me wrong
.