The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker --Flat earth video game?

hahahaha bulmba to explain geometry and how circles and triangles work!?!?!

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 26, 2023, 01:05:03 PM

maybe she can realize that as the plane ascends into the sky, she draws a circle and a triangle on a piece of paper and realizes that the horizon moves farther out, just like it is expected to do as the triangle gets taller and taller off the circle, the tangent point to the circle gets farther and farther away.

So in the end you don't have a debate point, just a recycled model. 

You can do the same on a piece of paper using triangles on a flat level ground. Sky, earth, sky, earth. 

Sky

Earth


The sky is curved. The ground is not.

Geez, you ppl aren't even helpful when someone wants a favor.

Yeah, so?

That has more to do with Paint not cooperating than knowledge of geometry.

Increasingly thinking you should have dropped out from high school, but were instead passed all the way through college because the teachers would be held responsible if you failed.

Meanwhile, I continued my education after college, eventually learning that much of what I was told was crap.

Ultimately, you have a choice. Continue saying cute little paragraphs of "fact-checking" and "bunking" while your life, your happiness, and your freedom gets taken away. Or actually watch while someone else is concerned their own stuff is being taken away and actually understand you're fighting on the wrong side.

    First they came for the Communists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Communist

    Then they came for the Socialists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Socialist

    Then they came for the trade unionists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a trade unionist

    Then they came for the Jews
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Jew

    Then they came for me
    And there was no one left
    To speak out for me

I can read when the writing on the wall says Mene Mene Tekel Parsin. You seem not to understand.

This country is becoming broken, and its days are numbers. It will be taken away from those who seek to run the lives of others, and they will not understand what happened.

Repairing this country starts as simple as being able to repair devices
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/right-to-repair-cars-iphones-and-tractors-gains-steam-in-states-and-dc
instead of flooding landfills with millions of old tech. Every new device that doesn't reuse parts means manufacturing cost. It means more pollution and more waste. It means less freedom and less environment, not more.

Now, back to topic.

A circle is equal to 360 degrees

What this means is that for something to be a sphere, it must have a 90 degree rise, or in other words, a rise that is equal in height to half the diameter.  Okay think about this. Suppose there even is this bulge that you have never been able to prove, so what? Does that prove Earth is a sphere? The Earth's diameter is 7000 MILES. Half of this is a midpoint curve so profound that it would cause water to hill in either direction like the Red Line.  Only worse. You have a curve that is taller than the tallest mountain.  Excuse me, but I have driven 3000 miles. I know for a fact that there was never any such curve in all that distance.

This is why RE liars always default to "The Earth is really an elliptoid not a sphere," after telling people up and down that it's a sphere.  But even if it was the eggiest egg with the longest curve possible to make 360, the figure doesn't work. Even a coin-shaped Earth has a profound side edge. Nice try though.

You've yet to answer this, instead picking at my lack of ability in art programs, as though that changes the angles or proportions any.

So YOU want SOMEONE to REGULATE that companies cant purposefully make their products unfixable?



Hmmmm
How interesting.
What a novel idea.

Spoken like a true leftist. The left wants to regulate everything, down to my ability to exhale CO2. No, I know that companies used to allow repairs on products. Then everyone from Timex to car companies decided to put chips in their stuff, so now if you so much as swap out the transmission on a car, it will not work. I wamt to abolish those syatems, not regulate. But because those systems are now dependent on chips that shouldn't have been allowed for a free market economy, having the right to repair involves doing something about these chips. When you scratch the leftist, they are never about rights, and always about regulation. The only time I ever want regulation is when the rights have already been lost, and something (like a chip or broadcasting surveillance device), is preventing them for coming back. No, ban the devices restricting freedom, then abolish any laws forbidding freedom. Regulate? Nah. Laws should be written to punish the lawmakers and to make men free.

...And you are still dodging and deflecting. Where is this 3000+ mile curve that ought to exist if the Earth is round?

This is too unbelievablr


Now you want to abolish chips?
All the manufacturrr did was utilize chips that-also-do-other-things to endorfce their monopolized control of their products.

But you, the leave-bug-corp-alone now wnat to REGULATE what a manufacturer can put in for the benefit of society.

Aaah ok
Glad we agree - regulation when done to protect the peoole is good.

For a supposed anti-trust leftist, you're awfully concerned with having businesses preserve their right to monopolize the repairs and manufacture of cars. Two years ago, my dad wanted to split his car with me. We wanted to go to a car dealer, and have their mechanic simply swap out the transmission. About 20 or 30 years ago, this could be done by any pro mechanic. He told us that it now couldn't be done, because while the computer system makes the car read out nonsensical codes like A5FF07 for diagnostics that any decent mechanic could do themselves, it now locks the format of the care in place so that any customizations are not possible without removing the computer and having a brick car.  Yes, get rid of these damned chips.

I have the correct priorities, it seems. Protect the rights of business customers. You want to protect the ownership of people who have rigged up cars not to be repaired or customized. And heaven help you if the computer gets hacked and starts rejecting the current setup of the car. You have to replace it.

Because of this computer, instead of just taking the car to a mechanic and having him swap transmission, we had to spend $10,000 to buy a new car. This was two cars that we had to sell, instead of one. One of them still worked, but was just manual transmission.

AGAIN

Using my distractibility to keep from answering my question.



90 degrees, with 3500 or so rise, when traveling about that distance. Where is it?

90 degrees, with 3500 or so rise, when traveling about that distance. Where is it?

Underneath you, obviously.

You are standing on top of this “rise”, where the 90 degree marker is.  What you see from the top of your “rise” is called the horizon, where the surface of the earth curves away from you.

No you misinderstand

I am not FOR companies to abuse their customers.

Im POINTING out your hypicrisy and oxymoron loc thinking.

Listening is a key skill

Which you appear to entirely lack.

Let's explain geometry to you.

Terrain is geometry.

You ignoring the terrain to claim it is flat is just blatant dishonesty.
This is not just ignoring an insignificant bump. This is ignoring a substantial part of it.
You may as well be claiming a sphere is flat, with a bump on each side.

A circle is equal to 360 degrees

Good, now zoom in on a tiny part of it.
Maybe something like this:

What this means is that for something to be a sphere, it must have a 90 degree rise, or in other words, a rise that is equal in height to half the diameter.

And if you want to see that, you need to be far away.
Alternatively, LOOK DOWN.
Then see that massive amount of Earth that goes from directly below to out in front, that is part of that bulge you are trying to find.

Here is a picture to help you understand:

Which way do you need to look to see that bulge?
If you wish to disagree, feel free to draw yourself standing on Earth and showing what way you think you should need to look.

Suppose there even is this bulge that you have never been able to prove

The curvature of Earth has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
You have been completely incapable of explaining away observations which demonstrate it.

We even have pictures from space:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Does that prove Earth is a sphere?

No, but the fact that it is quite comparable anywhere on Earth makes it quite likely to be roughly spherical.
We also have the shadow of Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse to further support this.
And as above, we have pictures of Earth from space.

The Earth's diameter is 7000 MILES. Half of this is a midpoint curve so profound that it would cause water to hill in either direction like the Red Line.

What red line? And So what?

Excuse me, but I have driven 3000 miles. I know for a fact that there was never any such curve in all that distance.

How?
Based upon your blatant misrepresentation that Earth should behave like a tiny ball, so you should feel like you are climbing a massive mountain; rather than an honest representation of what a level CURVED surface should act like?

This is why RE liars always default to "The Earth is really an elliptoid not a sphere,"

And more delusional BS.
The reason HONEST PEOPLE say that Earth is not a perfect sphere, and it is closer to an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid, is because that is the truth.
Due to the minimal eccentricity, a sphere is a good approximation.

A chess board that has a huge mound of dirt on it, is nonetheless a chess board. If I drench it in water, and the wood bows, it is a warped chess board.  If you added more wood give it a large bump, you could maybe say it's a different shape by design, and call it a domed chess board. But this bump is not a thing, stop trying to make it a thing.

And again deflecting from the shape.
Not a chessboard with a mound of dirt, a chessboard with a massive bump in the middle.
I don't care if it would still be a chess board, would it still be flat?

Notice how if it bows, you say it is warped, which is another way of saying not flat.

This "bump" IS a thing. It is the terrain you keep on ignoring.

Meanwhile, I continued my education after college, eventually learning that much of what I was told was crap.

You mean after failing miserably at college you started to de-educate yourself, discarding most of what you learnt as crap.
Not for any rational basis of by actual education, but because you don't like it.

This country is becoming broken, and its days are numbers.

Yes, by people like you.
People who care more about individual liberty than not harming others.

I wamt to abolish those syatems, not regulate.

And it doesn't really matter what you want.
These companies want these systems, because it makes them money.
Why would they stop it just because you want it?
Do you mean you want to force companies to not be able to use those systems? Because that is regulation. You would be regulating companies to prohibit them from doing something.

But because those systems are now dependent on chips that shouldn't have been allowed for a free market economy

No, they shouldn't have been allowed in a regulated economy that cares about end users and their right to own and repair their own products.
But in a free market they are permitted entirely. And then the buyers collective decide with their wallets if they accept it or not.

When you scratch the leftist, they are never about rights, and always about regulation.

And just how do you plan on ensuring those rights without regulation?
The point of regulations is to give you those rights and ensure the companies can't take it away.

The only time I ever want regulation is when the rights have already been lost

At which point it is often too late and you are fighting a losing battle.
It is far better to have those regulations in place prohibiting the destruction of the right before the right is lost.

No, ban the devices restricting freedom

i.e. REGULATE the companies to prohibit them from producing certain products.

Do you understand what regulations are?

For a supposed anti-trust leftist, you're awfully concerned with having businesses preserve their right to monopolize the repairs and manufacture of cars.

Are you sure?
Because I fully support the right to repair and think companies should be obligated (i.e. regulations should exist which require companies to) provide schematics of their products and repair manuals, as well as providing parts; or if they don't, then they should be obligated to repair a device (or replace it with an equivalent or better model, with all features the same or improved) for free.

What this is vastly more likely to be doing is pointing out your hypocrisy.
You claim to oppose regulation, wanting things to be free; but then you cling to things which would require regulation to work.
What we "want" is for you to recognise that you are promoting and calling for regulation of companies to prohibit them from doing certain things; so you can recognise that not all regulation is bad.

But again, this is not the thread for that.

Using my distractibility to keep from answering my question.

Then just stop with all the BS about regulation and focus on your question.
You were the one that decided to bring up right to repair.

No you misinderstand

I am not FOR companies to abuse their customers.

Im POINTING out your hypicrisy and oxymoron loc thinking.

But you see, I am pointing out your hypocrisy. You vote for Democrats, thinking them the party of the people. I vote for Republicans, knowing that they were set up under the principles of elitism. You choose electors, you have law and order. Democracy in action is a lynch mob. A Republic in action is a Senate that hasn't been corrupted by vote fixing, but takes to account that there is more rural land than urban (I despise the idea of mini city districts based on population). Republicans tend to do very little, which is exactly what I want them to do (though I would like them to stop this climate crap). But you know what Democrats actually look like? I do. I've been to one's house. Making less than $5000 a year, I went to fix the computer of a lady, who upon driving to a back road in the middle of nowhere, found house that was twice the size of ours. Said house btw is unlisted, the second time she called me, I couldn't get a view of the front drive to verify whether this was the same place. Works just fine for us on Google Maps. The property itself is a huge driveway, with a house about twice as long as ours and about 1.5 times as tall. Yet for all that extra wealth, I have never seen someone so discontent. I wemt to her door hoping to do a job and get paid $20/hr for maybe two hours. Keep in mind I'd wasted about 45 minutes getting there because I got fucking lost, and 1:30 getting dressed (I'm genderfluid and I present as female for work, so this means a fair amount of effort, since I also have to deal with facial hair that alot of women never see their whole life), so I've already risked expense to get to this damned place, and her not welcoming me at the door really hurts my small business. Well, she kinda didn't. Globbed this gross stuff on my hands. I rub it down (I literally feels like I've just rubbed sperm on my hands). Then she says after this trip and getting ready that she won't be able to invite me in with no mask (you need to wear a muzzle like a good little dog). I refuse flatly. She then gives me an ultimatum. Having been already in a mood from all this, I say sardonically, "What if I just stay really far away from you?" Apparently this comment gets me in the door, which says loads about her temperament. I follow her to the computer, where she sprays the keys down, and then makes me wipe my hands with more soap. Okay, I've just been abused four times in under 5 minutes by a lady who has way more material possession than I, but is "rich in things, and poor in soul. " She isn't happy, she is wary at all times, distrustful of people poorer than her. My hands feel sticky against the moist keyboard, as she shows me to her Mac. I bought my computer at $350 or so, making her computer easily cost about 4x mine, but I see no appreciable benefit to this cost. It has less mouse than mine, and I'm having to deal with package after package trying to install her stupid printer. Btw, despite being phobic about germs and space, she is leaning over my shoulder micromanaging me. After only fifteen minutes, she decides she knows more about the Mac than me (fair assessment), and I am told to leave. I have never been so thrilled to be out of a place. About three years later, someone who I suspect might be the same woman, after hearing her talk about how she's been under COVID until recently, and wants me to check out her scanner. This time, I decided it was better to help her over the phone than waste my time for any amount of money, especially since she probably blames those few minutes on her getting sick, and not their moist atmosphere of her house. I initially accepted the job, until a bad hunch made me think "Is this the same woman?" Ultimately , I just referred them to someone else. Even that phone conversation, I got the impression of extreme impatience. This is supposed to be the party of the people. But the people at any leadership level are more detached from everyone, more fearful than everyone else. Oh sure, I have my own desire for privacy, and don't like intrusive technology. I simply don't use an Alexa, and don't care for things that want too much of me. But this was a whole other level of isolationism and fear. This woman wouldn't just plug the device in herself. She had to bother me. The party of the people, they call themselves, but they treat regular people abusively. Or to put it another way... A Chinese proverb talks about the yuanchu phoenix and how it lives only on water and bamboo. A hawk nearby sees a dead sparrow, and squawks at the phoenix, thinking it might try to steal its meal. The phoenix couldn't care less about the dead bird. Go and learn what this means.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 06, 2023, 08:01:24 AM

90 degrees, with 3500 or so rise, when traveling about that distance. Where is it?

Underneath you, obviously.

You are standing on top of this “rise”, where the 90 degree marker is.  What you see from the top of your “rise” is called the horizon, where the surface of the earth curves away from you.

That's unfortunately an answer that doesn't answer anything. Yes, that's what asking the internet reveals, as they too estimate the Earth's core at 3000 miles beneath us. But this is an answer that doesn't account for the extreme amount of pressure that should be at such layers, or the fact that the amount of bend on earth (soil) and water is never perceived or felt. In a flat Earth, there is a horizontal bulge. You can actually see this bulge, simply by standing in place, and drawing a straight line across. From left to right is 180 degrees, and it circles back to 360 (or zero). This means the land widens out in a circle in all directions. But when you start thinking it's a sphere, you run into problems, as the sky domes out only 180 from front to back. There is no similar bulge but instead there is a closeoff point, you know of as vanishing point. Spend a few bucks at a Wal-Mart, and buy a ping pong set. Cut one of the balls in half. Lay one half ball one the table at a point A. Lay the other half ball at point B. Both balls would have a viewpoint virtually identical to what I just described. For realism of the model, I've got props from a train set. Trees, fake rivers and lakes, mountains, and I've gouged a canyon into the table. I have sun and moon suspended on string, and I can move ping pong half A by train to ping pong half B. When I make wooden sphere and try to do this, the model fails starting with the train. The mountains and rivers won't properly mesh, and the ball halves won't stop falling off the sides. Stop doubling down on this, and come play ping pong with me with those other balls.

I answered your question. 

Just keep playing with your balls.  Maybe one day you’ll understand how geometry works.

But you see, I am pointing out your hypocrisy.
...

Congrats at yet again failing to do what you claim, and instead pointing out your own hypocrisy.
I know most politicians are corrupt. I don't just blindly follow democrats, and oppose plenty of ideas from the "left".
But you are now complaining about a person invoking their freedom to control who enters their house and the conditions upon which they do?
As for micromanaging people, given how personal a computer can be, it can be quite understandable that they don't want to leave you alone with it.

That's unfortunately an answer that doesn't answer anything.

It directly answers it.
If you are standing on the surface of a sphere, and wish to see that bulge, you need to look down.
You are entirely misrepresenting it to pretend that it should appear in front of you and up high in the air; when that is the complete opposite direction.

Yes, that's what asking the internet reveals, as they too estimate the Earth's core at 3000 miles beneath us.

Based upon simple math of a sphere.

But this is an answer that doesn't account for the extreme amount of pressure that should be at such layers

How?
Just what do you expect this pressure to do?

the fact that the amount of bend on earth (soil) and water is never perceived or felt.

It is perceived, repeatedly. Every time someone watches a sun set, that curvature is perceived, with the sun dropping below the horizon and disappearing from the bottom up.
Every time someone goes to a higher altitude to be able to see further, such as the crow's nest in a ship, or mounting antennas up high, or climbing a mountain, the curvature is perceived.
For a flat Earth there is none of that.

In a flat Earth, there is a horizontal bulge.

No, there isn't.
For a flat Earth, there should be no horizon at all, except the very edge of Earth or horizons formed from mountains.
That is because there is nothing to block your view.

as the sky domes out only 180 from front to back.

If you measure it carefully enough, it doesn't.
Instead, the horizon is observed at an angle of dip all around.
This means the sky is greater than 180 degrees.

you know of as vanishing point.

The vanishing point is infinitely far away.
An object, at the vanishing point, would have an angular size of 0.
It has NOTHING to do with the horizon.
It does not explain why things disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon, while still resolvable.
It does not explain why the horizon exists at all.

Stop clinging to it as if it is your get out of jail free card.

Spend a few bucks at a Wal-Mart, and buy a ping pong set. Cut one of the balls in half. Lay one half ball one the table at a point A. Lay the other half ball at point B. Both balls would have a viewpoint virtually identical to what I just described.

No, they wouldn't.
Instead of being able to see to the edge of some magical parabola, with a close circular horizon around them, they can see all the way to the edge of the table.
If they get higher, they can't see any further, because they can already see to the edge.
Because that is how flat surfaces work.
But if you do it on a sphere, they can only see a portion of that sphere, with the rest being obstructed by the sphere.
And if they get higher, they can see more of the sphere, with increasing height bringing it closer and closer to seeing half of the sphere.

When I make wooden sphere and try to do this, the model fails starting with the train. The mountains and rivers won't properly mesh

We know that a flat surface cannot be mapped to a sphere without distortion (and vice versa).
So if your mountains and rivers are made as a flat mesh to be joined together, that will not work on a sphere except as an approximation for a small enough area (where the required distortions are on the order of the tolerance of the parts).
That is not the sphere failing.

the ball halves won't stop falling off the sides. Stop doubling down on this

Good advice. Stop doubling down on this strawman when it has been repeatedly refuted.
Once more, you are trying to model gravity, while ignoring the gravity of Earth.
Once more, you are trying to pretend the RE model is Earth as a tiny ball sitting on top of a much more massive ball; instead of the reality of Earth being a massive ball, in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.

Your tiny ball not having enough mass to hold generate a gravitational field strong enough to overcome the gravitational field of Earth says nothing about the RE model. It in no way shows any problem with the visual observations.

Now care to get back on topic?

This basically sums up how ridiculous your argument is:

Its just a "flat" planet, with a bit of "terrain" making it look like a sphere.

The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.

The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.

Except water appears at multiple different levels. And one even has a constant whirlpool.
You have connected regions of water at different heights; and you have water at the same height, which is connected, which is flowing.

And there are no large swathes of flat land. Even Hyrule field and the Gerudo desert have significant elevation changes which would make the change due to curvature (assuming Hyrule is on a planet with a similar radius as Earth) entirely insignificant.

Quote from: Username on October 09, 2023, 02:48:07 PM

The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.

Except water appears at multiple different levels. And one even has a constant whirlpool.
You have connected regions of water at different heights; and you have water at the same height, which is connected, which is flowing.

And there are no large swathes of flat land. Even Hyrule field and the Gerudo desert have significant elevation changes which would make the change due to curvature (assuming Hyrule is on a planet with a similar radius as Earth) entirely insignificant.

Different levels, but always flat. It is irrelevant that there is a pond on a mountain if we are talking about how all water is not curved.

And yes there are. Just saying they don't exist doesn't contradict the evidence of the height map which clearly shows huge generally flat areas such as Gerudo and HF.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 24, 2023, 06:10:01 PM

Quote from: Username on September 18, 2023, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 18, 2023, 11:39:27 AM

Quote from: Username on September 18, 2023, 10:28:25 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on September 15, 2023, 08:18:23 AM

Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?

Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.

Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality.  Not feel, actually are.

Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round. I imagine your response might be that Time is not a true Scotsman.

Quote

But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.

Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.

Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.

On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.

Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.

It's obvious.  Which is why I said it.  I have the audacity to state the truth in a den of liars.  Oh bother, I've touched a nerve again and hurt some feelings.  You gonna threaten to ban me again, so you can feel like you have power, again?  Sure, sure, you don't have anything you're compensating for. 
It's ok to be naive, you don't have to act smart.  We think you are OK as you are.  Either accept it or stop publically trying to convince yourself of fairy tales. 

Enjoy your vacation.

Hilarious.  Little man.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 10, 2023, 04:07:22 AM

Quote from: Username on October 09, 2023, 02:48:07 PM

The height map sure looks (and empirically is) flat where there's water. This would indicate a flat planet. Likewise for the large swathes of flat land all at the same height.

Except water appears at multiple different levels. And one even has a constant whirlpool.
You have connected regions of water at different heights; and you have water at the same height, which is connected, which is flowing.

And there are no large swathes of flat land. Even Hyrule field and the Gerudo desert have significant elevation changes which would make the change due to curvature (assuming Hyrule is on a planet with a similar radius as Earth) entirely insignificant.

Different levels, but always flat. It is irrelevant that there is a pond on a mountain if we are talking about how all water is not curved.

And yes there are. Just saying they don't exist doesn't contradict the evidence of the height map which clearly shows huge generally flat areas such as Gerudo and HF.

The irony.

Also
The simple minded way you conflate elevation with curvature is so cute.

Different levels, but always flat. It is irrelevant that there is a pond on a mountain if we are talking about how all water is not curved.

Except, as above, no, they are not flat. They have different levels even when connected.
And as above, even in connected regions which are flat, they have flowing water.
That shouldn't happen.

And yes there are. Just saying they don't exist doesn't contradict the evidence of the height map which clearly shows huge generally flat areas such as Gerudo and HF.

Just saying they exist doesn't magically make them exist.
The height map clearly shows variations in height over this allegedly flat areas.
Especially note that the height map you linked divides the actual height by 256, flooring it, to remove minor variations.
Yet we will see different shades being used in the Gerudo Desert and Hyrule Field.

Here are 2 alternative ones focusing on Hyrule Field
First, one where the scale was refined to run between 32 and 48 on the original one, so it will cut off too high regions as white and too low regions as black, but show more detail for areas like Hyrule Field and the Gerudo Desert:

Clearly showing it is not flat.

And now a multi-colour one, where the red shows the most significant part of the height and the green shows the least significant part:

You can't really see much red here, due to the relatively small change in that large scale height, like the original. The more telling part are the fringes, where you see it gradually go from black to green, then sharply cut to black.
That indicates it is going up a slope (or if going the other way it is going back down).

It is not a large flat area.

That looks like an attempt to brainwash us by messing with our eyes with a Pattern. Don't do that sorcery again.

You're extrapolating a curve where none exists  using elevation averages. But elevation thrown off by the fact that some islands are literally suspended in the air.

I was able to make a flat Earth (well, New Earth)  with at least four floating islands in Oracle of Tao. The world had two maps over the course of the story. The first map depicted a falsehood, where the map showed sea all across, but actually navigating the New Earth showed that it not only has edges that are able to curve the path of the boat but also ones where you can fall off into a pit (the game had a waffle pan-shape Earth). Yes, I made a silly flat Earth just to show I could. The second was a hemispheric flat Earth. Oracle of Tao is a video game.
https://rpgmaker.net/games/1760/
If I can make a silly game that nonetheless shows that maps can lie and a round area can be flat, Zelda can definitely make a flat open world with multiple elevations.

That looks like an attempt to brainwash us by messing with our eyes with a Pattern. Don't do that sorcery again.

Of course you need an excuse to dismiss it.
It shows that it isn't flat.
It is highlighting the dishonesty of claiming it has large flat areas.

You're extrapolating a curve where none exists  using elevation averages.

Quite the opposite.
I'm exposing your dishonesty of pretending it is flat which requires you to entirely ignore the elevations and average it over the entire area to pretend it is flat.

I'm not saying it is curved.
I am saying you have insufficient evidence to show it is flat.

"Elevations". Based on flying objects.

Surely you can see how this comes across as dishonest.

I have built an artificial island that is perfectly flat.
But because there are blimps and jets and birds overhead, this is not flat according to your logic.

Disconnection from land means it is not part of the average. Reaverage without that.



Flat with mountains.

"Elevations". Based on flying objects.

No, based upon the ground.

Surely you can see how this comes across as dishonest.

I know how you come across as dishonest.

I have built an artificial island that is perfectly flat.
But because there are blimps and jets and birds overhead, this is not flat according to your logic.

No, that is nothing like my logic.
That is your dishonest misrepresentation of my logic, which points out the ground is not flat.

Flat with mountains.

i.e. ignore the entirety of the terrain and boldly proclaim it is flat because you are desperate for it to be.

Okay, so you say you're discounting these sky islands.

But you don't decide a structure is round because of terrain, you decide it because of overall shape.

That would be like having several 2 x 4 planks nailed together to form a box a box, and someone saying that because the nails stick up, the structure is not flat. Wrong. We say the structure is flat even if nails stick up. Hell, we say this even when termites have gouged into a chunk of wood before they were sprayed.



This wood has three knots in it, and several cracks.

Do its bumps make it round? No.

How about this? Is it flat or round?

(The answer is yes. It's a disc)

None of this however equals a ball.

This is a ball of wood.


Do you know the difference between this and the two pictures above?

Round Earthers have turned something flat with mountains "round" then go on to claim that something "round" is automatically a "sphere". But picture 1 =/= picture 3, no matter how many bumps it has. That's what's dishonest. The stretching of terms to fit agenda. Even if we can say Earth is round, we mean by that a disc, without clear proof of spherical globularity.

Thank you for playing.

see that cut of tree with the bark?

see how the bark is "flat" sections?

now imagine
EEMAGINE in your brain, 1in flat section of bark, 25,000of those 1in sections wrapped around into a circle.
how big a tree taht would be.
and would, if looking closely at a certain chunk of it, would many those 1in sections look relatively "flat" compared to the neighboring piece?

But you don't decide a structure is round because of terrain, you decide it because of overall shape.

And the terrain contributes to that overall shape.

What this really means is that you cannot judge the shape of a massive planet by looking at a tiny portion of it.

So looking at this small portion of whatever world they are on does not tell you the shape of the world.

So looking at water in your sink and not being able to see the curve doesn't mean the planet is flat.

Following that rule as simply as possible, this means if you want to determine if Earth is flat or round, from a picture, you need something like this:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2023/10/22/png/epic_1b_20231022010437.png

But what it certainly means is you can't look at a tiny portion of it and say you can't see the curve and proclaim the entire object is flat.

This is a ball of wood.

Now look at a tiny portion of that, and see what it looks like.

This is a ball:


And guess what? So is this:

Round Earthers have turned something flat with mountains "round"

No, Flat Earthers have taken a very large round object, ignored all bar a tiny portion of  it, and then claim that because they can't see the curve the entire object must be flat.

But picture 1 =/= picture 3, no matter how many bumps it has. That's what's dishonest.

Yes, that attempt at comparison is quite dishonest.
So why do you do it?

If you have a truly flat object, you can't just make it look like a ball.
But if you have a ball, you can make it appear as a flat surface.
That is because a sufficient small enough portion of a sufficiently large ball is approximately flat.

Notice the directionality of the relationship?
If it is flat, it should look flat.
Not if it looks flat it must be flat.
Because you can take something that isn't flat, and look at a small enough portion and have it appear flat.

So it is incredibly dishonest to take a picture of a flat object to try to support your false idea that if "it looks flat" it must be flat.
Especially when you admit you need to consider the overall shape, while then ignoring the overall shape.

So how about you stop with the dishonesty?

And as for people saying Earth is round, that is round as a ball.

The stretching of terms to fit agenda. Even if we can say Earth is round, we mean by that a disc, without clear proof of spherical globularity.

If that is the case, we would be living on the rim of the disc, but even that doesn't work.
The evidence showing Earth is round shows curvature about an axis that is parallel to the surface.
Or in simple (and technically incorrect terms) the ground goes down.

A simple example of this is the illumination pattern of the sun and how it is explained by a round surface.
If we were living on the "top" of a disc, with the sun above it, the entire top should be illuminated at once.
If we are living on the rim of a disc, or on a ball, then only half of that will be illuminated at once, and as the sun moves around or the disc/sphere rotates, a different portion will be illuminated.
But a rim would require everywhere at the same longitude to be the same, but it depends on latitude as well so it is round in both directions, making it at least roughly spherical.

Likewise, the horizon and behaviour of objects crossing it and that being roughly the same in all directions again shows it is round like roughly a sphere.

So when people show Earth is round, they are showing it is round like a ball, not like a disc where we are on top.

see that cut of tree with the bark?

see how the bark is "flat" sections?

now imagine
EEMAGINE in your brain, 1in flat section of bark, 25,000of those 1in sections wrapped around into a circle.
how big a tree taht would be.
and would, if looking closely at a certain chunk of it, would many those 1in sections look relatively "flat" compared to the neighboring piece?

No.

I know you like talking down to me like I'm intellectually inferior, but the truth is, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand. So I'll talk really slowly.



A
circle
is
equal yo
360 degrees.
If you
divide
it into
quarters,
you get a
right
angle.
A
right
angle
has a
radius
equal
to its
own
radius.

(That's enough of that)

This means that if the tree trunk has a diameter of 6 feet, 3 feet on the front from the center is 3 feet on the side. But in order to curve like it does, it has to have a hypotenuse that exceeds the radius. So, 3 ft has 4.243 ft of curve. Because I don't buy the pi bullshit formula, this is what we use.
Let's think about this: I say that the Earth should fully 3950 mi of radius, then it is 3950 mi of radius 90 degrees from there, and about 5586 miles of curvature.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/hypotenuse
Even if you manage to say that this radius doesn't count because it's the inside, 5586 - 3950 = 1636. There should be 1636 MILES of curvature. I've driven across the US, roughly 3000 miles. There isn't any such thing.

Also, we don't fucking care that the inside is made of innumerable boards of wood. Because last I checked, if you live on a ball, then you live on the outside of the ball! This means the curve is the maximum it can get. This affects liquids, it affects solids too! A mountain should split apart as its own weight is forced onto both sides of a large hill. Lava from a volcano should not simply roll down a natural hill, but factor in for curvature. Lying by trying to divide the Earth into tiny chunks doesn't change the fact that the curve is even worse than I thought it was.

But around this point, you claim that while the core is a sphere, the Earth is "slightly" elliptical. Is that like "mostly peaceful"?


But let's humor you ad absurdum. As elliptical as I can draw right now.

   

Notice anything odd about this? Like maybe that despite most of this being a soft curve, you get to the side and "dude, wtf?!?"

Let's agree that the Earth is somewhat rounded. Guess what works alot better than imagining 25,000 sections (actually, it would be about 1316 sections every 90 degrees (3950/3 since we can see about 3 miles on average in a flattish area)). That's 4.243 miles of hypotenuse each chunk. Meanwhile, the formula for curvature is literally about two pages of math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
So, what works better than pretending flat areas are curved and having to figure out where the real formula is?



Having mountains stand of flat ground, water descend mountains through waterfalls, and not fucking around with people standing on the outside of Earth. Just like gravity, this is the art of using math as smokescreen. When I did the math for gravity, I found the entire thing formula led nowhere. If math involves this many steps, it is used to intimidate, not to actually do anything.

hahahaha

you're an amazing person



hahahaha it's too funny for me.
i'm also in north america but i'll await jackB to disect this nonsese.

this will be a good read while i make my morning poop.


hahahah