kalron

Registered bored user

kalron27 wrote:
We allow our pet loved ones this dignity, why not our human loved ones?  Watched my mom technically receive euthanasia...but with a morphine drip until her lungs filled and she passed.  Only legal way in the US.
kalron27 wrote:
squrlz4ever Enjoy the carpel-tunnel from typing out long answers to someone who isn't listening.  Here is the short version to copy and paste:

On a unit sphere, the area of a triangle is given by

A+B+Cπ

A triple right triangle therefore has an area of
π2. Since the entire sphere has a surface area of 4π, the triangle must cover 1\8 of a sphere.

There has not been and will never be a "video" of this flat Earther junk that disproves this because it is physically impossible.

At this point I have concluded we are just feeding cookies to an obvious troll.  He is showing videos as proof yet ignores this video (below) entirely with "well I haven't seen it with my own eyes" or "well travel to the moon has to be as affordable as flying in a plane for me to believe NASA". 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc&app=desktop

Whatever at this point...
kalron27 wrote:
megrendel I have resigned myself to believing at this point that he is indeed trolling me, and I have continued to feed him the cookies.  After the Triple Triangle on a Sphere reply, I am certain of it now.  No one can be that ignorant.

My cookie jar is empty on this subject at this point.
kalron27 wrote:
anarchsoul "Okay, ONE of you keepS saying "you've not seen it with your own eyes so how do you know it's round?"

fixed it for you... ;)
kalron27 wrote:
dapperaardvark This is the real question, but I've asked it before with no determinable answer.
kalron27 wrote:
AgamemnonTheGreat Yeah, you almost had me too, great work :)
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior 

"Also, the source being NASA, and much of their evidence being questioned, it's like the boy who cried wolf telling another story about the wolf."  

If this quote is saying that NASA is some kind of fake organization full of the purpose to make up fake facts about the cosmos and life on and around the Earth...you my friend are delusional and need to seek professional help.  To subscribe to such conspiracy is an example of extreme paranoia and self delusion. 
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior Wait, what?  1) You are back to the "seeing it with your own eyes" 2) "Also, the source being NASA, and much of their evidence being questioned, it's like the boy who cried wolf telling another story about the wolf."  again...What?

So answer my question as well as jaysingrimm

"monkwarrior 
If that's the case, then help everyone understand how you believe in a deity without having actually seen it, in the same way you haven't seen the earth from space.

It's a simple request, without insult."
kalron27 wrote:
I love seeing the moon during the day, this is some very impressive technology to capture such a clean image in daytime.  

Boy does that moon look spherical...
kalron27 wrote:
squrlz4ever $600 isn't that bad at all honestly.  Wonder what the lenses costs though.
kalron27 wrote:
5cats So it's not a myth?
kalron27 wrote:
5cats you missed the joke...
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...troll
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior OK let's ask another question:

Did you go to this site? The one that jaysingrimm linked?  What are your thoughts on that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc&app=desktop
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior you didn't answer my question, only deflected it again...
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior 

On a unit sphere, the area of a triangle is given by

A+B+Cπ

A triple right triangle therefore has an area of π2. Since the entire sphere has a surface area of 4π, the triangle must cover 
1\8 of a sphere.

At no time do Flat Earther field tests ever reach 1\8 of the Earth's sphere.  I am not asserting anything there.  Find me a test that passes 1\8 of the sphere of the Earth and we can discuss it further.

For more information about the science behind this (not my assertions as I did not create, test and prove these equations), please read the following:

Spherical Trigonometry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry

Pythagorean Triple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triple

I'll repeat again, not my assertions, no my positions.  Please argue with the scientist on their proven theories, not me.

kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior you didn't answer my question, only deflected it again...
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior you didn't answer my question, only deflected it.
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior 

" would have attempted to explain the curvature calculations that we are seeing not pan out in field tests. "

Again, they are not doing the field tests properly over the correct distance to show a curvature.  If they did, their theory would break down as they arrive at the apex of the curvature over the proper distance.  This is called Junk Science, when you don't apply an equation correctly and use the incorrect data to prove your point.

" What you have done is simply try to assert your position. "

Again, a big NOPE.  This is not my "position"...this is science through physics.  
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior I'm not ignoring anything, you are not convinced the Earth is a Sphere based on Flat Earther Junk.  You have repeatedly stated that to prove it to you, you would need to see it from space with your own eyes.  Yet you back peddled on that concept "seeing it with your own eyes" when you were asked about the New Zealand example.  That is a paradox, both truths cannot exist together.

Here is another example of your past discussions.  You believe in a god based on a book, yet I highly doubt you have seen this said god.  How can you justify your belief in this being that you have never seen yet you can't apply that logic to something as physical and present as the Earth being a sphere?
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior Oh man, you are making ZERO sense.  I understand your position, you are not convinced the Earth is round based on Flat Earther bullshit.  I presented to you a scientific equation that has been used for centuries to calculate time and distance around the globe. 

" Did your example explain any of that curvature calcuations and what we see satisfactorily, or point to satisfactory research "

Yes, yes it does.  I don't need to point to any "research" because this is a scientifically proved equation that can be repeated over and over again to gain exact results each time.  When you apply said equation to a Flat Earth model it does not work.  If you create an equation on a Flat Earth model to make it work, the equation cannot be justified by any form of physics.  Flat Earthers only do the equation over short distances, which proves nothing as they do not reach an apex of the curvature.  This is done on purpose as if they go further, their theory breaks down completely.

You don't need to go to space to see this, you just need to fly on a an airplane and use time as you answer to the equation to qualify the results.  You can also do it by car or boat or walking, but it takes longer.

I'm not sure why you have to resort to name calling, that is what is juvenile.  Considering I have continually provided you with factual proven scientific information without resorting to name calling is quite telling of your demeanor.  

Good day sir.
kalron27 wrote:
mrteatime 

 " But yet the fact remains, you haven't seen it as a globe with your own eyes, and neither have 8 billion other people. "

-monkwarrior 5/27/2017 

 "So what is your point?  I haven't seen New Zealand either, but i have met people from there.  I have no doubt New Zealand exists"

-monkwarrior 5/27/2017 

So the answer to your question is yes, it is selective...
kalron27 wrote:
rumham AND PLAYING GOLF!
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior So let me get this straight.

The first quote was in response to DrCribbens you were basing your argument on the fact that neither he nor you have been to space, hence could not prove the Earth was round with your own eyes.

The second quote was in rebuttal to DrCribbens who stated that he has never been to, seen or met someone from New Zealand so New Zealand must not exist based on your original argument.  Yet you used the exact opposite point of view to prove him wrong, hence making your original argument null and void.

Now you are resorting to "I know you are but what am I" tactics...

That is the definition of a Troll.

Please see my reply below for some scientific equations that might be a little to much for you to handle...Troll.

P.S.  I have met 3 Astronauts in my lifetime who have definitely been to space and seen the Earth from that view point with their own eyes.
kalron27 wrote:
monkwarrior So let me explain that last image in detail for you.

I took a flight from Philly to LA with a 2 hour layover then proceeded to Seoul Korea.

Using the above calculations of a Triple Right Triangle on a Sphere I was able to accurately determine my arrival time (subtracting for the Earth's ROTATION) within minutes.

I was also able to determine my arrival time back in Philly with the same equation, this time adding for the Earth's ROTATION, to get an accurate arrival time within minutes.

However, when this equation is applied to a Flat Earth scenario or even a Concave Earth, with no ROTATION, the numbers are way off and inaccurate every time.

This is the scientific equation used by navigators for centuries before space travel that also proved the Earth was indeed not flat.

Learn anything?