[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
As above: If you're just being pedantic that someone said "measuring the angle to the curve" instead of "measuring the angle to the tangent to the curve", that is accepted shorthand and you are a ****ing idiot for even bringing it up and thereby muddying the waters for whatever your real objection is.If you're not being pedantic, you are a ****ing idiot for not knowing that you
I'm going to ignore the ad hom attacks and childish insults. As the bigger man here.
My objections are clear. The two relevant diagrams posted multiple times. Here, see if you can spot the problems. (Answers given above).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
As above: If you're just being pedantic that someone said "measuring the angle to the curve" instead of "measuring the angle to the tangent to the curve", that is accepted shorthand and you are a ****ing idiot for even bringing it up and thereby muddying the waters for whatever your real objection is.If you're not being pedantic, you are a ****ing idiot for not knowing that you
A tangent is a straight line not a curve. But that is besides the point. That is just for amusement at your insistence on angles between curves.
Here, perhaps if I just post one diagram per post you will be able to see it. See the flat baseline there? That is the flat earth required to measure the height of the mountain.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Serious Q: if the Earth is flat, what keeps the oceans from spilling off the edges
Yep, straight from the playbook.
Globe tards tie themselves up in contradictory knots (curvature both can and can't be seen) and along comes a troll with silly questions to divert attention.
Oh and thanks Gorgo, nice find.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
A tangent is a straight line not a curve. But that is besides the point. That is just for amusement at your insistence on angles between curves.Here, perhaps if I just post one diagram per post you will be able to see it. See the flat baseline there? That is the flat earth required to measure the height of the mountain.Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You lost your d2 goodwill privileges by being an insufferable twat one too many times, so see if you can use your words to make your point. Or see if you can **** off. I don't much care which.
Keep in mind that I haven't been keeping track of whatever this whole thing is, despite the fact that you chose one of my posts to respond to about it, so I have no idea why or how we're measuring the height of mountains. I responded to one of your points about measuring angles to a curve, that was it.
Serious Q: if the Earth is flat, what keeps the oceans from spilling off the edges
Barriers like the Barrier Reef of course.
You lost your d2 goodwill privileges by being an insufferable twat one too many times, so see if you can use your words to make your point. Or see if you can **** off. I don't much care which.Keep in mind that I haven't been keeping track of whatever this whole thing is, despite the fact that you chose one of my posts to respond to about it, so I have no idea why or how we're m
It looks like he is stupidly attacking the Al Biruni method for calculating the size of the earth. That was something I brought up. He no longer has the privilege of interacting with me, so I don't know or care what he's on about with regards to it (I'm only talking to people with functioning brains in here from now on), but, as I'm sure you know, a flat earth is not required to measure the height of a mountain.
There's, of course, also the vanishing point concept, mentioned earlier, which conclusively demonstrates curvature. Even refraction, which only very rarely would show the horizon lower than it really is, cannot explain it. Most of the time, refraction would make the horizon appear higher than it actually is, and it still always appears below the vanishing point (yet to see a counter-example, but if I did, it would just demonstrate which one is more rare, and which one is more common).
It's just yet another super obvious nail in the coffin for his nonsense.
Yep, straight from the playbook.
Globe tards tie themselves up in contradictory knots (curvature both can and can't be seen) and along comes a troll with silly questions to divert attention.
Oh and thanks Gorgo, nice find.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Why is it a silly question?
Of course, I think I know why YOU would think it's a silly question: You don't have a good answer to it.
It looks like he is stupidly attacking the Al Biruni method for calculating the size of the earth. That was something I brought up. He no longer has the privilege of interacting with me, so I don't know or care what he's on about with regards to it, but, as I'm sure you know, a flat earth is not required to measure the height of a mountain.
Hmm. Better call Al. Can call me (Al) instead.
Most likely Al-Busted used a clinometer of sorts to measure two angles of elevation from the FLAT baseline that is the surface of the Earth.
Al measure Earth flat, therefore. He then goes on to measure the radius of this flat plane using a curved (refracted) tangent line of sight to the flat plane he used to ascertain the mountain height. Or, if you prefer, the curved (refracted) tangent line of sight to the presupposed sphere edge "horizon" that is no longer an apparent horizon (what we see) but a hard geometric sphere edge.
If that does not seem to make sense that's because it doesn't. The geometry alone is contradictory and when correction factors are added, i.e. refraction, it is doubly busted.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Why is it a silly question?
Of course, I think I know why YOU would think it's a silly question: You don't have a good answer to it.
"Why don't the oceans spill off the edges?" He asks. What edges? A flat plane has no edges. Therefore the question is silly. As silly as d2's orbiting flat plane with its edges.
Just at the point the clown committee is in disarray over the plain fact that earth curve is not discernible, trolly mcClown swoops in as white knight.
Well if he thinks billy is going to allow that level of tomfoolery he is very much mistaken.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hmm. Better call Al. Can call me (Al) instead.Most likely Al-Busted used a clinometer of sorts to measure two angles of elevation from the FLAT baseline that is the surface of the Earth.Al measured Earth flat, therefore. He then goes on to measure the radius of this flat plane using a curved (refracted) tangent line of sight to the flat plane he used to ascertain the mountain h
I honestly can't understand wtf any of this is saying. It's word salad.
"Why don't the oceans spill off the edges?" He asks. What edges? A flat plane has no edges. Therefore the question is silly. As silly as d2's orbiting flat plane with its edges.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So the Earth flat and infinite?
Is that such an impossible concept? Or are there no infinities in nature?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Well it just raises some additional questions, like why we haven't found anything new on its surface in the last few hundred years. We seem to have mapped the whole thing out, and no matter how hard we try, we can't seem to go any further. In fact, we seem to keep coming back to where we started, almost like going round in circles or something.
I'm sure you have a theory about this, I'd like to hear it.
If you mean the model where Adam and Eve had a big bang, you'd need to talk to geezerchess about that.
The oceans don't spill off the edges because there are no edges. Bet you didn't see that one coming, suckers!
Well it just raises some additional questions, like why we haven't found anything new on its surface in the last few hundred years. We seem to have mapped the whole thing out, and no matter how hard we try, we can't seem to go any further. In fact, we seem to keep coming back to where we started, almost like going round in circles or something.I'm sure you have a theory about t
It's a giant mobius strip.
I mean, I already suggested an mmmm torus, but Billy did not take too kindly to such tomfoolery.
There are no infinities involving single solid massive objects. All those are finite by nature.
I particularly enjoy how Billy explains to us about infinite flat Earth and nearby electric sun and hoax space missions and directed energy weapons as though these things are all self evident, and we are the donkeys for not having figured all this out for ourselves.
