Debunk it all you want wont stop me from rearranging my boxers

pour a glass of water into your shorts and tell me how much sticks to your balls ok

go commando

Our fully functional model has gravity sticking water on a ball. Why can't you produce a formula for "perspective and convergence?

So the entire earth is your model? Call Webster and tell them you wanna change the definition of model to suit your bias ok?

And a formula for perspective and converge - pythagoras already did that with 8in/mile² because engineers/pilots/captains prove there is no measurable curve.

Except they do , you just plug your ears and spew adHoms when examples are given.
I’ll point out correction lines again.

see the problem with that is a size of a model is completely different than the REAL size of enormity of the solar system....

isn't that the same Bullshit arguement you always make about perspective.... you always say, oh we can't draw models on 2D paper because Optical perspective and convergence is real, and different....

Of course reality is my model.

8in/mile is my model, not yours. There are zero engineers/pilots/captains that prove there is no measurable curve.

so your prove Earth is a ball is because you saw a road sign that claimed it was, so sciency , let me see if i can do the same

Earth is flat because of the Flat Earth map, derp



You cant claim this is the way my heart desires earth to work so therefore it is, you need a WORKING model.

8 inch/mile is your model - of course - cause it makes a pyramid Thank for proving you have no understanding of math.

the formula is actually squared - but two years ago no one even knew it, not even the great Actor Priest NDT because it was never taught to you - because it shows how the earth cant not a ball - just your continued

misunderstanding of how perspective works. thanks for admitting you have no working model and believe in pseudoscience. Every engineer/pilot/Captain proves there is no measurable curve.

Show me a structure than accounts for curvature.

This one i guess haha



Remember during the war when there were squadrons of planes that flew in formation well before any computers could just fly on autopilot?

Show me some evidence of how they synchronized their flights to account for curvature - was there a command to steer down given to account for curvature?

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 14 2018 07:42pm

Typing a squared symbol from my phone isn't worth the effort. If you couldn't get what I was saying, you have no comprehension skills.

I know how perspective works. It is you who doesn't, when you attempt to frame it in some unfalsifiable manner to stay above reproach. That's why I intend on pinning you to an actual mathematical explanation of "perspective and convergence," because I know for a fact you don't have one.

Zero engineers/pilots/captains prove no curvature. On the other hand, just the other day I posted a screenshot of an instruction manual for a Norden bombsight showing how engineers were teaching aircrews to adjust the autopilot so that they could make proper corrections for bombing runs. This of course was in 1945, before NASA ever existed. I've spoken personally with an airline pilot about your nincompoopery about gyroscopes, and I have personally steered a ship by gyroscope.