The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: curiousjoe on August 04, 2017, 10:51:32 PM

Title: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: curiousjoe on August 04, 2017, 10:51:32 PM
I am new to all this flat earth theory, and i must say it is extremely thought provoking.
My question is about the information here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation
about circumnavigation.
Below in the "traveling in a straight line" section... Wouldn't it be possible to travel south in a straight line, using a navigational aid like a compass?

Also, in the page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F
It states: "Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey."
Is there any information anyone can point me towards on this topic? Why has no one been able to explore the ice wall? Do we know how long it is? Can we send a balloon into the sky and look past it? What about building a rover to traverse it (simply having it go south and broadcasting a video feed back, would shine some light on this whole flat-earth-globe-earth discussion, would it not?


Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 05, 2017, 03:25:08 AM
According to your sources it appears that there is a lack of data on the topic. This suggests that you should contribute rather than asking questions about subjects which lack information.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: TomInAustin on August 06, 2017, 05:35:32 PM
According to your sources it appears that there is a lack of data on the topic. This suggests that you should contribute rather than asking questions about subjects which lack information.

There is a wealth of data on circumnavigation.   Take for instance satellite on a polar orbit.  The circumnavigate every day.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: 3DGeek on August 09, 2017, 03:15:03 PM
According to your sources it appears that there is a lack of data on the topic. This suggests that you should contribute rather than asking questions about subjects which lack information.

There is a wealth of data on circumnavigation.   Take for instance satellite on a polar orbit.  The circumnavigate every day.

Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen was the first person to sight Antarctica - and the second to complete a circumnavigation of the continent (January 1821).

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Bellingshausen-fr.svg/503px-Bellingshausen-fr.svg.png)

The fact that he completed his trip around antarctica in just a few months is clear proof that the flat-earth map on the tfes.org wiki is impossible.  If we believe the map on the wiki then the trip around the ice-cliff would have covered about 49,000 miles and taken many years.

However, Tom Bishop now claims that the map on the Wiki is incorrect and has a new map with antarctica as a distinct continent...sadly that map brings more problems (by far!) than it solves...just think about where the sun has to be in order to produce the 24 hours of sunlight during the Antarctic summer...and ask yourself where the sun must be setting if you live in Europe or North America during that time.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2017, 04:42:19 PM
Actually, the bi-polar model was the official Flat Earth model held by the society after Rowbotham. It was created when the South Pole was discovered, in order to update the model with the latest data. There is a whole body of research that discusses all of your questions. There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (aka Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the other .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2017, 04:45:20 PM
Actually, the bi-polar model was the official Flat Earth model held by the society after Rowbotham. There is a whole body of research that discusses all of these questions. There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.
Anything published in the last 30 years?
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2017, 04:50:14 PM
Actually, the bi-polar model was the official Flat Earth model held by the society after Rowbotham. There is a whole body of research that discusses all of these questions. There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.
Anything published in the last 30 years?

We have the internet now. Books are no longer necessary, and frankly expensive to produce. We publish our information on this forum, on the other .org forum, as well as the Wiki. Flat Earth information is also published via youtube and reddit as well.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: geckothegeek on August 09, 2017, 05:09:15 PM
A few questions.

(1) Is the "bipolar model" the same as the "Bipolar Projection" ?
      If not, can you show an illustration of the "bipolar model" ?
(2) What is the diameter of the flat earth ?
       (a) In the "bipolar model" (from the edge from side to side)
       (b) In the "unipolar  model" (from the inner rim from side to side)
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2017, 05:56:55 PM
Actually, the bi-polar model was the official Flat Earth model held by the society after Rowbotham. There is a whole body of research that discusses all of these questions. There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.
Anything published in the last 30 years?

We have the internet now. Books are no longer necessary, and frankly expensive to produce. We publish our information on this forum, on the other .org forum, as well as the Wiki. Flat Earth information is also published via youtube and reddit as well.
I think you know what I mean and just being awkward as usual.  What recent proof is there of a flat earth?  Please provide specific links.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: 3DGeek on August 10, 2017, 01:33:07 AM
Actually, the bi-polar model was the official Flat Earth model held by the society after Rowbotham. It was created when the South Pole was discovered, in order to update the model with the latest data. There is a whole body of research that discusses all of your questions. There are a number of books and journals supporting to the bi-polar model, basically anything published by our society in the early 1900's (Then called the Universal Zetetic Society). Lady Blount and Albert Smith (aka Zetetes) were notable Flat Earth authors supporting the bi-polar model. We were kind enough to provide scanned literature on this website, and on the other .org website, for you to pursue if interested in the subject.

Nothing I've seen from reading the documents scanned and stored on this site say how it is that the sun doesn't set in the southern skies when it's on the "bottom" horizon of antarctica during the 24 hour daylight periods in December.   Your map provides no alternative but that the sun would be setting in the Southern skies rather than the East or West.   We know THAT doesn't happen - ergo the map is wrong.

None of the books (as far as I can see) explain this...perhaps you could point me to a specific book and chapter number?
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: geckothegeek on August 10, 2017, 05:41:25 PM
A few questions.

(1) Is the "bipolar model" the same as the "Bipolar Projection" ?
      If not, can you show an illustration of the "bipolar model" ?
(2) What is the diameter of the flat earth ?
       (a) In the "bipolar model" (from the edge from side to side)
       (b) In the "unipolar  model" (from the inner rim from side to side)

I asked these questions but still waiting for answers ?
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: inquisitive on August 10, 2017, 07:34:22 PM
We know this is just a game for amusement.  If those involved were to sit round a table to discuss and prove a flat earth they would not last 5 minutes.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2017, 07:35:43 PM
A few questions.

(1) Is the "bipolar model" the same as the "Bipolar Projection" ?
      If not, can you show an illustration of the "bipolar model" ?
(2) What is the diameter of the flat earth ?
       (a) In the "bipolar model" (from the edge from side to side)
       (b) In the "unipolar  model" (from the inner rim from side to side)

I asked these questions but still waiting for answers ?

I have directed you guys to sources to look into these things for yourself. If you find a lack of answers to your infinite questions you are encouraged to contribute.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: geckothegeek on August 10, 2017, 08:59:30 PM
A few questions.

(1) Is the "bipolar model" the same as the "Bipolar Projection" ?
      If not, can you show an illustration of the "bipolar model" ?
(2) What is the diameter of the flat earth ?
       (a) In the "bipolar model" (from the edge from side to side)
       (b) In the "unipolar  model" (from the inner rim from side to side)


I have directed you guys to sources to look into these things for yourself. If you find a lack of answers to your infinite questions you are encouraged to contribute.

Tom Bishop -

That's a bit rude.  If you asked me a question , I would answer if I knew the answer and give it to you. If I didn't have it handy, I would look it up and send you the answer. These are flat earth questions for flat earthers to give flat earth answers.

For example, on another thread , you said "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."  I looked it up. The distance from NewYork to Paris is 3,625 miles.

You are giving the Flat Earth Society a bad name. If you don't know the answer, just be honest and say so !

I would be glad to give you some real answers to some real questions.
For Example : The circumference of the earth at the equator  is approximately 25,000 miles.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: geckothegeek on August 10, 2017, 09:04:10 PM
I am new to all this flat earth theory, and i must say it is extremely thought provoking.
My question is about the information here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation
about circumnavigation.
Below in the "traveling in a straight line" section... Wouldn't it be possible to travel south in a straight line, using a navigational aid like a compass?

Also, in the page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F
It states: "Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey."
Is there any information anyone can point me towards on this topic? Why has no one been able to explore the ice wall? Do we know how long it is? Can we send a balloon into the sky and look past it? What about building a rover to traverse it (simply having it go south and broadcasting a video feed back, would shine some light on this whole flat-earth-globe-earth discussion, would it not?

I have seen one quote -   I  think it was Rowbotham . :
"Beyond the ice wall is a land of eternal darkness, frigid temperatures, ice, snow and howling winds."
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: geckothegeek on August 10, 2017, 09:10:06 PM
We know this is just a game for amusement.  If those involved were to sit round a table to discuss and prove a flat earth they would not last 5 minutes.

Better not have old Navy QM's and BM's sitting round the table ! LOL
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2017, 10:37:53 PM
Tom Bishop -

That's a bit rude.  If you asked me a question , I would answer if I knew the answer and give it to you. If I didn't have it handy, I would look it up and send you the answer. These are flat earth questions for flat earthers to give flat earth answers.

For example, on another thread , you said "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."  I looked it up. The distance from NewYork to Paris is 3,625 miles.

You are giving the Flat Earth Society a bad name. If you don't know the answer, just be honest and say so !

I would be glad to give you some real answers to some real questions.
For Example : The circumference of the earth at the equator  is approximately 25,000 miles.

And if 1000 people were asking you the same questions over and over and over you would probably eventually publish your work and direct any and all inquiries to it. That is what we did, over 100 years ago.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 10, 2017, 11:05:50 PM
Tom Bishop -

That's a bit rude.  If you asked me a question , I would answer if I knew the answer and give it to you. If I didn't have it handy, I would look it up and send you the answer. These are flat earth questions for flat earthers to give flat earth answers.

For example, on another thread , you said "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."  I looked it up. The distance from NewYork to Paris is 3,625 miles.

You are giving the Flat Earth Society a bad name. If you don't know the answer, just be honest and say so !

I would be glad to give you some real answers to some real questions.
For Example : The circumference of the earth at the equator  is approximately 25,000 miles.

And if 1000 people were asking you the same questions over and over and over you would probably eventually publish your work and direct any and all inquiries to it. That is what we did, over 100 years ago.
But this isn't 100 years ago, this is now. Simply directing us to the body of work isn't all that helpful when it's quite a bit to sift through. Especially when the asks are easy question, that if you've been asked them over and over again you should be able to recite by rote now. At a minimum giving a starting point would be helpful to your case, like "I believe you should find that in _____" which again if you've fielded the question thousands of times before publishing you should likely have a general idea of where something should be. But that's just my 2 cents. I don't recall seeing you give an actual concrete answer to a question like this while I've been here, which is says quite a bit... (This does NOT mean you have not, only that I don't recall seeing one at this time.)
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 12:19:35 AM
Yes, I know that there is quite a bit to shift through to get at this information. I don't see why I have to do it for you, however. I don't know what the early society said about the diameter of the bi-polar model, or if they even gave a figure. I just know that they have studied and published about it in the early 1900's literature. If in your research, you find that no figure was given, you are encouraged to contribute to that body of work with your own estimate.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 05:06:52 AM
Yes, I know that there is quite a bit to shift through to get at this information. I don't see why I have to do it for you, however. I don't know what the early society said about the diameter of the bi-polar model, or if they even gave a figure. I just know that they have studied and published about it in the early 1900's. If in your research, you find that no figure was give, you are encouraged to contribute to that body of work with your own estimate.
You are the one presenting the FE model as reality. I find it a bit odd that you ask us to do your work for you, when you expect the opposite of us when presented with RE information. When we present something from RE, you always ask for our supporting sources, and often many. But when we ask precisely what your sources are (Even just the book/issue would suffice) you clam up and wave vaguely at your library. As though rather than discussing things as equals, you believe we are students come to take your class.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 05:20:17 AM
You are the one presenting the FE model as reality. I find it a bit odd that you ask us to do your work for you, when you expect the opposite of us when presented with RE information. When we present something from RE, you always ask for our supporting sources, and often many. But when we ask precisely what your sources are (Even just the book/issue would suffice) you clam up and wave vaguely at your library. As though rather than discussing things as equals, you believe we are students come to take your class.

I don't recall making a claim for the diameter of the bi-polar model. I don't believe it is my burden for providing that.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 05:34:52 AM
You are the one presenting the FE model as reality. I find it a bit odd that you ask us to do your work for you, when you expect the opposite of us when presented with RE information. When we present something from RE, you always ask for our supporting sources, and often many. But when we ask precisely what your sources are (Even just the book/issue would suffice) you clam up and wave vaguely at your library. As though rather than discussing things as equals, you believe we are students come to take your class.

I don't recall making a claim for the diameter of the bi-polar model. I don't believe it is my burden for providing that.
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2017, 07:04:11 AM
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?

I don't expect you to back up claims you have never made. I only challenge on the claims given. I expect the same respect.

I do not have this information. If you wish to research this topic I have directed you to the source. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: inquisitive on August 11, 2017, 08:37:31 AM
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?

I don't expect you to back up claims you have never made. I only challenge on the claims given. I expect the same respect.

I do not have this information. If you wish to research this topic I have directed you to the source. That is all I have to say on the matter.
You have no current source.
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: Curious Squirrel on August 11, 2017, 12:48:07 PM
It's your model (your preferred one at that) and you're the one defending it. If you don't know, say so. Say "I don't know the diameter, and I haven't read all of the resources I'm telling you to, so I don't know if they did either" instead of brushing it off. If I don't know something and can't find it, I'm more than happy to admit I don't know and hope someone who does can step in. You obfuscate and throw up an air that is reminiscent of superiority because you know the answer but don't care to provide it. You can't say in one breath "We've put them up there for a wonderful resource go read them" and in the next "Oh I've no idea whats in them, never read them myself" which you are oh so close, but not quite doing here. If you don't know any of the basic facts or information about the model you prefer, then how can you prefer it? Because it looks prettier?

I don't expect you to back up claims you have never made. I only challenge on the claims given. I expect the same respect.

I do not have this information. If you wish to research this topic I have directed you to the source. That is all I have to say on the matter.
You have no current source.
It's worse than that (imo), he doesn't even know if the source he's directing us to has the answer to the question. Which suggests he's never actually read it.

Serious question then for you Tom. Why do you prefer the bi-polar model? What lines up with that one that makes you prefer it's idea over the mono-pole one?
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: StinkyOne on August 17, 2017, 12:28:17 AM
Tom Bishop -

That's a bit rude.  If you asked me a question , I would answer if I knew the answer and give it to you. If I didn't have it handy, I would look it up and send you the answer. These are flat earth questions for flat earthers to give flat earth answers.

For example, on another thread , you said "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."  I looked it up. The distance from NewYork to Paris is 3,625 miles.

You are giving the Flat Earth Society a bad name. If you don't know the answer, just be honest and say so !

I would be glad to give you some real answers to some real questions.
For Example : The circumference of the earth at the equator  is approximately 25,000 miles.

And if 1000 people were asking you the same questions over and over and over you would probably eventually publish your work and direct any and all inquiries to it. That is what we did, over 100 years ago.

It's funny, you'd almost think these ardent adherents to FET would have these answers ready to point out to all skeptics. I read the Wiki and it is full of very obvious errors and omissions. Nothing new in the last 100 years, but real science keeps marching on as we learn new things about the universe. Anyone that believes this stuff when it is so very easily falsifiable is beyond help. FET doesn't even have a map of their flat Earth. I mean c'mon, at least come up with a freaking map!
Title: Re: Circumnavigation: Traveling in a Straight Line
Post by: 3DGeek on August 27, 2017, 09:25:49 AM
It's funny, you'd almost think these ardent adherents to FET would have these answers ready to point out to all skeptics. I read the Wiki and it is full of very obvious errors and omissions. Nothing new in the last 100 years, but real science keeps marching on as we learn new things about the universe. Anyone that believes this stuff when it is so very easily falsifiable is beyond help. FET doesn't even have a map of their flat Earth. I mean c'mon, at least come up with a freaking map!

The problem for the FE'ers (and I'm sure they are acutely aware of it) is that whenever they come up with a concrete statement of an FE fact the RE'ers come along and concretely disprove it.

So throwing doubt and uncertainty in the face of disproof is the best tactic for them.

The point is that ANY FE map is disprovable by trivial means...so their way to avoid disproof until the last few weeks has always been to handwave and say "We don't know the exact map" whenever it's disputed - and tell you to "READ THE WIKI" (which contains a concrete map) whenever it's not.

The way I've found to prevent this tactic is to come up with proofs like the city quadrilateral thing - or the compass versus pole star thing - that don't just prove that some particular map is incorrect - that prove that ALL POSSIBLE FE maps must be incorrect.

That ends this tactic - and it's proving quite effective right now.  The FE community have largely gone silent - and only Tom seems to be frantically trying to keep things nailed down.

But this tactic happens EVERYWHERE here:

Q: "How do FET sunsets work?"
A: "Read the Wiki!"
Q: "The 'Bishop equation' on the Wiki page about how sunsets work...what's the value of that "Bishop constant'?"
A: "We don't know the exact value."
Q: "Hang on - I've just figured out that the equation is wrong no matter what the constant is!  What is going on here?"
A: "It's only an approximation for the 'real' equation."
Q: "Could you please show me the 'real' equation?"
A:  ...silence...
Q: "Here is a proof the no such equation that predicts non-straight light beams can EVER work.  What about that?"
A: "We don't believe in that light bending stuff anymore"
Q: "But you told me to read the wiki!  What *DO* you believe in?"
A: "Light travels in straight lines - but 'perspective' is weird".
Q: "But doesn't this very simple diagram show that perspective isn't weird?"
A: ...random handwaving...appeals to confusing videos...no actual on-point discussion of the very simple diagram...

Just about every thread which raises a serious concern about FET fizzles out before an FE'er can come up with a viable explanation.   Conversations are continually derailed in an effort to throw people off of the logical path.

Clearly the answer is to keep on-topic with the FE'ers.   Insist on answers.

There are now at least a dozen threads out there with dangling ends...we have proof after proof that FET doesn't work - and zero efforts to repair them.  Our proofs are super-simple and rely on very little (if any) external fact.

This approach is making serious inroads here...leaving Tom stuck out on a limb with no supporters cheering him on...so let's keep that up - it's really not very difficult.