My impossible challenge for FE'ers

  • 711 Replies
  • 53553 Views
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #90 on: February 10, 2022, 03:25:25 AM »
Well, considering all points lying above a flat cartesian plane would appear as if they are rotating in cylinder, I think that blows your statement out of the water.
How?
That gives you a single point above you about which the entire sky would appear to rotate.

Which it does, every single night you can see it yourself.

You don't get the second point due south.

That second point is the problem.
The sky contains 2 celestial poles.
Spoken as if he would actually know it is present and actually opposite the other. When he doesn't.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2022, 03:45:46 AM »
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z
That would roughly describe what is observed for those on the equator.
But fails everywhere else.

Which it does, every single night you can see it yourself.
No, it appears to rotate about an axis at an angle to Earth.

Spoken as if he would actually know it is present and actually opposite the other. When he doesn't.
Spoken like a conspiracy nut that will just dismiss everything that shows they are wrong.
I know both are present. I have seen both.
I also know they are 180 degrees apart, and the angle to them varies with latitude.
The FE can't explain that.

*

Calen

  • 756
  • Friend of Dorothy
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #92 on: February 10, 2022, 03:46:19 AM »
Well, considering all points lying above a flat cartesian plane would appear as if they are rotating in cylinder, I think that blows your statement out of the water.
How?
That gives you a single point above you about which the entire sky would appear to rotate.

Which it does, every single night you can see it yourself.

You don't get the second point due south.

That second point is the problem.
The sky contains 2 celestial poles.
Spoken as if he would actually know it is present and actually opposite the other. When he doesn't.

It is perfectly possible for an individual to travel and confirm this themself.  Many millions of people regularly travel from one side of the planet, to the other.
S'ils te font de la peine, je les tuerai sans gêne.

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #93 on: February 10, 2022, 04:02:09 AM »
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z
That would roughly describe what is observed for those on the equator.
But fails everywhere else.
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead. That means, it applies everywhere there are observers located on the flat earth.
Which it does, every single night you can see it yourself.
No, it appears to rotate about an axis at an angle to Earth.
Points lying above the flat x-y plane appear to move in a cylindrical fashion to the observer.
Spoken as if he would actually know it is present and actually opposite the other. When he doesn't.
Spoken like a conspiracy nut that will just dismiss everything that shows they are wrong.
I know both are present. I have seen both.
I also know they are 180 degrees apart, and the angle to them varies with latitude.
First, you have only accepted what you saw to be that which you were told it was to have been when you saw it.

Angles to any object over head vary with distance to the object.
The FE can't explain that.
I just did.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #94 on: February 10, 2022, 06:17:07 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.

I actually look at the sky with real telescopes and actual equatorial mounts, and I can assure you that the sky does not take the shape of a cylinder. I wouldn't be able to track stars with a telescope that moved in a circle if they moved in ovals. It's basic geometry.

You don't understand that very single star moves in a perfect circle, which would not happen on a cylinder. Do I need to draw you a picture to explain why?

If you can find me a star that doesn't move in a circle, please show us your observations. Which stars are you looking at? You must be very confused.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #95 on: February 10, 2022, 06:31:05 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.

I actually look at the sky with real telescopes and actual equatorial mounts, and I can assure you that the sky does not take the shape of a cylinder. I wouldn't be able to track stars with a telescope that moved in a circle if they moved in ovals. It's basic geometry.

You don't understand that very single star moves in a perfect circle, which would not happen on a cylinder. Do I need to draw you a picture to explain why?

If you can find me a star that doesn't move in a circle, please show us your observations. Which stars are you looking at? You must be very confused.

You're talking to a guy that needs help working out which sock goes on which foot. I doubt he's going to come up with anything coherent. Don't bother waiting

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #96 on: February 10, 2022, 02:14:46 PM »
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead.
And that's the problem for you, Earth isn't flat.
You are describing what could be observed on a flat Earth, not what is observed on Earth in reality.
In reality we do not see the sky rotating about an axis parallel to the surface of Earth regardless of location.
The only location where that happens is the equator.

The angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies, with it matching quite well to your latitude, just like you would expect for a RE.

First, you have only accepted what you saw to be that which you were told it was to have been when you saw it.
No, I have observed it myself. I didn't simply accept what I was told.
Stop just rejecting reality because it shows you are wrong.

There are countless photos online showing star trails in the north and south, and showing that the axis of rotation is not at the same angle relative to Earth everywhere.

Angles to any object over head vary with distance to the object.
Only over significantly large distances.
This also results in skewing the image.
e.g. if you look at a merry-go-round from directly overhead it appears to be a circle, and objects on it trace out a circle.
But move far enough away from the axis of rotation and it appears to be an ellipse, with objects on it tracing out ellipses. Keep moving further away and it eventually looks like a horizontal line

In reality, the stars appear to trace circular paths. This shows the distance to the axis of rotation is negligible, and thus if your lies were true everyone would see the axis at the same angle.

I just did.
No, you didn't. You rejected reality which demonstrated you were wrong.
Rejecting reality is not providing an explanation.
You have no explanation for why the axis of rotation changes angle depending upon your location, even though that location is a negligible distance away from the axis of rotation.

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #97 on: February 11, 2022, 06:20:08 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.
You have no clue what you are writing about because you lack basic comprehension skills. I never wrote there is a center of a cylinder on the earth.

I wrote that objects in motion in the "z" axis appearing above a flat x-y coordinate plane plane appear to be moving inside a cylinder.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.


Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #98 on: February 11, 2022, 06:25:56 AM »
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead.
And that's the problem for you, Earth isn't flat.
You are describing what could be observed on a flat Earth, not what is observed on Earth in reality.
In reality we do not see the sky rotating about an axis parallel to the surface of Earth regardless of location.
The only location where that happens is the equator.
Wrong, as the skies do appear to be rotating above our heads in a cylindrical fashion. Happens every single clear night.
The angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies, with it matching quite well to your latitude, just like you would expect for a RE.
Matching entries and solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters.
First, you have only accepted what you saw to be that which you were told it was to have been when you saw it.
No, I have observed it myself. I didn't simply accept what I was told.
^Now claiming to have written the original lie.

Actually a manifestation Satan taking over the keyboard.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2022, 04:00:38 AM by WISHTOLAUGH »

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #99 on: February 11, 2022, 07:49:14 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.
You have no clue what you are writing about because you lack basic comprehension skills. I never wrote there is a center of a cylinder on the earth.

I wrote that objects in motion in the "z" axis appearing above a flat x-y coordinate plane plane appear to be moving inside a cylinder.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.

Please say that to an actual mathematician.  Or someone who got through high school geometry.  That would be hilarious.

Good attempt to deflect, but you still didn't answer my question.  Why can't you show us a map of the flat earth that also shows where this cylinder of yours is located and how it's orientated?  If the center isn't on the earth, where is it? 

Since you are an expert on flat earths and cylinders, it should be simple for you to draw both of them to show how they work together.  If you can't, then clearly you don't actually understand what you are claiming here.  Are you just parroting what someone else told you with no real understanding?

How hard is it to draw this?  It's just a disk and a cylinder.  If you know how it all works, east. Right?  Still waiting.

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #100 on: February 11, 2022, 10:38:06 AM »
LOL.  You can copy-paste as many words from the dictionary as you want, it doesn't help you.

I'm claiming you don't actually understand the words you are saying because if you did, you could draw a diagram of it. Which you clearly can't.
If you expect a three dimensional representation of points in motion over a flat plane, you merely need to step outside at night and watch the stars overhead. They look as if they are moving in a cylinder.

Again, you need to draw a picture because I have spent quite a bit of time looking at and tracking stars and I can tell you that stars in the sky do not move as if on a cylinder, but a sphere.
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.

It is your crazy imagination wanting to perceive it as a sphere.

It isn't.

Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.
You have no clue what you are writing about because you lack basic comprehension skills. I never wrote there is a center of a cylinder on the earth.

I wrote that objects in motion in the "z" axis appearing above a flat x-y coordinate plane plane appear to be moving inside a cylinder.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.

Please say that to an actual mathematician.  Or someone who got through high school geometry.  That would be hilarious.
Actually, they confirm exactly what I am writing to be an absolute fact.

Period, end of sentence.

Good attempt to deflect, but you still didn't answer my question.  Why can't you show us a map of the flat earth that also shows where this cylinder of yours is located and how it's orientated?  If the center isn't on the earth, where is it?

Since you are an expert on flat earths and cylinders, it should be simple for you to draw both of them to show how they work together.  If you can't, then clearly you don't actually understand what you are claiming here.  Are you just parroting what someone else told you with no real understanding?

How hard is it to draw this?  It's just a disk and a cylinder.  If you know how it all works, east. Right?  Still waiting.

Since you are an expert on flat earths and cylinders, it should be simple for you to draw both of them to show how they work together.  If you can't, then clearly you don't actually understand what you are claiming here.  Are you just parroting what someone else told you with no real understanding?

How hard is it to draw this?  It's just a disk and a cylinder.  If you know how it all works, east. Right?  Still waiting.
When you look at the sky you will see the stars above you rotating like a cylinder,

Well known fact.

It is painted in the skies above us every single clear night.

Take your weak and feebly repeated unnecessary requests and move along.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #101 on: February 11, 2022, 12:04:05 PM »
Getting there. Now draw us a map showing where the center of this cylinder is on your flat earth. Should be easy, right? I'll wait.
You have no clue what you are writing about because you lack basic comprehension skills. I never wrote there is a center of a cylinder on the earth.

I wrote that objects in motion in the "z" axis appearing above a flat x-y coordinate plane plane appear to be moving inside a cylinder.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.

Please say that to an actual mathematician.  Or someone who got through high school geometry.  That would be hilarious.
Actually, they confirm exactly what I am writing to be an absolute fact.

Period, end of sentence.

Oh really. And what mathematician did you ask to confirm your sky tube theory? No, your hero Tom Bishop doesn't count.

No mathematician confirmed what you are saying, I know THAT for a fact.

Good attempt to deflect, but you still didn't answer my question.  Why can't you show us a map of the flat earth that also shows where this cylinder of yours is located and how it's orientated?  If the center isn't on the earth, where is it?

Since you are an expert on flat earths and cylinders, it should be simple for you to draw both of them to show how they work together.  If you can't, then clearly you don't actually understand what you are claiming here.  Are you just parroting what someone else told you with no real understanding?

How hard is it to draw this?  It's just a disk and a cylinder.  If you know how it all works, east. Right?  Still waiting.

Since you are an expert on flat earths and cylinders, it should be simple for you to draw both of them to show how they work together.  If you can't, then clearly you don't actually understand what you are claiming here.  Are you just parroting what someone else told you with no real understanding?

How hard is it to draw this?  It's just a disk and a cylinder.  If you know how it all works, east. Right?  Still waiting.
When you look at the sky you will see the stars above you rotating like a cylinder,

Well known fact.

It is painted in the skies above us every single clear night.

Take your weak and feebly repeated unnecessary requests and move along.

You know, every single response from you is "Look at the sky!" when asked to draw a map and diagram of your vague and muddled ideas of your sky tube.

It just drives home the point that you have no idea what you're talking about.  If you can't describe it other than shouting that you're right, then you have no understand of it at all.  If you can't explain a concept, then you don't really understand it.  Basic teaching knowledge, just ask Pete.

I have looked in the sky. With an equatorial mount which is designed to track spherical motion. No tubes up there.

Sad that you don't know how to draw a disk and a cylinder. But you aren't the first flat earther to be confused by tubes, so you're in good company! :D

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #102 on: February 11, 2022, 12:24:16 PM »
Where is the sky tube and how is it oriented?


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #103 on: February 11, 2022, 12:44:15 PM »
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead.
And that's the problem for you, Earth isn't flat.
You are describing what could be observed on a flat Earth, not what is observed on Earth in reality.
In reality we do not see the sky rotating about an axis parallel to the surface of Earth regardless of location.
The only location where that happens is the equator.
Wrong, as the skies do appear to be rotating above our heads in a cylindrical fashion. Happens every single clear night.
Are you even bothering to read what I say?
Just repeating the same childish BS wont help you.

You didn't simply assert it is moving in a cylindrical fashion. Instead you asserted an orientation of the cylinder, specifically that the axis of rotation was the x axis of this x-y plane.
That is NOT what is observed.

The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.

If you want to pick a different orientation for your axis of rotation, then you can get a different location right, but everywhere else will be wrong.

If Earth was flat the orientation of the axis of rotation would be the same everywhere.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.
That isn't how the burden of proof works. If you want to claim such garbage, then you provide evidence of that.
Only ones on the equator would agree with your nonsense, and that would be with the caveat that it only applies on the equator.

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #104 on: February 15, 2022, 04:06:37 AM »
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead.
And that's the problem for you, Earth isn't flat.
You are describing what could be observed on a flat Earth, not what is observed on Earth in reality.
In reality we do not see the sky rotating about an axis parallel to the surface of Earth regardless of location.
The only location where that happens is the equator.
Wrong, as the skies do appear to be rotating above our heads in a cylindrical fashion. Happens every single clear night.
Are you even bothering to read what I say?
Just repeating the same childish BS wont help you.

You didn't simply assert it is moving in a cylindrical fashion. Instead you asserted an orientation of the cylinder, specifically that the axis of rotation was the x axis of this x-y plane.
That is NOT what is observed.
Remarkably, you are remaining steadfast in your willful ignorance, incapable of simple comprehension, resorting to making a claim I wrote something I did not write.
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
If you want to pick a different orientation for your axis of rotation, then you can get a different location right, but everywhere else will be wrong.
Irrelevant.
If Earth was flat the orientation of the axis of rotation would be the same everywhere.
Irrelevant.
Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.
That isn't how the burden of proof works. If you want to claim such garbage, then you provide evidence of that.
Only ones on the equator would agree with your nonsense, and that would be with the caveat that it only applies on the equator.
It is here.

I wrote what I wrote.

Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

That is a statement of fact.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #105 on: February 15, 2022, 07:08:34 AM »
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
If you want to pick a different orientation for your axis of rotation, then you can get a different location right, but everywhere else will be wrong.
Irrelevant.
If Earth was flat the orientation of the axis of rotation would be the same everywhere.
Irrelevant.

Oh hey Pete.  Oh, it's WISHTOCOUGH.  That was a good impression.

Are you still incapable of drawing a disk and a tube? 

Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

That is a statement of fact.

No, this is a statement of complete ignorance.  It's another word salad.  "located in the z-axis"?  That is meaningless, any point anywhere in x-y-z space will be located somewhere on the z-axis.  You have no idea how dumb that sounds. 

It's obvious you don't have any clue how this all works in your head or you would simply draw a diagram. You could even use a Sharpie if that helps.

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #106 on: February 15, 2022, 07:48:13 AM »
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
If you want to pick a different orientation for your axis of rotation, then you can get a different location right, but everywhere else will be wrong.
Irrelevant.
If Earth was flat the orientation of the axis of rotation would be the same everywhere.
Irrelevant.

Oh hey Pete.  Oh, it's WISHTOCOUGH.  That was a good impression.

Are you still incapable of drawing a disk and a tube? [
You do not need a drawing to demonstrate the point.
Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

That is a statement of fact.

No, this is a statement of complete ignorance.  It's another word salad.  "located in the z-axis"?  That is meaningless, any point anywhere in x-y-z space will be located somewhere on the z-axis.  You have no idea how dumb that sounds.
Actually, math dictates there are two dimensions at play sometimes, and for full consideration of the situation, z must be added.

Either pony up with something salient in a rebuttal or just stfu. Since I know you have nothing salient, and I know you are incapable of stfu, everyone here can look forward to more of your dumb stuff.

The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space can be likened to the set of all points m units from the x-axis in 2-dimensional space, which are two lines. Revolving such lines about the x-axis creates a tube-like shape that is a cylinder.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #107 on: February 15, 2022, 08:53:44 AM »
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
If you want to pick a different orientation for your axis of rotation, then you can get a different location right, but everywhere else will be wrong.
Irrelevant.
If Earth was flat the orientation of the axis of rotation would be the same everywhere.
Irrelevant.

Oh hey Pete.  Oh, it's WISHTOCOUGH.  That was a good impression.

Are you still incapable of drawing a disk and a tube? [
You do not need a drawing to demonstrate the point.

You do if you are going to be saying nonsense like "located in the z-axis".

Plenty of math and physics needs diagrams to describe and show.  But you have bigger problems.

Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.

That is a statement of fact.

No, this is a statement of complete ignorance.  It's another word salad.  "located in the z-axis"?  That is meaningless, any point anywhere in x-y-z space will be located somewhere on the z-axis.  You have no idea how dumb that sounds.
Actually, math dictates there are two dimensions at play sometimes, and for full consideration of the situation, z must be added.

Either pony up with something salient in a rebuttal or just stfu. Since I know you have nothing salient, and I know you are incapable of stfu, everyone here can look forward to more of your dumb stuff.

The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space can be likened to the set of all points m units from the x-axis in 2-dimensional space, which are two lines. Revolving such lines about the x-axis creates a tube-like shape that is a cylinder.

You are the one who needs to pony up and actually draw us a map of your flat earth and your sky tube that you are failing to describe. 

You can't string a bunch of words together with copy pasting math and then demand people refute your nonsense, then just throw more random words out and ignore Jack's responses with "Irrelevant" and expect anyone to think anything other than you have no clue what you're talking about.

If you can't even draw a simple diagram of a disk and a cylinder to show your idea, then you clearly have no clue. And all your protests and whining about not wanting to draw it are a transparent excuse to hide your ignorance.

It's clear you just googled some math sites to copy-paste your garbage.  Lets see, I can do that too.  Here it is...

https://www.crackacc.com/act/math/question-1227-answer-and-explanation.html

"The set of all points 5 units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space can be likened to the set of all points 5 units from the x-axis in 2-dimensional space, which are two lines. Revolving such lines about the x-axis creates a tube-like shape that is a cylinder."

Wow.  You replaced 5 with "m" and pretended to write it.  This is your problem, you have no real understanding of any of this and are just copy-pasting things you hear.  That doesn't even describe what you are proposing.  This is why you can't draw a diagram or do any of your own work. You have no understanding and it shows.

*

Calen

  • 756
  • Friend of Dorothy
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #108 on: February 15, 2022, 09:06:27 AM »

Actually, math dictates there are two dimensions at play sometimes, and for full consideration of the situation, z must be added.

Nope, math dictates no such thing. 

The number of dimensions chosen to work with is dependent on the situation, and the answers required.

You chose wrong.

You chose a 2D plane, then positioned points above that plane.  You are now no longer working with a 2D plane; you are dealing with a 3D volume.

Quote


The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space can be likened to the set of all points m units from the x-axis in 2-dimensional space, which are two lines. Revolving such lines about the x-axis creates a tube-like shape that is a cylinder.

Your previous description was of a 2D plane (with z held at 0) in a 3D space, with points z height above the pane, and that points moving at z height above the plane would appear to move cylindrically.  That is incorrect. They would move linearly.

You are now describing rotation of 3D space along an axis as if they are the same thing.  That is also incorrect.

It is correct that rotation in 3D space along an axis would create a cylinder, but that was not your original description.
S'ils te font de la peine, je les tuerai sans gêne.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #109 on: February 15, 2022, 10:25:12 AM »
The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space can be likened to the set of all points m units from the x-axis in 2-dimensional space, which are two lines. Revolving such lines about the x-axis creates a tube-like shape that is a cylinder.

Your previous description was of a 2D plane (with z held at 0) in a 3D space, with points z height above the pane, and that points moving at z height above the plane would appear to move cylindrically.  That is incorrect. They would move linearly.

You are now describing rotation of 3D space along an axis as if they are the same thing.  That is also incorrect.

It is correct that rotation in 3D space along an axis would create a cylinder, but that was not your original description.

It's because he's just copy-pasting answers from a math homework site. He doesn't understand the high school level geometry involved and just googles for keywords and copies whatever sounds impressive, to his mind.

Not a surprise he isn't making any sense and is describing completely different situations in every post. 

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #110 on: February 15, 2022, 12:27:40 PM »
Remarkably, you are remaining steadfast in your willful ignorance, incapable of simple comprehension, resorting to making a claim I wrote something I did not write.
Hi Pot.
I provided a quote of what you said.
Here it is again:
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.
This is what you said, and it is completely incorrect.
When I pointed out that that would only work for the equator, you then responded back with this:
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead. That means, it applies everywhere there are observers located on the flat earth.

So no, I am directly responding to what you have said.

Now, because it shown to be BS, you are pretending you never said it.
This shows just how pathetic and desperate your position really is.

Likewise, you position is so pathetic you need to outright reject parts of reality to pretend your fantasy works.
That sure sound like wilful ignorance to me.

The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
Relevant as it shows your claim doesn't work, it shows your attempt to save the FE doesn't work.

Again, you just dismissing everything as irrelevant because it shows your fantasy is wrong just further shows how desperate and pathetic your position is.

Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.
That isn't how the burden of proof works. If you want to claim such garbage, then you provide evidence of that.
Only ones on the equator would agree with your nonsense, and that would be with the caveat that it only applies on the equator.
It is here.

I wrote what I wrote.
That is not backing up your claim that every mathematician would agree with you.
Just more assertions will not help you.

Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.
This wasn't the statement you claimed every mathematician would agree with.

Even with that, I highly doubt any mathematician would describe it as "moving in a cylindrical fashion".
Instead I think they would be more likely to describe the points as moving in a circular fashion.

For a cylinder, you would expect all those circles to be the same size.

But if you are only taking points that lie directly along the z axis, what you are describing is a line. Then depending on how they move they could describe a few different shapes. Keeping it to your previous claim of rotation about the x axis they would form a disc, not a cylinder.

And again, that only works for the equator.

Either pony up with something salient in a rebuttal or just stfu.
You were provided with rebuttals.
When you couldn't deal with them, you just through out insults and dismissed them as irrelevant.

Here is a brief argument which goes over those key points:
On Earth, the real Earth that people live on, stars appear to trace a circle around 2 points in the sky, one due north, one due south.
As they appear to trace circles, that means you are looking at them from a negligible distance away from the axis of rotation, such a small distance away that it would not significantly affect the apparent direction of the central point about which the stars appear to rotate.
This means the axis of rotation is aligned with a line going directly from your eyes to that point the stars appear to rotate around.
But the point the stars appear to rotate around appears at a different angle of elevation, with this variance relating quite well to latitude.
This means the angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies with latitude.
This means the angle of Earth surface at one latitude is different to the angle of Earth's surface at another latitude.
This means Earth can't be flat.

Since I know you have nothing salient, and I know you are incapable of stfu, everyone here can look forward to more of your dumb stuff.
And more pathetic projection.

The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space
But we aren't dealing with points that are m units from the x axis.

And as pointed out, it isn't simply rotating about the x axis.
Instead the sky appears to rotate about the N-S axis of Earth. Which doesn't work for a FE with N in the centre.

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #111 on: February 15, 2022, 09:49:56 PM »

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #112 on: February 16, 2022, 04:53:21 AM »
That doesn't even describe what you are proposing.  This is why you can't draw a diagram or do any of your own work. You have no understanding and it shows.
It actually exactly describes what is proposed, and it also exactly describes how stars are viewed in the sky above us.

You have no argument, period.

Weak and pathetic gaslighting.

I appreciate your ability to discover like written sentences.

Demonstrates clearly how far DARPA AI bot technology has progressed.

Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #113 on: February 16, 2022, 05:04:13 AM »
Remarkably, you are remaining steadfast in your willful ignorance, incapable of simple comprehension, resorting to making a claim I wrote something I did not write.
Hi Pot.
I provided a quote of what you said.
Here it is again:
If I set points revolving around an x-axis above a flat x-y coordinate plane in a third dimension of z, those revolving points will take the shape of a cylinder. That's a fact, whether you like it or not. It plays out every night above the flat earth plane.
This is what you said, and it is completely incorrect.
When I pointed out that that would only work for the equator, you then responded back with this:
It describes what anyone at any given point on a flat surface would see overhead. That means, it applies everywhere there are observers located on the flat earth.

So no, I am directly responding to what you have said.

Now, because it shown to be BS, you are pretending you never said it.
This shows just how pathetic and desperate your position really is.

Likewise, you position is so pathetic you need to outright reject parts of reality to pretend your fantasy works.
That sure sound like wilful ignorance to me.
Correct. I did write x.

Meant to write z.

More to the point, you probably know exactly what was meant to communicated and this is just another example of you feigning awareness of the point in effort to score points in your fucked up game.
The only place where the axis of rotation is aligned with the surface of Earth is the equator. For everywhere else you are wrong.
Irrelevant.
Relevant as it shows your claim doesn't work, it shows your attempt to save the FE doesn't work.

Again, you just dismissing everything as irrelevant because it shows your fantasy is wrong just further shows how desperate and pathetic your position is.
LOL!

Doubling down.
Now, every mathematician that has ever walked the earth agrees with that statement. If you can find one that does not, then all you need to do is post evidence of such.
That isn't how the burden of proof works. If you want to claim such garbage, then you provide evidence of that.
Only ones on the equator would agree with your nonsense, and that would be with the caveat that it only applies on the equator.

It is here.

I wrote what I wrote.
That is not backing up your claim that every mathematician would agree with you.
Just more assertions will not help you.
I do not need to "back up" my claim.

I claimed it, you have a choice to accept it or not.

I DNGAF what you do, quite honestly.

You are a pathetic DARPA AI bot.
Take any points located in the z-axis above a flat x-y plane and if they are in motion, they will appear to be moving in a cylindrical fashion.
This wasn't the statement you claimed every mathematician would agree with.

Even with that, I highly doubt any mathematician would describe it as "moving in a cylindrical fashion".
Instead I think they would be more likely to describe the points as moving in a circular fashion.
Again, you are wrong.

What I wrote is axiomatic.
For a cylinder, you would expect all those circles to be the same size.

But if you are only taking points that lie directly along the z axis, what you are describing is a line. Then depending on how they move they could describe a few different shapes. Keeping it to your previous claim of rotation about the x axis they would form a disc, not a cylinder.

And again, that only works for the equator.
It works for all points in the z-axis moving above an x-y plane.
Either pony up with something salient in a rebuttal or just stfu.
You were provided with rebuttals.
When you couldn't deal with them, you just through out insults and dismissed them as irrelevant.

Here is a brief argument which goes over those key points:
On Earth, the real Earth that people live on, stars appear to trace a circle around 2 points in the sky, one due north, one due south.
As they appear to trace circles, that means you are looking at them from a negligible distance away from the axis of rotation, such a small distance away that it would not significantly affect the apparent direction of the central point about which the stars appear to rotate.
This means the axis of rotation is aligned with a line going directly from your eyes to that point the stars appear to rotate around.
But the point the stars appear to rotate around appears at a different angle of elevation, with this variance relating quite well to latitude.
This means the angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies with latitude.
This means the angle of Earth surface at one latitude is different to the angle of Earth's surface at another latitude.
This means Earth can't be flat.
The earth is fla.

Deal with it.

Since I know you have nothing salient, and I know you are incapable of stfu, everyone here can look forward to more of your dumb stuff.
And more pathetic projection.
And a weak repetition of a worthless trop from a truly weak mind

The set of all points m units from the x-axis in 3-dimensional space
But we aren't dealing with points that are m units from the x axis.

And as pointed out, it isn't simply rotating about the x axis.
Instead the sky appears to rotate about the N-S axis of Earth. Which doesn't work for a FE with N in the centre.
You offer nothing, as all observers on the flat earth see exactly what I wrote is occurring.

You lose.

Go play tiddly winks with JJ.

He needs entertainment.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #114 on: February 16, 2022, 05:08:55 AM »
That doesn't even describe what you are proposing.  This is why you can't draw a diagram or do any of your own work. You have no understanding and it shows.
It actually exactly describes what is proposed, and it also exactly describes how stars are viewed in the sky above us.

You have no argument, period.

Weak and pathetic gaslighting.

I appreciate your ability to discover like written sentences.

Demonstrates clearly how far DARPA AI bot technology has progressed.

LOL.

You got caught red handed plagiarizing from a math homework site and won't even admit it.  Sure, you just happened to write several sentences that were word for word exact copies of that answer. Uh-huh. Sure, lackey. Other people aren't that dumb.

If you were as smart as you like to pretend you are, you could draw us a diagram of how you think the sky works. It's hilarious to watch you continue to refuse to do so. You could do it but you just don't want to. Sure. A transparent and desperate excuse.

All you can do is copy-paste someone elses math homework which doesn't even relate to your vague sky tube ideas. You haven't expressed an original thought in this entire thread. Just parroted what you read elsewhere. Sad.




*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #115 on: February 16, 2022, 05:10:07 AM »
The earth is fla.

Deal with it.

My new favorite quote for the week.  ;D

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #116 on: February 16, 2022, 01:05:12 PM »
Correct. I did write x.

Meant to write z.
Which means it will work for the north pole and south pole, and no where else.
All you are doing is pushing the problem around.

More to the point, you probably know exactly what was meant to communicated and this is just another example of you feigning awareness of the point in effort to score points in your fucked up game.
No, in fact, I assumed you meant x.
Do you know why?
Because you started that line of garbage after it was pointed out that there are 2 points in the sky that the stars appear to rotate about.

For your fantasy flat Earth, if your axis is horizontal, then you get 2 points in the sky (near the horizon, one in the +x direction, one in the -x direction).
If it is vertical, then you get 1 point in the sky, and 1 point below Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

But additionally, as I have pointed out, the angle of the axis varies with location on Earth.
You could have said the axis is it any angle, including horizontal or vertical, and you would have been correct for 1 location, while being wrong for almost everywhere else.


Doubling down.
So you are doubling down on your wilful rejection of reality to try to pretend your fantasy works?

I do not need to "back up" my claim.
I claimed it, you have a choice to accept it or not.
And I reject it, as it is pure BS, as already explained.

You are a pathetic DARPA AI bot.
So you are saying that you are so bad, you can easily be refuted by a bot which isn't even sentient.
Do you really want to insult yourself like that?

Again, you are wrong.
What I wrote is axiomatic.
And again, rather than even try to justify your BS, you just make another baseless assertion.
If you were correct, and it was axiomatic, it would be fairly trivial for you to justify your BS.
It would be trivial for you to explain just what part I was wrong about.
But instead, you just assert that you are right.
Truly pathetic.

The little bit you stole from the math homework site, where you refine it to be all points m units from the x axis, that is axiomatic, as it then does describe a cylinder (or at least the walls of one)
But that was not your original claim.
You had to refine your claim to actually make it work. Your original claim was wrong.

If you refined it a different way, such as making it m units from the origin, then it is no longer a cylinder. Instead, it is a sphere.
If you instead let it be all points, then it is neither.

The earth is fla.

Deal with it.
And again, no argument, just pathetic, childish assertions.
You have no argument.
You have no rebuttal.
You have nothing to justify your BS.

It actually exactly describes what is proposed, and it also exactly describes how stars are viewed in the sky above us.
No it doesn't, as has already been explained. You ignoring that wont magically change it.

You have no argument, period.
Considering your entire argument is:
"Earth is flat, it works, anything you say is irrelevant/wrong."
you shouldn't be complaining about other people not having an argument.



Again, here is a brief summary that shows why you are just spouting BS:
On Earth, the real Earth that people live on, stars appear to trace a circle around 2 points in the sky, one due north, one due south.
As they appear to trace circles, that means you are looking at them from a negligible distance away from the axis of rotation, such a small distance away that it would not significantly affect the apparent direction of the central point about which the stars appear to rotate.
This means the axis of rotation is aligned with a line going directly from your eyes to that point the stars appear to rotate around.
But the point the stars appear to rotate around appears at a different angle of elevation, with this variance relating quite well to latitude.
This means the angle between the axis of rotation and the surface of Earth varies with latitude.
This means the angle of Earth surface at one latitude is different to the angle of Earth's surface at another latitude.
This means Earth can't be flat.

Until you can actually deal with that argument, rather than just rejecting reality and asserting Earth is flat, you have nothing and you are wrong.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #117 on: February 16, 2022, 01:12:16 PM »
If you were as smart as you like to pretend you are, you could draw us a diagram of how you think the sky works. It's hilarious to watch you continue to refuse to do so. You could do it but you just don't want to. Sure. A transparent and desperate excuse.
This point I disagree with. If he was CORRECT, and as smart as he likes to pretend, he would draw it.

But as he is full of shit, and likely knows it, he is smart enough to know to not draw it.

If he doesn't draw it, he can keep it vague and keep shifting the goalposts to pretend he is correct.

If he does draw it, then contradictions between it and reality are trivial to show and he is defeated.

Just like why FEers refuse to produce a map, and things like the NP model are often qualified with BS like:
"Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth" and
"The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched due to ambiguities of jet streams, flight routing, and non-direct flights"

By refusing to commit, they can switch between models and push the problem around to pretend it doesn't exist.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #118 on: February 16, 2022, 01:23:53 PM »
If you were as smart as you like to pretend you are, you could draw us a diagram of how you think the sky works. It's hilarious to watch you continue to refuse to do so. You could do it but you just don't want to. Sure. A transparent and desperate excuse.
This point I disagree with. If he was CORRECT, and as smart as he likes to pretend, he would draw it.

But as he is full of shit, and likely knows it, he is smart enough to know to not draw it.

If he doesn't draw it, he can keep it vague and keep shifting the goalposts to pretend he is correct.

If he does draw it, then contradictions between it and reality are trivial to show and he is defeated.

Just like why FEers refuse to produce a map, and things like the NP model are often qualified with BS like:
"Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth" and
"The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched due to ambiguities of jet streams, flight routing, and non-direct flights"

By refusing to commit, they can switch between models and push the problem around to pretend it doesn't exist.

It's the same play we have seen them use over and over.  We know the Bishop constant. Well we can approximate it. We we know it's not a big number. Well we don't actually need to know it.  It's still useful in some situations. No I won't tell you what those are, figure it out yourself cause ima gud teachur.

But I suppose you are right, WISH/Lackey/Action69 knows his idea is junk and won't draw anything and back himself into a corner.  Just keep making up excuses why eh wont, and will eventually just stop responding once he gets too embarrassed and shamed.

This is also yet another example of flat earthers not understanding basic geometry. You can't transform shapes with different topographies into another without tearing or folding.  WISH has no clue and thinks squares, triangles, spheres and tubes are all just shapes you can use interchangeably.

*

Gumwars

  • 793
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #119 on: February 18, 2022, 07:43:03 AM »
WISHTOLAUGH is a troll and a boring one at that.  Reading through his post history here along with my encounters with him elsewhere leaves the impression that he isn't even talented at arguing a point to the level of his peers.  It's all hand waving and deflection.  At least with the more imaginative FE'ers we get a higher quality brand of nonsense. 

With WISH, it's just boring crap.
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.