Antarctica
« on: January 13, 2016, 12:40:23 PM »
I have found a major stumbling block for flat earth. Although the Antarctic treaty is very suspicious and the land mass remains unmapped, only computer generated images exist there is a problem. There are flights from Johannesburg to Sydney direct which go over the Antarctic rim, there are hundreds of thousands of photos from commercial planes showing what looks like Antarctica, the flight time is also reduced. Obviously this isn't possible on a flat earth model, you would need to make a huge detour to go anywhere near Antarctica. Has anyone got any thoughts on this?

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2016, 01:42:33 PM »
Show me a flat earth map,  and then the discussion can begin.

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2016, 05:46:50 PM »
Google it

MrAtlas

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2016, 06:19:00 PM »

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2016, 12:18:32 AM »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flat+earth+map

None of those are flat earth maps,  they are  projections of the globe map.

Look up "azimuthal equidistant projection"     As far as I'm aware there is no accepted flat earth map.    ( For obvious reasons )




Re: Antarctica
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2016, 02:55:01 PM »
I don't see how flying along the rim of Antarctica negates the flat-earth theory. Such a trip would be possible, regardless of the earth's shape. On a flat map, one merely skirts the edge, which may be thousands of miles thick.

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2016, 01:37:05 AM »
I don't see how flying along the rim of Antarctica negates the flat-earth theory. Such a trip would be possible, regardless of the earth's shape. On a flat map, one merely skirts the edge, which may be thousands of miles thick.

The problem for FE theory is more to do with distance travelled.   Especially those who got fooled by the "azimuthal equidistant projection"  or Gleason map.

Of course some versions of the FE model have Antarctica as a continent,  the bipolar model for example.

It's an insoluble problem for the flat earth theorists,  although they will never admit it, and go to quite ridiculous lengths to circumvent it.



Re: Antarctica
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2016, 02:32:47 AM »
Obviously this isn't possible on a flat earth model, you would need to make a huge detour to go anywhere near Antarctica. Has anyone got any thoughts on this?
They are fake or nebulous half-truths at best. 

There is no need to over-think this.  They faked and continue to fake space travel.  Why is faking Antarctica so hard to fathom?? 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2016, 04:39:14 AM »
Obviously this isn't possible on a flat earth model, you would need to make a huge detour to go anywhere near Antarctica. Has anyone got any thoughts on this?
They are fake or nebulous half-truths at best. 

There is no need to over-think this.  They faked and continue to fake space travel.  Why is faking Antarctica so hard to fathom??

Nope,  the simpler solution is to come up with a proper flat earth map, that somewhat resembles reality.  If the earth is flat, it should be much easier than a globe map.




*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2016, 07:51:08 PM »
We should also remember that there are several maps that include two poles, and that distance is not the only determining factor for how long it takes to complete a journey. It could be that the accelerator for the Earth speeds up motion at the rim, or that rotational forces move faster the further out you are. Jet streams are common knowledge.

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2016, 08:19:58 PM »
Nope,  the simpler solution is to come up with a proper flat earth map, that somewhat resembles reality.  If the earth is flat, it should be much easier than a globe map.
Done and done. 

Next? 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2016, 11:53:46 PM »
We should also remember that there are several maps that include two poles, and that distance is not the only determining factor for how long it takes to complete a journey. It could be that the accelerator for the Earth speeds up motion at the rim, or that rotational forces move faster the further out you are. Jet streams are common knowledge.

I don't think distances work properly on the bipolar map either,  and I couldn't see the sun and moon paths working on a bipolar map,   maybe someone has worked it out.     

EA is probably best left to another thread.


*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2016, 04:47:00 PM »
We should also remember that there are several maps that include two poles, and that distance is not the only determining factor for how long it takes to complete a journey. It could be that the accelerator for the Earth speeds up motion at the rim, or that rotational forces move faster the further out you are. Jet streams are common knowledge.

I don't think distances work properly on the bipolar map either,  and I couldn't see the sun and moon paths working on a bipolar map,   maybe someone has worked it out.     

EA is probably best left to another thread.

I haven't seen anyone who's genuinely tried to analyze which maps are possible, there's typically just a cursory glance at the azimuthal projection that is not claimed to be accurate, with no thought given to subtle rearrangements of the continents. The bipolar possibilities rarely get a look-in, and when they do it's rarely in any detail.
The claim that distances do not work is likely impossible to prove. To try and do so would require proving a number of far trickier propositions.
The one thing I will say is to lose preconceptions. A bipolar map may prove more successful if the cliche of a circular path for the Sun is lost: a figure-8 path would explain midnight suns, and if the Sun's orientation alters it would remain facing the continents.

Regardless, as flight times depend on more than just distance, nothing has been proven.

Wezzoid

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2016, 08:37:41 PM »

There is no need to over-think this.  They faked and continue to fake space travel.  Why is faking Antarctica so hard to fathom??

but.. but if Antarctica doesn't exist, what happens to all the cute penguins that live there?  :'(

*

Offline Rayzor

  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2016, 01:30:21 AM »
Linked from other thread. 



Maybe it's time to get serious about trying to fix the map.


*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2016, 11:35:37 AM »
I have found a major stumbling block for flat earth. Although the Antarctic treaty is very suspicious and the land mass remains unmapped, only computer generated images exist there is a problem. There are flights from Johannesburg to Sydney direct which go over the Antarctic rim, there are hundreds of thousands of photos from commercial planes showing what looks like Antarctica, the flight time is also reduced. Obviously this isn't possible on a flat earth model, you would need to make a huge detour to go anywhere near Antarctica. Has anyone got any thoughts on this?
It's not impossible on the Dual Earth model. The uniplanar FE model has been debunked countless times.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2016, 07:01:36 PM »
We should also remember that there are several maps that include two poles, and that distance is not the only determining factor for how long it takes to complete a journey. It could be that the accelerator for the Earth speeds up motion at the rim, or that rotational forces move faster the further out you are. Jet streams are common knowledge.

I'm new here, can someone tell me what the "accelerator for the Earth" means?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2016, 07:56:51 PM »
We should also remember that there are several maps that include two poles, and that distance is not the only determining factor for how long it takes to complete a journey. It could be that the accelerator for the Earth speeds up motion at the rim, or that rotational forces move faster the further out you are. Jet streams are common knowledge.

I'm new here, can someone tell me what the "accelerator for the Earth" means?
Are you familiar with the model of universal acceleration? The accelerator is simply the cause.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2016, 03:00:24 AM »
OK, got it.  Pursuing the hypothetical you suggest, that UA might be able to speed up motion at the rim: would this mean that apparent gravity would feel stronger there?  Or that UA in the Z axis (up-down) has an effect on motion in the X and Y axes (north-south and east/counterclockwise - west/clockwise) that it does not have at more northerly locations on the disc?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline ClaireSmythe

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Flat Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2016, 12:42:03 PM »
OK, got it.  Pursuing the hypothetical you suggest, that UA might be able to speed up motion at the rim: would this mean that apparent gravity would feel stronger there?  Or that UA in the Z axis (up-down) has an effect on motion in the X and Y axes (north-south and east/counterclockwise - west/clockwise) that it does not have at more northerly locations on the disc?
If the effect of acceleration acts in the horizontal direction, it wouldn't have any effect on the downwards force. The accelerator acts in the vertical direction on the Earth, but that wouldn't preclude a side-effect: I've seen many models in which it forms a dome-shape when the accelerator moves to form a single current above the Earth. Its flow was interrupted by the disk.