The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 03, 2014, 04:08:31 AM

Title: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 03, 2014, 04:08:31 AM
Ok. Here's where I get lost. FEer's can't seem to unify on WHAT the Earth is. Is it unipolar or bipolar? Is it a disc or square? Is it an infinite plane? What is Antarctica? What is (& is there) the ice wall? What happens to ships @ the edge? Is their a firmament? Can an experienced FE theorist take on these questions & present a unified, coherant worldview? I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm genuinely curious.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on February 03, 2014, 04:32:40 AM
Ok. Here's where I get lost. FEer's can't seem to unify on WHAT the Earth is. Is it unipolar or bipolar? Is it a disc or square? Is it an infinite plane? What is Antarctica? What is (& is there) the ice wall? What happens to ships @ the edge? Is their a firmament? Can an experienced FE theorist take on these questions & present a unified, coherant worldview? I'm not trying to ae a dick. I'm genuinely curious.

I'll go first.

There are a lot of unknowns.  Zetetic Astronomy is a science of observation.  Unless I've observed / experienced a phenomenon for myself, I cannot say unequivocally that the phenomenon exists.  This is why our ideas about the expanse of the earth beyond the Antarctic get a little murky. 
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 03, 2014, 04:43:26 AM
Ok. Tintagel, that is interesting. @ least that is a start. Anyone else?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: spank86 on February 03, 2014, 09:46:29 AM
I think the problem is you think of it as a single theory.
It's more like flat earth theories.

They don't all agree.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Excelsior John on February 03, 2014, 05:21:17 PM
Ok. Here's where I get lost. FEer's can't seem to unify on WHAT the Earth is. Is it unipolar or bipolar? Is it a disc or square? Is it an infinite plane? What is Antarctica? What is (& is there) the ice wall? What happens to ships @ the edge? Is their a firmament? Can an experienced FE theorist take on these questions & present a unified, coherant worldview? I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm genuinely curious.
Well this is actueley one of the (suprising) strongist wekneses of our societey. There is a generel thoery as stated in the FAQs that the earth is monopole circuler finite and that antartica is an ice wall of wich I disagre with all four. I think FES may have been ment to just showcase one thoery but as it grew many difrient thoerys have arisin do the fact that the FAQs has a handful of pathetic faliceys. I myself beleive that the earth is bipoler, a disc within a sqware, infinite, and that the antartica is a continint. Most of my thoery is based of scientific evidance some of it is based of religous beleifs. We all have our own thoerys basicley mine causing controversey sometimes! If you have any other questions wether it be about the OP or my thoery plese do ask!!
Ok. Here's where I get lost. FEer's can't seem to unify on WHAT the Earth is. Is it unipolar or bipolar? Is it a disc or square? Is it an infinite plane? What is Antarctica? What is (& is there) the ice wall? What happens to ships @ the edge? Is their a firmament? Can an experienced FE theorist take on these questions & present a unified, coherant worldview? I'm not trying to ae a dick. I'm genuinely curious.

I'll go first.
  • Unipolar, meaning that the south pole surrounds us.  Magnetic substances align with our north pole, and those magnetic field lines extend out beyond the known earth.  On the bipolar map, compasses and navigation don't make sense, to me.
  • A disc.  Everything in the cosmos moves in circles, navigation on the earth (round or flat) happens in circles.  The earth is a disc, this is certain.
  • It is generally accepted that Antarctica exists.  The disc extends past Antarctica for an unknown expanse.  This territory is dark, cold, inhospitable, may not even support life, and remains unexplored.  It may be infinite.  No edge has ever been seen.
  • Antarctica is the mass of land that has been theorized to be a continent covering the southern polar region on a globe.  On the monopole earth it the mass of land that surrounds the inhabited continents we call the earth.  Its total area is unknown and it remains unexplored.  Necessarily, it holds the oceans in.
  • The Ice Wall is just a fancy name for Antarctica.  Some claim there is a literal wall of ice that sits on the antarctic land mass - I wouldn't be surprised if there are several, in fact.  It's cold. Be that as it may, the Ice Wall as a whole is essentially just Antarctica.
  • As the edge (if it exists) is out of reach of the sun, it is unlikely that a ship would ever sail there, as the oceans would be frozen.
  • There is no evidence for a physical firmament.  Some (like Thork) do like the idea of a firmament but I've never seen anything that would indicate its existence.

There are a lot of unknowns.  Zetetic Astronomy is a science of observation.  Unless I've observed / experienced a phenomenon for myself, I cannot say unequivocally that the phenomenon exists.  This is why our ideas about the expanse of the earth beyond the Antarctic get a little murky. 
Wow! Couldent have explaned it beter myself Tintagel! Beutiful! :D
Ok. Tintagel, that is interesting. @ least that is a start. Anyone else?
You should definateley listen to what tintagel just posted. Tis a vary thorough and detaled explanation!!!!!!
I think the problem is you think of it as a single theory.
It's more like flat earth theories.

They don't all agree.
Exacley. Evereyones thoerys seem to be difrint one way or another
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 03, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
Ok, EJ. Your idea sounds rather interesting. Now, I have a map of a Bipolar Earth on my computer. & the one weakness I see with it is that you can't circumnavigate the world @ the Equator. But in real life, a plane can. How does your theory account for this? & on another note, what goes on down in AR stays in AR, ok? Up here, lets just talk about FET. Fair enough?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Excelsior John on February 03, 2014, 07:28:19 PM
Ok, EJ. Your idea sounds rather interesting. Now, I have a map of a Bipolar Earth on my computer. & the one weakness I see with it is that you can't circumnavigate the world @ the Equator. But in real life, a plane can. How does your theory account for this?
The map isent totaley corec and needs some workin out. But ether way gravitey keeps you in the circuler direction that fools people into thinking the earth is round. But again the map stil needs some workin out and I wish to do so on my own time :) its kinda like how mercater maps are technicley wrong
& on another note, what goes on down in AR stays in AR, ok? Up here, lets just talk about FET. Fair enough?
Agred. Thats exacley what I had in mind and we should stay fathful to it :)
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 03, 2014, 07:45:18 PM
Well, if you can come up w/ a map that solves the problem, I'd love to see it, seriously. Incidentally, what is your theory about how planes circle the Earth @ the equator?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Excelsior John on February 05, 2014, 11:01:50 PM
Well, if you can come up w/ a map that solves the problem, I'd love to see it, seriously. Incidentally, what is your theory about how planes circle the Earth @ the equator?
Again gravitey at the poles cause the planes to travel in a circuler direction and give the ilusion that the earth is round by causing them to travel circuleraley round the equater. Think about how (in my neo tichonien model at lest) the sun and moon orbit above the earth VARY VARY SLITLEY elipticley thus: we travel in a circuler "orbit" when walking on the earth
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 06, 2014, 04:09:53 AM
Ok. Let me ask another question. How do FEers explain the movement of stars? For example, Columbus could tell approximate clock time from the Guards of the North Star. The Little Bear or Little Dipper swings around Polaris once every 24 hours sidereal time. Star movement w/ a round, moving Earth I get, but w/ a flat, stationary one?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: markjo on February 06, 2014, 05:50:12 AM
If the earth isn't moving, then obviously the stars are.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Excelsior John on February 23, 2014, 07:30:51 PM
Sorey I took so long I was grounded

Ok. Let me ask another question. How do FEers explain the movement of stars? For example, Columbus could tell approximate clock time from the Guards of the North Star. The Little Bear or Little Dipper swings around Polaris once every 24 hours sidereal time. Star movement w/ a round, moving Earth I get, but w/ a flat, stationary one?
Well round earthism teches that the galaxey has a galatic center wich me agres with. However I do not beleive that some mithicel black hole is in the center I beleive the earth is. Thus all the soler sistims of the galaxey revolve above the earth
If the earth isn't moving, then obviously the stars are.
Yep. Yeah pretey much!!!
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on February 28, 2014, 01:55:19 PM
How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on February 28, 2014, 03:29:56 PM
How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.

Measurements could either be accurate or inaccurate.  Do you have any actual numbers to use?  I haven't measured the distance from the Falklands to Australia and I doubt you have.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on February 28, 2014, 08:38:24 PM
How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.

Measurements could either be accurate or inaccurate.  Do you have any actual numbers to use?  I haven't measured the distance from the Falklands to Australia and I doubt you have.
Distances are available from places such as Google Earth which are accepted as correct as they match reality.  It is possible to travel between those two places without going into the northern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: jroa on February 28, 2014, 09:52:02 PM
You say that the distances are indisputable proof, yet you have never gone there, nor have you measured them.  You have been taught that the distances are facts, and so your closed mind doesn't question that. 
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on February 28, 2014, 09:54:18 PM
How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.

Measurements could either be accurate or inaccurate.  Do you have any actual numbers to use?  I haven't measured the distance from the Falklands to Australia and I doubt you have.
Distances are available from places such as Google Earth which are accepted as correct as they match reality.  It is possible to travel between those two places without going into the northern hemisphere.

I still don't see any numbers, and before you blindly copy and paste from Google earth or elsewhere on the internet, consider the fallibility of the medium in which you are placing such trust.  Once again, you have no real evidence.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 01, 2014, 12:02:32 AM
You say that the distances are indisputable proof, yet you have never gone there, nor have you measured them.  You have been taught that the distances are facts, and so your closed mind doesn't question that.
A metre has been defined, i have a 1m rule.  I am told it is 1km to the supermarket.  I could measure it with my rule if I wanted to.  My car measures 1k.

Google Earth has a distance tool, has any evidence been produced that it is wrong?

Why this obsession of having to do something to prove it, does Peru exist, have you been there?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 01, 2014, 02:28:42 AM
A metre has been defined, i have a 1m rule.  I am told it is 1km to the supermarket.  I could measure it with my rule if I wanted to.
Do so. Be inquisitive.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2014, 04:23:18 AM
You say that the distances are indisputable proof, yet you have never gone there, nor have you measured them.  You have been taught that the distances are facts, and so your closed mind doesn't question that.
The distances are facts because the cartographers told me so.  Who are you to tell the cartographer that he's wrong?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 01, 2014, 05:27:42 AM
You say that the distances are indisputable proof, yet you have never gone there, nor have you measured them.  You have been taught that the distances are facts, and so your closed mind doesn't question that.
The distances are facts because the cartographers told me so.  Who are you to tell the cartographer that he's wrong?

No one is claiming the cartographers are unequivocally wrong.  We are claiming that it is foolish to blindly assume they're right without doing any sort of inquiry yourself.  As Pizza said...

Be inquisitive.

For my part, I don't know how far it is from the Falklands to Australia, nor do I care.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 01, 2014, 08:02:46 AM
What inquiry should an individual undertake? There is no evidence that round earth distances are wrong.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2014, 03:58:34 PM
No one is claiming the cartographers are unequivocally wrong.  We are claiming that it is foolish to blindly assume they're right without doing any sort of inquiry yourself. 
I'm sorry, but I don't see much difference between those two statements.  What reason should I have for not believing the cartographer's distances when my car's odometer confirms that a random smattering of distances are correct?

Quote
For my part, I don't know how far it is from the Falklands to Australia, nor do I care.
If you don't know or don't care, then what right do you have to question the official RE distance?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 01, 2014, 04:43:13 PM
If you don't know or don't care, then what right do you have to question the official RE distance?

I didn't.  Inquisitive did.

How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2014, 05:42:49 PM
If you don't know or don't care, then what right do you have to question the official RE distance?

I didn't.  Inquisitive did.

How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.
Not the way that I read it.  As near as I can tell, Inquisitive is questioning the FET distance from the Falklands to Australia, not the official RET distance.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 01, 2014, 07:16:13 PM
If you don't know or don't care, then what right do you have to question the official RE distance?

I didn't.  Inquisitive did.

How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.
Not the way that I read it.  As near as I can tell, Inquisitive is questioning the FET distance from the Falklands to Australia, not the official RET distance.
Correct, what is the FET distance, approximately?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 01, 2014, 08:20:19 PM
If you don't know or don't care, then what right do you have to question the official RE distance?

I didn't.  Inquisitive did.

How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.
Not the way that I read it.  As near as I can tell, Inquisitive is questioning the FET distance from the Falklands to Australia, not the official RET distance.

Missing the point.  Inquisitive is the one questioning distances at all, not me.

Correct, what is the FET distance, approximately?

Once again:

For my part, I don't know how far it is from the Falklands to Australia, nor do I care.

...because I'm not the one asking.  I'm not a cartographer.  Are you claiming that the distance between the two would be different on a flat earth than it is on a spherical one? 
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 01, 2014, 08:23:49 PM
Think about it.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 01, 2014, 08:37:49 PM
Think about it.

Do you actually know what you're claiming, or are you just trying to run the conversation in circles? 
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 01, 2014, 09:17:35 PM
Think about it.

Do you actually know what you're claiming, or are you just trying to run the conversation in circles?
Draw 5 random points on a piece of paper and then on a ball. See if you can get the distances between each one and the others to be the same. Do not put them in a straight line or circle.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 01, 2014, 11:08:40 PM
Think about it.

Do you actually know what you're claiming, or are you just trying to run the conversation in circles?
Draw 5 random points on a piece of paper and then on a ball. See if you can get the distances between each one and the others to be the same. Do not put them in a straight line or circle.

Really?  If they're all random points, of course the distances won't be the same.  Neat.  Let me know when you have a point to make, this is going nowhere.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: markjo on March 02, 2014, 12:17:32 AM
Missing the point.  Inquisitive is the one questioning distances at all, not me.
Then why do you keep responding if you don't have any answers?

Quote
Are you claiming that the distance between the two would be different on a flat earth than it is on a spherical one? 
If spherical geometry is very different from planar geometry, then why would you expect the distances to be the same?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 02, 2014, 02:29:54 AM
Missing the point.  Inquisitive is the one questioning distances at all, not me.
Then why do you keep responding if you don't have any answers?
I cannot answer anything without a valid question.  Inquisitive is asking me the distance from the Falklands to Australia, and I answered.  I don't know.  I've asked why it mattered, and I'm getting doubletalk and vague answers in response and I'm not certain Inquisitive ever had a point to make.  Furthermore, this is a discussion board and I want to do what I can to foster active posting in the upper fora for a change.

Quote
Are you claiming that the distance between the two would be different on a flat earth than it is on a spherical one? 
If spherical geometry is very different from planar geometry, then why would you expect the distances to be the same?

Again - I didn't say that I would, I'm merely trying to nail down the crux of the claim.  It seems Inquisitive should change his or her name to Evasive.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 02, 2014, 09:51:01 AM
Missing the point.  Inquisitive is the one questioning distances at all, not me.
Then why do you keep responding if you don't have any answers?

Quote
Are you claiming that the distance between the two would be different on a flat earth than it is on a spherical one? 
If spherical geometry is very different from planar geometry, then why would you expect the distances to be the same?
As the distances would be different and we know exact distances between places that are on a spherical earth it is not possible to draw a flat earth map using verified data.

Falklands to Australia is probably the best example, it is not via the North Pole.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: jroa on March 02, 2014, 11:53:09 AM
Inquisitive, you still have not proved that the distance from the Falklands to Australia is correct on a Round Earth. 
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 02, 2014, 12:18:50 PM
Inquisitive, you still have not proved that the distance from the Falklands to Australia is correct on a Round Earth.
What is the distance on a flat earth, please provide a map or diagram?

Are you seriously suggesting that distances proved by flights across the world are wrong? One example please.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: jroa on March 02, 2014, 12:31:26 PM
One example please.

Falklands to Australia. 
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 02, 2014, 02:01:07 PM
One example please.

Falklands to Australia.
Details please to explain.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 02, 2014, 04:51:37 PM
Missing the point.  Inquisitive is the one questioning distances at all, not me.
Then why do you keep responding if you don't have any answers?

Quote
Are you claiming that the distance between the two would be different on a flat earth than it is on a spherical one? 
If spherical geometry is very different from planar geometry, then why would you expect the distances to be the same?
As the distances would be different and we know exact distances between places that are on a spherical earth it is not possible to draw a flat earth map using verified data.

Falklands to Australia is probably the best example, it is not via the North Pole.

If you contend that flights from the falklands to Australia would travel across the north pole on the monopolar map, that's just silly.  Navigation uses the lines of latitude and longitude, because that's the way instruments work.  To verify this, use a compass.  Moreover, very few flights travel over the north pole even in the northern hemidisc.  It seems ridiculous to want to travel to two southern hemidisc locations via the north pole.   Also, since you refuse to research your own question, I went and did a search for flights from Sydney to MPD in the Falklands, and couldn't find any evidence that any airline actually makes that flight, so your hypothetical route distance has no grounds.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 02, 2014, 05:00:19 PM
Clearly direct distances are different between 2 places on a flat earth compared with a spherical one.

How about Paris to Honk Kong on a flat earth map compared with the accepted, verified spherical distance.  Based on the fact that nobody disputes spherical distances.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 02, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
Clearly direct distances are different between 2 places on a flat earth compared with a spherical one.

How about Paris to Honk Kong on a flat earth map compared with the accepted, verified spherical distance.  Based on the fact that nobody disputes spherical distances.

Once again - no one travels as if the earth is flat.  No one travels across the north pole because that's silly.  Navigation is done using the magnetic field and lines of latitude and longitude.   Stop thinking in terms of "the earth is a sheet of paper" and start thinking in terms of "the earth is a plane with radial lines of magnetic force" (and possibly space, but that's entirely conjecture on my part).
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: markjo on March 02, 2014, 06:15:29 PM
Once again - no one travels as if the earth is flat.
Not even flat earthers?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 02, 2014, 06:40:38 PM
We are discussing direct measured distances, not travel.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2014, 06:57:43 PM
One example please.

Falklands to Australia. 

Citation required
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 02, 2014, 07:06:36 PM
Once again - no one travels as if the earth is flat.
Not even flat earthers?

Flat as in "distance across a sheet of paper?"  No, not even us.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 02, 2014, 07:58:12 PM
Again, direct measured distances.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 02, 2014, 08:55:07 PM
Again, direct measured distances.

You keep using those words, and continue to not make a point.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 02, 2014, 09:21:03 PM
Distances will be different on a round earth and a flat earth.  Round earth distances match reality.

Where is there a flat earth map with a scale?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 03, 2014, 01:54:12 PM
Distances will be different on a round earth and a flat earth.  Round earth distances match reality.
Two out of two claims here are yet to be substantiated. Please hold yourself to at least your own standards.

*ahem*

Details please to explain.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 03, 2014, 03:20:27 PM
Distances will be different on a round earth and a flat earth.  Round earth distances match reality.
Two out of two claims here are yet to be substantiated. Please hold yourself to at least your own standards.

*ahem*

Details please to explain.
Basic geometry between points on flat paper v. spherical object.

Please show otherwise for distances between places.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 03, 2014, 03:32:02 PM
Distances will be different on a round earth and a flat earth.  Round earth distances match reality.
Two out of two claims here are yet to be substantiated. Please hold yourself to at least your own standards.

*ahem*

Details please to explain.
Basic geometry.  Please show otherwise.

Euclidean geometry assumes a planar earth.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 03, 2014, 03:34:15 PM
Distances will be different on a round earth and a flat earth.  Round earth distances match reality.
Two out of two claims here are yet to be substantiated. Please hold yourself to at least your own standards.

*ahem*

Details please to explain.
Basic geometry.  Please show otherwise.

Euclidean geometry assumes a planar earth.
Please explain.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 03, 2014, 03:43:42 PM
Distances will be different on a round earth and a flat earth.  Round earth distances match reality.
Two out of two claims here are yet to be substantiated. Please hold yourself to at least your own standards.

*ahem*

Details please to explain.
Basic geometry.  Please show otherwise.

Euclidean geometry assumes a planar earth.
Please explain.

Euclidean geometry is planar geometry.  In order to describe the earth as a sphere one can no longer use Euclidean geometry.  Round earthers agree with this, it's why spherical geometry was invented.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 03, 2014, 05:19:06 PM
Inquisitive: Because of basic geometry, you're wrong. Please show otherwise.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 03, 2014, 05:55:32 PM
Inquisitive: Because of basic geometry, you're wrong. Please show otherwise.
Consider a square with 10cm sides.  What is the distance to a point in the middle of the square?

How consider those points to be on a football.  What is the distance to a point equidistant to the 4 points?  A bit longer.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 03, 2014, 08:39:11 PM
Consider a square with 10cm sides.  What is the distance to a point in the middle of the square?

How consider those points to be on a football.  What is the distance to a point equidistant to the 4 points?  A bit longer.
The 4 points are undefined, and neither is the size of the football. Could you please try to make a point sometime soon?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Rama Set on March 03, 2014, 08:44:39 PM
It does not help that on this particular point he is trying to make you are being willfully ignorant as to the differences of spherical versus planar geometry.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: jroa on March 03, 2014, 10:01:51 PM
It does not help that he is using vague concepts to try to prove a non existent point.  inquisitive tends to like to make hypothetical statements and then try to use them to prove a point that he never declares. 
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 03, 2014, 10:50:42 PM
It does not help that he is using vague concepts to try to prove a non existent point.  inquisitive tends to like to make hypothetical statements and then try to use them to prove a point that he never declares.

I mean presumably he believes the earth is a sphere, but starting threads saying things like "choose two points and tell me the distance between them" is a really weird way to prove that claim, in that it doesn't.  At all.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 03, 2014, 11:31:15 PM
I'm trying to get over the fact that the distances between places cannot be the same on both types of earth.

Not helped by a lack of a flat earth map...
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 04, 2014, 12:46:38 AM
It does not help that on this particular point he is trying to make you are being willfully ignorant as to the differences of spherical versus planar geometry.
Actually, we're the ones that pointed out that the differences are there. He kept pratting around with Euclidean geometry until Tintagel corrected him.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: inquisitive on March 04, 2014, 12:53:37 PM
Measured distances between places fit in with a round earth model.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Rama Set on March 04, 2014, 01:18:11 PM
Most notably in the Southern Hemisphere.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 04, 2014, 02:09:05 PM
Measured distances between places fit in with a round earth model.

Such as?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Rama Set on March 04, 2014, 03:06:21 PM
How about the Falkland Islands to Australia.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Tintagel on March 04, 2014, 03:28:54 PM
How about the Falkland Islands to Australia.

And what's the measured distance, then?  How was it measured?
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Rama Set on March 04, 2014, 03:44:38 PM
Google measured the distance at 6,641 miles.  Google maps has been compared with Geodetic GPS navigation and been shown to be accurate to within 7 meters:

http://hobiger.org/blog/2013/04/20/horizontal-positional-accuracy-of-google-maps/
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Excelsior John on March 08, 2014, 03:45:13 AM
How do you explain the measured distances between places fitting in with a flat earth?  eg. Falklands to Australia.
As ive said the distences are not entirley acurete and it is my intrist to fix them
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 16, 2014, 11:24:53 PM
The fundamental problem is, they can't be fixed on any FE map I've seen.
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: pilot172 on May 02, 2014, 12:39:00 PM
how about Brisbane to capetown
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yamato on July 03, 2014, 09:42:26 AM
I'm not trying to be a dick either, just guessing how can you explain some facts according to your answer:

I'll go first.
  • Unipolar, meaning that the south pole surrounds us.  Magnetic substances align with our north pole, and those magnetic field lines extend out beyond the known earth.  On the bipolar map, compasses and navigation don't make sense, to me.

Where is the magnetic substance?
If it is in the Arctic (north pole), then the magnetic field will become weaker when I move towards the Antarctica, which is not the case.
If it is located all over the surface, my compass arrow won't look towards the Arctic, but towards the top or the bottom of the flat earth surface, depending on where the north magnetic pole is.

  • A disc.  Everything in the cosmos moves in circles, navigation on the earth (round or flat) happens in circles.  The earth is a disc, this is certain.

This is actually false. Nothing in the universe moves in circles, not even in elipsys.
Everything that is orbyting another body in the universe is moving in an spiraled movement, coming closer to the central body.
Phobos (one of Mars' satellite) is coming closer to Mars (this movement is very small, you need special equipment to measure it)
Moon is coming closer to the earth each day (this movement is very small, you need special equipment to measure it)
Earth is coming closer to the Sun each day (again, a very small movement, you need special equipment)
Stars are coming closer to the center of their galaxies (again, a very small movement, you need special equipment)

So, nothing moves in circles, disks or ellipses.

The earth being a disk can't be certain if you try to demonstrate it using wrong information.

  • It is generally accepted that Antarctica exists.  The disc extends past Antarctica for an unknown expanse.  This territory is dark, cold, inhospitable, may not even support life, and remains unexplored.  It may be infinite.  No edge has ever been seen.
  • Antarctica is the mass of land that has been theorized to be a continent covering the southern polar region on a globe.  On the monopole earth it the mass of land that surrounds the inhabited continents we call the earth.  Its total area is unknown and it remains unexplored.  Necessarily, it holds the oceans in.
  • The Ice Wall is just a fancy name for Antarctica.  Some claim there is a literal wall of ice that sits on the antarctic land mass - I wouldn't be surprised if there are several, in fact.  It's cold. Be that as it may, the Ice Wall as a whole is essentially just Antarctica.

This may be true or not. Can you show us some empyrical proof of this.

  • As the edge (if it exists) is out of reach of the sun, it is unlikely that a ship would ever sail there, as the oceans would be frozen.

A space probe can travel there without risking human lives. There is no need to use a ship.

  • There is no evidence for a physical firmament.  Some (like Thork) do like the idea of a firmament but I've never seen anything that would indicate its existence.

In fact, there is. You can see comets moving around, falling to earth and even you can see the ISS floating around during certain nights: http://www.isstracker.com
Without physical firmament, there can't be comets or asteroids falling to earth or the ISS floating in a "non-physical" medium.
The ISS won't be able to float and move in a void space (this is, a space without any kind of matter or energy).
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Gulliver on July 03, 2014, 10:31:35 AM
Moon is coming closer to the earth each day (this movement is very small, you need special equipment to measure it)
Actually, no. It's moving away. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html)
Title: Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?
Post by: Yamato on July 03, 2014, 10:26:40 PM
Moon is coming closer to the earth each day (this movement is very small, you need special equipment to measure it)
Actually, no. It's moving away. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html)

Yes. It was my fault being enthusiastic with copy-paste mechanics.