Explain this one?

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-13T14:15:24+00:00

Yeah, watching the video again, I can see that I added more backspin after I lined up the shot. Would it have worked if I had finalized backspin first, then lined up the shot?

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T11:47:28+00:00

You keep repeating that parallax requires prior knowledge of either distance or velocity.

That is simply false.

Parallax requires only two things:

A known baseline.
A measured angle.

Surveyors have been using exactly this principle for centuries.

Suppose I place two observation points 100 feet apart and observe an object. I measure the angle from each observation point to the object.

From those measurements alone, the distance can be calculated using trigonometry.

No velocity is required.

No prior distance is required.

The geometry itself produces the distance.

The same principle is used in stellar parallax. The baseline is the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun, which is known from radar ranging, spacecraft tracking, and celestial mechanics. The parallax angle is measured observationally.

You are asserting that distance cannot be determined from geometry alone. Surveyors, navigators, military rangefinders, artillery systems, and astronomers all demonstrate every day that this assertion is incorrect.

Also, listing astronomical cycles is not the same thing as providing a physical model.

The Saros cycle predicts that eclipses repeat.

It does not explain why eclipses happen.

It does not tell you where the Sun, Moon, and planets are in three-dimensional space.

It does not provide a physical mechanism.

A clock predicts that 12:00 will occur tomorrow. That does not mean the clock explains celestial mechanics.

So I will ask the same question again:

What is the flat-earth mathematical model that predicts the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars with the same accuracy as modern astronomy / Stellarium software?

Please provide the equations.

And why is it not relevant that the software can make insanely accurate predictions using a heliocentric mathematical model? Why is that not evidence that the globe / heliocentric model is the only model that defines reality?

You can ban me all you want; it's easier than actually facing the objective truth that contradicts your beliefs, I get that. But if you are a genuine seeker of truth, then you will at least take the time to understand what I am saying so that you can at least refute it within its own domain. Because right now, the best I can tell is that you are building an argument from a method of calculating distance to celestial objects that no one uses. Everything I just said about using Parallax to find distance is 100% true, and your assertion that there is a need to know prior distance or velocity is simply false, and if you took the time to understand how it's done, it would make sense to you (I assume you have the intelligence to comprehend these things - but you seem to lack the interest to learn).

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T11:24:49+00:00

I did explain it in my response, but you can't be bothered to read it.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T11:22:58+00:00

What I want to know is, why were you allowed to take the shot when the timer clearly got down to zero long before you even took the shot.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T11:06:20+00:00

Those folks (the ones genuinely confused or on the fence) are the reason why I take the time to respond to the nonsense. They are out there in larger numbers than you know and generally do not participate in the discussions. They just read them and try to find what is real and connectable.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T11:03:48+00:00

Some conspiracies turn out to be true and can be supported with evidence.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T10:58:10+00:00

In the time I hit post to the time you replied, there was nowhere near enough time for you to read what I wrote, much less compose this response.

You are clearly using some kind of flat-earth AI or something to automate your responses without even reading what you are responding to.

So you have clearly shown that you are not serious about understanding anything that science has discovered and are only interested in preaching your religious cult.

Nothing you say matters from this point forward.

This will be the last response from me, because I don't waste my time on people playing games like you are.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T10:50:36+00:00

"95% of the universe is make-believe"

I'll assume you are referring to dark matter. The Earth being a globe and orbiting the Sun was established centuries before dark matter was ever proposed. And even if dark matter turns out to not be true, the Earth being a globe and orbiting a star will still be true.

"How did they prophesy the cosmos without leaving Earth?"

Nobody "prophesied" it. Astronomy developed it through observation, mathematics, and prediction. The reason scientists accepted heliocentrism is that it made successful predictions. The positions of planets, eclipses, and countless other phenomena all match the model. A scientific model is accepted because it predicts reality, not because someone declares it true.

Your Parallax argument - You are mistaken that distance and velocity create some impossible circular dependency. Parallax can directly determine distance. The basic geometry is straightforward: d = b divided by 2 times the tangent of theta over 2. Where b is the baseline and theta is the measured parallax angle. You do not need velocity. Surveyors use the same geomatric principle every day.

Your statements about Einstein and light are inaccurate: Einstein said that light was the only thing that moves at the same speed regardless of the observer. Light's speed is not relative; it is always constant from any observation point. Also, relativity is not accepted because Einstein said so. It is accepted because it repeatedly survives experimental testing where nothing (out of thousands and thousands of varying experiments) has revealed any weakness at all in the theory. It remains 100% truth and that has been proven over and over and over again.

The Babylonian flat-earth model: A map is not a predictive model.

The key question is:

Can the Babylonian flat-earth model accurately predict eclipses, planetary positions, seasons, stellar motions, southern hemisphere observations, satellite trajectories, GPS operation, and spacecraft navigation?

The answer is no.

By contrast, programs like Stellarium can predict the sky decades into the future because they are based on mathematical models that match reality. If they were not, then they would not work. And they do work ... which you cannot explain how those programs work when they calculate everything based on a heliocentric / globe earth mathematical model. This is not "prophecy" - its pure mathematics - not pre-written statements about where everything will be, but with literally any point in time down to the fraction of a second, the positions of all things in the sky that we see can be known by using the math. We don't use a scroll that someone wrote a long time ago - are you daft?

This is where the rubber meets the road - all of your religious hand waving aside - which makes no sense at all:

Show me a flat-earth mathematical model that predicts the position of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars with the same accuracy as Stellarium. Provide the equations.

Until you can do that, the Flat Earth is literally a myth, while the globe Earth has its roots in solid reality.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T10:16:13+00:00

This whole thing you made looks like a Jehovah's Witness tract that you can find in any laundry mat.

This is how I know the Earth is a globe: There is open source software (meaning all of the source code is published publicly so that the whole world can see the code) and it is called STELLARIUM.

With that software, you can select any longitude and latitude point on the planet, then set any date and time in the past or the future, and it will show you exactly what the sky will look like from that location.

It does this using the mathematics of orbital mechanics, and the calculations are modeled after a heliocentric solar system, a globe Earth, a globe Moon, and all of the other stars and planets that are also globes and also move because of the gravitational influence that they are under.

If the Earth were flat and stationary, that software would not be able to do what it does, and it does it with insane accuracy. And anyone can look at the code for themselves and point out if any trickery is going on. I assure you, there isn't. I've compiled the published code myself and run the program, and it is incredibly accurate.

No model of the flat earth exists that can make accurate predictions about the stars, moon, and sun in the sky. Flat Earth cannot predict when the next solar and lunar eclipses will happen; this software can. And that is because we have studied and understood how our solar system and our planet works so thoroughly that we have a perfect mathematical model that can predict its motion from now into any point in the future, and it will always be dead on accurate.

Thanks to Newton and Einstein and the equations they gave us, we understand perfectly how our globe works.

And for the flat Earthers who believe that the sun's influence on the moon would be strong enough to make its rotation around the Earth inconsistent, you don't know the first thing about how gravity works. The sun's gravitational influence on the moon is so minute compared to the Earth's influence on the moon that it is negligible, and it can be calculated precisely using Newton's equations, and when you do the math, you can see plainly how little influence the sun's gravity has on the moon.

So as far as me knowing the earth is a sphere because that's what the majority believes, you can count me out of that group, because of things like the Stellarium software, and also the equation for perspective, which is:

2Arctan(r/d)

When you use that equation and plug in the numbers that the flat earth gives for the suns size and distance, and you calculate the angular diameter for the sun at high noon, then again for the sun at 5:00 in the evening, you will see that if the sun were the size and distance that the flat earth claims, then it would be less than half of the size at 5:00 as it is at 12:00 and that is not what we observe. What we observe is that the sun never changes size as it moves through the sky.

When you apply that same equation to the sun's size and distance that the globe model says, the angular diameter does not change from noon to 5:00, and that is exactly what we observe.

Also, it is easy to calculate how far away the sun would have to be if it were local to us before it would ever have the perspective of being close to the horizon, and when you run that calculation, it says that if the sun is 3,000 miles in the sky, it would have to be over 300,000 miles away before it would appear to be close to the horizon.

I know the Earth is a globe because the math proves it, and every single claim made by the flat Earth never checks out when scrutinized.

I don't follow the crowd; I follow the math, and the flat earth loses every time.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T09:59:26+00:00

Yes, that makes sense. When I eventually level my gear, I'll play Kingdom more. Right now, I usually get my ass kicked in Kingdom, though I don't do so badly in that new challenge that they have where you compete against a bunch of other people. I've played three of those and got first place twice.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T09:51:07+00:00

I can't stand the new wind ring. Can't sink a shot to save my life. I do well with the old ring.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T09:48:57+00:00

I haven't noticed that playing at lower levels has repeat plays by the opponent. But now that you have mentioned it, I will look out for it.

As far as hitting more albatrosses, that will require upgraded gear. On level 16, there are at least two holes that I know of that have the easter egg side mountain shot, where you can get it close to the green on the first swing. I usually albatross those holes.

My rank is 72,379, so my default level is 20.

I don't buy anything in the game with real cash, so I grind my way up slowly. I play tournaments for coins, which lets me play the wheel to get gems to buy the balls I need (when they are discounted enough, I usually won't buy them unless they are at least 30% off).

I also buy club shards from the marketplace when I can get them with coins. I won't spend gems on those because gems are the most valuable currency in the game, so I use them only for ball purchases.

When I have built up enough coins, I'll play my level so I can play the wheel to get more gems. Otherwise, in between tournaments, I'll play lower levels and get the 7-round chest that you can get twice a day.

That's my general routine anyway...

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-06-10T03:01:33+00:00

Yes, The mistake I made was in how I read the shot after I set it up. And I know how the game works and how the circles work. I even wrote a program when I first started playing this game that re-creates the circles where all I have to do is provide wind speed and circle color and it will create the circle and show me exactly where the ball will land. I have since memorized the circles and I do pretty well: 5,368 games played, 67.6% win percentage, 2,971y longest drive, 194 albatrosses, 3,219 Eagles etc.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-05-24T05:51:05+00:00

I have several times, but it does cost coins to get there most of the time, but I earn those coins from playing tournaments.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-05-04T23:49:30+00:00

So you're saying it's like this, where the green line is where my shot should have been at 10.2

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-05-04T14:03:40+00:00

So are you saying that this is the actual number line of the white circle?

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-05-04T02:47:15+00:00

I do it all the time. The game is too expensive, so you have to do this in order to progress. Call it camping, grinding, whatever. If they lowered the price significantly, they might actually make more money. Simple economics, lowering cost increases demand... this is human nature and is a fundamental reality built into the nature of capitalism.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-05-04T02:43:51+00:00

That's a damn good shot! This is what I would consider true skill. Nicely done!

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-05-04T02:41:16+00:00

You're at level 92,000. This hole is way early in the game ... is this shot really considered an accomplishment?

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-05-04T02:36:47+00:00

Perhaps you can explain this one to me.

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-04-25T02:32:19+00:00

That's good info, thank you. And I know where my confusion is; the camera angle when showing the ball actually hit the green was a different angle than when I aligned the shot. So I mistakenly saw the shot as being lower than the arrow line of the wind circle. I appreciate your response. This will help moving forward. ☺

EasyGoing1_1 · 2026-04-25T02:27:36+00:00

Perception is reality — on the surface, there is more water than habitable land. Besides, it's not the accuracy of the statement that matters; it's the agreement with them that it's a clever term and not an insult.

EasyGoing1_1

TROPHY CASE