Phew Based Math of "Curvature"

"I believe in my Eyes" 

"I believe in my Cat" 

Sun circles Antarctica but Never circles the nothernest hemisplane.

EVERYBODY... PLEASE SHUT UP !

So many JokERs here...

If you can't explain it, why not be an adult and admit it?

Sun circles Antarctica but Never circles the nothernest hemisplane.

Nope. Earth rotates about its axis which creates the apparent motion of the sun.
You can get a midnight sun in the Arctic, impossible on your RFE model.

Just like it would be impossible for the sun to have a negative angle of elevation, yet it does, on a daily basis.

EVERYBODY... PLEASE SHUT UP !

If you want us to shut up then stop spouting crap and ignoring our objections to it.
While you continue to spout it we will continue to object.

"I believe in my Eyes" 

"I believe in my Cat" 

How can you believe your eyes if you don’t open them?!

You showed us one video that showed backlit clouds well after sunrise. I showed you multiple examples of bottom-lit clouds, but you won’t even acknowledge or respond to them.

Sun circles Antarctica but Never circles the nothernest hemisplane.

EVERYBODY... PLEASE SHUT UP !

Prove it or shut up.

Quote from: Danang on January 01, 2018, 05:23:20 PM

Sun circles Antarctica but Never circles the nothernest hemisplane.

EVERYBODY... PLEASE SHUT UP !

Prove it or shut up.

There are two versions of sun path on "pole".
The circle patterns cannot apply for both poles. One non circlular pattern is for north pole, another circular pattern is for south pole.
Even in summer of northern hemisplane, the sun's path forms curve: *from south back to south* during the day from morning to evening.

Quote from: Danang on January 01, 2018, 05:18:52 PM

"I believe in my Eyes" 

"I believe in my Cat" 

How can you believe your eyes if you don’t open them?!

You showed us one video that showed backlit clouds well after sunrise. I showed you multiple examples of bottom-lit clouds, but you won’t even acknowledge or respond to them.

To let you know, I cannot stick to this forum all day all night or dealing with FE stuff all the time.

But I have given clues of my thoughts over FE. I don't wanna waste my time for debating something clear. So sorry if you think that's not sufficient.

There are two versions of sun path on "pole".
The circle patterns cannot apply for both poles.

Only in your model and other retarded models like that.
Meanwhile in reality IT DOES! The two poles behave quite similarly in regards to the sun.

Even in summer of northern hemisplane, the sun's path forms curve: *from south back to south* during the day from morning to evening.

And there you go lying yet again.
In reality, in the northern hemisphere, during their summer the sun rises from the NE and sets in the NW. If you are north of the tropics it ends up due south.

If you notice, this is effectively a mirror image of the southern hemisphere.

Again, if you wish to disagree with reality you will need to prove it.

To let you know, I cannot stick to this forum all day all night or dealing with FE stuff all the time.

That is no excuse to just dismiss arguments as you have done.

But I have given clues of my thoughts over FE. I don't wanna waste my time for debating something clear. So sorry if you think that's not sufficient.

It is clear, the sun can have a negative angle of elevation. Impossible in your delusional model.
If you wish to disagree explain how the sun can have a negative angle of elevation.

Your pathetic dismissals of this fact is not a sufficient explanation.

If you don't have time to back up your lies, stop making them.

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 02, 2018, 01:45:11 AM

Quote from: Danang on January 01, 2018, 05:23:20 PM

Sun circles Antarctica but Never circles the nothernest hemisplane.

EVERYBODY... PLEASE SHUT UP !

Prove it or shut up.

There are two versions of sun path on "pole".
The circle patterns cannot apply for both poles. One non circlular pattern is for north pole, another circular pattern is for south pole.
Even in summer of northern hemisplane, the sun's path forms curve: *from south back to south* during the day from morning to evening.

That post proves nothing.  The midnight sun exists at both poles and that would be impossible in a flat earth and the so called spotlight sun.  So, as you can see, your map doesn’t fit reality.

More to the subject of this thread, what about angular measurements?  Radians are based on pi.  You’ll also have to somehow change the trigonometric functions for radians (Sine, Cosine, etc.)...including the hyperbolic logarithm tables.

If π is wrong you’ll also have to rewrite the basis of electronics theory.  Try calculating a circuit output using the standard wave functions (e.g. y=A Sin(2 π n x)) and the associated quadrant law using π and then phew and see which matches the measured values.

What about the special sine/cosine function tables for multiples of π radians.

IOW, how do you plan on addressing the various functions, theorems, and tables that rely on π.  Or, didn't you realize that changing the value of π affects every aspect of science and engineering. 

Mike

Quote from: Danang on January 02, 2018, 11:53:50 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on January 02, 2018, 01:45:11 AM

Quote from: Danang on January 01, 2018, 05:23:20 PM

Sun circles Antarctica but Never circles the nothernest hemisplane.

EVERYBODY... PLEASE SHUT UP !

Prove it or shut up.

There are two versions of sun path on "pole".
The circle patterns cannot apply for both poles. One non circlular pattern is for north pole, another circular pattern is for south pole.
Even in summer of northern hemisplane, the sun's path forms curve: *from south back to south* during the day from morning to evening.

That post proves nothing.  The midnight sun exists at both poles and that would be impossible in a flat earth and the so called spotlight sun.  So, as you can see, your map doesn’t fit reality.

More to the subject of this thread, what about angular measurements?  Radians are based on pi.  You’ll also have to somehow change the trigonometric functions for radians (Sine, Cosine, etc.)...including the hyperbolic logarithm tables.

If π is wrong you’ll also have to rewrite the basis of electronics theory.  Try calculating a circuit output using the standard wave functions (e.g. y=A Sin(2 π n x)) and the associated quadrant law using π and then phew and see which matches the measured values.

What about the special sine/cosine function tables for multiples of π radians.

IOW, how do you plan on addressing the various functions, theorems, and tables that rely on π.  Or, didn't you realize that changing the value of π affects every aspect of science and engineering. 

Mike

"It works" is *different from "It seems working" (with future inaccuracy).

Phew, yes, Shall create REVOLUTION in science.

I can't fix all subjects, I just give a clue basis for those subjects to get back on the right track.

Keep on gibbering, Jack.
Without which the debate will be boring.
You seem to defend RE but actually you're the true hero for FE. Thanks, Jack! 

"It works" is *different from "It seems working" (with future inaccuracy).

The globe model works.
Pi works.
Your crap does not.

Phew, yes, Shall create REVOLUTION in science.
I can't fix all subjects, I just give a clue basis for those subjects to get back on the right track.

No it won't. It can't fix any subject.

Keep on gibbering, Jack.
Without which the debate will be boring.
You seem to defend RE but actually you're the true hero for FE. Thanks, Jack! 

You are the one that keeps on "gibbering", which I would say more is just spouting crap.

There is no debate here.
There is you spouting crap, getting your ass handed to you and ignoring everything other people say.
In order for there to be a debate you would need to read and respond to what people say, addressing what they have said.

I have repeatedly destroyed FE, so I am no hero for it.

The globe model works.
Pi works.
Your crap does not.

Jack, we could both learn from Mark Twain!

Wow two warriors in a row!
Two brave warriors that all of a sudden became ch*ckens when challenged by Phew FE Map! 😂

Explanation based on text books is not necessarily identical with reality.

Can you show an example of where it is not?

Wow two warriors in a row!
Two brave warriors that all of a sudden became ch*ckens when challenged by Phew FE Map! 😂

No, you are the chicken running away because you repeatedly get your ass handed to you.
You are unable to defend any of your claims.

Grow up and start defending your claims, or get lost.

Quote from: Danang on January 06, 2018, 06:38:18 AM

Wow two warriors in a row!
Two brave warriors that all of a sudden became ch*ckens when challenged by Phew FE Map! 😂

No, you are the chicken running away because you repeatedly get your ass handed to you.
You are unable to defend any of your claims.

Grow up and start defending your claims, or get lost.

The last sentence is what I regard as "encouragement".

Well, my focus so far is to unlock something wrong in modern physics as well as FET. You can go to Youtube if you wanna get FET in any subject you wish. Okay, I admit some are BS. (RET is even much BS) . That's why I've been building my own understandings over FET.

NOTE: I see your questionings so far are already under my previous propositions scoup. You pretended not to notice.

Well, my focus so far is to unlock something wrong in modern physics as well as FET.

And so far all you have shown are problems with FET.

RET is even much BS

Then why have you been completely unable to show anything wrong with it?

That's why I've been building my own understandings over FET.

And so far all you have been able to do is push problems around.
Your model still fails just as bad as the others.

NOTE: I see your questionings so far are already under my previous propositions scoup. You pretended not to notice.

You are yet to address the issues I have raised. Instead you repeatedly ignore them.
I have noticed you continually try to dismiss them, but that doesn't magically mean you have addressed them.

Quote from: Danang on December 18, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Explanation based on text books is not necessarily identical with reality.

Can you show an example of where it is not?

Almost my entire posts were about debunking RET which contains severe contradictions, even in its big themes.

Here are other severe contradictions:

"Tilt" is not right terminology. They should have said: "the earth goes up n down during the year". 
>> either "tilt" and "up n down" don't exist.

The globe simulation of "pole shift" is odd. The sun has to go to south of Australia. It contradicts reality.
Globe scheme can't explain pole shift n future sunrives (=sunrise) from west in whatsoever.

Phew FE Map is the only map that can explain why n how about those matters.

Almost my entire posts were about debunking RET which contains severe contradictions, even in its big themes.

Yet all you have down is blatantly lied about it or demonstrated your own ignorance.

"Tilt" is not right terminology. They should have said: "the earth goes up n down during the year". 
>> either "tilt" and "up n down" don't exist.

Firstly, even if that was the case, that wouldn't be a contradiction.
But more importantly, just like always you are full of shit.
Tilt is the correct term.
This is because the axis of Earth's rotation is tilted relative to the axis of its orbit.
As such, tilt is the correct terminology.

The globe simulation of "pole shift" is odd. The sun has to go to south of Australia. It contradicts reality.

What pole shift?
Do you mean the slight variation in location of the north celestial pole relative to the stars which is a result of precession?
Or do you mean magnetic field reversal?
Both can easily be explained.

Globe scheme can't explain pole shift n future sunrives (=sunrise) from west in whatsoever.

i.e. the globe model can't explain fictitious religious BS.
That isn't a problem with the globe model.
Stop trying to pretend religions trump reality. They don't.

Phew FE Map is the only map that can explain why n how about those matters.

No, it doesn't address those matters at all.
It cannot explain the results of axial tilt, such as the midnight sun in the northern hemisphere.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 10:07:31 AM

Quote from: Danang on December 18, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Explanation based on text books is not necessarily identical with reality.

Can you show an example of where it is not?

Almost my entire posts were about debunking RET which contains severe contradictions, even in its big themes.

Here are other severe contradictions:

"Tilt" is not right terminology. They should have said: "the earth goes up n down during the year". 
>> either "tilt" and "up n down" don't exist.

The globe simulation of "pole shift" is odd. The sun has to go to south of Australia. It contradicts reality.
Globe scheme can't explain pole shift n future sunrives (=sunrise) from west in whatsoever.

Phew FE Map is the only map that can explain why n how about those matters.

I've never seen a globe model that contradicts reality, you would have to show me.
What FE map?  There are no official ones and I've never seen one that matches reality.  Can you share that one please?

debunking RET which contains severe contradictions,

There are no contradictions in the spherical earth.   Everything fits with measured observations.

Quote from: Danang on January 06, 2018, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 10:07:31 AM

Quote from: Danang on December 18, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Explanation based on text books is not necessarily identical with reality.

Can you show an example of where it is not?

Almost my entire posts were about debunking RET which contains severe contradictions, even in its big themes.

Here are other severe contradictions:

"Tilt" is not right terminology. They should have said: "the earth goes up n down during the year". 
>> either "tilt" and "up n down" don't exist.

The globe simulation of "pole shift" is odd. The sun has to go to south of Australia. It contradicts reality.
Globe scheme can't explain pole shift n future sunrives (=sunrise) from west in whatsoever.

Phew FE Map is the only map that can explain why n how about those matters.

I've never seen a globe model that contradicts reality, you would have to show me.
What FE map?  There are no official ones and I've never seen one that matches reality.  Can you share that one please?

Here is my (non scaled) map:

https://www.4shared.com/photo/EgTbBX0Vca/20171224_121605.html

It is south pole centered FE map. The more distance from South Pole, the wider area n the longer circumference per 15 degree will be.

The rest maps contradict this reality even if "the calculation is accurate", still, they are just made up maps.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 07, 2018, 12:13:59 PM

Quote from: Danang on January 06, 2018, 04:30:48 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 06, 2018, 10:07:31 AM

Quote from: Danang on December 18, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Explanation based on text books is not necessarily identical with reality.

Can you show an example of where it is not?

Almost my entire posts were about debunking RET which contains severe contradictions, even in its big themes.

Here are other severe contradictions:

"Tilt" is not right terminology. They should have said: "the earth goes up n down during the year". 
>> either "tilt" and "up n down" don't exist.

The globe simulation of "pole shift" is odd. The sun has to go to south of Australia. It contradicts reality.
Globe scheme can't explain pole shift n future sunrives (=sunrise) from west in whatsoever.

Phew FE Map is the only map that can explain why n how about those matters.

I've never seen a globe model that contradicts reality, you would have to show me.
What FE map?  There are no official ones and I've never seen one that matches reality.  Can you share that one please?

Here is my (non scaled) map:

https://www.4shared.com/photo/EgTbBX0Vca/20171224_121605.html

It is south pole centered FE map. The more distance from South Pole, the wider area n the longer circumference per 15 degree will be.

The rest maps contradict this reality even if "the calculation is accurate", still, they are just made up maps.

Do you have a higher resolution?  It's difficult to make out any details.  But at a glance it looks like this map does not even remotely represent reality.  For instance Europe and America are way too far apart.  It looks like, again hard to get details, it is off by thousands of miles.

The rest maps contradict this reality even if "the calculation is accurate", still, they are just made up maps.

Your map contradicts reality as well.
There is no flat map of Earth which shows Earth without distortion.
Russia is no where near as big or stretched as you are making it out to be.
Greenland is much closer to NA, and Russia and NA are much closer together.

According to that map, a flight from NA to Asia should go over SA, Antarctica and Australia before arriving in Asia and should take quite some time.
Meanwhile in reality they typically head north and go over Russia, or just go straight over the  Ocean.

Your map is a failure, just like all the other FE maps that have come before it.

All you have done is pushed the problems around.

Here is my (non scaled) map:

https://www.4shared.com/photo/EgTbBX0Vca/20171224_121605.html

It is south pole centered FE map. The more distance from South Pole, the wider area n the longer circumference per 15 degree will be.

The rest maps contradict this reality even if "the calculation is accurate", still, they are just made up maps.

Well that’s a piece of crap.  What good is a map that isn’t to scale, over exaggerates land mass, and has everything impossibly far apart. 

The reason it’s so difficult to create a flat earth map...in fact impossible, is because the earth is a globe.  If the world were truly flat then a flat map should be easy.  So easy in fact that we should already have a 100% accurate map of a flat world.  Nobody will ever get a flat map that represents all real world distances and travel time.  It is impossible!  But, I think you already know that.

None of this makes any logical sense. 

Mike