Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?

  • 223 Replies
  • 9719 Views
*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #90 on: December 17, 2017, 03:12:20 AM »
What about 2D ball map?

I can't hear youuu.. ~
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

*

rabinoz

  • 23699
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #91 on: December 17, 2017, 03:53:32 AM »
What about 2D ball map?

I can't hear youuu.. ~
To make a 2D (or flat) map of the Globe you must use some sort of projection. Didn't you learn that in school?
Provided the area covered is not very large the scale errors are small.

*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #92 on: December 17, 2017, 04:32:39 AM »
1. On that map, draw a line of of earth C, (Latin America to South East Asia) then times it with 2/phew=Diameter
2. Look at the north: Asia, Europe, North America
3. Woow.... So HUGE...!! The ball can't afford to let 'em in. :D
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #93 on: December 17, 2017, 12:05:37 PM »
What about 2D ball map?
Do you mean a globe?
If so, that matches reality quite well.


I can't hear youuu.. ~
You mean you are ignoring people that show you are wrong?

1. On that map, draw a line of of earth C, (Latin America to South East Asia) then times it with 2/phew=Diameter
Your "phew" is pure bullshit.
We have been over this repeatedly.

2. Look at the north: Asia, Europe, North America
3. Woow.... So HUGE...!! The ball can't afford to let 'em in. :D
No, it can, quite easily.
Look at the south, so much water.


*

rabinoz

  • 23699
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #94 on: December 17, 2017, 02:59:50 PM »
Tesla insinuated that formula ain't match reality but people kept using it.
1) I have no idea what "formula ain't match reality" you are talking about.
2) "insinuated" is nothing like proving "that formula ain't match reality".

But, you might like to know that Tesla did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary!

Read:
                      HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla
also at How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915  in which he states:
Quote from: Nicola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2017, 03:30:46 PM »
I guess I should been more specific and said practical math.  Simple math.  I just am actually more interested in seeing basic data.
Basic data is not necessarily math.
For example, something being red, or something dying when in an airtight vessel is basic data.

What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?
Already told you that one.
Note that the sun appears directly overhead the equator at the equinox, while appearing at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees 5000 km north or south. That makes a right angle isosceles triangle and means the sun is 5000 km above the equator at the equinox.
Wnat is the angle at 2500km?

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #96 on: December 17, 2017, 11:50:30 PM »
Wnat is the angle at 2500km?
In reality or based upon the FE model?

*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #97 on: December 18, 2017, 04:51:19 PM »
Did Rab delete the globe map images.
Or those images ain't here actually?

So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

*

rabinoz

  • 23699
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #98 on: December 18, 2017, 05:50:05 PM »
Did Rab delete the globe map images.
Or those images ain't here actually?
What globe images am I supposed to have deleted? I'll post hundreds of Globe images if you want!
Here's link to a recent post with a few Globe images, Flat Earth General / Re: One Film Photo, Every Day, of the Entire Earth from Space on: Today at 08:51:46 AM
How many more do you want?

Quote from: Danang
So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)
I'm not afraid of any criticism over any maps! Here's those map projections of the Globe again:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Here are a few:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
;D Now, what are you accusing me of deleting?  ;D

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #99 on: December 18, 2017, 11:02:58 PM »
Did Rab delete the globe map images.
Or those images ain't here actually?

So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)
Understand they are projections of the globe.
As such they will have some distortions.

So if you are going to criticise them, make sure you understand the distortions induced by the projection.

*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #100 on: December 19, 2017, 02:54:40 PM »
Did Rab delete the globe map images.
Or those images ain't here actually?
What globe images am I supposed to have deleted? I'll post hundreds of Globe images if you want!
Here's link to a recent post with a few Globe images, Flat Earth General / Re: One Film Photo, Every Day, of the Entire Earth from Space on: Today at 08:51:46 AM
How many more do you want?

Quote from: Danang
So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)
I'm not afraid of any criticism over any maps! Here's those map projections of the Globe again:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Here are a few:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
;D Now, what are you accusing me of deleting?  ;D

By deleting that post, you made my day, Jack. So hilarous  ;D
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #101 on: December 19, 2017, 02:59:31 PM »
Did Rab delete the globe map images.
Or those images ain't here actually?

So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)
Understand they are projections of the globe.
As such they will have some distortions.

So if you are going to criticise them, make sure you understand the distortions induced by the projection.

Skip about projection stuff, Rab. Stick to reality. Don't change the scale of supposedly globe round map.

Errr.... is it round, or oblate spheroid, or pear chubby shaped?

Wt...
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #102 on: December 19, 2017, 05:40:49 PM »
By deleting that post, you made my day, Jack. So hilarous  ;D
Where did he delete it?
And why do you keep calling him Jack.
The post is still there for everyone to see.

Skip about projection stuff, Rab. Stick to reality. Don't change the scale of supposedly globe round map.
So skip the key bits of information which show why your likely criticisms would be crap?

Don't you understand?
Projections of a globe onto a flat surface will result in distortions. There will not be single scale across the entire map.
you can have some scales remain the same, such as the distance from the centre (or distance along lines running through the centre), but other distances will be out of scale.
And why call me Rab?

Errr.... is it round, or oblate spheroid, or pear chubby shaped?
It is an imperfect, round, oblate spheroid.

*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #103 on: December 20, 2017, 04:45:10 AM »
Okay I'll call you Jack as before.  8)

Nahhh... Even for the shape of the earth there is no picture evidence. All is CGI with orange shape.

For people with sophisticated technology, that stuff should be a piece of cake.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #104 on: December 20, 2017, 04:50:26 AM »
Even enlarged lands at north hemisplane is not large enough to resemble the reality.

This is the suffering side if the flat reality is changed into spherical one.

Contradiction is inevitable.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

*

Danang

  • 3467
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #105 on: December 20, 2017, 04:55:17 AM »
Flight information is also a joke.
Time Zone information will reveal their fake distances claim.
The duration of the flight frequently ain't match with the distance they told.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 (for C) and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

(SO SORRY CURRENTLY I'M NOT SO ACTIVE IN THIS FORUM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE YOU)

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #106 on: December 20, 2017, 11:34:04 AM »
Okay I'll call you Jack as before.  8)

Nahhh... Even for the shape of the earth there is no picture evidence. All is CGI with orange shape.

For people with sophisticated technology, that stuff should be a piece of cake.
And this is the problem with people like you, you just dismiss the evidence as fake.

There are mountains of evidence for a round Earth. The evidence is not just pictures of Earth from space.
There is also pictures from on Earth, showing a horizon with objects obscured by the horizon.
There is the apparent size and position of the sun and the other stars.
There is the fact that we have 2 celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart.
The list goes on.

Meanwhile there is not a scrap of evidence for a flat Earth.

Even enlarged lands at north hemisplane is not large enough to resemble the reality.

This is the suffering side if the flat reality is changed into spherical one.

Contradiction is inevitable.
And all we have to support this are your baseless claims.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE???
If not, shut up.
So far all the evidence points to Earth being round and the lands being as large as they are shown on the globe.

Flight information is also a joke.
Time Zone information will reveal their fake distances claim.
The duration of the flight frequently ain't match with the distance they told.
Nope.
Using time zones to determine distance is a joke; they are significantly influenced by politics with several locations having unnatural time zones.
Especially when trying to determine the shape of Earth.

Based upon a 24 hour day, each "natural" time zone will be roughly 15 degrees.
Notice how this is an angle, not a linear measurement?

At the centre of a hypothetical FE, this corresponds to 0 km.
At the edge (20 000 km away from the centre) it corresponds to ~5000 km.

At the poles of the real RE, this corresponds to 0 km.
At the equator it corresponds to roughly 1666 km.

Flight times, as inaccurate as the are, are far better at determining distances.
Do you know why?
Because unlike time zones, which are based upon angles, flight times are based significantly upon distance.

But it isn't just flight times. People have driven across these lands noting the time zone changes and the distances.

It doesn't match your delusional map, but it does match the globe.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #107 on: December 20, 2017, 11:43:37 AM »
There are mountains of evidence for a round Earth.

Show us.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #108 on: December 20, 2017, 12:12:15 PM »
There are mountains of evidence for a round Earth.
Show us.
Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE, or read the list I provided.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #109 on: December 20, 2017, 12:18:08 PM »
Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE

Sounds like a waste of time.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #110 on: December 20, 2017, 12:44:14 PM »
Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE

Sounds like a waste of time.
Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #111 on: December 20, 2017, 12:45:19 PM »
Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE

Sounds like a waste of time.
Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.

Or because someone that claims to have it, you, is already right here and refuses to present it.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15811
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #112 on: December 20, 2017, 12:46:42 PM »
Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE

Sounds like a waste of time.
Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.
Presumably, this is a reference to ostriches. In actuality, ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand but instead use their long necks to survey the surrounding landscape.

Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE

Sounds like a waste of time.
Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.

Or because someone that claims to have it, you, is already right here and refuses to present it.
You might as well get used to this from Jack; that or him proving a strawman incorrect then insisting it proves your theories wrong in spite of himself being self admittedly ignorant concerning them.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #113 on: December 20, 2017, 12:48:08 PM »
THE MODS HAVE SPOKEN!

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #114 on: December 20, 2017, 12:49:15 PM »
Or because someone that claims to have it, you, is already right here and refuses to present it.
Because it is not relevant to the topic.

But this does seem to be a common trend with lots of FEers; rather than deal with the inadequacies of FE models, they want to deflect and try and discuss RE models and evidence for them even though they just ignore the evidence presented.

You might as well get used to this from Jack; that or him proving a strawman incorrect then insisting it proves your theories wrong in spite of himself being self admittedly ignorant concerning them.
Projecting again I see.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 12:50:47 PM by JackBlack »

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #115 on: December 20, 2017, 12:55:12 PM »
Because it is not relevant to the topic.

Facts are not relevant? Then why did you even mention them?

Clearly if you're abandoning reason so brazenly, this debate has already concluded in FE's favor. Thanks for playing.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #116 on: December 20, 2017, 01:09:58 PM »
Because it is not relevant to the topic.
Facts are not relevant? Then why did you even mention them?
Not all facts are relevant. For example, it is a fact that bulls excrete matter in the form of shit. Is that in any way relevant? NO.

They were briefly mentioned due to him claiming there is no picture evidence for Earth being round.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #117 on: December 20, 2017, 01:32:46 PM »
Because it is not relevant to the topic.
Facts are not relevant? Then why did you even mention them?
Not all facts are relevant. For example, it is a fact that bulls excrete matter in the form of shit. Is that in any way relevant? NO.

They were briefly mentioned due to him claiming there is no picture evidence for Earth being round.

Please don't derail topics again

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #118 on: December 20, 2017, 01:36:18 PM »
Please don't derail topics again
Says the one that was trying to derail them.

Now how about you address the OP and provide some math for a FE?

Or should I, and then compare it with reality and see if they match?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #119 on: December 20, 2017, 01:37:28 PM »
Now how about you address the OP and provide some math for a FE?

Read the FAQ