[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
Hypotheses lol.
Yes they say here they disprove flatness and prove the "orthodox globe". The flatness is the "unorthodox globe" - the projection of a globe to a flat surface. You would know this if you had read beyond paragraph 1.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hypotheses lol.
Yes they say here they disprove flatness and prove the "orthodox globe". The flatness is the "unorthodox globe" - the projection of a globe to a flat surface. You would know this if you had read beyond paragraph 1.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok - so they find the curvature is not zero, correct? That is all I'm interested in here, I don't care if they call it a hypothesis, a model, an orthodox globe, a topological manifold, or Stacey's mom.
Their "theorem 2.1" is cosine rule to calculate the distance between 2 points defined using polar coordinates with north pole as the origin. There is no justifcation for doing this. Why are they doing this? To debunk the UN flag. This is a flag debunk.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Their "theorem 2.1" is cosine rule to calculate the distance between 2 points defined using polar coordinates with north pole as the origin. There is no justifcation for doing this. Why are they doing this? To debunk the UN flag. This is a flag debunk.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Well if you're working in a coordinate system, you need an origin. I expect any arbitrary point would serve the same purpose just fine and the North pole is not special, just convenient.
Now they are on to claiming their piecewise distance function represents a true dichotomy potential paradigm shift (for the lolz). Recall these guys openly propagandising in the introduction.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Well, we've now found another thing that billy doesn't understand. Here's my list so far:
1. How to get rid of that ****ing stupid Tapatalk signature.
2. How science works.
3. How zoom lenses work.
1 out of 3 is the most success any of your posts have ever had.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Now they are on to claiming their piecewise distance function represents a true dichotomy potential paradigm shift (for the lolz). Recall these guys openly propagandising in the introduction.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The word "dichotomy" doesn't even appear in the paper, that's your invention to make it sound like nonsense.
Anyway, for the 100th time, nobody is asking you to edit their writing. Do they substantiate zero curvature or not?
Well if you're working in a coordinate system, you need an origin. I expect any arbitrary point would serve the same purpose just fine and the North pole is not special, just convenient.
Yes, to normal people who arent propagandising the feck out of science.
The north pole has to be the origin for them to make the comparison. It is not arbitrary. It is where the flat tards and ball tards agree - on (r, theta), on the distance to the north pole and angle to greenwich meridian.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The word "dichotomy" doesn't even appear in the paper, that's your invention to make it sound like nonsense.
Anyway, for the 100th time, nobody is asking you to edit their writing. Do they substantiate zero curvature or not?
Read the damn paper. It IS nonsense.
I am on page 8. You on the other hand have finished it, presumably. So you tell me.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes, to normal people who arent propagandising the feck out of science.
The north pole has to be the origin for them to make the comparison. It is not arbitrary. It is where the flat tards and ball tards agree - on (r, theta), on the distance to the north pole and angle to greenwich meridian.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What do you mean they agree on (r, theta)?
And if they do agree, what's the issue with choosing it as the origin again?
Because I for one did not claim the azimuthal equidistant projection, a globe projection, as a map of the earth. Citing this to me is a strawman. Citing it to Mark Sargent (flat tard) or the UN is fair game.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Because I for one did not claim the azimuthal equidistant projection, a globe projection, as a map of the earth. Citing this to me is a strawman. Citing it to Mark Sargent (flat tard) or the UN is fair game.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What is the r they agree on? Isn't the North pole at the centre of the disk, so r would be 0 there? And isn't theta 0?
Because I for one did not claim the azimuthal equidistant projection, a globe projection, as a map of the earth. Citing this to me is a strawman. Citing it to Mark Sargent (flat tard) or the UN is fair game.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
My understanding of the premise of the paper is that the flight times are incompatible with any model of curvature 0 regardless of projection. Why do we need a projection if it's flat anyway? You just scale it down to map size.
What do you mean they agree on (r, theta)?
And if they do agree, what's the issue with choosing it as the origin again?
"They" are the globe tards, fine. The other "they" are the UN and the flat earth community. Oh but there is no dichotomy here. I am not the UN nor the flat earth community.
They (authors) complain if there is no flat earth map they have nothing to argue with. So they argue with the UN flag, mostly a strawman.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"They" are the globe tards, fine. The other "they" are the UN and the flat earth community. Oh but there is no dichotomy here. I am not the UN nor the flat earth community.
They (authors) complain if there is no flat earth map they have nothing to argue with. So they argue with the UN flag, mostly a strawman.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Wait, so they don't disprove any possible map with curvature zero? I thought that's what they were doing.
What is the r they agree on? Isn't the North pole at the centre of the disk, so r would be 0 there? And isn't theta 0?
Wot? (r, theta) are the polar coordinates wrt north pole. Each side in the great paradigm shifting contest agree on these coordinates. No theta is generally not 0.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
