The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: mannyvz17 on December 10, 2014, 02:36:36 PM
-
Where is the evidence that Antarctica surrounds the entire earth? Don't you think more people like pilots or scientists would have figured this out?
-
How would a pilot know the shape of Antarctica? Do you think they can see the whole thing at one time? They fly using their instruments.
-
How would a pilot know the shape of Antarctica? Do you think they can see the whole thing at one time? They fly using their instruments.
I worded my post poorly. What I mean is that there is no documented evidence of this supposed "ice wall". People have traveled all over the world. How come no one has come across this?
-
Are you saying that nobody has seen Antarctica? You are being very confusing.
-
Are you saying that nobody has seen Antarctica? You are being very confusing.
In the round Earth model Antarctica is a place that exists at bottom of the Earth. You can get there by traveling south. But in the flat Earth model Antarctica exists surrounding Earth so you could theoretically get to it by traveling in any direction. How come more people haven't realized this?
-
In the round Earth model, you could get to Antarctica by traveling any direction. It is just quicker to go south. This is exactly the same in the flat Earth model. The shortest route to Antarctica is to follow a compass south.
-
In the round Earth model, you could get to Antarctica by traveling any direction. It is just quicker to go south. This is exactly the same in the flat Earth model. The shortest route to Antarctica is to follow a compass south.
If you went east or west you would never get to Antarctica in the round Earth model. And how is it exactly the same in flat Earth model? I want to know why no one has discovered that Antarctica surrounds the world. Why is their is no documented evidence of this?
-
Ok, you got me. With the exception of directly east or west, on either model, you could theoretically get to Antarctica traveling any other direction.
Perhaps you do not understand how north and south work on the Flat Earth?
-
Ok, you got me. With the exception of directly east or west, on either model, you could theoretically get to Antarctica traveling any other direction.
Perhaps you do not understand how north and south work on the Flat Earth?
I guess I don't. The model I looked at just shows a Antarctica as a circle that surrounds the continents.
-
Well, in that model, north would be towards the center, or hubward, and south would be towards Antarctica, or rimward. Like this:
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/earthDirections-1.png)
-
How would a pilot know the shape of Antarctica?
Umm... Maybe by taking a map and comparing what he sees on the map against what he sees out his window.
-
How would a pilot know the shape of Antarctica?
Umm... Maybe by taking a map and comparing what he sees on the map against what he sees out his window.
That sounds incredibly dangerous and inaccurate.
-
A big part of the misunderstanding is a result of the term "ice wall". There is not necessarily a wall of ice. There is, likely, a snowy, icy mass of land known as Antarctica which surrounds the more heavily inhabited land masses.
-
How would a pilot know the shape of Antarctica?
Umm... Maybe by taking a map and comparing what he sees on the map against what he sees out his window.
That sounds incredibly dangerous and inaccurate.
??? Why would that be dangerous or inaccurate? How do you navigate?
-
How would a pilot know the shape of Antarctica?
Umm... Maybe by taking a map and comparing what he sees on the map against what he sees out his window.
That sounds incredibly dangerous and inaccurate.
??? Why would that be dangerous or inaccurate? How do you navigate?
It's a lump of snow and ice. It all looks the same. Plus, averting your gaze from a map to the window multiple times while operating any vehicle is highly dangerous. It's an unnecessary distraction. Most maps of the arctic, if there truly are any accurate ones, are not very detailed. You couldn't just look out the window of your plane and then point to your exact position on a physical map.
Regarding RET's depiction of Anartica, here is the best map I could find:
(http://i.imgur.com/tyK0xoD.gif)
Could you tell where you are by comparing geography to this map?
-
How would a pilot know the shape of Antarctica?
Umm... Maybe by taking a map and comparing what he sees on the map against what he sees out his window.
That sounds incredibly dangerous and inaccurate.
??? Why would that be dangerous or inaccurate? How do you navigate?
It's a lump of snow and ice. It all looks the same. Plus, averting your gaze from a map to the window multiple times while operating any vehicle is highly dangerous. It's an unnecessary distraction.
Are you suggesting that aircraft can't accommodate more than one pilot at a time? ???
Regarding RET's depiction of Anartica, here is the best map I could find:
(http://i.imgur.com/tyK0xoD.gif)
Could you tell where you are by comparing geography to this map?
That's the best you could do? Seriously? ::)
-
I have a problem with Antarctica... Let's assume that you're in Antarctica, that means that you can go all around the world without getting out of it right ? Well, in 1958, Antarctica has been crossed by foot without any problem...
Also, if Antarctica is surrounding a flat Earth, then, it must have a minimum ice thickness, so what about global warming ???
-
Global warming is a myth. Hence 'global'.
-
Well..... Really ?? With all my respect, i'm not sure you have studied science a lot... I'm not particularly against Flat Earth theory (at least i can listen to your arguments) but... There is some scientific EVIDENCE that you cannot disprove, like gravity (and you found something pretty cool stuffs to explain it) and global warming is one of those things (maybe the name warming could be misunderstood, at least its pretty sure that ice is melting in Antarctica and North Pole). By yelling "plot!" everywhere, you're falling into paranoia and that's not a very scientific way to prove your theory... If you say that global warming is a myth, then prove it ! The goal of this forum is to discuss with objective arguments and i'm quite impressed about what has been done so far.
(Sorry for my approximate English, maybe some sentences are nonsense and i apologize for that :) )
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so?
-
Also, if Antarctica is surrounding a flat Earth, then, it must have a minimum ice thickness, so what about global warming ???
I, for one, disagree with the global warming denialists out here. The Ice Wall isn't literally all made of ice. It's a bunch of rocks thoroughly covered with ice. If the ice caps ever melt completely, we'll be left with a significantly smaller but equally effective stone wall.
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so?
Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid? And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job.
-
Sometimes, they even push a little too hard (http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/01/publish-and-perish-at-imperial-college-london-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/).
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so?
Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?
Of course not.
And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job.
I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.
-
Sometimes, they even push a little too hard (http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/01/publish-and-perish-at-imperial-college-london-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/).
Sure. There are all sorts of things that happen in every profession.
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so?
Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?
Of course not.
And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job.
I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.
Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco?
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so?
Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?
Of course not.
And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job.
I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.
Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco?
No. Reread what I wrote. You are being absolute, I am not.
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so?
Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?
Of course not.
And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job.
I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.
Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco?
No. Reread what I wrote. You are being absolute, I am not.
No, you are suggesting that scientists have never been paid to lie, while I gave a clear example of some that have. We can play semantic games all day long, if you would like, but that does not change the truth.
-
Well..... Really ?? With all my respect, i'm not sure you have studied science a lot... I'm not particularly against Flat Earth theory (at least i can listen to your arguments) but... There is some scientific EVIDENCE that you cannot disprove, like gravity (and you found something pretty cool stuffs to explain it) and global warming is one of those things (maybe the name warming could be misunderstood, at least its pretty sure that ice is melting in Antarctica and North Pole). By yelling "plot!" everywhere, you're falling into paranoia and that's not a very scientific way to prove your theory... If you say that global warming is a myth, then prove it ! The goal of this forum is to discuss with objective arguments and i'm quite impressed about what has been done so far.
(Sorry for my approximate English, maybe some sentences are nonsense and i apologize for that :) )
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to: BS.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
-
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so?
Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?
Of course not.
And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job.
I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.
Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco?
No. Reread what I wrote. You are being absolute, I am not.
No, you are suggesting that scientists have never been paid to lie...
No, he isn't.
,...while I gave a clear example of some that have. We can play semantic games all day long, if you would like, but that does not change the truth.
And you make it seem like scientists are only ever paid to lie produce the results that their employers are expecting.
-
The tobacco scientists were not paid by the tobacco companies to lie and say that tobacco is not bad for you, markjo?
-
The tobacco scientists were not paid by the tobacco companies to lie and say that tobacco is not bad for you, markjo?
Tobacco scientists employed by the tobacco industry were not the only scientists studying the effects of tobacco. Also, as I recall, some of the tobacco industry employed scientists did find that tobacco is harmful, but the the tobacco industry suppressed the results.
-
I see, so you admit that I was right.
-
No, you are suggesting that scientists have never been paid to lie,
Please quote me on that. You will find it difficult to do.
... while I gave a clear example of some that have. We can play semantic games all day long, if you would like, but that does not change the truth.
You said:
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real. Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.
The bolded section is an obvious attempt to poison the well and should really be disregarded. You cannot show that this to be true, and if you have specific suspicions about specific scientists making specific claims you believe are lies, you should provide evidence of such, much like you did for the tobacco scientists. Otherwise you are merely engaging in obfuscation.
The tobacco scientists were not paid by the tobacco companies to lie and say that tobacco is not bad for you, markjo?
No one is saying that people have never in the past spread deliberate misinformation, but that does not mean that all scientists do so, or that every scientists would do so for the right price tag.
-
So, just because scientists have been shown to lie for a paycheck, that does not mean that they don't all tell the truth today. Got it. ::)
-
So, just because scientists have been shown to lie for a paycheck, that does not mean that they don't all tell the truth today. Got it. ::)
Feel better?
-
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to: BS.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.
-
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to: BS.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.
Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout history. This is easily verified by a few simple Google searches. Global warming, the term and the science associated with it, is all pseudo-science and fear-mongering. Simply put, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded in recent times that hasn't been observed in the past. This is the natural way of things. Temp gradually decreases over time, then suddenly increases in bursts. This is mostly due to universal acceleration accelerating the Earth through different parts of space overtime. The notion that this 'warming' is caused by humanity is also equally absurd.
-
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to: BS.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.
Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout history. This is easily verified by a few simple Google searches. Global warming, the term and the science associated with it, is all pseudo-science and fear-mongering. Simply put, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded in recent times that hasn't been observed in the past. This is the natural way of things. Temp gradually decreases over time, then suddenly increases in bursts. This is mostly due to universal acceleration accelerating the Earth through different parts of space overtime. The notion that this 'warming' is caused by humanity is also equally absurd.
In fact no, changes are much much more faster now ! I advise you to watch this video :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
-
I see, so you admit that I was right.
??? What gave you that impression?
-
Also, if Antarctica is surrounding a flat Earth, then, it must have a minimum ice thickness, so what about global warming ???
I, for one, disagree with the global warming denialists out here. The Ice Wall isn't literally all made of ice. It's a bunch of rocks thoroughly covered with ice. If the ice caps ever melt completely, we'll be left with a significantly smaller but equally effective stone wall.
Well, why not.......
-
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to: BS.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.
Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout history. This is easily verified by a few simple Google searches. Global warming, the term and the science associated with it, is all pseudo-science and fear-mongering. Simply put, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded in recent times that hasn't been observed in the past. This is the natural way of things. Temp gradually decreases over time, then suddenly increases in bursts. This is mostly due to universal acceleration accelerating the Earth through different parts of space overtime. The notion that this 'warming' is caused by humanity is also equally absurd.
In fact no, changes are much much more faster now ! I advise you to watch this video :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
Evidence presented via NASA charts. Very reliable.
Also, the sun glasses aren't helping his case.
-
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to: BS.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.
Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout history. This is easily verified by a few simple Google searches. Global warming, the term and the science associated with it, is all pseudo-science and fear-mongering. Simply put, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded in recent times that hasn't been observed in the past. This is the natural way of things. Temp gradually decreases over time, then suddenly increases in bursts. This is mostly due to universal acceleration accelerating the Earth through different parts of space overtime. The notion that this 'warming' is caused by humanity is also equally absurd.
In fact no, changes are much much more faster now ! I advise you to watch this video :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
Evidence presented via NASA charts. Very reliable.
Also, the sun glasses aren't helping his case.
Vauxhall giving a master class in critical thinking.