FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:50:13 AM

Quote from: iconoclast on March 19, 2012, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...

Creativity is highly important in both science and mathematics. In science it can be used to design experiments, and in mathematics it can allow you to find alternative paths to the same outcome, which is what I'm doing.

Prove it. All I hear is bravado. Can't you do anything substantial on your "lesser" gravity FE model yet? Staying on topic would be nice--not that I'm a mod.

Still in school, sorry. I'll document my progress for you once I start (might not get home until late, though).

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:48:30 AM

Quote from: Thork on March 19, 2012, 09:39:06 AM

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.

Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.

Then how would you reduce the pressure of the albumen and yolk?

This is a half boiled idea if ever I heard one. A simple retraction about the variety of ways in which one can boil an egg would suffice.

Please stay somewhere in the general neighborhood of on topic, will you?

Quote from: Thork on March 19, 2012, 09:53:05 AM

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:48:30 AM

Quote from: Thork on March 19, 2012, 09:39:06 AM

Quote from: Tausami on March 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM

You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.

Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.

Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.

Then how would you reduce the pressure of the albumen and yolk?

This is a half boiled idea if ever I heard one. A simple retraction about the variety of ways in which one can boil an egg would suffice.

Please stay somewhere in the general neighborhood of on topic, will you?

I am merely replying to the moderator. It was he that brought up the entire egg discussion. In fact he is still at it.

That would come afterwards. The point of the solution is that adding more solute for an already over-saturated solution results in rapid precipitation of the solute, and the precipitation would mainly be on the egg. It would create a marble coating around the of calcium carbonate around the calcium carbonate of the egg, making it harder to break. You may have to do it several times, though. And yes, back on topic please.

You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.

As you know I subscribe to UA, so this is all a bit of a yawn for me. I'm with the RErs on this one. Its preposterous to have gravity on a finite flat earth. Tausmai should provide real life eggsamples to back his claim.

You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.

I agree with Thork. Poor form ole chap. Open a thread in the Lounge to deal with the egg on your face.

Let's get back to normal, but lesser, gravity on a finite FE, or even the constant g of the Davis (infinite plane) model.

Quote from: Thork on March 19, 2012, 10:05:31 AM

You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.

I agree with Thork. Poor form ole chap. Open a thread in the Lounge to deal with the egg on your face.

Let's get back to normal, but lesser, gravity on a finite FE, or even the constant g of the Davis (infinite plane) model.

We already did. It's in CN. Pongo did it for me (thanks, Pongo).

Yes, let's. Do you have any more issues with this phenomenon for me to keep in mind as I perform my calculations?

Quote from: ClockTower on March 19, 2012, 10:19:08 AM

Quote from: Thork on March 19, 2012, 10:05:31 AM

You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.

I agree with Thork. Poor form ole chap. Open a thread in the Lounge to deal with the egg on your face.

Let's get back to normal, but lesser, gravity on a finite FE, or even the constant g of the Davis (infinite plane) model.

We already did. It's in CN. Pongo did it for me (thanks, Pongo).

Yes, let's. Do you have any more issues with this phenomenon for me to keep in mind as I perform my calculations?

Oh, there are a dozen more. But the next problem you face is insurmountable--calculating the direction of the force vector from normal gravity, without integral calculus.

If you want to see your error quickly and avoid having to learn integral calculus today, try this logic.

1) Using the laws of symmetry, reduce the problem to just two dimensions (south-north-south coincident with the Prime Meridian and up-down (as in up to the sky and down through the Earth)



2) Note that the north-south forces of the yellow boxes cancel each other. They are symmetric and equal. The up-down forces do not cancel, but do add.

3) Note that blue box has no cancelling box, so it's pull on the gravimeter will be to the North.

4) Note that the effect increases as the gravimeter is farther south.

5) Note that we can measure 'g' to great precision with just table-top pendulums.

Yes, let's. Do you have any more issues with this phenomenon for me to keep in mind as I perform my calculations?

One thing that I've been dying to know. What are your qualifications?

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 06, 2012, 08:42:54 PM

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Which makes me wonder why some of us even respond in the first place... Absurd claims from people with references to websites that explain it, but have no understanding of the topic itself. 

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 06, 2012, 08:42:54 PM

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 07, 2012, 07:28:06 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 06, 2012, 08:42:54 PM

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.

No, we're saying that you fail to self-censor adequately. You've proposed several theories that we had to explain the math and physics that you should have done before going public.

Even recently you failed to understand that there is no "overcoming inertia" (You probably meant "Overcoming static friction".) You even linked us to a huge reference (Newton's Principia) without even a page number. (and, of course, nothing in Principia supported your claim.

To continue with the analogy, we're saying 'no' to any more salads from you since your entire history of salad production was nothing but failures.

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 07, 2012, 07:28:06 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 06, 2012, 08:42:54 PM

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.

The problem here is quite simple though. You don't have the knowledge. It's that simple really. Gravity is the entire reason planets are round.Yes you act as though it's not.

Quote from: Tausami on April 07, 2012, 05:53:23 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 07, 2012, 07:28:06 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 06, 2012, 08:42:54 PM

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.

The problem here is quite simple though. You don't have the knowledge. It's that simple really. Gravity is the entire reason planets are round.Yes you act as though it's not.

So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?

Quote from: Tausami on April 07, 2012, 05:53:23 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 07, 2012, 07:28:06 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on April 06, 2012, 08:42:54 PM

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.

No, we're saying that you fail to self-censor adequately. You've proposed several theories that we had to explain the math and physics that you should have done before going public.

Even recently you failed to understand that there is no "overcoming inertia" (You probably meant "Overcoming static friction".) You even linked us to a huge reference (Newton's Principia) without even a page number. (and, of course, nothing in Principia supported your claim. You're really bad at determining what's serious and what isn't, aren't you?

To continue with the analogy, we're saying 'no' to any more salads from you since your entire history of salad production was nothing but failures.

That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only be done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.

As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.

That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.

As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.

Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.

On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.

My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.

So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?

Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 12:28:42 PM

That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.

As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.

Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.

On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.

My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 08, 2012, 11:58:07 AM

So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?

Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.

You understand that my 'insane troll math' disproved me, right?

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 12:45:34 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 12:28:42 PM

That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.

As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.

Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.

On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.

My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 08, 2012, 11:58:07 AM

So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?

Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.

You understand that my 'insane troll math' disproved me, right?

You understand that I'm referring to any insane troll math of yours, right? I don't really consider you a very intelligent person so I doubt any attempts of yours to construct coherent, accurate mathematical models will prove (Get it?) successful.

EDIT: Yes I saw the error. I meant to say I think any attempts of yours will fail miserably. I fixed the slip-up.

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 12:51:30 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 12:45:34 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 12:28:42 PM

That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.

As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.

Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.

On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.

My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 08, 2012, 11:58:07 AM

So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?

Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.

You understand that my 'insane troll math' disproved me, right?

You understand that I'm referring to any insane troll math of yours, right? I don't really consider you a very intelligent person so I doubt any attempts of yours to construct coherent, accurate mathematical models will prove (Get it?) successful.

EDIT: Yes I saw the error. I meant to say I think any attempts of yours will fail miserably. I fixed the slip-up.

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

And why is the Earth round?

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 01:19:19 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

And why is the Earth round?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.

*gasps*

Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout  the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 01:19:19 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

And why is the Earth round?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.

*gasps*

Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout  the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.

Not what I meant. I was talking about proof. We all know what process created the Earth in RET.

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 01:39:11 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 01:19:19 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

And why is the Earth round?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.

*gasps*

Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout  the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.

Not what I meant. I was talking about proof. We all know what process created the Earth in RET.

As I said before, I'm not a scientist in the relevant fields. So I'm not really qualified to write down , much less explain, the mathematics involved in this. Take my suggestion please.

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:40:55 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 01:39:11 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: AtheistGuy1 on April 08, 2012, 01:19:19 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 08, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

And why is the Earth round?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.

*gasps*

Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout  the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.

Not what I meant. I was talking about proof. We all know what process created the Earth in RET.

As I said before, I'm not a scientist in the relevant fields. So I'm not really qualified to write down , much less explain, the mathematics involved in this. Take my suggestion please.

So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.

Tausami, if you really do want to improve your theories, it might help to actually listen to the criticism given.  You have a tendency to assume you're correct despite your hazy understanding of physics and mathematics.

I'm no wizard of science, either, so, for once, don't take this as a put-down.  I could see myself making the same mistakes if I had more unwarranted confidence in my abilities, too.

Tausami, if you really do want to improve your theories, it might help to actually listen to the criticism given.  You have a tendency to assume you're correct despite your hazy understanding of physics and mathematics.

I'm no wizard of science, either, so, for once, don't take this as a put-down.  I could see myself making the same mistakes if I had more unwarranted confidence in my abilities, too.

What am I ignoring? I regularly change my theories based on feedback.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on April 08, 2012, 01:52:37 PM

Tausami, if you really do want to improve your theories, it might help to actually listen to the criticism given.  You have a tendency to assume you're correct despite your hazy understanding of physics and mathematics.

I'm no wizard of science, either, so, for once, don't take this as a put-down.  I could see myself making the same mistakes if I had more unwarranted confidence in my abilities, too.

What am I ignoring? I regularly change my theories based on feedback.

You ignore our criticisms that you are repeatedly failing to do your homework before posting your theory. Do the math. Do the physics. If your theory still makes some sense, then post. Every theory that you've provided so far has contained sophomoric mistakes.

I'm reminded of bendy light 'theory' violating the Laws of Optics which were codified over a 1000 years ago.

What am I ignoring? I regularly change my theories based on feedback.

Not until there's been a big, long battle that ends in your defeat.  I, and many other people I'm sure, don't have the energy to point out every little thing wrong with what you make.  And if we point it out, you don't believe it and need sources and diagrams and loads of explanations  There's a point where you need to accept that you're probably wrong and research it yourself.

So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.

No. I'm telling you that I'm not qualified to explain the mathematical proofs you asked for. I'm telling you to go talk to someone who is.