Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

yes
and taking a LINE OF SIGHT along anyone of those CIRCLES in your sphere, will follow the formula for drawing a circle

           x^2+y^2=r^2

up to a certain distance, the curve x^2 = y is approximately similar to the circle x^2+y^2=r^2

so if you were standing on the top of the line-ball you show, if you looked along the nearly perfrect straight up-down line right in front, you do NOT see the line curving toward or away from you.
but you can see it curve away and disappear at hte top back.
as it disapears in the back, there's a horizon as it curves away from view.

can someone computer skills highlight this line and repost it?

yes
sq in if you are asking for an area.

but this isn't determining an area.
this is determining a proportion ratio between two things.

distance away in proportion to distance down.

for every Xmi distnace away in prorportion to distance down is 8in x Xmi^2
if you go 2mi out, 8x2x2in = 32in down.




it's laughable that you can take something so easily researchable and not research it, and present/ portray it completely falsely.
dishonest comes to mind or ignorant.



https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cfd4c68d7802ec2cb1e8d92f9a7a0347-pjlq

The sq curvature thing is because NYC has a width and length. So if we were to be looking at the city from a round Earth model it ought to have tension pulling the city apart in two directions

WHY?
You keep asserting this, but are yet to provide a single thing which is actually trying to tear it apart.
All while ignoring that the terrain has more significant variation than that due to the curve.

Why should the curvature result in tension?

if gravity were a real factor, it should have sunk under its own weight years ago

Why?
In order to sink it needs to displace or compress what is below it.

since there is a length hill and a width hill, both of which we cannot see.

Except as pointed out in the other thread, WE CAN!
By the fact we can't see from one side to the other.

should plague all of its building with Leaning Tower of Pisa syndrome.

Why?
Because you say so?

Or it's easier just to decide that this land is flat, and if you're seeing curved perspective, it really is just perspective.

You mean it is easier to just blatantly lie and pretend a fantasy is true.
You are yet to show a fault.
So much shows Earth is round, and you are yet to provide a single thing which indicates Earth is flat not round.

The rule of thumb falls apart because areas of land are in square miles. Do we only apply latitudinal curvature? Or does longitude also count? That is, in an area 8 mi x 10 mi, do we apply 64 inches (8 x 8 ) of curvature, 80 inches (8 x 10 ) of curvature, or 640 inches of curvature?

Well for starters, you aren't actually applying "curvature".
Instead you are trying to calculate the drop due to curvature.

The linear curvature is 0.000000157 /m.
The gaussian curvature takes this to an area by multiplying curvature in perpendicular (taking the max and min) directions. That gives us 0.0000000000000246 /m^2.

If instead you want to calculate the drop, you need to decide what drop you are trying to find.

Since I have walked 8 miles in a day before, and definitely driven 1000 miles in a week before, I can rightly call this theory out as the patent nonsense it is.

No, you can't.

You are yet to explain what you think you should see for this journey and why you should see that, and then that you didn't.

Any sufficiently small portion of a sufficiently large sphere will be indistinguishable from flat.

Even going out to the horizon, you are looking for a drop of 2 m in 5 km. That is 0.04%.
You are not going to be able to tell the difference between that and flat unless you use highly accurate instruments and measure the angle of dip.
The way you can easily see the difference is trying to look beyond those 5 km.
If Earth was flat, this should be easy, with nothing blocking your view.
But if Earth is round (and you are the appropriate height) the horizon is blocking your view, and you can only see things above the ground further than 5 km, and as the distance increases so does the required height.

I see nothing but a straight line and then the horizon.

i.e. you see the direct result of curvature. Something that is trivially explained on a round Earth yet the flat Earth can't explain at all.
If Earth was flat, there would be no horizon.

I'm not seeing any real cutoff here.

Except the horizon you want to ignore.

so if you were standing on the top of the line-ball you show, if you looked along the nearly perfrect straight up-down line right in front, you do NOT see the line curving toward or away from you.
but you can see it curve away and disappear at hte top back.

You cannot see it... because it's not there.

You cannot see it at ground level.
You cannot see it down at a valley.
You cannot see it atop a mountain.
You cannot see it in a tunnel.

You cannot see it in a boat, you cannot see with a goat.
You cannot see it here or there.
You cannot see it, anywhere! 

it's laughable that you can take something so easily researchable and not research it, and present/ portray it completely falsely. Dishonest comes to mind or ignorant.

What's laughable to me, is that you think the teachings of old dead mathematicians ought to be taken as truth. When someone says 8 inches per mile and you're at the position on a mountain top to look several miles and even then you can't see even an inch of curvature, yet you trust the math instead of your eyes... someone is being dishonest or ignorant, but I think it's you.

I am not in the habit of trusting old dead mathematicians enough to look up their words, much less hang on to them. I know that the area of a circle is πr², I don't bother with curvature that I never see. If that's you, you have the right to that, but I'm not being ignorant or dishonest for wanting a bit of horse sense. If I cannot see a curve from either ground level or a great height, then a math book from a library will not make any difference. I occasionally might brush up on math if I need to remember how to figure out the height of a tree given distance. You use tan(β) * distance from the tree + eye height and you sit on the ground so there is no eye height.  But here's the thing. That's a real tree, you can really see it. Where is the 1 inch of curvature that we should think about for a 660 feet (1/8 mile) away tree? Oh wait, strangely absent. Where is the 32 inches of curvature for this mountain over there?

No, we aren't constantly plugging in curvature. You only factor for curvature when it's convenient and want to virtue signal about globe Earth. My entire education up to learning Trig (I got out of math in college, thanks to alot of previous courses from community college), they never penalized me for not accounting for the curvature. Almost as though the math works perfectly fine without adding curvature. Almost as though we can objectively measure the height of a tree by whipping our a ladder and a long measuring tape, and adding 8 inches for being a mile away would just get a mismeasurement. Almost as though there never was any curvature to start with.

Now if you'll excuse me, I would like to study math that is real. Is that okay with you?

Also, it's 16 miles.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flat-vs-round-earth

The curvature of the Earth has been measured as 8 inches per mile (12 cm per kilometer). That means that for every mile you are away from an object, 8 inches of the bottom of the object is hidden by the curvature of the Earth. However, that does assume you are looking at the object a zero height, which is not very practical.

So, lemme get this straight. You calling me out on being ignorant, you didn't bother to research your own formula and double added a 2, making a two mile (distance) into a 2 x 2 mile sq. That wouldn't even be right if it was a sq distance btw! It would be (8 in x 2) x (8 in x 2) for sq mi or 256 inches. This is how you measure for sq feet, and it's how you measure for an imaginary curve within a sq space. For regular distance, it is 8 in for every mile. 8 x (# miles), it's a simple equation.

The math police are coming for you. 

amazing!

I notice you have entirely fled from your claims regarding curvature magically breaking everything apart, and now want to focus on just your pathetic claims that you can't see curvature.

Does this mean you now fully accept that curvature doesn't just magically break everything apart?

You cannot see it... because it's not there.

No. You can't see it because your eyes aren't good enough to see something like that.

If it wasn't there, you wouldn't see the horizon.

Seeing the horizon is seeing the curve.

You can see it at ground level.
You cannot see it down at a valley surrounded by mountains because the mountains get in the way.
You can see it atop a mountain.
You cannot see it in a tunnel, because the earth surrounding the tunnel gets in the way and tunnels normally aren't level.

You can see it in a boat, you can see with a goat.
You can see it here or there.
You can see it almost anywhere!

What's laughable to me, is that you think the teachings of old dead mathematicians ought to be taken as truth.

No.
We think things which make sense and are supported by evidence and/or rational thought/logical reasoning should be taken as truth.
Conversely, you think baseless assertions with nothing supporting it should be accepted as truth.

Why should ANYONE accept your BS which you cannot support at all.

When someone says 8 inches per mile and you're at the position on a mountain top to look several miles and even then you can't see even an inch of curvature

So you think your eyes are so great that you can see 1 inch at a distance of a several miles?

Do you not realise just how stupid that statement of yours is? Seeing 1 inch at 1 mile is roughly equivalent to seeing a single human hair at roughly 6.3 m.

And you aren't even trying to see it itself, instead you are trying to see the ground being lower by that amount.

yet you trust the math instead of your eyes

No. I trust both. I trust what I see with my eyes, and the math that supports what I see.
But importantly, I also understand and accept the limitations of my eyes, and don't expect to be able to see things which I can't.
For example, I don't expect to be able to see 1 inch at a distance of a mile with just my eyes.
That would be stupid.

Conversely, you reject both.
You reject the horizon we can so clearly see which so clearly demonstrates curvature as supported by countless observations of other objects, both curved and flat.
The horizon matches curved objects.
And you reject the math that shows your arguments are pure BS.

someone is being dishonest or ignorant

Yes. YOU!
As clearly shown by the fact you have had your BS refuted repeatedly, just to bring up the same refuted BS again in another thread.
You are either knowingly lying to everyone; or you are so ignorant of reality you fail to comprehend even the most basic facts.

If I cannot see a curve from either ground level or a great height

Again, YOU CAN!
You just refuse to accept it.
Seeing the horizon is you seeing the curve.
But you are so desperate to pretend Earth is flat, you reject that.

Almost as though the math works perfectly fine without adding curvature.

No, it works approximately fine, with that approximation failing more and more as distance goes on.

Now if you'll excuse me, I would like to study math that is real. Is that okay with you?

Like the math for a round Earth?

So, lemme get this straight. You calling me out on being ignorant, you didn't bother to research your own formula

Quite the opposite.
YOU didn't bother to research your own formula properly, so you have no idea what you are talking about.

Where do you think this formula and this number comes from?

There are several options.
One simple one, assuming you know Pythagoras, is a right angle triangle. (There are better ones, but they use math that is beyond you).
You have one side being from the Earth straight down to the centre, with a distance of r.
You have another being tangent to that with a distance of d.
Then the hypotenuse has a distance of r+h, where h is the drop due to curvature.

Because it is a right angle triangle we know (r+h)^2=r^2+d^2
This gives us r^2+2*r*h+h^2=r^2+d^2
Which simplifies to 2*r*h+h^2=d^2
and further to:
h*(2*r+h)=d^2
h=d^2/(2*r+h).

Then noting for small heights involved, 2*r+h is basically just 2*r, this can be approximated as:
h=d^2/2r

To get the value of 8, you need to use the number of inches in a mile, and Earth's radius in miles.
There are 63360 inches in a mile, and Earth's radius is 3,958.8 miles.

More formally:
Substitute h=h*inch and d=d*mile, r = r*mile:
h inches=(d*mile)^2/(2*r*mile)
h=[(d^2 * mile^2)/(2*r*mile)]/inch
h=[(d^2 * mile)/(2*r)]/inch
h=d^2* [mile/(2*r*inch)]
Now sub in r=3958.8 and mile=63360*inch
h=d^2* [63360*inch/(2*3958.8*inch)]
h=d^2* 63360/(2*3958.
h=d^2 * 8.002424977

i.e. the drop is 8 inches per mile squared.

It is NOT 8 inches per mile
To go to square it is NOT 64 inches per mile squared.

If you bothered researching this formula, which comes from FEers, you would realise it is not 8 inches per mile.

The other really trivial way to consider it is the shape.
8 inches per mile is STRAIGHT!
Trying to claim that is the correct formula is claiming a curve is a straight line.
Is that really what you want to do?
The only way in which a curve approximates a straight line is the tangent.
And for that approximation, the drop is 0.

So if the math police are coming for anyone, it is you.

You cannot see it... because it's not there.

No.  That is your stupid delusional parabola that doesn’t address the issues listed below. 

One.  For a flat earth.  The sun would have to turn relative right or north for a person watching the sun pass over California and out to sea.

Two. For a flat earth.   The sun wound appear small and slow out of the east for a person in California.  The sun wound appear to grow in size and speed, zoom overhead, then slow and get smaller in the after noon.



Now, we can see how the curvature of the earth blocks the view of objects bottom up.

Perspective can’t physically block things from view.

Things flat earther’s claim are blocked by perspective should be able to be brought back into view by zooming with a good telescope.

Example.  The sun isn’t blocked from view by perspective because a good telescope can make stars to faint to see with the human eye visible.  Such a telescope should be able to bring the sun back into view on a flat earth.  It can’t after sunset because the curvature of the earth physical blocks the sun from view.   Night is the literally the curvature of the earth casting a shadow while blocking the light and radiation from the sun. 

From another post…

Oh.  The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.



How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?

Hint.  As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor.  The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
 

Note. Added. Or.  More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky?  Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?

Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

I’ve done my own homework.  Have you? 

Also, it's 16 miles.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flat-vs-round-earth

Quote

The curvature of the Earth has been measured as 8 inches per mile (12 cm per kilometer). That means that for every mile you are away from an object, 8 inches of the bottom of the object is hidden by the curvature of the Earth. However, that does assume you are looking at the object a zero height, which is not very practical.

So, lemme get this straight. You calling me out on being ignorant, you didn't bother to research your own formula and double added a 2, making a two mile (distance) into a 2 x 2 mile sq. That wouldn't even be right if it was a sq distance btw! It would be (8 in x 2) x (8 in x 2) for sq mi or 256 inches. This is how you measure for sq feet, and it's how you measure for an imaginary curve within a sq space. For regular distance, it is 8 in for every mile. 8 x (# miles), it's a simple equation.

The math police are coming for you. 

Well, this is awkward! Your link is to a number of ways the average flat earther such as yourself, can easily prove the Earth is a globe and disprove it is flat.

Have you shared that link with your friends, Turbonium and Sceptimatic?

It's only proof if you buy the mathematical rhetoric.

The actual proof is that you don't know math. You see, if you were to buy this seemingly reasonable figure, then by a 660 mile trip, you should have a mile worth of curve. This should severely hinder road building.

Yet US route 20 stretches 3,365 miles without incident.

Okay then, it should hinder bridge building.

Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge, China stretches 100 miles. And from the looks of it, parts of it are very flat. What adjustment for curvature? They only adjusted for  deep spots or to get to cities not in a straight line.


When you can't even be trusted to write a simple math problem correctly, we have to conclude that any math you give is plagiarized without any personal understanding.

Look, this math proves it! Haha, you don't even understand said math.

It's only proof if you buy the mathematical rhetoric.

You mean if you accept reality.
For those so hell bent on rejecting reality at all costs, then it wont be proof, because nothing will be.

This should severely hinder road building.
Okay then, it should hinder bridge building.

Why?
You keep asserting this BS with no justification.
Why should this curve hinder road building?
For the most part, the road follows the surface.

WHY?

parts of it are very flat.

Flat, or level?

How did they build the bridge?
What techniques did they use?
Did they have a magical flat reference plane they kept referring to, or where they building it level?

When you can't even be trusted to write a simple math problem correctly, we have to conclude that any math you give is plagiarized without any personal understanding.

Look, this math proves it! Haha, you don't even understand said math.

There you go projecting again.
You are the one who clearly doesn't understand the math they provide.
And that is made more clear by you ignoring the derivation of that math and just asserting you are right.

Maths


Can you tell us then about math?

What angle woukd you get between straight segments of a 40,000 sided polygon?

It's only proof if you buy the mathematical rhetoric.

The actual proof is that you don't know math. You see, if you were to buy this seemingly reasonable figure, then by a 660 mile trip, you should have a mile worth of curve. This should severely hinder road building.

Yet US route 20 stretches 3,365 miles without incident.

Okay then, it should hinder bridge building.

Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge, China stretches 100 miles. And from the looks of it, parts of it are very flat. What adjustment for curvature? They only adjusted for  deep spots or to get to cities not in a straight line.


When you can't even be trusted to write a simple math problem correctly, we have to conclude that any math you give is plagiarized without any personal understanding.

Look, this math proves it! Haha, you don't even understand said math.

Lol! I love how you concentrate your efforts on not being able to prove earth curvature, instead of proving the shape and size of your flat earth. Naturally, anybody who can't understand simple maths like yourself, is going to feel like a winner.

Earth curvature in road building, is so negligible, it is being accounted for, and compensated for, continuously. Why should a mile of curve over 600 miles hinder road building? I guess you've never driven a car up a tall and steep mountain on a windy road, ey?

Do you own an earth globe? Turn it on it's side so Australia is facing up and look at the distance between Brisbane and Sydney which is roughly 1000km. A straight highway links those two cities up. See the curvature between the two cities on your globe? Probably a couple of kilometres. No problems, with that road, man!

When is somebody going to teach you mathematics?

Asked you a question bulmabriefs144….

 The Brooklyn Bridgge at 1.1 miles long, would have to support this 8 inches of tension.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/structural-design-steel-pipe-racks-francesco-salvatore-onorio


How much tension is the pipe and pipe rack under?

Why should a mile of curve over 600 miles hinder road building?

The distance from Richmond to San Antonia is nearly double that.

I want you to imagine a pipe that is supposed to go straight across, instead having people periodically stand and pull in a specific direction while leaving alone the center. What do you think happens?

If you did this horizontally, it would go two miles off course. If it doesn't snap from tension.

...I miscalculated, because of the stupid 8 inch per mile thing. I got 5280 after 660, and forgot that I wasn't even working in feet but basically 3/4 a ft. There are 63360 inches in one mile, so how many miles do you have to go before even 1 mile of curvature appears? 7920 miles, or to put it better, you could fly from Richmond, VA to Tokyo, JP and still not even get a mile of curve. You would have to travel Earth's diameter or fly from one end of Earth to another.

This actually presents two contradictory problems. First, we still don't have 5280 ft hills of water at midpoint (you will always lose this argument due to the shape of water). And second, the curvature would no longer look like this...

And instead more like this...


Practically flat is flat. Your model doesn't work.



I discounted the diameter from the curvature because it was already there in distance measurement. I discounted core to surface because we want any circumference that is outside the distance from core to surface. In a real sphere (which we don't have!) we have a 560 mile curvature, or 1 mile of curve every 14 miles. But this would put parts of Earth outside the atmosphere as calculated!

Bulma, you really haven't got a clue what you are typing about, do you?

What tests did you perform to arrive at your conclusion?

Are you even familiar with how the heliocentric model works? It isn't that difficult to grasp. Really....

astounding!

Quote

Why should a mile of curve over 600 miles hinder road building?

The distance from Richmond to San Antonia is nearly double that.

Notice how you make absolutely no attempt to address the question that was asked?

And instead you deflect yet again?

I want you to imagine a pipe that is supposed to go straight across

No.
Instead of asking me to imagine things with no basis in reality, stick to the example you already made.

Lets go to a hypothetical.
I live on a sphere, where I have made a region perfectly level.
I now want to lay down a road.
So I follow the standard road building practices, laying down the bed material and so on, all the way up to the layer of Asphalt on top.

In another location, there is a hill, with a gentle slope of 1 in 100 at most.
I do the same to that hill, just without the levelling.

What is trying to make any of these structures break?

I miscalculated, because of the stupid 8 inch per mile thing.

Why do you keep using such crap then?

Again, the formula is h=d^2/2R?
If you want to use that simple idea it is 8 inches per mile squared.

Again it doesn't take a genius to realise 8 inches per mile is a straight line.

And the d^2/2R is an approximation.

An approximation based upon the fact that for small angles, cos(x) = 1 - x^2/2.
The more accurate version is r*(1-cos(d/r))

This actually presents two contradictory problems.

Nope, just the one consistent one, you failing at basic math.

First, we still don't have 5280 ft hills of water at midpoint (you will always lose this argument due to the shape of water).

Quite the opposite.
The fact that we observe objects which are above water, from a position that is above water, yet the water blocks the view, shows beyond any doubt that we do have water curving.

Your argument here can boil down to:
"EARTH IS FLAT!! WATER FLAT!!! WATER NO CURVE CAUSE WATER FLAT!!!"

You don't have anything to demonstrate that water is flat. You don't have any explanation for how this allegedly flat water blocks the view.
All you can do is repeat your pathetic assertion.

And second, the curvature would no longer look like this...

No, if we follow your ridiculous BS, it would look more like this:


Notice how it is a triangle, not a curve?
Because you are saying for each mile there is a constant drop of 8 inches.

Yet even after that has been pointed out, you keep repeating it.

Conversely, if we accept the 8 inches per mile squared, you end up with something more like this:


See how the curve matches the circle much better than your straight line?

The one presenting the fake sphere here is you.
You are presenting a sphere, which for some reason has a great circle follow a straight line.

So don't call it the fake sphere we present. It is the fake sphere YOU present.
And you keep presenting it because you fail at basic math.

I discounted core to surface because we want any circumference that is outside the distance from core to surface.

Just what do you mean by this?
It is so unclear it isn't funny.
Perhaps you can try drawing a diagram, like this one:


Notice how it defines terms to avoid ambiguity?
d is the distance along the surface. Not a horizontal distance.
a is the angle subtended.
h is the vertical distance measured from the starting point straight down, until it meets a hypothetical straight line starting at this vertical line and going to the point on the surface with this line at right angles to the vertical line?

So what is h?
Well, first we find a:
a = d/r (assuming we are using radians, if you want to use degrees it is d*360/(2*pi*r))
Then we note that h = r-r*cos(a) = r*(1-cos(a))

So that means h=r*(1-cos(d/r))

But that uses trig which is hard. Is there a way to simplify it?
Well we can take the small x approximation for cos:
cos(x)~=1-x^2/2 for small values of x.

So that gives us:
h=r*(1-(1-(d/r)^2/2))
h=r*(1-1+d^2/(2*r^2))
h=r*d^2/(2*r^2)
h=d^2/(2*r)

And hey, would you look at that, d^2/2r, just like I have said many times.

And putting in some basic substitutions, you get ~ 8 inches per mile SQUARED!
Notice the key part: SQUARED!!!
Ignoring that and pretending it is a straight line just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

In a real sphere (which we don't have!) we have a 560 mile curvature, or 1 mile of curve every 14 miles.

Now try actually drawing what you are suggesting.
Here, I'll do it for you:


Do you understand the difference between a curve and a straight line?
Because you don't seem to.

You also yet again fail at basic math.
How did you get 560 miles?

Your "core to surface" is simply the radius. i.e. 7920/2 = 3960.
diameter - radius = radius.
So that should simply be 3960 archaic units.
Not 560.
So you appear to just pull that number from literally no where.

You then fail again at basic math, but using the entire diameter, to reach the peak in the centre, to claim it is 1 mile for every 14 miles.
If you correct just for that, then going from the mid point to the edge, would be those "560 BS" which means you should have ended up with 1 BS ever 7 archaic units.

And if you did the math above correctly, you would end up with 1 mile per mile. (a drop of 3960 archaic units, over a distance of 3960 archaic units).

But this would put parts of Earth outside the atmosphere as calculated!

Then stop with such shit calculations.
Try to actually do basic math correctly.
Try to understand the difference between a curve and a straight line.

Your idea of a round Earth is a triangle.

A curved line or straight line or a zigzag line, when viewed from 90 degrees to their shapes from above, are all seen as straight flat lines, even though one is a curved line and one is a zigzag line.

Any flat surface you are on, has straight lines seen on it, when it is big enough a surface. A flat surface is seen as 2 dimensional, over it. A linear view of this surface is flat straight lines from our angle of view.

But what you are trying to say is your surface is a circle, when it is actually a spherical surface, a totally curving surface, that is the important difference here.

A horizon wil curve along a spherical surface in all directions it is viewed from.  It has to. 

In order to show the curved surface while viewed rising above it until we see it as a sphere, it must first begin to show it is curved, which would be seen on its horizons, and that is where they have a big problem.

Horizons will form no higher than when you are at the lowest point on a sphere, because when you are higher above a sphere, the more it curves downward from you.

It is physically and geometrically impossible for horizons on a sphere to rise upward, when they curve downward as you rise higher up above it.

But what you are trying to say is your surface is a circle, when it is actually a spherical surface, a totally curving surface, that is the important difference here.

No, I'm not. I am saying the horizon is a circle. As it is.

A horizon wil curve along a spherical surface in all directions it is viewed from.  It has to.

Why?
Because you say so?

Why should any believe that crap when you can't justify it at all?

Again for an observer height of 2 m, the distinction between your delusional BS and reality, is that in your delusional BS the horizon is a circle 2 m below, and roughly 5 km in radius.
In reality, it is 4 m below you and roughly 5 km in radius.

The difference is insignificant.

It is physically and geometrically impossible for horizons on a sphere to rise upward, when they curve downward as you rise higher up above it.

And again, reality shows they don't.
Instead, the horizon gets lower as you get higher.



I also noticed that you entirely ignored the fact that the delusional BS you presented is a straight line, with numbers pulled from no where, and nothing like the curve you pretend it is.

Bulma, you really haven't got a clue what you are typing about, do you?

What tests did you perform to arrive at your conclusion?

Are you even familiar with how the heliocentric model works? It isn't that difficult to grasp. Really....

Tests? Do you even understand basic geometry?

As any schoolchild can tell you, there are 360 degrees in a full circle.

Any schoolchild should know this (why not you). This means that if a you are intending to draw a circle, and you measure out 50 ft to your left, it is 90 degrees in front of you, 90 more degrees to the right, 90 more degrees in back. Moreover to be a perfect circle and not a crappy ellipsoid, these distances are equidistant from the center (50 feet in basically every direction for a 50 ft circle).
This means a sphere that continues halfway around the Earth by RE theory ought to have made a 180 (or diametrical) movement and experienced the full range of curve before it curves round back. At radial (90 degree) it should be roughly half the Earth's total diameter (minus core to crust). This 8 inches per mile is a load of crap, as it would result in the first picture.

Lemme guess. All of you were taught under Common Core. "There are no wrong answers, except for conservatism and capitalism."
I, on the other hand, learned some theorems in geometry class.

Are you even familiar with how the heliocentric model works? It isn't that difficult to grasp. Really....

It's a model, not an orthodoxy. And yes, I learned it all through school growing up. The problem is, like your geometry (obviously), you get a simplified version that is "not that difficult" but ignores the numerous rule patches which were all implemented because one thing or another didn't add up. Sidereal days? Totally not thought up because someone asked how this model could possibly be right if a planet is now facing 180 from its original position.

Actual knowledge allows one to use what they have learned to form new opinions. Indoctrination allows only thought which aligns itself with theory, and anything which does not add up creates cognitive dissonance. Basic geometry tells me that it is impossible for Earth to be a sphere. When I tell you this, you ignore facts and act like something I'm saying is contrary common sense, where actually, it's well within common sense to anyone who took geometry and got above a C.

Wwooooo weer a leson in geontry from.bulmba?

Bilmba who thinks circles were abritrarily given the ratio of pi.

Amazing

Because they were.

Why was pi used? Because someone squared the radius and multiplied it by three.

Why did they do that? Because uh...

Uhhhhhh...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Yeah, the argument falls apart right there, because there is actually no answer to this. I guess the idea was to triangle a circle? But this equation literally only works for a circle with a radius of one. So for 2 radius, you'd get 12 instead. For 3 radius, you'd get 27. Then 48. In what way is that a constant? It was pulled out of someone's ass!

My value, despite being pulled out of my ass (as I admitted), has two constants. 4 and (6/4).

Geometry only makes sense if it has real theorems and real constants. If you use artificial numbers derived forged events, it only makes sense you will get a long fake number that has no bearing with the real value. Fact, you can divide a circle into four parts. You can also measure angled lines about the edge of a circle. The only reason this number was chosen (3.14) was that it sounded mathematical and produces a long number of decimal places for any equation. In other words, no matter how perfect a circle is, the formula comes out uneven! Excuse me, but this doesn't seem right. When you extend each quarter of a circle from quarter to edge, you get the same distance. So it follows that a 90 degree wedge is 1/4 of the total (not 1/3), and the most you ought to account for is a curve from point A to point B. The gibberish decimal number is not an even number, not divisible by 4 (which it should be since a circle is divisible into four 90 degree quadrants, eight 45 degree pieces, twenty-four 15 degree parts, or 360 equal 1 degree pieces). I checked. Pi is not evenly divisible by 4, 8, 24, or 360. In fact, it's probably not evenly divisible by any number. How can you possibly use this to get a real circle when whole numbers with perfect equidistance instead of equalling 24 with radius 4, almost universally become imperfect numbers?

Oh and guess what? 2(pi)r is not even right! I found a tape measure just now. I found the nearest round object (a paint holder for art classes made of plastic). Center to edge, roughly 2 inches (a few cm more actually). Measurement around the edge? Just about 12 exactly.
 
4(6/4)2 = 12
2(3.14159)2=12.56636

Why this works.

Six 60 degree portions = 360 degrees (a circle)
Divided by 4 (four 90 degree quadrants)
So it's num_of_quadrants_used (6/4)radius.   

As a side note, this had no repeatability. Apparently, the object I was measuring was narrower places so it ranged from 12 even to 12.5, proving that some arbitrary decimal number doesn't really tell the full story because a circle can be a range. What it can't be is a specific number.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 20, 2024, 05:46:37 AM

Bulma, you really haven't got a clue what you are typing about, do you?

What tests did you perform to arrive at your conclusion?

Are you even familiar with how the heliocentric model works? It isn't that difficult to grasp. Really....

Tests? Do you even understand basic geometry?

Quote

As any schoolchild can tell you, there are 360 degrees in a full circle.

Any schoolchild should know this (why not you). This means that if a you are intending to draw a circle, and you measure out 50 ft to your left, it is 90 degrees in front of you, 90 more degrees to the right, 90 more degrees in back. Moreover to be a perfect circle and not a crappy ellipsoid, these distances are equidistant from the center (50 feet in basically every direction for a 50 ft circle).
This means a sphere that continues halfway around the Earth by RE theory ought to have made a 180 (or diametrical) movement and experienced the full range of curve before it curves round back. At radial (90 degree) it should be roughly half the Earth's total diameter (minus core to crust). This 8 inches per mile is a load of crap, as it would result in the first picture.

Lemme guess. All of you were taught under Common Core. "There are no wrong answers, except for conservatism and capitalism."
I, on the other hand, learned some theorems in geometry class.

Quote

Are you even familiar with how the heliocentric model works? It isn't that difficult to grasp. Really....

It's a model, not an orthodoxy. And yes, I learned it all through school growing up. The problem is, like your geometry (obviously), you get a simplified version that is "not that difficult" but ignores the numerous rule patches which were all implemented because one thing or another didn't add up. Sidereal days? Totally not thought up because someone asked how this model could possibly be right if a planet is now facing 180 from its original position.

Actual knowledge allows one to use what they have learned to form new opinions. Indoctrination allows only thought which aligns itself with theory, and anything which does not add up creates cognitive dissonance. Basic geometry tells me that it is impossible for Earth to be a sphere. When I tell you this, you ignore facts and act like something I'm saying is contrary common sense, where actually, it's well within common sense to anyone who took geometry and got above a C.

You say you actually learned geometry? I find that difficult to believe. Some of your sentences are also poorly worded.

How does basic geometry tell you it is impossible for Earth to be a sphere?

Please tell me you have access to a world globe? That will present all land masses on earth and oceans and seas accurately to scale. I already know you don't have access to an accurate to scale model of the flat earth featuring all land masses and oceans and seas to scale. So, the only way forward for you from here is with a world globe, isn't it?

Pi is wrong because it doesnt look right to bulma

Amzig!

Pi is wrong because it doesnt look right to bulma

Amzig!

This is the part where Bulma realises his argument is fucked. But, true to the flat earther code, instead admitting defeat, I predict Bulma will limp away with his tail between his legs, and pretend a reply from him has not been asked of.

Tests? Do you even understand basic geometry?

Do you?
Because you certainly seem to fail repeatedly.

This 8 inches per mile is a load of crap

As has been explained to you repeatedly, but you keep ignoring it.
Again, anyone with a basic understanding of geometry recognises that a drop of 8 inches per mile describes a straight line, not a curve.
This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and you just ignore it.

It's a model, not an orthodoxy.

And that means if you want to refute it, you need to show an actual problem with that model, not just spout a bunch of vague BS tangentially related.
e.g. you complaining about 8 inches per mile, when that is your strawman, in no way refutes the model.

And yes, I learned it all through school growing up. The problem is, like your geometry (obviously), you get a simplified version that is "not that difficult" but ignores the numerous rule patches which were all implemented because one thing or another didn't add up.

I assume that is describing what happened with you; and that's why you entirely fail basic geometry?

Sidereal days?

A direct consequence of orbiting while rotating.
Directly measurable, by measuring the time it takes a star other than the sun to return to the same point in the sky, vs measuring the length of time between 2 successive solar noons.

Totally not thought up because someone asked how this model could possibly be right if a planet is now facing 180 from its original position.

And this just further demonstrates you are dishonestly spouting pure BS.
This is appealing to that basic geometry which highlights a difference between the solar day and sidereal day.

People who understand basic geometry understand that if you take a coin, and mark a point on the edge, and then rotate it while moving it in a circle around a point; then after one rotation about its axis, it will appear to align with distant objects, but not the central point. To have it align with the central point, you need to rotate it more.
This means there will be one more sidereal day than solar day.

But then again, even test writers fail:

Actual knowledge allows one to use what they have learned to form new opinions. Indoctrination allows only thought which aligns itself with theory, and anything which does not add up creates cognitive dissonance.

Not quite. You need knowledge and understanding.

Actual knowledge and understanding allows you to think about models, and consider if they work or not, and make arguments for or against it, and actually defend them in a rational manner.
Rather than you, that just repeats the same nonsense talking points without being able to defend them.

Basic geometry tells me that it is impossible for Earth to be a sphere. When I tell you this, you ignore facts and act like something I'm saying is contrary common sense

Because what you say is contrary to common sense.
Especially as you are yet to provide anything from basic geometry that shows Earth can't be a sphere.
If you had the knowledge and understood, and it was true, you wouldn't just be telling us that; instead you would explaining how.
But because it is not true (and possibly because you don't have the knowledge or understanding) you just tell us and expect us to act like complete imbecile and blindly accept it.

Why was pi used? Because someone squared the radius and multiplied it by three.

Because it is the ratio of the diameter to the circumference.
There is no "multiplied by 3".
That is just a rough approximation of pi.

Yet here you are, acting like someone just decided to arbitrarily multiply by 3.

Do you know what was entirely arbitrary? Deciding that there should be 360 degrees in a revolution.

Why was this chosen? Because it was highly multiplicative.
You can divide it by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180.

Not because of any physical reality to it.
No one measured and found there were 360 things in the circle.
They just picked a nice big multiplicative number.
This is the same reason we have 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day.
They picked arbitrary numbers which divide nicely.

On the other hand, pi is not arbitrary. It is an actual number based upon reality.
This means it isn't a nice simple round number.

Yeah, the argument falls apart right there, because there is actually no answer to this.

Why is there no answer?
Because you say so?

But this equation literally only works for a circle with a radius of one.

No, it works for any radius.

C=pi*d=2*pi*r
A=pi*r^2

Likewise, it works for any sphere:
A=4*pi*r^2
V=(4/3)*pi*r^3.

My value, despite being pulled out of my ass (as I admitted), has two constants. 4 and (6/4).

And it is entirely pulled out of your ass with no justifications, and is effectively just the same bad approximation of 3.

Geometry only makes sense if it has real theorems and real constants.

Like pi, as opposed to your BS which just pulled out of your ass.

The only reason this number was chosen (3.14)

Was because it is a decent approximation.

Pi is not evenly divisible by 4, 8, 24, or 360.

And why would you expect it to be?

Oh and guess what? 2(pi)r is not even right! I found a tape measure just now. I found the nearest round object (a paint holder for art classes made of plastic). Center to edge, roughly 2 inches (a few cm more actually). Measurement around the edge? Just about 12 exactly.

Care to provide pictures?
Or shall we just dismiss it as more dishonest BS from you?
Never mind, I see you already answered that:

As a side note, this had no repeatability. Apparently, the object I was measuring was narrower places so it ranged from 12 even to 12.5, proving that some arbitrary decimal number doesn't really tell the full story because a circle can be a range. What it can't be is a specific number.

Proving that yet again you fail at basic geometry. You picked up a non-circular object to refute a fact about circles.
You failed to use pi correctly, because the shape you were using was not a circle.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 26, 2024, 04:53:14 PM

Pi is wrong because it doesnt look right to bulma

Amzig!

This is the part where Bulma realises his argument is fucked. But, true to the flat earther code, instead admitting defeat, I predict Bulma will limp away with his tail between his legs, and pretend a reply from him has not been asked of.

I dont loke this guy because his style is overdramatic, but he sums up bulma and scrppy


https://youtube.com/shorts/CGuy_YLoLa8?si=w-Y9LCgbG78Mffpt

How much is "almost 12"?