Repeating your assumption over and over again won’t make it true.
There are other reasons why distant things stop being visible than perspective.
Directly addressing it.
Directly addressing it would be responding with either another procedure/measurement we could actually use to validate/measure the spherical shape of the world or refuting what i have said about the eratosthenes procedure. Ignoring that the eratosthenes procedure was never intended to measure or validate the spherical shape of the world is not directly addressing it :(
Nope
Lol. You might want to go back and read the question you tried to answer with the scientific american link. You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about.
Except it does
Then why didn’t eratosthenes say that? How can a procedure that depends on the world being spherical in order to be meaningful ever validate that shape? Can you explain your reasoning?
You lose
You cannot lose a conversation, but you can lose the plot/point of it :(
Mhmm, sure thing.
Why bother listing the others when you’ve already ignored/missed the 2 i did explicitly mention? As i said, if you want to discuss it - i’m game. However, you’ve made it clear you don’t really want to do that :(
Repeating your assumption over and over again won’t make it true.
Shoot yourself. We’re not three years old. We have, at the very least, rudimentary knowledge of physical relationships. You’re a paid shill. No one is falling for this subhuman bullshit.
There are other reasons why distant things stop being visible than perspective.
Wrong.
Directly addressing it would be responding with either another procedure/measurement we could actually use to validate/measure the spherical shape of the world or refuting what i have said about the eratosthenes procedure.
Cool, did that already.
Ignoring that the eratosthenes procedure was never intended to measure or validate the spherical shape of the world is not directly addressing it
Too bad. You were already shown it’s not flat.
Then why didn’t eratosthenes say that
Because he wasn’t mentally ill or paid to post lies.
How can a procedure that depends on the world being spherical in order to be meaningful
But it doesn’t.
Can you explain your reasoning?
Yes.
You cannot lose a conversation
Thanks for asserting something no one questioned.
Why bother listing the others
You haven’t posted one. Why bother continuing to be alive when no one will believe your lies?
Many who are a part of the flat earth psyop are. However, i am against the flat earth psyop and only advocate for research and discussion.
Wrong
Even someone with only “rudimentary knowledge of physical relationships” couldn’t actually believe that. Your adversarial/reflexively contrarian attitude is hindering you. This not a fight; it’s just a discussion.
But it doesn’t
Of course it does. Look at the equations used!
Thanks for asserting something no one questioned.
You did question that when you asserted that i had “lost” to imply that you had “won” the conversation :(
You haven’t posted one
That’s true, i’ve posted 2. Here, i’ll throw you a bone - one of the assumptions required is that the world is spherical. Can you read through our conversation and find the second assumption i explicitly listed already?
Repeating your assumption over and over again won’t make it true.
There are other reasons why distant things stop being visible than perspective.
Directly addressing it would be responding with either another procedure/measurement we could actually use to validate/measure the spherical shape of the world or refuting what i have said about the eratosthenes procedure. Ignoring that the eratosthenes procedure was never intended to measure or validate the spherical shape of the world is not directly addressing it :(
Lol. You might want to go back and read the question you tried to answer with the scientific american link. You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about.
Then why didn’t eratosthenes say that? How can a procedure that depends on the world being spherical in order to be meaningful ever validate that shape? Can you explain your reasoning?
You cannot lose a conversation, but you can lose the plot/point of it :(
Why bother listing the others when you’ve already ignored/missed the 2 i did explicitly mention? As i said, if you want to discuss it - i’m game. However, you’ve made it clear you don’t really want to do that :(
Shoot yourself. We’re not three years old. We have, at the very least, rudimentary knowledge of physical relationships. You’re a paid shill. No one is falling for this subhuman bullshit.
Wrong.
Cool, did that already.
Too bad. You were already shown it’s not flat.
Because he wasn’t mentally ill or paid to post lies.
But it doesn’t.
Yes.
Thanks for asserting something no one questioned.
You haven’t posted one. Why bother continuing to be alive when no one will believe your lies?
Many who are a part of the flat earth psyop are. However, i am against the flat earth psyop and only advocate for research and discussion.
Even someone with only “rudimentary knowledge of physical relationships” couldn’t actually believe that. Your adversarial/reflexively contrarian attitude is hindering you. This not a fight; it’s just a discussion.
Of course it does. Look at the equations used!
You did question that when you asserted that i had “lost” to imply that you had “won” the conversation :(
That’s true, i’ve posted 2. Here, i’ll throw you a bone - one of the assumptions required is that the world is spherical. Can you read through our conversation and find the second assumption i explicitly listed already?
2+2=4. Discussion over. No discussion need happen anymore. You’re a bad actor.
You were already disproven.
Did. Thanks for admitting Earth isn’t flat.
True, because we arbitrarily define it to be true.
But can a discussion end before it even begins?
I assure you, i am not. You are merely assuming that because you won’t listen or engage in good faith yourself :(
In your imagination, but in reality you said that perspective was the only reason that things are no longer visible...
Then you saw that they unambiguously assume a spherical earth, and that if the earth is not spherical then the calculation is meaningless.