Flatzoid's Graph Lie
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- It seems like we see this graph every other Flatzoid debate so I thought I'd say a bit more about the lie. And will Flatzoid reveal his special perspective-based, compression formula or will it just turn out to be equal line segments spaced every 10°?
Polaris is about 89° to 90° above the North Pole and it's one of many stars used for navigation on the globe and only the globe. There's a reason nobody has ever shown how celestial navigation works on a flat earth. It doesn't work. Will Flatzoid keep his promise and demonstrate it? That'll be a first!
GeoGebra Script Showing Trig
www.geogebra.org/m/maxzwk8r
Flatzoid's Video
czcams.com/users/livex7BW0oQi...
WheresWally Video
• Flatzoid's Fantastic F...
My Flatzoid Playlist
• Video
The Star Trails bit at the end
• Beyond The Bulge
Flatzoid's video response to this
• Why do Globies Lie?
0:00 Flatzoid's Intro
1:00 Expanding Bubble
1:33 Compression Values
3:57 2D Polaris Globe
4:31 3D Polaris Globe
5:09 Trigonometry
5:34 5400NM / 90°
5:52 Star Trails
#flatzoid #top #left #geogebra #globe #curvature #debunk #earth #flat #dunning #kruger
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZDiGooFs54/mqdefault.jpg)
The irony of Flatzoid calling someone else dishonest is off the chart.
It is the denialist's axiom and fundamental hostility.
Off by at least 11 frames ...
We've been trying to get him to understand his error for months. He's so arrogant the thought of being wrong doesn't even register as possible to him.
He is dancing at the Poedown.
Well, he admitted that he wasn't good at maths on my Livestream with him.
It's not an "error".He's doing it deliberately. He's lying, we know he's lying, and he knows we know he's lying.
He knows he can't draw it properly, as it would debunk him.
At the same time he shadow-banned me for having called him out for the math and physics equivalent to an illiterate / analphabet he is ... he even banned my company gmail account (same name, different profile picture) even though I don't remember having it used to comment on his channel prior to this)
@@Forest_Fifer I can't believe people still think he's just mistaken about this. He's a pathological liar and he absolutely knows the earth is not flat.
When Flatzoid says "No, you don't understand." He is really saying "No I have no clue."
What he's failed to notice is all those observers should all be looking at the same point, at the same time.
100% this. I told him this in the linked end screen video and you should have seen his face. His comeback was "Distance... Altitude Angle". That's the response of a conman right there. czcams.com/video/9gP8w7NQdpU/video.html
Exactly. He's physically dropping the altitude of the star every time he moves away from it. This means that an observer close to the GP will see the star at a totally different altitude to an observer far away from it. Failzoid thinks that fixed objects can be in several places at the same time.
".......Mobile personal bubbles that intersect with north stars of various heights."
Perfect.
5:36 Flatzoid's going to twist this statement and say "you just proved yourself the globe is wrong".
After taking out 11 frames that is.
Maybe someone should do a SpongeBob style "Eleven missing frames later" intermission clip? (I'm unfortunately totally untalented in that area)
That's a comedy gold meme right there! lol.
Like MCToon always says, "You gotta lie to Flerf". Excellent excoriation of Flatzoid's nonsense.
Gotta lie to flerf.
Great job Petey!
Every time I see Flatz proudly present his Polaris nonsense I cannot believe that none of his cronies ever questioned the stupidity of it.
Lots of a other people pointed that out to him, including me, but I have been banned there since last week so I cannot help anymore.
hehe 😊, thanks Jos. And he does present it proudly doesn't he. Sometimes he does that casual smirk expression like he's got one over someone he's debating. But you're right about his cronies. Maybe they're too scared to speak out, in a emporors new clothes kind of way. Maybe they'd feel daft if they say something and look silly. I dunno. 🤷♂ Of course you've been banned. Truth is not allowed on his channel 🤣
Well part of it is because he's collected a group of "yes men" who hang on his every word and fellate him constantly. Like that barely understandable guy who on his voice chat for every single live stream.
Flatzoid banned you? I'm shocked!
@@marcg1686 Oh, Flatzoid's probably banned _all_ of us at one time or other... Or one of his witchfinders has done it on his behalf.
Wow, I'm declaring myself to be a flat earth prophet and here's why.
I'm a casual user of geogebra but haven't gotten past beginner yet. I was planning my very first video on debunking Flatz' ortho chart using geogebra. Then late one night I had a vision, a vision that warned me to wait a few weeks because one mightier with geogebra than myself was debunking the same chart! I did wait and lo and behold, my vision has come true! Glad I waited!
Awww, you should definitely still do it. I've subbed now so you have to 😆 The more the merrier, I say!
I agree with Petey. You should go ahead and do your debunk of Flatzy's stupidity. I just subbed to your channel. I'll be looking forward to your video.
The geometry works perfectly on the flat Earth, the apparent difference is due to perspective or optical drop or Rayleigh criterion or limited angles, depending upon what day it is.
😆It's sphere inversion compression distortion completion!
It does not explain why you suddenly lose sight of Polaris as you travel further south of the equator but the southern cross starts to come into view. I'd love to see what nonsense he would have to spout for those two facts to work on his chart.
It's just perspective causing physical drop. Flatzoid even agreed with this.
It’s just the same old lie, that an orthographic diagram doesn’t show perspective so he says that he has to fix it so it does. The truth is that it does it just isn’t spelled out and you have to calculate it from the graph.
They are so desperate to be right they don’t care if they are lying and if caught they just go back to one of their canned responses.
They are too dumb to realize that the purpose of an orthographic/elevation diagram is to show physical dimensions correctly and perspective is VISUAL. If you "add perspective" to an orthographic it's no longer physically accurate.
The entire purpose of orthographic drawings is to exclude perspective, and it's why isometric drawings are used to show three dimensions, not perspective when talking about the physical world.
@@sendintheclowns7305 But perspective is still there as that is based on the ratios between the physical dimensions. It’s just not spelled out in an obvious way. It’s just like saying that it doesn’t show angular size either.
@@Isolder74 The *information* to render a prospective drawing is there because all physical measurements are portrayed accurately, but "it's there" or "it's included" can be confusing to the 3d impaired. They'll expect to see it and orthographic drawings have nothing to do with sight, only measurements.
They think orthographic drawings are what it *looks* like from the side when it is not. That's just a side "view." Orthographic is what it measures.
You can't produce an orthographic view with a lens or camera unless they are the size of object itself.
Flerfs think that since a picture taken 90 degrees to a fence shows both left and right heights decreasing that orthographic drawings that do not "don't include perspective."
There’s no magic to perspective. It’s not something you have to insert into an orthographic view no more than you have to insert perspective in a physical diorama or scaled down scene. Perspective emerges out of simple physical properties: light moves in straight lines.
An orthographic diagram doesn't render perspective. Perspective is when positions in an image are directions, while positions in orthographic view are positions. The directions inside the scene remain the same, but are more easily visualised from the side on orthographic view; you can draw them as straight lines, as opposed to rays going from the viewpoint (which is off in space somewhere, not part of the image) through the image and to some unknown distance.
Viewing perspective renderings from the correct viewpoint is so unusual we have an artist's term for it: forced perspective. It's also a core ingredient of VR.
czcams.com/video/-P28LKWTzrI/video.html is intended to show the difference between parallel and serial drawing, but in making the parallel mechanism use parallel tubes, it's actually drawing orthographically. In contrast, the robot arm draws from perspective by aiming instead of moving around.
Neither of them knows how far away the canvas is, but the size of the painting is proportional to the distance for the aiming robot, and fixed for the parallel tube grid.
You are the Geogebra KING!
Keep up the good work, pointing out Flatzoid's Failures.
Flatzoid is an anagram for "Lazi Fold"...
"Flatzoid" in the video title should have been sufficient hit for facepalm protection gear being needed, but it still took me by surprise.
Failzoid is doing what he always does, lying through his teeth, and he knows it. He's a confidence trickster.
How crazy can a human be to come up with such complete nonsense? Even in Failzoids graph Polaris has different heights above the plane - unless you invent such crazy "personal domes", but even then I can't see how this could possible work. The globe model is so simple and straightforward in comparison …
Anyone that has done technical drawing knows that the point of and ortographic view is to simplify things by dispensing with perspective.
Outstanding demolition of Flatzoid’s dishonesty. Thank you!
Ouch! That’s one big spanking failzoid just got.
Do it again!!
hehe, I'll do my best!
All those points of intersection for those lines of sight are by definition the predicted location of the celestial body based on those lines of sight.
so that chart proves they have ZERO ability to determine the height.
I hate trying to stuff my “personal bubble” into the overhead compartment on airplanes 🙄
omg, 🤣
I was overcharged with an extra luggage fee trying to bring _my_ personal bubble as a carry-on.
I do not know for certaIn if Flatzoid actually put any sphere math into this - at least intentionally. It could be that what he has done is take actual observations and shoe-horned them into a flat model where he has to have this "perspective" distortion (I would love to see the math on that sometime!) to make it actually work.
The reality is that he has put sphere math into this, because the observational data he is working off is from a spherical Earth, so when you take an observation from a spherical Earth you automatically have sphere based math shoved into any model you build from it.
In reality perspective is linear. object size D at range R has the same angle of view as object size D x A at range R x A. But that does not work for stellar observations on a flat Earth, so you have to have non-linear Flerpective. Now whether Flatzoid invokes Flerpective because he is:
A) so tied to the flat Earth model that he will jump though mathematical hoops to maintain it**
Or
B) If it because he has to sell his followers on some gibberish handwave so that they keep sending him money. . . .
I can only speculate which one it could B(e)
But it is mathematical gibberish, has no basis in reality and is just there to compensate for the fact that the Earth is a sphere.
** This is not dissimilar from what Einstein did with his cosmological constant. It was shoved into the relativity equations so that they would work with a steady state universe. Einstein wanted his equation to conform to his assumption of a steady-state universe rather than follow his math and challenge that assumption.
There are two key differences here. First Einstein was a genius.
Second when evidence came up for the Big Bang - which changed the model such that the cosmological constant was not needed and the math fitted as it should do, Einstein accepted this as reality, calling the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder".
If your model disagrees with reality - then your model is wrong because you can't change reality to fit your model.
So what I am taking from all this is that if you totally ignore reality, totally misunderstand how to draw simple graphs and totally make up BS as you go along then a "flat earth" is entirely possible.
I'm not sure I get you. What are you saying?
@@Petey194 Hi Petey, thanks for your comment. You asked "What are you saying?". I thought that I was pretty clear! If one ignores all the evidence that shows the Earth to be a sphere and makes up nonsense then it is quite possible to believe that the Earth is flat. Well done on the excellent work in your video, I have just subscribed. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth I thought that was what you were saying 😉 Just wanted to be sure. 😆
@@Petey194 Thank you. I look forward to seeing your channel grow rapidly over the next few months. take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth No, thank you for your kind words! ☺
so Brian AND Flatzoid BOTH AGREE "it looks like a globe".... FFS
Brilliant stuff! It's like watching one of those "Inside the mind of a psychopath" documentaries, isn't it? LOL
interesting... could it be? is it possible that Flatzoid is smarter than he pretends to be? Is he clever enough to set up the math you just went over? If that's how he made his diagram (and I can't think of any other way he could have done it), that's a clear indicator to me that Flatzoid is actually a Poe.
Really? Is Flatzoid just doing an act?
I guess FZ gets his inspiration from the Alt/Az depictions where they show a single observer centred on the plane of the celestial horizon. From those, he's latched onto the altitude angles to make his arguments and it's a safe bet he played with those in his paint software until they produced a pretty pattern. All he had to do then was formulate a narrative which he could sell to his viewers. He's an expert in that. If his members lap it up then its winner winner chicken dinner.
🤑🤑🤑
We know Flatzoid is a dishonest liar.
gotta lie to flerf, he's a grifter trying to get money from his subs
Great job. He just can't help lying, can he?
Brilliant video.
lets see how Flatzoidiot is going to respond
By lying, like he always does.
"Orthographic doesn't take perspective into view"
Sooo much wrong it's not even funny.
Subscribed, you deserve to be seen more.
Thanks so much and very kind of you to say. 😊
Wasn´t Flatzoid the Flerf who cropped video-frames out of a rocket-landing video of Red´s Rhethoric in order to hide that the video shows spherical drop?
haha, yes, that was him. Mr 11 frames.
Flatzy's nutty perspective bubble brain ortho-gram is as nutty as they come. It's as if a spider took one too many hits on a blunt and said " aaw fookit" and quit a quarter of the way from finishing his web.
Well done.
Concise and implacable.
You miss the point, Petey schmetey, this is not the effect of round eeerht, but simply...
New Improved Flat Earth Map 4968.0!
Now it's clear that we live not on disk's plane, but on it's edge, the graph shows it clearly and you can't disprove it, ever.
Yet another victory on the path for truth.
🤣🤣 I needed that!
Well done Petey
Great job.
lol, I'd love to see F11atzoid get confronted with this in a live stream sometime. He clearly knows he has to lie to keep getting those two dollar superchats.
But we already know the response, don't we. It's... You don't understand... [word salad] followed by more [word salad] and [thank you for validating flat earth]. His pal Michael Kahn will lap anything up FZ spews. They're both happy at the peak of Mt. Stupid.
@@Petey194 And if you accidentally use the word "flat" or "plane" during your explanation, he'll leap on that to "prove you've proved the Earth is flat".
@@Petey194 It's not stupidity in Failzoid's case, it's just dishonesty.
@@andysmith1996 100% liar yes but he's top left as they come. He might actually win it this year. mctoon.net/top-left/
@@Petey194 I always thought it was a mistake for people like Nathan Thompson to be nominated for DFOTY and I have the same objection to Failzoid being nominated for Top Left. It just reinforces the mistaken belief that people have that these douches are stupid, when they're actually just grifters and attention seekers. Yes, they say stupendously stupid things, but that's what you have to say if you're going to argue the earth is flat, and crucially they know that they're stupid statements.
Unless you mean to say 'Flatzoid is graph lie' I think your title should be 'Flatzoids graph lie' or did I miss out on an exception regarding names?
The graph lie belonging to Flatzoid. Possessive. The apostrophe isn't there to highlight a missing letter. Petey's channel. CZcams's website. Flatzoid's graph lie.
@@Petey194 okay then I learned something I should've known already.
@@curious1585 I'd say half the time I get its and it's mixed up if it makes you feel any better. I've always struggled with English to be fair. The grate thing abuot Egnlsih is it can be udnrestood eevn wehn it's mxied up.
@Petey194 nice work but could you provide subtitles for people living south of Watford Gap? 👍
haha. I did!
I have been saying for a long time that Flatzoid is simply dishonest and you added more weight to that. Cheers.
@@nexpro6985 NP. Totally agree. He spaces some lines out at 10° intervals, wrongly labels the x-axis and tries to pass it off as a compression formula for perspective viewing in orthographic which is total bs of course. Dishonesty of the highest order.
You say that the x axis is distorted, but you missed that the y axis is also distorted.
I gave him the benefit. He labelled the angles of the lines and didn't give distances. He conveniently left those out! 😆
Ireland, 1
South Africa, -1
Ireland? 🤣
@@Petey194 Sorry, aren't you Oirish?
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 haha, I'm from Liverpool, England. Don't worry, I've been all over so my accent is pretty messed up. When I lived near London, that's all I got, "where abouts in Ireland are you from". But then again, most scousers are Irish descent and vice versa. 😋 I'm in Scotland now.
@@Petey194 lol Oh man, I was WAAAY off... and Liverpool is one of the ones I should know -- cuz, y'know ...well, enjoy the Glenlivet anyway
@@Petey194 I'm a big fan of dialect and accent stuff. It's fun to learn about how people speak differently in their own language. I'm a little disappointed that I just recently learned the word "Scouser". I feel like I should have known about that a long time ago.
He's busted. Oops.
lol, I actually downloaded the Nigel Cheese Hands oops for this video and forgotten to include it. Maybe the next one, haha.
I did the same diagram and I didn’t compress anything works perfectly fine ?
Also you can’t reference Polaris and your latitude with your globe paradigm, as you don’t have a geometric horizon to reference, so when at sea 🌊 your latitude ( and it’s original measurement ) would be impossible.
The only reason that orthographically this works with the globe, is because the globe is mathematical back engineering of flat plane elevation angles to Polaris, these can only work on a flat plane, and this is doubly proven when referring to Polaris, as you must be able to reference the tangible earth when measuring your latitude, and on a flat plane the water at the horizon is really there, even if the horizon itself is only optical, as there is no refracted horizons ?
Hey Brian! 👋Flatzoid says that the bubble intersects the y-axis for each distance at the correct angle. Did your bubble do that with non-compressed distances? That was flatzoid's whole argument. I saved you the time, it doesn't unless you expand it. see 1:00. Plus I have other Flatzoid debunks that show that when you introduce another observer Polaris has to be in different places. I've done my best to make it work for flat and it just doesn't but everything else I've tried since learning FE was a thing confirms the globe model is the best fit for observations and reality. The only way you'll convince me is with geometry and/or trigonometry. On a side note, one of the first FE debate videos I seen was you and Ranty discussing Blackpool. I suppose you could say it was you that got me interested in this although I'd attribute Roohif as the one who got me interested in the geometry of reality though. Talking of geometry fitting reality, I have an unlisted video of the upcoming eclipse. It's in a playlist on my channel. You should check it out. I've traced out the path of totality just with a few variables which are the Sun distance, Moon distance, Earth radius and the GP's of the Moon and Sun 2hrs apart. Maybe you can reverse engineer it for flat?
@@Petey194 Hey 👋 Petey, I have equal distances 600 Nm between and correct angles, I showed it in a video a few months back if I remember correctly.
This was shown in the past also by Gleem and others, and I did it myself personally years back.
The problem you have is that your trying to place perspective measurements into orthographic view, but your still expecting perspective to play out when that would be impossible.
Your globe is a back engineering of the celestial dome model, and the celestial dome model is an orthographic representation of flat plane elevation angle 📐 measurements to Polaris and then other celestials, this is where it all comes from.
The celestial dome model is only showing an arc, as that is the easiest way to translate perspective to orthographic mathematically, the geometry 📐 comes from the measurement, and the measurement can only happen on a flat plane.
Happy to hear that and I have personally commended you on your Geogebra abilities ( they’re much better than mine ha ) and what I wpuld say about Roohif is that he is a smart fella, but his processes are often dubious and not correct, when it comes to surveying and geometry, in my opinion he is one of the smartest on your side ( not that I agree with him ) just saying.
@@Mr22brian22 Most can draw a graph with equal distances 600Nm apart with the correct angles. This isn't hard to do. The point of Flatzoid's graph is that he gets the bubble to intersect the y-axis for each observer distance at the correct angle. This is something you can't do with the correct uncompressed distances without having to change the radius of the bubble. I don't think we're going to agree!
There is zero proof the Globe is back engineered from flat when you don't have a flat model to begin with that everyone agrees with. There is the AE map of course but that comes with it's own problems. I actually made an AE map in geogebra by translating from sphere coordinates. There's a link to it in this community post czcams.com/users/postUgkxCHeKehCRBcIKMrPouyCFbEFa7FQrTK6n
The nice thing about Geogebra is that I don't have to be good at maths to use it. I left secondary school a few days after my 15th birthday and that's my level. I wish I paid more attention to be honest. I did try A level at night school but I left when the teacher lost their temper with me. 😆 Geogebra lets us construct things and it connects the lines, measures the angles and does the maths. It's hard to argue with really.
I started a tutorial playlist. If there's anything specific you want me to demo, just leave a comment somewhere and I'll see what I can do.
@@Petey194 No Petey your missing it, there is no compressed distances, that statement alone makes no sense on its face ?
Whatever Flatzoid did I don’t see the point of, all I would say is that he may not understand the process like I do, as I know the model that the globe is taken from, and that’s the celestial dome model.
The latitude and longitude grid is what got back engineered, I did a whole 40 minute video on it in the past, the elevation angles can’t only happen on a flat plane, as they require the earth to be referenced to work, they can’t reference some ad-hoc refracted horizon and get correct latitude, which is why your globes version fails as you must add in the refracted horizon caveat, but that doesn’t work with Polaris, as you even prove in your video when you place parallel light lines meeting your globe, this can only work mathematically with a geometric horizon.
I have also detailed in the past where the 60 Nm per degree comes from, and how it’s a horizontal distance, it’s Flat as it has to be to make this work….
@@Petey194 And I might check out your tutorial play list as I would like to use 3D in Geogebra without getting angry at it not doing what I want lol
We don’t see in orthographic view, that’s the point.
In first person POV as you back away the star appears to drop, that’s the point.
*Can you name ONE tall object which does appear to drop as you back away?*
The Earth Curve calculator counts this apparent drop due to optics as the floor curving and omits optics by putting the view as orthographic.
This is a very old 2015 trick.
Cheers 🍻
Orthographic view or 1st person view; the angles to objects (angular size) are exactly the same. Stop pedaling blatant and obvious LIES.
@@ReValveiT_01 That’s wrong…
With every tall object you have ever experienced on Earth as you back away the tall object appears to drop over a flat surface.
In your orthographic strawman as you back away the object remains at the same height, then ballers have the nerve to ask why the sight-lines do not line up?
The answer is because you are not representing the observation through eyeballs they are viewed in first person POV…2015 orthographic trick.
You can stand underneath an archway and as you back away your sight-line is still pointed at the same archway as the archway appears to drop.
Then I can be dishonest and represent the same archway sight-lines in orthographic view then ask, “why don’t the sight lines match up when you back away from the archway!?”
The ground must be curved in your hallway because the sight-lines do not match up for the archway in orthographic view.
It took about 2 weeks to unravel this trick back in 2015…and you still use it today 😂
@@LBBstore If I stand on a mountain top and measure the angle to another mountain top with a theodolite (at say, 5º), now what happens if I fly a drone out to view both mountains in a sideward orthographic view; what is the angle between me and the top of the mountain from the drone’s POV? According to you, it should be a different angle, so, what is that angle?
If you can’t tell me what the new angle is and why it’s changed, you will debunk yourself.
@@LBBstore Oh, and the earth curve calculator calculates HIDDEN height, not angular height. So already you're strawmanning the earth curve calculators intended use.
@@LBBstore What's up bud? Couldn't tell me what your asserted different angle would be so you chose to bolt instead?
Hahahahaha.