The Flat Truth

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

I would gather that it is more the angle that you are looking at the waves.  The difference in angle between 1 mete above the waves and 12 meters above the waves is most likely to give you different views of the waves.
Another thing you might want to ask is how far apart, time wise, the pictures were taken? If it was a good amount of time, it is possible that the winds changed and caused the waves to become smaller.

Gotta keep an open mind you know instead of just jumping to conclusions.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

As H increases, D increases as well.  That's how it works on a round Earth.

interesting ship photos , one question  for you ,why is the ship higher against the back drop , when its  supposed to of sailed "over" the horizon.?

Because it should be quite obvious that the ship hasn't really 'sailed' any further (not much anyway) over the horizon, but instead the viewing elevation has changed, which changes the line of sight angle to the ship and the hillside much further beyond.

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

If the horizon consists of waves, and the horizon is much further when viewed from a higher elevation, then obviously the waves along the horizon will appear smaller. 

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 03:47:44 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

As H increases, D increases as well.  That's how it works on a round Earth.

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.
Just like science uses the Friedwald formula to calculate LDL. More deception.
Those two pictures are great. The clarity of the waves in the first one with the 1m elevation vs the waves in the second with 12m elevation shows with your eyes what is happening.
So quick throw some maths in to correct what you see.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 03:47:44 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

As H increases, D increases as well.  That's how it works on a round Earth.

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.
Just like science uses the Friedwald formula to calculate LDL. More deception.
Those two pictures are great. The clarity of the waves in the first one with the 1m elevation vs the waves in the second with 12m elevation shows with your eyes what is happening.
So quick throw some maths in to correct what you see.

Which "old maths deception"? Is the geometry unclear to you? It's really very simple.

In what way is the apparent height of waves in a photo related to interpretation of cholesterol measurements?

Do you think waves viewed from an elevation nearly equal to the wave height would look the same as waves of equal height viewed from twelve times higher? If so, why? Does a tall mountain seen from a few km distant from base level stand out more than the same mountain seen from a jet airplane a few km above it? Not sure what your point was about the math - none is needed to recognize this; just open your eyes and look.

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 03:47:44 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

As H increases, D increases as well.  That's how it works on a round Earth.

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.
Just like science uses the Friedwald formula to calculate LDL. More deception.
Those two pictures are great. The clarity of the waves in the first one with the 1m elevation vs the waves in the second with 12m elevation shows with your eyes what is happening.
So quick throw some maths in to correct what you see.

Which "old maths deception"? Is the geometry unclear to you? It's really very simple.

In what way is the apparent height of waves in a photo related to interpretation of cholesterol measurements?

Do you think waves viewed from an elevation nearly equal to the wave height would look the same as waves of equal height viewed from twelve times higher? If so, why? Does a tall mountain seen from a few km distant from base level stand out more than the same mountain seen from a jet airplane a few km above it? Not sure what your point was about the math - none is needed to recognize this; just open your eyes and look.

Cannot test it.
Both frauds.
11m vs plane= more deception.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 17, 2015, 07:52:01 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 03:47:44 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

As H increases, D increases as well.  That's how it works on a round Earth.

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.
Just like science uses the Friedwald formula to calculate LDL. More deception.
Those two pictures are great. The clarity of the waves in the first one with the 1m elevation vs the waves in the second with 12m elevation shows with your eyes what is happening.
So quick throw some maths in to correct what you see.

Which "old maths deception"? Is the geometry unclear to you? It's really very simple.

In what way is the apparent height of waves in a photo related to interpretation of cholesterol measurements?

Do you think waves viewed from an elevation nearly equal to the wave height would look the same as waves of equal height viewed from twelve times higher? If so, why? Does a tall mountain seen from a few km distant from base level stand out more than the same mountain seen from a jet airplane a few km above it? Not sure what your point was about the math - none is needed to recognize this; just open your eyes and look.

Cannot test it.
Both frauds.
11m vs plane= more deception.

Why can't you test it?
Go to a body of water, take a picture at 1 meter high, then another at 12 meters high.  Compare what the waves look like in each picture. 

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 08:01:56 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 17, 2015, 07:52:01 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 03:47:44 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

As H increases, D increases as well.  That's how it works on a round Earth.

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.
Just like science uses the Friedwald formula to calculate LDL. More deception.
Those two pictures are great. The clarity of the waves in the first one with the 1m elevation vs the waves in the second with 12m elevation shows with your eyes what is happening.
So quick throw some maths in to correct what you see.

Which "old maths deception"? Is the geometry unclear to you? It's really very simple.

In what way is the apparent height of waves in a photo related to interpretation of cholesterol measurements?

Do you think waves viewed from an elevation nearly equal to the wave height would look the same as waves of equal height viewed from twelve times higher? If so, why? Does a tall mountain seen from a few km distant from base level stand out more than the same mountain seen from a jet airplane a few km above it? Not sure what your point was about the math - none is needed to recognize this; just open your eyes and look.

Cannot test it.
Both frauds.
11m vs plane= more deception.

Why can't you test it?
Go to a body of water, take a picture at 1 meter high, then another at 12 meters high.  Compare what the waves look like in each picture.

Did you say Space x landed on the moon?

No, SpaceX hasn't landed on the Moon yet.  Also, math can in fact be tested.  Here is a proof of the Pythagorean theorem which is used in that horizon distance diagram:

No, SpaceX hasn't landed on the Moon yet.  Also, math can in fact be tested.  Here is a proof of the Pythagorean theorem which is used in that horizon distance diagram:

Here is the freidwald formula, LDL=TC-HDL-TG/5 the math is correct you can test this math all day long, but to use it to determine heart health is a lie.
 Here is a clue, the problem is the trigs.

1 How much do you get paid to lie?  Some people. Since you "took" these photos, please send me the original files so I can check the EXIF data.

2 ATTN: ALL "INTELLECTUALS" - You want to know one of the many many reasons I know, without any doubt that the Earth is flat? Because clowns like this must LIE to get me to believe your garbage. Do you see me lying?  I am trying to be real, use real data and construct a model that works in real life. Look at what this guy gave me as evidence. This is your scientific method?  LIES? 

3 I just prove more and more each day that not only are you people not intellectuals, not only do you not understand the science you promote, not only do you repeat and parrot things that make no sense but you will fabricate evidence to save your precious globe.

4 "Oh please Mr. Jeranism, don't take our pretty little globe away. Copernicus said we could keep it. What will I do if it is flat? Does that mean I might have to be accountable for my actions? I can't lean on science on a crutch anymore? Please, please we will do anything. Fabricate evidence, pretend things exist that don't, lie like a loser but please DON'T TAKE AWAY OUR GLOBE!!!"

5 Too bad kids, take your ball and go home. Game over. I will be releasing a video in the next hour or so called NASA throws in the towel. They have finally cracked. Go watch their Go-Pro Space Walks they released. Gig is up.

6 The first set of images- HOW DID YOU CHANGE ELIVATION EXACTLY?  Second, in 12 miles, the Earth curves what? 6-10 feet?

7 http://www.clicknhost.com/v-16fr02j92nk3q10   See this image to see your fabrication. Prove me wrong by sending the actual files.

8 Second set of images is a joke. The boat would go down, like over a ball, not like an escalator clown. And also, Explain the mountain getting lower. Did it fall behind the horizon as well? 

9Don't go looking for images, it makes you look so dumb.

10 Here, because it is so important to you sir. The globe is real. Are you happy now? Can you get back to life now instead of faking evidence so you can sleep.  Way to prove the plane-t

1 I might get around to it.  I don't get paid to lie, nor do I lie.

2 I suppose you mean "intellectual" as in a person with intelligence, so I can understand your jealousy.  Good luck with your model.

3 I fabricated nothing. 

4 Explain how the visual evidence I presented fits into FET then.

5 I'm sure it will be a 'game changer'.

6 I changed elevation by walking down from the higher parking area to the edge of the water.  Sounds crazy doesn't it.  No, there would be a drop of about 90 feet.  I guess you're not familiar with Samuel Rowbotham's chart.

7 Hey, congratulations, you found where someone overlaid my two images for a comparison, which was a posted in a thread on these very forums a while back.  Quite the smoking gun you have there.

8 The change in angle over that distance is not very much.  Yes, the mountain is also over the horizon, and will also get lower as the viewing elevation changes.  This should have been obvious.  Please try harder. 

9 You tell me not to go looking for images, which I didn't have to as I already knew about the ship pictures and the bridge shots are my own, yet you actually searched for, and found, someone else's copy of my images, and now think that's proof of me faking pictures?  Way to make yourself look dumb.  What a clown.

10 I sleep fine at night.

Here is the freidwald formula, LDL=TC-HDL-TG/5 the math is correct you can test this math all day long, but to use it to determine heart health is a lie.
 Here is a clue, the problem is the trigs.

Where is the trig in that LDL formula? I'm only seeing simple arithmetic.

Again, what does this have to do with the appearance of the waves in those two picture?

Are you saying that trigonometry is wrong? If this were true then it would be common for just about every engineered structure to fall down at any time instead of falling down after its design limits are exceeded (IOW, it's about as strong as designed, not too much more, generally no less). Lots of other routine stuff simply wouldn't work, either, like aircraft cross-wind ground tracks. Unless you can provide something meaningful to back it up, that assertion is simply preposterous.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 17, 2015, 09:22:42 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 08:01:56 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 17, 2015, 07:52:01 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 03:47:44 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 17, 2015, 03:20:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 01:41:38 PM

Those photos prove sinking ship is not a product of round earth.

When you are higher up the horizon is further away. 

And from an elevation of a whole 11 metres the waves between you and the ship are suddenly further away and smaller.
Wipe the eye snot out of your eyes and compare the two pictures.

As H increases, D increases as well.  That's how it works on a round Earth.

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.
Just like science uses the Friedwald formula to calculate LDL. More deception.
Those two pictures are great. The clarity of the waves in the first one with the 1m elevation vs the waves in the second with 12m elevation shows with your eyes what is happening.
So quick throw some maths in to correct what you see.

Which "old maths deception"? Is the geometry unclear to you? It's really very simple.

In what way is the apparent height of waves in a photo related to interpretation of cholesterol measurements?

Do you think waves viewed from an elevation nearly equal to the wave height would look the same as waves of equal height viewed from twelve times higher? If so, why? Does a tall mountain seen from a few km distant from base level stand out more than the same mountain seen from a jet airplane a few km above it? Not sure what your point was about the math - none is needed to recognize this; just open your eyes and look.

Cannot test it.
Both frauds.
11m vs plane= more deception.

Why can't you test it?
Go to a body of water, take a picture at 1 meter high, then another at 12 meters high.  Compare what the waves look like in each picture.

Did you say Space x landed on the moon?

More evidence that you have difficulty following a conversation.  That is in another thread where another member posted some vague question. 

So why can't you test this and take some pictures to see how waves would look?

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 09:52:31 PM

Here is the freidwald formula, LDL=TC-HDL-TG/5 the math is correct you can test this math all day long, but to use it to determine heart health is a lie.
 Here is a clue, the problem is the trigs.

Where is the trig in that LDL formula? I'm only seeing simple arithmetic.

Again, what does this have to do with the appearance of the waves in those two picture?

Are you saying that trigonometry is wrong? If this were true then it would be common for just about every engineered structure to fall down at any time instead of falling down after its design limits are exceeded (IOW, it's about as strong as designed, not too much more, generally no less). Lots of other routine stuff simply wouldn't work, either, like aircraft cross-wind ground tracks. Unless you can provide something meaningful to back it up, that assertion is simply preposterous.

Trigs are triglycerides=TG, sorry I thought that would be obvious.
Try again.
Its got zero to do with waves. I am sick of listening to REers say math does not lie, of course it doesn't .
Just because the math is correct does not mean what it is applied to is correct.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 18, 2015, 08:56:57 AM

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 09:52:31 PM

Here is the freidwald formula, LDL=TC-HDL-TG/5 the math is correct you can test this math all day long, but to use it to determine heart health is a lie.
 Here is a clue, the problem is the trigs.

Where is the trig in that LDL formula? I'm only seeing simple arithmetic.

Again, what does this have to do with the appearance of the waves in those two picture?

Are you saying that trigonometry is wrong? If this were true then it would be common for just about every engineered structure to fall down at any time instead of falling down after its design limits are exceeded (IOW, it's about as strong as designed, not too much more, generally no less). Lots of other routine stuff simply wouldn't work, either, like aircraft cross-wind ground tracks. Unless you can provide something meaningful to back it up, that assertion is simply preposterous.

Trigs are triglycerides=TG, sorry I thought that would be obvious.
Try again.
Its got zero to do with waves. I am sick of listening to REers say math does not lie, of course it doesn't .
Just because the math is correct does not mean what it is applied to is correct.

Not obvious. You were whining about trigs. I'm not in the medical biz and never heard that as a term for triglycerides, so that, in the context of a discussion about distance to horizon, seemed to be a complaint about trigonometry. Sorry.

Still, where is the math lying? That LDL formula may or may not be valid - I sure don't know - but what does that have to do with the distance-to-horizon calculation, which is well established and well understood? Since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is nothing more than a possibly meaningless medical interpretation, why did you even bring it up? Everyone knows that some formulas are wrong; big whoop! So find a problem with the formula we're actually discussing, if you think there is one, and discuss that.

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.
Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

First I will ask a few questions....

1. Why doesn't the moon fall to Earth? It stays neatly in its orbit.

I would like to ask you the same question.  Why doesn't the moon fall to the flat earth?  What keeps it conveniently above the flat earth while still letting it appear to rise and set?

If that is the case, why can't I jump and orbit the Earth?

Because that isn't how orbit works.  Orbits aren't so much about getting really high, they're more about going forward really fast.  Why do you think that the ISS orbits at 17,000 mph?

2. How does a vacuum work if it is connected to Earth? A vacuum must be sealed and if sealed how do we get out there?

That isn't how vacuums work either.  First of all, vacuum is not an absolute term.  Secondly, a vacuum is the absence of air, so it is essentially nothing.  How do you "connect" nothing to something. 

There is not distinct line between the earth's atmosphere and vacuum of space.  Rather, the atmosphere gradually gets thinner as you get higher until it thins to practically nothing (vacuum).

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.

You didn't?

Oh, yeah, here it is...

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.

So, by "deception", you don't mean "lying"? This sounds like more flat-earth "logic".

Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

OK. No idea if your triglyceride comment is right or not, but how does it relate? What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? Can we stick to this rather than throwing in unrelated "stuff"?

Note: "I don't want to believe it's right" isn't the same as "it's wrong". So can we avoid this, too, please. If you don't think it's right, explain why rather than just whining about it or diverting the conversation, please.

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.
Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

Does the visible horizon get further away the more a person increases their elevation?  Yes or no?  If 'no', can you demonstrate that in some way? 

Quote from: tappet on April 18, 2015, 05:25:29 PM

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.

You didn't?

Oh, yeah, here it is...

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.

So, by "deception", you don't mean "lying"? This sounds like more flat-earth "logic".

Quote

Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

OK. No idea if your triglyceride comment is right or not, but how does it relate? What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? Can we stick to this rather than throwing in unrelated "stuff"?

Note: "I don't want to believe it's right" isn't the same as "it's wrong". So can we avoid this, too, please. If you don't think it's right, explain why rather than just whining about it or diverting the conversation, please.

Either you are thick or just trying to exhaust me, I suspect the latter.

Quote from: tappet on April 18, 2015, 05:25:29 PM

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.
Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

Does the visible horizon get further away the more a person increases their elevation?  Yes or no?  If 'no', can you demonstrate that in some way?

Yes it does. Stand on the beach and look at the ground below your feet. Tilt your head back and up to see the horizon.
Then sit down and have a good long think.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 18, 2015, 07:32:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 18, 2015, 05:25:29 PM

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.

You didn't?

Oh, yeah, here it is...

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.

So, by "deception", you don't mean "lying"? This sounds like more flat-earth "logic".

Quote

Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

OK. No idea if your triglyceride comment is right or not, but how does it relate? What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? Can we stick to this rather than throwing in unrelated "stuff"?

Note: "I don't want to believe it's right" isn't the same as "it's wrong". So can we avoid this, too, please. If you don't think it's right, explain why rather than just whining about it or diverting the conversation, please.

Either you are thick or just trying to exhaust me, I suspect the latter.

Nope. Neither is true.

Just looking for answers to questions that were begged by your earlier response. The essence of the questions boil down to:

I answered your question about "math lying". Do you agree or disagree with my response?

What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation?

If you don't want a lot of assertions to be challenged, then please stop throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

Quote from: tappet on April 18, 2015, 07:53:28 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 18, 2015, 07:32:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 18, 2015, 05:25:29 PM

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.

You didn't?

Oh, yeah, here it is...

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.

So, by "deception", you don't mean "lying"? This sounds like more flat-earth "logic".

Quote

Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

OK. No idea if your triglyceride comment is right or not, but how does it relate? What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? Can we stick to this rather than throwing in unrelated "stuff"?

Note: "I don't want to believe it's right" isn't the same as "it's wrong". So can we avoid this, too, please. If you don't think it's right, explain why rather than just whining about it or diverting the conversation, please.

Either you are thick or just trying to exhaust me, I suspect the latter.

Nope. Neither is true.

Just looking for answers to questions that were begged by your earlier response. The essence of the questions boil down to:

I answered your question about "math lying". Do you agree or disagree with my response?

What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation?

If you don't want a lot of assertions to be challenged, then please stop throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

You gotta be kidding.
I said maths does not lie. It can be used to lie.
I gave you a perfect example of how math can be deceptive you do not want to check out the example I gave, so go away.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 18, 2015, 09:04:36 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 18, 2015, 07:53:28 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 18, 2015, 07:32:00 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 18, 2015, 05:25:29 PM

Time to cut the "where is the math lying nonsense", I never said it was.

You didn't?

Oh, yeah, here it is...

Quote from: tappet on April 17, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Ah yeah, the old maths deception again.

So, by "deception", you don't mean "lying"? This sounds like more flat-earth "logic".

Quote

Trigs are affected by sugar consumption. More sugar, higher trigs. Higher your trigs/5 gives you better LDL result.
Therefore the more sugar you eat the better your heart is.
Maths made for a predetermined result.
That's how I see your round earth maths.
Correctly made for a predetermined result.

OK. No idea if your triglyceride comment is right or not, but how does it relate? What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? Can we stick to this rather than throwing in unrelated "stuff"?

Note: "I don't want to believe it's right" isn't the same as "it's wrong". So can we avoid this, too, please. If you don't think it's right, explain why rather than just whining about it or diverting the conversation, please.

Either you are thick or just trying to exhaust me, I suspect the latter.

Nope. Neither is true.

Just looking for answers to questions that were begged by your earlier response. The essence of the questions boil down to:

I answered your question about "math lying". Do you agree or disagree with my response?

What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation?

If you don't want a lot of assertions to be challenged, then please stop throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

You gotta be kidding.

Nope. Not kidding.

I said maths does not lie. It can be used to lie.

You may think that's what you meant, but it's not what you said. Please try to say clearly what you mean. We're not mind readers.

I gave you a perfect example of how math can be deceptive you do not want to check out the example I gave, so go away.

You gave an example of a model you think is wrong. What does that have to do with the question at hand?

Repeating:
What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? You are dodging this question. Does putting this in bold type help you focus on the question you really need to answer in this conversation?

Yes it does. Stand on the beach and look at the ground below your feet. Tilt your head back and up to see the horizon.
Then sit down and have a good long think.

I wasn't talking about looking at the the ground at my feet, I was talking about looking at the horizon from two different elevations.  So we agree that the more elevation one gains, the further away the horizon becomes.  Great.

This very simple drawing demonstrates just that.  As H increases or decreases, D increases or decreases.

What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? You are dodging this question. Does putting this in bold type help you focus on the question you really need to answer in this conversation?

My quibble is your calculation is made for your round earth.
The earth is flat therefore your calculation is as relevant as the friedwald formula. It means nothing. Both made up calculations for predetermined outcomes.
How will I test your calculation, can I run a straight edge out to sea and measure the drop?
No, I have to put up with people putting bloody cartoons up all the time, and be told "this is reality now just accept it".
"Hey we have math".

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on April 18, 2015, 09:35:05 PM

What is your quibble with the distance-to-horizon calculation? You are dodging this question. Does putting this in bold type help you focus on the question you really need to answer in this conversation?

My quibble is your calculation is made for your round earth.

Well, yes. It works, too, so there's more evidence the Earth (it's yours, too) is spherical. This seems to be a problem for you. Why?

The earth is flat therefore your calculation is as relevant as the friedwald formula. It means nothing. Both made up calculations for predetermined outcomes.

We're going to need some actual evidence that suggests that your assertion is correct. So far, all of the conclusive evidence falls convincingly on the "Earth is spherical" side, like the distance to horizon stuff. About the only case made for a flat earth is "look out your window; it looks flat to me", but, when viewed from near the surface of the Earth, "looks flat" is difficult to distinguish from "looks like the surface of a really large sphere", so this is inconclusive. Sorry, this is inconclusive at best. Do you have anything else that shows the Earth is flat? An explanation of sunrises and sunsets that's simpler and more elegant than the spherical-earth model would be a good start.

So why do those distant mountains, ships, buildings, etc. disappear from the bottom up in accordance with the formula? How do they know which predetermined parts should be below the horizon when someone looks from different vantage points?  What if two or more people look from different vantage points at the same time, so each one would have a different predetermined horizon? How is the distant object supposed to cope with that?

How will I test your calculation, can I run a straight edge out to sea and measure the drop?

Light is typically what is used. It can be perturbed by refraction, more in some situations than others, but in most cases it's pretty good.

No, I have to put up with people putting bloody cartoons up all the time, and be told "this is reality now just accept it".

Those drawings are designed to help you understand what's being said since you seem to have difficulty grasping it. If you don't need these, then please stop playing dumb.

"Hey we have math".

Indeed we do. Works brilliantly, too, when applied correctly!

Look-

I will just answer everyone at once because obviously you guys with 5000 posts here must do this for a living. I believe it is called being a troll or a shill.

I personally call it being here for longer then you.

What you are trying to do is discredit the truth with absolute nonsense.

If by "nonsense" you mean math, logic, and evidence and if by "truth" you mean the ridiculous conjecture that is flat earth theory then yes.

Just so you know... I already KNOW the Earth is flat and there is no need for me to explain it to intellectuals. You guys are so smart! Mike said that the images are composite and if that is what I considered doctored images.

Then what are you doing here?  Just climb back into your hole and smugly feel superior to all the "sheeple" because you know the "truth".

Mike you want to bet me $10,000 that there is no such thing as space? There is no such thing as a vacuum?

That depends, which side do you want me to take.  If you are suggesting that space and vacuums don't exist and you want me to bet that they do exist then I would totally do that bet.

You do not know who you are messing with. I am looking for people who are looking for truth,

Then what are you doing on the Flat Earth Society forum?

not people who are paid to keep the lie. THE GLOBE IS A LIE and I still don't know if you 100% believe it or are really so fucking stupid that you are posting in this forum daily just so you don't cry.

Considering that you think math, logic, and evidence is stupid I am going to go with the second option.

If you really are asking for doctored images then you have not seen my youtube where in my last two videos the following things have been proven.

First I will ask a few questions....

1. Why doesn't the moon fall to Earth? It stays neatly in its orbit. If that is the case, why can't I jump and orbit the Earth?

Because it has lateral velocity which you don't have when you jump.  If the atmosphere weren't there to show you down and you were somehow able to jump with a lateral velocity of 17,000 miles per hour then you would be in orbit.

2. How does a vacuum work if it is connected to Earth? A vacuum must be sealed and if sealed how do we get out there?

My video shows the following https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS_FY5mR4g22L_E9t1D_ExQ

1. Gravity is fictitious. On Earth, we have weight and it is how things work. Drop a rock, and it being more dense than air will fall. A balloon with helium is less dense than air and rises.

But gravity is what gives objects weight, weight is simply a measurement of the force created by gravity.

2. Relativity is a joke

Math says otherwise.

3. Light Years is a joke

4. Globe Earth cannot exist in reality

But it can, and it does.

5. Copernicus said the Sun was 3,000,000 miles away so his "belief" that we rotated the sun is false.

I am very confused by this sentence.

6. We do not spin

Gyroscopes, pendulums, and the Coriolis effect say otherwise.

7. The sun and moon (easily measured with sextant) are 3000 miles away and both 32 miles in diameter

But when they are measured with radar the Moon is 245,000 miles away and the Sun is way too far for radar to detect, not to mention it's already emitting a lot of radio waves.

8. NASA lies

Dispite having hundreds of thousands of employees and thousands of private contractors which build rocket parts that would all have to be in on it for NASA to tell lies.

9. NASA worships the devil, you worship NASA, you worship the Devil.  Hahaha pagan.

NASA doesn't worship the devil and I don't worship NASA.  If NASA worshiped the devil then why would the Apollo 8 astronauts quote from the Bible in lunar orbit?  I don't worship NASA, I simply believe that they don't intentionally lie to everyone about literally everything they say to support a massive conspiracy.  There is a slight difference there.

10. Space X is fake
11. ISS is fake
12 Space walk is fake
13. Composite images are fake
14. Space is fake

Why do you think they are fake?  Is it because they go against your beliefs?  That's called confirmation bias, as long as you have it you shouldn't be expecting to arrive at any kind of truth.

15 Stars are right above us

The constant angular distance between stars says otherwise.

16. THIS WILL ALL BE MAINSTREAM NEWS BEFORE THE END OF 2015

I can see the headline now.

So why do those distant mountains, ships, buildings, etc. disappear from the bottom up in accordance with the formula? How do they know which predetermined parts should be below the horizon when someone looks from different vantage points?  What if two or more people look from different vantage points at the same time, so each one would have a different predetermined horizon? How is the distant object supposed to cope with that?

Open your bloody eyes. Look at your feet, then tilt your head up and back to see the horizon come up to your eye level.
Then sit down and start thinking for yourself.

Open your bloody eyes. Look at your feet, then tilt your head up and back to see the horizon come up to your eye level.
Then sit down and start thinking for yourself.

And then check out the second link in my forum signature which debunks that.