This Flat Earth you speak of.....

  • 55 Replies
  • 2574 Views
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2018, 01:59:33 PM »
There can be two poles and the world can still be flat.
Not with them always being 180 degrees apart.
You know full well that's not true. DET exists.

I have recently read your evidence section again, there is nothing to show why two disks would form under your model.


*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2018, 03:22:08 PM »
The common AE FE has accepted critiques that cannot be solved because this model is not valid. (The globe model is helpless by the way).  But their idea of flatness of the earth is superb.
So I proposed South Pole Centered FE Model.
Don't the exact same critiques exist independent of which pole is at the center?

South centered FE is welcome for critiques. So far so good.
Okay, I'm confused.  What critiques did a north centered map fail that pass with a south centered version?

Mike

They say south pole doesn't exist. In fact so many people have visited it, travel agents offer trip to Antarctica. Circumnavigating was done. etc.
Northern hemisplane distances look narrower. Even wider version of northern distances by RET is not wide enough. As a distance detective, 8) I found odd distances on northern hemisplane presented by RET.

#ScrollDown
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 03:26:48 PM by Danang »
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/

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2018, 03:28:32 PM »
The common AE FE has accepted critiques that cannot be solved because this model is not valid.
No FE model is valid.
Your model is no better, it just shifts the problems around.

The globe model is helpless by the way
It doesn't need help. It has withstood the test of time with no one finding any significant problem with it.

So I proposed South Pole Centered FE Model.
Which just shifts the problems around.
Instead of the south pole being the problem as it is for the more common FE models, the north pole is a problem for you.

South centered FE is welcome for critiques. So far so good.
No.
So far it has failed repeatedly.
It cannot explain the Arctic midnight sun.
It cannot explain why Polaris is due north of everyone.
Or more generally, it cannot explain why there are 2 poles, always 180 degrees apart.
It cannot explain distances and flight durations and routes near the north pole.
Everywhere the NP centred one fails, your model just fails at the other pole.

#ScrollDown
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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2018, 05:00:10 PM »
They say south pole doesn't exist. In fact so many people have visited it, travel agents offer trip to Antarctica. Circumnavigating was done. etc.
Your model doesn't solve that, it just shifts the problem.
You claim the north pole doesn't exist, even though plenty have visited and navigation is done there all the time.

*

rabinoz

  • 24281
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2018, 06:25:20 PM »
South centered FE is welcome for critiques. So far so good.
No.
So far it has failed repeatedly.
It cannot explain the Arctic midnight sun.
It cannot explain why Polaris is due north of everyone.
Or more generally, it cannot explain why there are 2 poles, always 180 degrees apart.
It cannot explain distances and flight durations and routes near the north pole.
Everywhere the NP centred one fails, your model just fails at the other pole.

HINT TRY: Spherical RE & the correct π = 3.141592653589793238.....

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2018, 07:15:05 PM »
Oh I thought pi is already dead. (?)

Draw a periference with a compass by yourself. You'll find that 30 degree point is NOT exactly at 0.5 of Y coordinate position.
It is somewhere below 0.5.

Thank for your gut to challenge PHEW ;')
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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2018, 09:31:02 PM »
Oh I thought pi is already dead. (?)
No, it's not.
This was shown multiple times.


Draw a periference with a compass by yourself. You'll find that 30 degree point is NOT exactly at 0.5 of Y coordinate position.
If it isn't, it is because you are not drawing it accurately.
You do not need a circle for it.
It is based upon a right angle triangle.
You have the hypotenuse have a length of 2, and the far side have a length of 1.
This is because it is half of an equilateral triangle.

There is no doubt about this.
IT IS 0.5.

If you say it is something else you are wrong.

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2018, 01:26:50 AM »
Oh I thought pi is already dead. (?)
No, it's not.
This was shown multiple times.


Draw a periference with a compass by yourself. You'll find that 30 degree point is NOT exactly at 0.5 of Y coordinate position.
If it isn't, it is because you are not drawing it accurately.
You do not need a circle for it.
It is based upon a right angle triangle.
You have the hypotenuse have a length of 2, and the far side have a length of 1.
This is because it is half of an equilateral triangle.

There is no doubt about this.
IT IS 0.5.

If you say it is something else you are wrong.

You denied what you *see. Case closed.  8)
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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2018, 02:13:27 AM »
You denied what you *see. Case closed.  8)
No, I didn't.
I explained quite clearly why it is the case.

Here is an image for you:

Firstly, it is not to scale.
It is showing an equilateral triangle, which has been cut in half.
Lengths are in red, angles in purple.
Let me know at what you point you disagree with me:

1 - It's (the black triangle) an equilateral triangle (remember, not to scale).
2 - Thus all three angles are the same
3 - Thus a1=a2=a=b1+b2=60 degrees.
4 - It also means all sides are equal.
5 - Thus r1=r2=r=x1+x2
6 - This triangle is cut in half by the grey line.
7 - This means x1=x2=x.
8 - Thus r=2*x
9 - As the smaller triangles have 3 sides each, which are equivalent, i.e. y is common, r1=r2, and x1=x2, these triangles are congruent.
10 - As these triangles are congruent the corresponding angles are equal.
11 - Thus b1=b2=b.
12 - Thus c1=c2=c.
13 - As c1 and c2 make a straight line, c1+c2=2*c=180 degrees
14 - Thus c=90 degrees
15 - Thus a, b, c make a right angle triangle, with angles 60, 30 and 90 respectively with a hypotenuse of 2*x and a side adjacent to the 60 degree angle of x.
16 - Cos(a), refers to the cosine of a, which is the ratio of the side in a right angle triangle adjacent to the angle a and its hypotenuse, i.e. cos(a)=x/r.
17 - thus cos(60 degrees)=x/r=x/2*x=0.5

Which point of these do you disagree with?

It is quite simple reasoning which shows beyond any doubt that your claim is wrong.

?

Ising

  • 125
  • I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #39 on: February 18, 2018, 02:24:50 AM »
You denied what you *see. Case closed.  8)
No, I didn't.
I explained quite clearly why it is the case.

Here is an image for you:

Firstly, it is not to scale.
It is showing an equilateral triangle, which has been cut in half.
Lengths are in red, angles in purple.
Let me know at what you point you disagree with me:

1 - It's (the black triangle) an equilateral triangle (remember, not to scale).
2 - Thus all three angles are the same
3 - Thus a1=a2=a=b1+b2=60 degrees.
4 - It also means all sides are equal.
5 - Thus r1=r2=r=x1+x2
6 - This triangle is cut in half by the grey line.
7 - This means x1=x2=x.
8 - Thus r=2*x
9 - As the smaller triangles have 3 sides each, which are equivalent, i.e. y is common, r1=r2, and x1=x2, these triangles are congruent.
10 - As these triangles are congruent the corresponding angles are equal.
11 - Thus b1=b2=b.
12 - Thus c1=c2=c.
13 - As c1 and c2 make a straight line, c1+c2=2*c=180 degrees
14 - Thus c=90 degrees
15 - Thus a, b, c make a right angle triangle, with angles 60, 30 and 90 respectively with a hypotenuse of 2*x and a side adjacent to the 60 degree angle of x.
16 - Cos(a), refers to the cosine of a, which is the ratio of the side in a right angle triangle adjacent to the angle a and its hypotenuse, i.e. cos(a)=x/r.
17 - thus cos(60 degrees)=x/r=x/2*x=0.5

Which point of these do you disagree with?

It is quite simple reasoning which shows beyond any doubt that your claim is wrong.

Yes but you forgot to mention refraction, the Sagnac effect and the fact that equilateral triangles have obviously been created by NASA to fool you. Thus your proof doesn't hold, general relativity is wrong, and the Sun is 45.6 centimeters away from us.

Seriously though, do you really expect him to know what a cosine is ?

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2018, 03:10:05 AM »
You denied what you *see. Case closed.  8)
No, I didn't.
I explained quite clearly why it is the case.

Here is an image for you:

Firstly, it is not to scale.
It is showing an equilateral triangle, which has been cut in half.
Lengths are in red, angles in purple.
Let me know at what you point you disagree with me:

1 - It's (the black triangle) an equilateral triangle (remember, not to scale).
2 - Thus all three angles are the same
3 - Thus a1=a2=a=b1+b2=60 degrees.
4 - It also means all sides are equal.
5 - Thus r1=r2=r=x1+x2
6 - This triangle is cut in half by the grey line.
7 - This means x1=x2=x.
8 - Thus r=2*x
9 - As the smaller triangles have 3 sides each, which are equivalent, i.e. y is common, r1=r2, and x1=x2, these triangles are congruent.
10 - As these triangles are congruent the corresponding angles are equal.
11 - Thus b1=b2=b.
12 - Thus c1=c2=c.
13 - As c1 and c2 make a straight line, c1+c2=2*c=180 degrees
14 - Thus c=90 degrees
15 - Thus a, b, c make a right angle triangle, with angles 60, 30 and 90 respectively with a hypotenuse of 2*x and a side adjacent to the 60 degree angle of x.
16 - Cos(a), refers to the cosine of a, which is the ratio of the side in a right angle triangle adjacent to the angle a and its hypotenuse, i.e. cos(a)=x/r.
17 - thus cos(60 degrees)=x/r=x/2*x=0.5

Which point of these do you disagree with?

It is quite simple reasoning which shows beyond any doubt that your claim is wrong.

The comparison is okay. 2:1:√3. If Y coordinate converted to be 1, the X coordinate becomes 1:√3=0.57735. BUT the point position of 30 degrees projection at coordinate Y is a bit less than 0.5 or 0.49047 due to curving of the periference. Sorry I initially talked about calculating the earth radius based on latitude (phew tangen). We spoke about two different things. Now what's the radius scale of 30 degrees in your pi calculation/equation?
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/

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2018, 03:44:36 AM »
Correction:
"If X coordinate converted to be 1, the Y coordinate becomes 1:√3=0.57735"
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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2018, 12:27:55 PM »
The comparison is okay. 2:1:√3. If Y coordinate converted to be 1, the X coordinate becomes 1:√3=0.57735. BUT the point position of 30 degrees projection at coordinate Y is a bit less than 0.5 or 0.49047 due to curving of the periference. Sorry I initially talked about calculating the earth radius based on latitude (phew tangen). We spoke about two different things. Now what's the radius scale of 30 degrees in your pi calculation/equation?
I asked you a simple question, what point did you disagree with?
Why can't you answer it by pointing out a simple number?

There is no magic curving.
It is a triangle with straight lines.

You are also projecting it completely wrong.
Have the angle marked a2 as the centre (i.e. 0,0).
Scale it such that r=1.
Then you will find the x coordinate (corresponding to cos(60 deg) and sin(30 deg)) of the apex, or the line dividing the 2 triangles) is 0.5.

Now if you can't tell me which of the above 17 points were wrong, you have no justification to say cos(60 deg) is anything other than 0.5.

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2018, 11:43:59 PM »
The comparison is okay. 2:1:√3. If Y coordinate converted to be 1, the X coordinate becomes 1:√3=0.57735. BUT the point position of 30 degrees projection at coordinate Y is a bit less than 0.5 or 0.49047 due to curving of the periference. Sorry I initially talked about calculating the earth radius based on latitude (phew tangen). We spoke about two different things. Now what's the radius scale of 30 degrees in your pi calculation/equation?
I asked you a simple question, what point did you disagree with?
Why can't you answer it by pointing out a simple number?

There is no magic curving.
It is a triangle with straight lines.

You are also projecting it completely wrong.
Have the angle marked a2 as the centre (i.e. 0,0).
Scale it such that r=1.
Then you will find the x coordinate (corresponding to cos(60 deg) and sin(30 deg)) of the apex, or the line dividing the 2 triangles) is 0.5.

Now if you can't tell me which of the above 17 points were wrong, you have no justification to say cos(60 deg) is anything other than 0.5.

Before the pointer line (hypotenuse) touches the Y value of 0.57735, at coordinate (1, 0.57735), it comes on a point at the periference curved line. For 30 degrees, the value of Y=((30:45)*0.7929) - ((30:45)*0.2929)^2 = 0.49047
It is the "phew tangent" -- which is used to define distances -- while for (RET) earth radius it will be translated into "phew co-tangent" 60 degrees =>> 1-49047=0.50953.

Phew co tangent has a fixed pointer line, not like sin and cos that grows longer/shorter whose value is between 0 & 1. That's why it is like sin and cos, but actually not.

I wonder whether you've got pi math for earth radius based on latitude? Please show me the calculation.
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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2018, 11:54:24 PM »
Before the pointer line (hypotenuse) touches the Y value of 0.57735, at coordinate (1, 0.57735), it comes on a point at the periference curved line. For 30 degrees, the value of Y=((30:45)*0.7929) - ((30:45)*0.2929)^2 = 0.49047
It is the "phew tangent" -- which is used to define distances -- while for (RET) earth radius it will be translated into "phew co-tangent" 60 degrees =>> 1-49047=0.50953.
Again, I gave you a simple argument with 17 points clearly outlined.
Which point don't you agree with?

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2018, 12:16:32 AM »
Before the pointer line (hypotenuse) touches the Y value of 0.57735, at coordinate (1, 0.57735), it comes on a point at the periference curved line. For 30 degrees, the value of Y=((30:45)*0.7929) - ((30:45)*0.2929)^2 = 0.49047
It is the "phew tangent" -- which is used to define distances -- while for (RET) earth radius it will be translated into "phew co-tangent" 60 degrees =>> 1-49047=0.50953.
Again, I gave you a simple argument with 17 points clearly outlined.
Which point don't you agree with?
You should have concluded that I had no objection with that. Except, I questioned you about phew value for Y=0.4907. Either you agree or disagree, please show me your version of pi calculation for 30 degree angle within a periference, not at Y coordinate value. (0.57735).




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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #46 on: February 19, 2018, 12:54:48 AM »
The comparison is okay. 2:1:√3. If Y coordinate converted to be 1, the X coordinate becomes 1:√3=0.57735. BUT the point position of 30 degrees projection at coordinate Y is a bit less than 0.5 or 0.49047 due to curving of the periference. Sorry I initially talked about calculating the earth radius based on latitude (phew tangen). We spoke about two different things. Now what's the radius scale of 30 degrees in your pi calculation/equation?
I asked you a simple question, what point did you disagree with?
Why can't you answer it by pointing out a simple number?

There is no magic curving.
It is a triangle with straight lines.

You are also projecting it completely wrong.
Have the angle marked a2 as the centre (i.e. 0,0).
Scale it such that r=1.
Then you will find the x coordinate (corresponding to cos(60 deg) and sin(30 deg)) of the apex, or the line dividing the 2 triangles) is 0.5.

Now if you can't tell me which of the above 17 points were wrong, you have no justification to say cos(60 deg) is anything other than 0.5.

Before the pointer line (hypotenuse) touches the Y value of 0.57735, at coordinate (1, 0.57735), it comes on a point at the periference curved line. For 30 degrees, the value of Y=((30:45)*0.7929) - ((30:45)*0.2929)^2 = 0.49047
It is the "phew tangent" -- which is used to define distances -- while for (RET) earth radius it will be translated into "phew co-tangent" 60 degrees =>> 1-49047=0.50953.

Phew co tangent has a fixed pointer line, not like sin and cos that grows longer/shorter whose value is between 0 & 1. That's why it is like sin and cos, but actually not.

I wonder whether you've got pi math for earth radius based on latitude? Please show me the calculation.
periference - no such word, you have made it up.

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2018, 12:56:13 AM »
You should have concluded that I had no objection with that.
No. If you had no objection you would have admitted cos(60 deg)=0.5, you would have accepted that you were wrong.
Instead you continued to falsely assert that cos(60) is not 0.5.

So, do you accept cos(60 deg)=0.5?
Yes or no?
If no, what point do you disagree with?

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2018, 01:14:11 AM »
It's a tangent or co-tangent stuff. Not sin/co-sin.
If you wouldn't present the calulation in pi version, fine, see you on other threads. ~
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/

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2018, 01:18:00 AM »
The comparison is okay. 2:1:√3. If Y coordinate converted to be 1, the X coordinate becomes 1:√3=0.57735. BUT the point position of 30 degrees projection at coordinate Y is a bit less than 0.5 or 0.49047 due to curving of the periference. Sorry I initially talked about calculating the earth radius based on latitude (phew tangen). We spoke about two different things. Now what's the radius scale of 30 degrees in your pi calculation/equation?
I asked you a simple question, what point did you disagree with?
Why can't you answer it by pointing out a simple number?

There is no magic curving.
It is a triangle with straight lines.

You are also projecting it completely wrong.
Have the angle marked a2 as the centre (i.e. 0,0).
Scale it such that r=1.
Then you will find the x coordinate (corresponding to cos(60 deg) and sin(30 deg)) of the apex, or the line dividing the 2 triangles) is 0.5.

Now if you can't tell me which of the above 17 points were wrong, you have no justification to say cos(60 deg) is anything other than 0.5.

Before the pointer line (hypotenuse) touches the Y value of 0.57735, at coordinate (1, 0.57735), it comes on a point at the periference curved line. For 30 degrees, the value of Y=((30:45)*0.7929) - ((30:45)*0.2929)^2 = 0.49047
It is the "phew tangent" -- which is used to define distances -- while for (RET) earth radius it will be translated into "phew co-tangent" 60 degrees =>> 1-49047=0.50953.

Phew co tangent has a fixed pointer line, not like sin and cos that grows longer/shorter whose value is between 0 & 1. That's why it is like sin and cos, but actually not.

I wonder whether you've got pi math for earth radius based on latitude? Please show me the calculation.
periference - no such word, you have made it up.

Haha sorry for my English.

"Circumference" ~
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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2018, 02:05:11 AM »
It's a tangent or co-tangent stuff. Not sin/co-sin.
If you wouldn't present the calulation in pi version, fine, see you on other threads. ~
No, we have been discussing cos and sin before, i.e. cosine and sine.
You claimed the cosine of 60 degrees is not 0.5.
Do you now admit that you were wrong and that the cosine of 60 degrees is in fact 0.5?

Also, sine and cosine are what is used to determine the x and y position of a point on a circle, based upon the radius and angle, not tangent and cotangent.

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2018, 02:49:38 AM »
It's a tangent or co-tangent stuff. Not sin/co-sin.
If you wouldn't present the calulation in pi version, fine, see you on other threads. ~
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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2018, 03:08:19 AM »
It's a tangent or co-tangent stuff. Not sin/co-sin.
If you wouldn't present the calulation in pi version, fine, see you on other threads. ~
You’re just overly complicating the whole thing. 

This is a simple as it gets:
r1 = r2 = (x1+x2) = 2 all sides of the isosceles triangle have a length of 2.

Drop a perpendicular Y:
r2 = 2, x2 = 1, y = 1.73205

Cosine of b2:
y/r2 = 1.73205/2 = 0.866025

Sine of b2:
x2/r2 = 1/2 = 0. 5

Tangent of b2:
x2/y = 1/1.73205 = 0.57735 = Sin(b2)/Cos(b2) = 0.5/.866025 = 0.57735

It’s as simple as that.  The use of pi, or phew, should get the above.  There are multiple was to calculate the number but I prefer the Taylor series.  I’ve laid out how that series works for you before but I’ll do it again.

Tan(b2) = Sin(b2)/Cos(b2)

Using the Taylor series to find the values above for pi:

Tan(b2) = 0.5/0.866025404 = 0.57735027


Using the Taylor series to find the values above for phew:

Tan(b2) = 0.4913206/0.8635163 = 0.56897671

Phew converges at the incorrect values.  Therefore, phew is wrong and pi is correct.

Mike
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 03:11:10 AM by MicroBeta »
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

*

Danang

  • 3586
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2018, 07:58:51 AM »
If a pointer line meets the 30 circumference, the ratio Y:X will always be 0.57735:1.

Taylor series is a pre-setting method. It ain't deserve to change what phew math has presented with real figures & real circumference.
I always talked about the projection of 30 point into Y value.

0.57735 is out off context. It goes without saying.

It's about "phew tangent", not mere 'tangent'.

0.49047 is observable.


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/

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2018, 12:39:40 PM »
If a pointer line meets the 30 circumference, the ratio Y:X will always be 0.57735:1.
That was not the ratio we were discussing.
If you want that, then depending on which is Y and which is X you will have sqrt(3)/1 or 1/sqrt(3).
You seem to have taken the 1/sqrt(3) option.
That is 0.57735...

But that wasn't being discussed.
What was being discuss is cos(60 deg) and sin(30 deg) which you repeatedly claimed was not 0.5.

Again, do you accept that cos(60 deg)=sin(30 deg)=0.5?

Taylor series is a pre-setting method.
No it isn't.
It is based upon the derivatives of the sin or cos function.

It ain't deserve to change what phew math has presented with real figures & real circumference.
Your phew math has always been a load of bullshit.

I always talked about the projection of 30 point into Y value.
Yes, the projection of it onto a unit circle, i.e. take a circle with radius 1, what is the y value of the point?
In that case, it is 0.5.
You are now trying to scale it to pretend you haven't made a massive mistake.

0.49047 is observable.
Stop lying.
I have just shown that 0.5 is observable beyond any shadow of a doubt.
If you think I am wrong, tell me which of the 17 points are wrong.

Re: This Flat Earth you speak of.....
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2018, 12:58:49 PM »
If a pointer line meets the 30 circumference, the ratio Y:X will always be 0.57735:1.

Taylor series is a pre-setting method. It ain't deserve to change what phew math has presented with real figures & real circumference.
I always talked about the projection of 30 point into Y value.

0.57735 is out off context. It goes without saying.

It's about "phew tangent", not mere 'tangent'.

0.49047 is observable.
Observable only if you have no idea what you are talking about.  The real value is 0.5.  It is indisputable.
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.