[Tumeni]

Why is everyone making a sharp turn when immediately hitting the South Pole? Especially in a plane flying over it?

Why shouldn't they? Is there some rule that says the only valid journey is one resembling a roman road?

Makes one wonder.

Why ?

[Tumeni]

We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.

If you don't know whether they are or not, maybe it might be a good idea to establish this before publishing the map.

[douglips]

Even of he had a compass or a gyroscopic compass, if you are at what you think to be the South Pole on a Round Earth, you know that have to go North to go back to the coast.

We see from the diagrams of these explorers that they didn't continue in a straight line after reaching the pole. They turned in an angle. Show me an expedition where they continued in a straight line.

If your goal is to cross Austrailia, why would you change your angle mid journey?

If your goal is to cross Australia, hitting a known landmark in the middle (e.g. Ayers Rock), and starting and ending at established points (e.g. cities like Perth and Sydney, how could you NOT change your angle mid journey? You need to decide:
- Do you want to make the 'longest crossing'?
- Do you want to make a straight line crossing?
- Do you want to cross the pole?
- Do you want to fight your way along mountains, or just kite-ski on the flats?

Weighing these options will almost always result in an angle change.

In the airplanes, exiting the pole towards a continent is preferable to exiting the pole towards a vast trackless ocean.

[douglips]

Talk to Jon Johanson, who flew over the South Pole without permission.

From what I read about it suggests that he managed to make it to a base in Antarctica, perhaps after doing his research on other flight paths that have been claimed to it, and then when he landed they refused to give or sell him fuel to further his journey or return home. After being held hostage for a while he was offered a flight to New Zealand.

Not particularly conclusive. In fact, we see that the scientists there aren't so nice and welcoming as commonly believed.

Are you saying that if the government doesn't go somewhere and establish a gas station for you to come visit, that they are prohibiting you from going there?

[Tom Bishop]

We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.

If you don't know whether they are or not, maybe it might be a good idea to establish this before publishing the map.

We've said the same thing from day one. The message just gets lost in translation.

[Max_Almond]

Here are some other things you seem to be saying:

We don't know what the map looks like
We don't know how far any one place is from another
We don't know how far a mile is
We don't know the distance of the sun or moon or stars
We don't know how light travels
We don't know what or where the ISS is
We don't know who's telling the truth
We don't know the size of countries, or their location
We don't know if angles can be trusted
We don't know how the human eye works
We don't know where the horizon is
We don't know how high any mountains are
We don't know what eye level is
We don't know if anything can be measured

But we do know that space is fake and that the Earth isn't a globe.

Put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

[inquisitive]

We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.

If you don't know whether they are or not, maybe it might be a good idea to establish this before publishing the map.

We've said the same thing from day one. The message just gets lost in translation.

Who is this 'we' you always use?

[Tom Bishop]

...

But we do know that space is fake and that the Earth isn't a globe.

Put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

You are severely mischaractarizing many points. About half your list is a troll on your part.

However, the higher you rise in education level in a STEM field the more you realize how truly little we know about anything. The idea that much of our knowledge is based on assumptions is not ridiculous at all.

[Tumeni]

Put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

You are severely mischaractarising many points.

...but not all of them?

About half your list is a troll on your part.

So by implication, the other half is not?

[Tom Bishop]

Put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

You are severely mischaractarising many points.

...but not all of them?

About half your list is a troll on your part.

So by implication, the other half is not?

About half is a troll, and the other half needs context.

I do generally question how some fundamental concepts were determined. And I'm usually given the answer of "Not directly... But we can assume..."

[AATW]

However, the higher you rise in education level in a STEM field the more you realize how truly little we know about anything. The idea that much of our knowledge is based on assumptions is not ridiculous at all.

What is your level of education in STEM subjects? I mean, no offence but I've seen you claim that spectroscopy is looking at light and thinking "ooh, that looks a bit red" and you spent a full 2 days misunderstanding a simple experiment with a boat and a laser.

We all make assumptions about pretty much everything all the time. When I turn the tap (faucet, for you lot) on I assume that water will come out and that it has been filtered such that it's safe to drink. I don't test it every time. I don't get into my car and do a full engine check every time before I drive anywhere (not that I'd know how to).

So yes, I am assuming that the people who say they have been to space are telling the truth - because the idea that every single one is lying seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that the photos and video from space are real - because the idea that that many countries are all lying about it and all producing fake content seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that the world has been mapped accurately - because the idea that airlines and cruise lines get around so reliably otherwise seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that my satellite dish is pointing at a satellite - I have experience of what happens when the signal is blocked so it's definitely pointing at something, I am assuming that it is a satellite rather than some unknown technology which can hover something in a stationary position for years on end, the idea that Sky are lying to me for no good reason or being lied to themselves seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that perspective works how I understand it to and not how one Victorian dude claimed it does, especially since the dude's ideas have not been widely accepted. The idea that I can be on a hill looking out to sea and see the sun sinking slowly below the horizon when it is in fact hundreds or maybe thousands of miles above the earth seems ridiculous.

and so on...

So yes, I haven't done lots of research into whether the earth is really a globe because I have no reason to doubt it, any more than despite having never been to Australia I have no reason to doubt it exists. Yes, it's technically possible that everyone I've met from there is lying, that maps have been created with it on as part of some conspiracy, that photos and video from there is all faked. Is that all possible? I guess, by the strictest definition of the word. But is it plausible? Not to me.

[Max_Almond]

Also, the question was "how do you think you come across on this side of the fence?"

[Tom Bishop]

However, the higher you rise in education level in a STEM field the more you realize how truly little we know about anything. The idea that much of our knowledge is based on assumptions is not ridiculous at all.

What is your level of education in STEM subjects? I mean, no offence but I've seen you claim that spectroscopy is looking at light and thinking "ooh, that looks a bit red" and you spent a full 2 days misunderstanding a simple experiment with a boat and a laser.

I am highly educated and I've spent my entire life in STEM. I do value my privacy, however. I will share more at some point.

Red Shift and Blue Shift in Astronomy is questionable because we are assuming that an observed star can't be red for another reason. There are no controlled experiments with the stars on that concept. When I apply some slight scrutiny to the subject and ask for some studies on the decisiveness of that because I could not find any, it is complained that I am "demanding excessive evidence." 

Per the boat thing, I had no idea what specific argument you trying to make. The way you went about it was not particularly clear at all. When garygreen explained I instantly saw the argument and agreed that the YouTube author was wrong about that specific point.

We all make assumptions about pretty much everything all the time. When I turn the tap (faucet, for you lot) on I assume that water will come out and that it has been filtered such that it's safe to drink. I don't test it every time. I don't get into my car and do a full engine check every time before I drive anywhere (not that I'd know how to).

So yes, I am assuming that the people who say they have been to space are telling the truth - because the idea that every single one is lying seems ridiculous.

I am assuming that the photos and video from space are real - because the idea that that many countries are all lying about it and all producing fake content seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that the world has been mapped accurately - because the idea that airlines and cruise lines get around so reliably otherwise seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that my satellite dish is pointing at a satellite - I have experience of what happens when the signal is blocked so it's definitely pointing at something, I am assuming that it is a satellite rather than some unknown technology which can hover something in a stationary position for years on end, the idea that Sky are lying to me for no good reason or being lied to themselves seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that perspective works how I understand it to and not how one Victorian dude claimed it does, especially since the dude's ideas have not been widely accepted. The idea that I can be on a hill looking out to sea and see the sun sinking slowly below the horizon when it is in fact hundreds or maybe thousands of miles above the earth seems ridiculous.

and so on...

So yes, I haven't done lots of research into whether the earth is really a globe because I have no reason to doubt it, any more than despite having never been to Australia I have no reason to doubt it exists. Yes, it's technically possible that everyone I've met from there is lying, that maps have been created with it on as part of some conspiracy, that photos and video from there is all faked. Is that all possible? I guess, by the strictest definition of the word. But is it plausible? Not to me.

If you are not interested in learning about the world or debating your side and showing how we know certain things, then what are you doing here?

[inquisitive]

There are many satellite trucks in Kiev for the football, clearly they work.

[AATW]

I am highly educated and I've spent my entire life in STEM. I do value my privacy, however. I will reveal more at some point.

Red Shift and Blue Shift in Astronomy is questionable because we are assuming that an observed star can't be red for another reason. There are no controlled experiments with the stars on that concept. When I apply some slight scrutiny to the subject and ask for some studies on the decisiveness of that because I could not find any, it is complained that I am "demanding excessive evidence." 

All you've really done is there is repeat that you don't really understand what spectroscopy is and why its results can be trusted.
The headline is that the signature of certain elements is known, that can be verified experimentally. Doppler shift can be verified experimentally.
So when those element signatures are shown to be shifted you can infer movement and the speed of it.
Your argument was "but you don't know the colour of the star at rest", but you do know the element signature at rest and that is what is being detected.
If you're expecting controlled experiments on an actual star in a laboratory then that is clearly a ridiculous request, and that is where you get into "demanding excessive evidence".
And it's telling you only do this with ideas or experiments which contradict your FE model, such as it is.
Anything which confirms it is accepted unquestioningly.

Per the boat thing, I had no idea what specific argument you trying to make.

You were the one making the argument, claiming that the results of the experiment didn't take into account the viewer height.
I was the one trying to explain why that didn't matter as the difference was the same and the viewer height cancelled out. I drew you a diagram to explain it and everything while you spent ages claiming it was me who didn't understand the experiment.
Maybe I'm not very good at explaining things and gary's diagram was admittedly much better than mine (it was pretty much the same, but drawn much better).
Still not quite sure why that helped the penny drop but the general point is it took you a long time to understand what was a pretty simple experiment.
And it was a bit worrying that you posted a video from...Jerad, was it? A video which started by claiming that Stephen Hawking had been dead for years and then made a load of utterly spurious objections to that experiment which you initially stood behind. It doesn't demonstrate a great deal of understanding or critical thinking.

If you are not interested in learning about the world or debating your side and showing how we know certain things, then what are you doing here?

I am interested in that, but you don't learn about the world by reading a book written by some Victorian dude, accepting it as true for reasons I've yet to understand (given that the dude is largely forgotten by history and his ideas have not been accepted by any serious scientist) and then unquestioningly accepting anything which agrees with that book and wilfully misunderstanding or calling fake or applying ridiculous levels of scrutiny to anything which shows the book to be wrong.

If you're serious about learning about the world then critical thinking is a good thing but you need to do it consistently, not just accept things without question if they reinforce your world view and reject things spuriously which do not.

[rabinoz]

How about the two maps above where the planes disappear off into space and reappear on the other side of the disk??? 

We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.

Which map continental layout? Your Wiki says:

Layout of the Continents
There are several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica, as well as the overall layout of the continents.

Many believe that Antarctica is the Ice Wall encountered by Sir James Clark Ross, whereas some believe that Antarctica is simply a 'rim continent' surrounding the known Earth and that the term Ice Wall is misleading. Others believe that Antarctica is an isolated and distinct continent and that though an Ice Wall exists, it is not Antarctica. The latter model generally assumes that the geography of the Earth is quite different to that outlined in the conventional model.

Below are images of the two Flat Earth geographic models, which convey the different concepts of Antarctica within Flat Earth Theory:

Ice Wall model:

As a distinct continent:

From: Layout of the Continents

Surely by this stage someone has sorted out which is might be, if it is either of those and not from JRowe's "Dual Earth Theory". or even sandokhan's "correct, bi-polar map":

The northern circumpolar map, for some unknown reason still used by the FESs, is incorrect, useless in fact.

Here is the correct, bi-polar map, which I brought to the FES for the first time (like so many other things):

But all you ever do is plead from ignorance. You go on and on about our not-knowing, yet aircraft fly routes that don't fit either of those layouts.
Sure there are jet-streams but by averaging the to and from times the effect of jet-streams can be at least approximately averaged out.
No great accuracy is needed because the distances on the Ice Wall model are more than double the distances that I can and have measured in Australia.

[Tom Bishop]

Surely by this stage someone has sorted out which is might be, if it is either of those and not from JRowe's "Dual Earth Theory". or even sandokhan's "correct, bi-polar map"

It gets increasingly complicated the more one looks into it.

- Planes don't fly in straight paths to their destinations and only fly on certain routes for legal or territorial reasons
- Planes use jet streams as standard practice
- A stop is defined as one which picks up and drops off passengers. Non-stop in the travel industry may not always necessarily mean non-stop. (a bus that makes 29 stops and stops for fuel at some point still advertises its route as 29 stops, not 30)
- Distances are calculated based on the Lat-Long system that uses spherical coordinates
- There are many possible layouts of the continents
- It is not that unheard of for planes to arrive an hour late or an hour early (plenty of testimonials)
- There is not a good source of raw logs (not calculated or estimated) from the aircraft
- There is no such thing as a plane odometer (airspeed is not used in navigation and is surprisingly useless, only used to tell the pilot how fast air is moving over the wing)
- There are not routes between every airport on earth
- There is no guarantee that flight estimates are based on anything more than times from previously completed flights

[edby]

Surely by this stage someone has sorted out which is might be, if it is either of those and not from JRowe's "Dual Earth Theory". or even sandokhan's "correct, bi-polar map"

It gets increasingly complicated the more one looks into it.

- Planes don't fly in straight paths to their destinations and only fly on certain routes for legal or territorial reasons
- Planes use jet streams as standard practice
- A stop is defined as one which picks up and drops off passengers. Non-stop in the travel industry may not always necessarily mean non-stop. (a bus that makes 29 stops and stops for fuel at some point still advertises its route as 29 stops, not 30)
- Distances are calculated based on the Lat-Long system that uses spherical coordinates
- There are many possible layouts of the continents
- It is not that unheard of for planes to arrive an hour late or an hour early (plenty of testimonials)
- There is not a good source of raw logs (not calculated or estimated) from the aircraft
- There is no such thing as a plane odometer (airspeed is not used in navigation and is surprisingly useless, only used to tell the pilot how fast air is moving over the wing)
- There are not routes between every airport on earth
- There is no guarantee that flight estimates are based on anything more than times from previously completed flights

We discussed this a while ago, when I first joined this site. Flight times are observable and distance based on spherical coordinates is observable. If your points were correct then there would be little correlation between the two. But the X-Y graph below shows a strong correlation.

[Tom Bishop]

Your numbers don't make sense. Look at the one over the 5hr mark. It correlates with about 4000 miles.

https://www.quora.com/How-fast-do-aeroplanes-fly

"Commercial jet aircraft cruise at about 400 – 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph)"

Lets use 550 mph for example:

5hrs x 550 = 2750 miles

So your evidence is showing something contrary to the earth model you are arguing for.

[edby]

Your numbers don't make sense. Look at the one over the 5hr mark. It correlates with about 4000 miles.

A plane on an international flight travels about 550mph.

5hrs x 550 = 2750 miles

So your evidence is showing something contrary to the earth model you are arguing for.

Look at the units.