Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

ok i want to get through this trig.

Here is all the math for the Vertex d triangles.

Please note that the lengths of Lines:

d-ra;
d-a;
d-b;
ra-a;
ra-b

can all calculated from the length of a-b by replacing X with that value.

The length of a-b is not known at this time.
0014

[Dale Eastman]

ok.

This image is a merge, or more correctly labeled, a "stitch" of two images.

Note that the two viewpoints labeled vertex a and vertex b create the line a-b. The unknown value of line a-b is algebraically represented as value X.

Based on your Gleason's map claims, you are claiming the flat earth is round and has a center point. So that is an assumption I am making about the FE and FE theory. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong.

Let us assume that line a-b bifurcates a flat earth as depicted in the bottom left corner. This is for the purpose of what Einstein and others call a "Thought Experiment".

The vertex c pinpoint of light is Polaris. It's 90⁰ directly overhead point on the flat earth is somewhere in the center of this flat earth.

(If the fact that Polaris, the north star, shown on the right, confuses you, I suggest you do whatever thinking you need to do to calibrate your perception.)

To see the angles as depicted with the green and blue lines of sight,
"89.99999790347148662379600249677°"
"-89.99999790347148662379600249677°"
one would need to stand on opposite edges of this big flat disk.

(I am hoping and assuming that I don't have to ask for a direct acknowledgement of this self-evident fact from you.)

To make sure of no errors, I again acknowledge the length of line a-b is unknown.

I remind line n-c length is 27,328,881.6 times line a-n length.

If everything to the right in this image is "north" and "above" the plain of the flat earth, then how the heck can the distant pinpoint of light at vertex d even be seen from the human inhabited side of a flat earth ?

It can't.
0017

[Dale Eastman]

im not at all saying that two points in the sky must be visible at the same time. The link to the video demonstrated that as you get farther from the north passing the equator the north star dips below the horizon due to perspective (as an object get farther away, it apears closer to the horizon until it goes beyond the line of sight. This was a snapshot from the video i linked earlier. You did watch the video correct? This phenomenon isnt exclusive to a geometric ball.

the meat and potatoes of the point I'm making starts around 3:30 in the video.

You are Gish Galloping again.
I decline to engage with your attempted distraction.
I am trying to be polite AND factual.

I'm also giving you the benefit of doubt and changing:
D⁶ - Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail
in your case to:
D⁵ - Attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.

I am choosing and placing my words no differently than choosing and placing my feet walking up an icy hill in the winter.

Having done so, I simply can not let your error stand.

Your failure to address these words can not stand:
If everything to the right in this image is "north" and "above" the plain of the flat earth, then how the heck can the distant pinpoint of light at vertex d even be seen from the human inhabited side of a flat earth ?

It can't.

So I will draw another picture and carefully choose and place some more words.

How can you see what's on the other side of a flat earth?
YOU CAN'T!

Your 11:35 hand drawn image contains an errant claim. I will attend to that in due time. I view your error as a form of question, because I see what you are trying to get at.

Your 11:26 image tells me you are definitely missing some (presently) unknown point.

[Dale Eastman]

you want me to position another star on the map? And you are still using straight baselines...

➽ you want me to position another star on the map? And you are still using straight baselines...

No.

I would really like for you to understand the point I'm making.

Nobody on a flat earth can see what is on the other side of a flat earth.

Here is another depiction of that very point.

[Dale Eastman]

you mean like under the ground we walk on?

Idon't beleive that's a claim i or any flat earth researcher has made... that would be a strawman. If that's what you're claiming is a claim we make.

you can't choose to ignore the videos and elements i place to substantiate my arguments. Did you watch the video i reposted? Noted around the 3:30 mark.

➽ you mean like under the ground we walk on?

Really? I just drew two pictures explaining exactly what I mean.

➽ Idon't beleive that's a claim i or any flat earth researcher has made...

Please post the exact, specific words of claim you are denying.

I have no clue as to what you are denying.

[Dale Eastman]

im really trying to understand what you're saying. There's two points we're looking to, we'll say one point is polaris and the other point we can say is one of the stars that form orions belt. Are you saying we should not be able to see two points in the sky at the same time? Or if we're standing on the equator and we can see orions belt but not polaris? And could i have the answer to if you've watch the video i posted?

Orion's Belt is still north of the flat earth, thus viewable, depending on season.
0020

[Dale Eastman]

orions is around the ecliptic, and can be seen from north and south of the equator. So i guess you're more or less asking why we wouldn't be able to see both polaris and crux at the same time? Is that accurate?

That is close enough for now.

What you have not addressed is stuff that is absolutely unseeable on the other side of a flat earth. Are you going to claim no universe exists on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?

[Dale Eastman]

are you mixing cosmologies? Meaning are you interpreting the fe model presented by the fe society as a "disk in space", or are you using the model of a basin with Antarctica as the shoreline incompassing the known world. Earlier i explained (at least i thought i did, maybe we didn't get this far, but; the deepest hole ever dug was in russia the "bore hole" at almost 8 miles deep. How could anyone know what's any deeper under the surface of the earth than that? For your answer i am referring you to the video(again). Did you watch the video the main point starting at around 3:30?

You have just done a very specific Gish Gallop.
How deep that hole is, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question presented.

Here's that image again.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THICK THE BLACK EDGE IS in regard to not seeing the other half of the universe.

Are you claiming the universe does not exist on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?

[Dale Eastman]

is this what you believe we think the fe is?

did you Google flat earth and use that as your basis for what flat earthers think the flat earth is?

I may gish gallop sometimes(even tho they're on point arguments) if this is the model you're ascribing to me that's astrawman.

i would rather you think of it like a flooded basin. The Antarctic basin, with islands (continents).

Now back to your point how do you get a right angle?

➽ is this what you believe we think the fe is?

Flat means a two dimensional plane. No depth or infinite depth. It was you posting of Gleason's map which you claimed the most accurate So a circular two dimensional disk. Bumps of mountains ignored for first pass examination.

➽ I may gish gallop sometimes(even tho they're on point arguments) if this is the model you're ascribing to me that's astrawman.

Uh... NO.

Neither the model image shown in your 14:32 (15:32 since NC is eastern time zone) Nor the model shown in your 15:42 image matters.

Gish Gallop might not be the correct label. Deliberately avoiding and ignoring a very specific point is more factual and descriptive.

➽ i would rather you think of it like a flooded basin. The Antarctic basin, with islands (continents).

This makes no difference in regard to the point you are ignoring. Third inquiry:
Are you claiming the universe does not exist on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?

Whether it is circular with edges as shown in your 15:32 image or a circular depression in an infinite flat plane as shown in you 15:42 image.

➽ Now back to your point how do you get a right angle?

You mean back to YOUR point.

Didn't you previously admit to knowing what a tangent is?

The green line in this image is the tangent.

I'm doing work outside so my replies are likely to lag.

[Dale Eastman]

1. Flat is a description of level or horizontal. Not a shape.
2. Is that tangent the point of your personal zenith or the point at which the celestial body is at?

Do you see where i have issues with your claim?

I would be about to agree with most of the math if you can qualify and quantify how you get "r".

Unless you assume a flat-plane horizon initially to attain the celestial objects 90⁰ tangent elevation angle, and then go back and account for radius?

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxWaAr6YE-UAYz3iwO4UnHU50W0nkWhz_g

➽1. Flat is a description of level or horizontal.

This is where communication breaks down. Is not flat also a description of of vertical and perpendicular in the case of a wall?

➽ Flat is [...] Not a shape.

Not by itself. So I will agree. The shape happens when there are limits or edges. Like the flat bottom of a bowl, fry pan, or cake pan. Or the inverse of the cake pan at the edge of the flat top surface of the cake, be it a cake out of a square pan or a round pan.

➽ 2. Is that tangent the point of your personal zenith or the point at which the celestial body is at?

Neither. So without ado:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent

A tangent is how you get a perpendicular 90° off a curved surface.

➽ Do you see where i have issues with your claim?

What I see is a lack of your understanding.
You do not know what you do not know.
You are at least asking questions. Even though you are also looking for anything you can find that supports your belief of a flat earth.

I can not claim you are a Dunning - Krugerite, my term for folks with the D-K cognitive bias.
📖 The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. 📖
I can not make the claim because you are interacting and questioning. You are open for new data to upload to your brain.

➽ I would be about to agree with most of the math if you can qualify and quantify how you get "r".

That's not how math works.
"I'm not going to agree with you that 5⁴ = 625 unless you agree that chile sin carne is better than chile con carne.

I admit that you've really put me to the test. The specific test I'm referring to is my ability to figure out your actual questions that you don't know how to ask. This both aggravates the shit out of me and keeps me humble at the same time. <shrug>

The excerpt clip of that British sounding guy...
I only watched 38 seconds of it before I knew he's a bleeding idjit.

Your pen and paper image was good for indicating to me what your question actually is even if you didn't quite ask the question.

I also see it ties into your continuous pushing for info on "r".

You don't seem to realize your question about "r" is a two part question. As in two related but independent questions - challenges. 1. Prove "r" exists. 2. Show how its value is/was determined.

I deliberately left "round" and "r" out of the equation. Pun not intended.

That is why a used a single eyeball on a bifurcating plane of the universe. The reference line for all the angles was line n-c and its perpendicular line ra-b.

I think I understand what you want me to explain, but first, let's finish this old biz:

Are you claiming the universe does not exist on the other side of the plane of a flat earth?
0021

RJJ01

[Dale Eastman]

1. Great
2. Tangent is one point on a curved surface.
But triangulation uses flat base lines and a plane the horizontal horizon flat. The British guy shows you that auto cad won't give you an angle for a curved adjacent. You left "r" out because it's never been demonstrated the black swan (picture of the oil riggs) disprove the proposed claim of "r". I don't claim anything about what's under the earth. Many Christians will claim this or that, but the deepest anyone has been is 8 miles. If you're saying the sun goes under the earth, then you didn't understand the sun goes down to the horizon due to perspective. I took this video on my flat table.

your begging the question for the ball when you ask if the universe is in the underside of where we stand. Down is down no matter where you stand.

just want to add one more thing, I'm not here to prove the claim of a flat earth. I'm here to see if the globe holds water. I state that if i make a claim i would have evidence to support any positive claim i make.

These are the tangents used to triangulate position using celestial navigation all the circles of altitude are based on the flat plane.

Sorry for the gallop. I'm just ready to put the sextant to rest as some kind of evidence of a globe.

➽ I'm just ready to put the sextant to rest as some kind of evidence of a globe.

Here's how that translates in my mind:
I've got to get away from this angles thing before you prove a globe.

[Dale Eastman]

lol how do flat base lines and right angles help the notion of a geometric sphere? The sextant is where the globe goes to die. We can keep beating this dead horse though.

can you get an angle from a curved adjacent?

Remember I told you You have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk, and you have to learn how to walk before you can learn to run.

You keep interrupting me to demand answers.
On more than one occasion I have spent over 8 hours on a single post.

You keep interrupting me to demand answers. Answers you are not ready to understand as evidenced by the unadulterated shit you've been posting.

Do you understand that all the angles depicted in this image are based upon the orientation of line n-c and its perpendicular line ra-b?
0017

[Dale Eastman]

yes i see two straight lines that are perpendicular to each other at that vetex. The lines are adjacent. Go on

Good.
Now if I understand what you are attempting to get at...

I'm going to address: How do those angles appear on a curved surface?

This image is unfinished. It is a step to the depiction for explanation.
0022

[Dale Eastman]

ok

Line a-b is the tangent line at vertex n.

The intersections of the radius lines and the brown arc (partial circle) are the "Degrees of Latitude".

Please note the Gleason's map you refer to as the most accurate depiction of a flat earth is itself denoted with concentric circles labeled as degrees of latitude.

Note to self: He never addressed the 2 dimensional projection of a 3 dimensional object. He indicated he knows drafting.

0023

[Dale Eastman]

ok. I follow, And can i just add, we're not comparing two models(false dichotomy) as we don't live in a model, we are comparing the globe model to reality. But carry on...

Let me (re) assure you, I am cognizant of your issue of, as I just said, "prove a radius" and "prove its length.

➽ we are comparing the globe model to reality.

Nice attempt at your spin. You are hereby called on it.

You must have meant to write:
𝓦𝓮 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓯𝓵𝓪𝓽 𝓶𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓵 𝓽𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓽𝔂.

Now in calling you on that "little" transgression, I wonder are you not aware of your bias as you just presented it, or if are you trying to control the conversation and the narrative?

Without math, it ain't science. Attribute to <shrug> I dunno.

Nothing you have posted has anything to do with math. I even had to supply the math for your "perspective" claim (opinion).
Note to self: Remember to hold his feet to the fire on angular size.

Where was I...

After looking at my next explanatory image...

Transforming flat angles with globe angles.

I have created a half circle with a diameter of the length of line a-b.