The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: kc_kennylau on December 05, 2014, 03:13:43 PM
-
If the earth were indeed flat, with the north pole in the center, and the south "pole" being a circle on the outside of this disk, then would Antartica not be bigger than any continent and circumnavigating Antartica be almost impossible? Don't go claim that all videos of people walking Antartica are fake. Go there and walk yourself.
Ok, let's suppose then the south pole and the north pole is opposite of each other, meaning that the south pole is on the other side of this disk. Then why can you not drill a hole directly from the north pole and the south pole? And what about the sun? Would there be two suns to make the northern "hemisphere" the same heat as the southern "hemisphere"? And if it were like that, what about gravity? As you guys claimed that the earth is accelerating upwards by 9.8 m/s/s, so the water on the southern "hemisphere" should just fall off. So only one side of this flat earth can be used. Then what does the other side contain? And what would you see if you continue to walk south when you arrive Antartica?
-
Who walked around Antarctica? You are very confusing.
Also, you claim that you should be able to drill from the North Pole to the South Pole, when no Flat Earthers have claimed that the South Pole is below the North pole. With your logic, why has nobody drilled this hole on a round Earth?
And, you seem to be confused, and you are thinking that the sun goes under the flat Earth. Maybe you could read our FAQ or even the wiki?
And, finally, why would the water fall off? Could you please explain?
-
Let's ignore my second paragraph. So are you guys saying that the South Pole isn't a pole?
-
I suggest you locate and read the FAQ. It will answer many, if not all of your questions.
-
Then why can you not drill a hole directly from the north pole and the south pole?[/url]
Yes, you could. The South Pole is technically beneath the North Pole in the Flat Earth model. The magnetic field lines rise and spread out at the North pole and don't intersect with the earth until beyond the Ice Wall (and some parts in the ocean).
The needle of a compass always aligns with the magnetic field lines in its area.
And what about the sun? Would there be two suns to make the northern "hemisphere" the same heat as the southern "hemisphere"?
The earth is laid out similar to the United Nations logo. The sun is circling clockwise over the earth. The sun's path also changes radius throughout the year to create the seasons. At Summer Solstice the Sun is traveling near the Tropic of Cancer to give the Northern Hemiplane its long days and hot summers and the Southern Hemiplane it's short days and cold winters. At Winter Solstice the sun is traveling near the Tropic of Capricorn to give the Nothern Hemiplane its short days and cold winters and the Southern Hemiplane its long days and hot summers.
And if it were like that, what about gravity? As you guys claimed that the earth is accelerating upwards by 9.8 m/s/s, so the water on the southern "hemisphere" should just fall off.
The water is contained by the Ice Wall at the coast of Antarctica, like a bowl.
Then what does the other side contain?
The matter is highly debated. Some believe it to be just rocks. Others question the concept of an "other side".
And what would you see if you continue to walk south when you arrive Antartica?
This is unknown. Some believe the earth is finite and one would eventually encounter an edge. Others believe the earth is infinite and that we live on an eternal plane which bisects the universe as a fundamental part of its geometry.
-
Then why can you not drill a hole directly from the north pole and the south pole?[/url]
Yes, you could. The South Pole is technically beneath the North Pole in the Flat Earth model. The magnetic field lines rise and spread out at the North pole and don't intersect with the earth until beyond the Ice Wall (and some parts in the ocean).
The needle of a compass always aligns with the magnetic field lines in its area.
...
Tom Bishop, are you now renouncing your previous stand that the earth has Antarctica as a distinct continent? See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents)
-
If the earth were indeed flat, with the north pole in the center, and the south "pole" being a circle on the outside of this disk, then would Antartica not be bigger than any continent and circumnavigating Antartica be almost impossible? Don't go claim that all videos of people walking Antartica are fake. Go there and walk yourself.
Ok, let's suppose then the south pole and the north pole is opposite of each other, meaning that the south pole is on the other side of this disk. Then why can you not drill a hole directly from the north pole and the south pole? And what about the sun? Would there be two suns to make the northern "hemisphere" the same heat as the southern "hemisphere"? And if it were like that, what about gravity? As you guys claimed that the earth is accelerating upwards by 9.8 m/s/s, so the water on the southern "hemisphere" should just fall off. So only one side of this flat earth can be used. Then what does the other side contain? And what would you see if you continue to walk south when you arrive Antartica?
If you look at the actual travel routes of trans-Antarctican expeditions, it's easy to see that they work just as well on the disc model. They generally look something like this one:
(http://www.transantarcticexpedition.com/images/titles/expedition-route.jpg)
We all live on one side of the plane, no one knows what is underneath.
-
If the earth were indeed flat, with the north pole in the center, and the south "pole" being a circle on the outside of this disk, then would Antartica not be bigger than any continent and circumnavigating Antartica be almost impossible? Don't go claim that all videos of people walking Antartica are fake. Go there and walk yourself.
Ok, let's suppose then the south pole and the north pole is opposite of each other, meaning that the south pole is on the other side of this disk. Then why can you not drill a hole directly from the north pole and the south pole? And what about the sun? Would there be two suns to make the northern "hemisphere" the same heat as the southern "hemisphere"? And if it were like that, what about gravity? As you guys claimed that the earth is accelerating upwards by 9.8 m/s/s, so the water on the southern "hemisphere" should just fall off. So only one side of this flat earth can be used. Then what does the other side contain? And what would you see if you continue to walk south when you arrive Antartica?
If you look at the actual travel routes of trans-Antarctican expeditions, it's easy to see that they work just as well on the disc model. They generally look something like this one:
(http://www.transantarcticexpedition.com/images/titles/expedition-route.jpg)
We all live on one side of the plane, no one knows what is underneath.
If Antarctica is a ring continent, there is no route that transverses the continent that would be remotely plausible. It would be a trip measuring tens of thousands of kms.
-
If you look at the actual travel routes of trans-Antarctican expeditions, it's easy to see that they work just as well on the disc model. They generally look something like this one:
We all live on one side of the plane, no one knows what is underneath.
Can you please plot this one on the disc model ?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Antarctica_CTAE.jpg)
Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition 1955-58, 99 days / 3473 km
-
Certainly I could, but it likely wouldn't satisfy you as it would appear to be a longer route than the 3473 km figure you cite. There is zero evidence that this is the actual route taken, and I suspect it was much more like the shorter route I posted.
I can follow this, and I'm not even a supporter of the ring continent model. It's not that difficult.
-
There is zero evidence that this is the actual route taken, and I suspect it was much more like the shorter route I posted.
What leads you to this conclusion ?
-
All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.
-
All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.
Ok, so you have now dropped the bipolar flat model ?
-
All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.
So you think they had trouble with their compasses or that they had no concept of navigation?
-
All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.
Ok, so you have now dropped the bipolar flat model ?
My explanation applies to either model.
All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.
So you think they had trouble with their compasses or that they had no concept of navigation?
Actually, the compass doesn't work in the entire Antarctic circle... or the Arctic circle for that matter. The magnetic field lines become more and more vertical at those latitudes. Eventually you need a special swivel compass, but even that takes you so far. At the latitude of Seattle, Washington, a normal compass is already scraping against the floor of its enclosure. It is actually only a narrow strip of land where the magnetic compass works, where the majority of the population lives.
See: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html
Travel to Antarctica would have been done by another method, such as by the stars. But more than likely they are following the markers of early famous explorers from the early 1900's who claimed to have found the geographic south pole, whose structures still stand.
-
Actually, the compass doesn't work in the entire Antarctic circle... or the Arctic circle for that matter.The magnetic field lines become more and more vertical at those latitudes. Eventually you need a special swivel compass, but even that takes you so far. At the latitude of Seattle, Washington, a normal compass is already scraping against the floor of its enclosure. It is actually only a narrow strip of land where the magnetic compass works, where the majority of the population lives.
See: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html
That link says that there are compasses that work that far north and south. You think people traveling, even to a peninsula of antartica were not equipped properly?
Travel to Antarctica would have been done by another method, such as by the stars. But more than likely they are following the markers of early famous explorers from the early 1900's who claimed to have found the geographic south pole, whose structures still stand.
Citation required. It seems more logical that an expedition would check it's position against multiple navigation markers to ensure that they are where they think they are.
-
That link says that there are compasses that work that far north and south. You think people traveling, even to a peninsula of antartica were not equipped properly?
There are swivel compasses that will take you a little further, where the needle is on a little bendable axle, but at a certain point the magnetic field lines point nearly straight down (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif). There is no compass needle that can defy 'gravity'.
Citation required. It seems more logical that an expedition would check it's position against multiple navigation markers to ensure that they are where they think they are.
If you landed on the Antarctic coast and followed signs that said "South Pole This Way," I doubt you would feel the need to double and triple reference your path against a plethora of navigating instruments. And if you did, and found some kind of discrepancy, you would likely brush it off as an interesting curiosity.
-
I completely disagree. If my goal was to transverse the South Pole exactly I would be extremely careful to make sure I had done so. This is of course granting the idea that there are signs saying "South Pole that way".
-
What would be the thickness of your flat earth ? Do you disprove the experiments that show the intern structure of the Earth ? (Prem model)
-
I completely disagree. If my goal was to transverse the South Pole exactly I would be extremely careful to make sure I had done so. This is of course granting the idea that there are signs saying "South Pole that way".
But the explorers you are referencing do not have the benefit of being you. They had no question in their mind that the earth was a globe. That's what they were taught. They followed the signs, they followed the path others before them have taken from one coastal antarctic port to the other. Compasses don't work there. Without a question that the earth is a globe and that they are truly circumnavigating Antarctica, and not a peninsula, they would have no need to be "extremely careful" to make sure that they had circumnavigated Antarctica to prove it was a continent.
-
I completely disagree. If my goal was to transverse the South Pole exactly I would be extremely careful to make sure I had done so. This is of course granting the idea that there are signs saying "South Pole that way".
But the explorers your referencing do not have the benefit of being you. They had no question in their mind that the earth was a globe. That's what they were taught. They followed the signs, they followed the path others before them have taken from one coastal antarctic port to the other. Compasses don't work there. Without a question that the earth is a globe and that they are truly circumnavigating Antarctica, and not a peninsula, they would have no need to be "extremely careful" to make sure that they had circumnavigated Antarctica to prove it was a continent.
There are a lot of assertions in here and zero support. Unless you are going to start citing sources for this it should just be ignored as biased editorializing.
-
I completely disagree. If my goal was to transverse the South Pole exactly I would be extremely careful to make sure I had done so. This is of course granting the idea that there are signs saying "South Pole that way".
But the explorers your referencing do not have the benefit of being you. They had no question in their mind that the earth was a globe. That's what they were taught. They followed the signs, they followed the path others before them have taken from one coastal antarctic port to the other. Compasses don't work there. Without a question that the earth is a globe and that they are truly circumnavigating Antarctica, and not a peninsula, they would have no need to be "extremely careful" to make sure that they had circumnavigated Antarctica to prove it was a continent.
Where do compasses not work? Today we have GPS to know our location.
-
I completely disagree. If my goal was to transverse the South Pole exactly I would be extremely careful to make sure I had done so. This is of course granting the idea that there are signs saying "South Pole that way".
But the explorers your referencing do not have the benefit of being you. They had no question in their mind that the earth was a globe. That's what they were taught. They followed the signs, they followed the path others before them have taken from one coastal antarctic port to the other. Compasses don't work there. Without a question that the earth is a globe and that they are truly circumnavigating Antarctica, and not a peninsula, they would have no need to be "extremely careful" to make sure that they had circumnavigated Antarctica to prove it was a continent.
There are a lot of assertions in here and zero support. Unless you are going to start citing sources for this it should just be ignored as biased editorializing.
Have you ever met someone who calls themselves an "explorer"? They are universally brainless thrill seekers with too much money on their hands. Scientists are not explorers. Scientists are poor, and need to work for a living. The only reason a scientist goes to explore a far off exotic location like Antarctica is if a government is funding it, and the governments of the world lost interest in exploring Antarctica pretty much after they sent the first explorers in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Today some government institutions merely send people down there to study wildlife in a single spot, then return. Thorough, investigative and fundamental inquiry of the Antarctic continent is not conducted.
Every single time someone goes down to Antarctica in a challenge to cross it they merely trace steps of the early explorers, overly prepared with warm luxuries and survival safeguards of a millionaire on vacation, with books and stories in their bags about Antarctica and the people who died there. These people are merely doing it to say that they crossed Antarctica.
I don't see anyone crossing Antarctica horizontally to those few vertical paths. A true explorer wouldn't pride himself on taking a path others have taken.
Where do compasses not work? Today we have GPS to know our location.
Compasses do not work where the magnetic field lines are vertical, which is a good chunk of the entire Antarctic circle.
GPS works by telling the receiver how far it is from the broadcasting device. The receiver knows that, under theory, every 69.5 is one degree. So, if a receiver is 347.5 miles from the receiver, the display takes the coordinates of the broadcasting device given to it in the stream and adds 347.5 miles to it to output a degree coordinate for the receiver's location. It is possible to use this method of navigation to avoid getting lost and assign coordinate values to all of the locations near that broadcasting device.
The same devices could be used on a plane perfectly well. The xy coordinates would simply be artificial constructs used to assign location names to the surface to navigate. In order to take those xy degree coordinates, which are designed assuming 360 degrees on a globe, and use it to say that the earth is a globe, which it is not, further investigation would be required beyond the simple act of navigating from point A to point B.
-
That is not how GPS works.
-
That is not how GPS works.
The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.
-
That is not how GPS works.
The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.
GPS needs to receive from more than 1 satellite. The spec is online.
Knowing the location from one transmitter does not help, how do you think it measures the distance?
-
That is not how GPS works.
The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.
GPS needs to receive from more than 1 satellite. The spec is online.
Knowing the location from one transmitter does not help, how do you think it measures the distance?
Actually, you just quoted me as saying that multiple beacons are required to get direction information.
The distance is determined via timestamps. A broadcasting beacon announces its time and the receiving beacon receives it and compares its own time with the broadcasting time, using the speed of light to get a distance to the broadcasting beacon.
-
That is not how GPS works.
The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.
GPS needs to receive from more than 1 satellite. The spec is online.
Knowing the location from one transmitter does not help, how do you think it measures the distance?
You just quoted me as saying that multiple beacons are required to get direction information.
The distance is determined via timestamps. A broadcasting beacon announces its time and the receiving beacon receives it and compares its own time with the broadcasting time, using the speed of light to get a distance to the broadcasting beacon.
You do not set the time in a GPS receiver. How does it know its direction or angle from the satellite?
-
That is not how GPS works.
The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.
GPS needs to receive from more than 1 satellite. The spec is online.
Knowing the location from one transmitter does not help, how do you think it measures the distance?
You just quoted me as saying that multiple beacons are required to get direction information.
The distance is determined via timestamps. A broadcasting beacon announces its time and the receiving beacon receives it and compares its own time with the broadcasting time, using the speed of light to get a distance to the broadcasting beacon.
You do not set the time in a GPS receiver. How does it know its direction or angle from the satellite?
The clock of a gps device sets itself by looking at time stamps of incoming signals from multiple gps signals and gauging its own inaccuracy.
In use, a single beacon will be able to tell you how far you are from it just fine. The other beacons are mainly required to get direction information. The receiver doesn't know precisely what direction the signal came from and needs others to triangulate. It uses the other signals to figure out the direction the first signal came from and places itself on a coordinate map.
-
That is not how GPS works.
The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.
GPS needs to receive from more than 1 satellite. The spec is online.
Knowing the location from one transmitter does not help, how do you think it measures the distance?
You just quoted me as saying that multiple beacons are required to get direction information.
The distance is determined via timestamps. A broadcasting beacon announces its time and the receiving beacon receives it and compares its own time with the broadcasting time, using the speed of light to get a distance to the broadcasting beacon.
You do not set the time in a GPS receiver. How does it know its direction or angle from the satellite?
A single beacon will be able to tell you how far you are from it just fine. The other beacons are only required to get direction information. The receiver doesn't know precisely what direction the signal came from and needs others to triangulate. It uses the other signals to figure out the direction the first signal came from and places itself on a coordinate map.
GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.
-
GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.
Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.
-
GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.
Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.
It's all in the published spec. gps.gov
-
GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.
Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.
It's all in the published spec. gps.gov
I've read all about GPS specs. GPS receivers have clocks that set themselves, the distance from the beacon is determined via time stamp differences, the receiver's coordinates are determined via addition based on the beacon's preprogrammed coordinates, multiple beacons required to get direction information, etc.
Perhaps you can tell us how they really work.
-
GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.
Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.
It's all in the published spec. gps.gov
I've read all about GPS specs. GPS receivers have clocks that set themselves, the distance from the beacon is determined via time stamp differences, the receiver's coordinates are determined via addition based on the beacon's preprogrammed coordinates, multiple beacons required to get direction information, etc.
Perhaps you can tell us how they really work.
How does a clock in a GPS receiver set itself? Link to details please.
-
Hence GPS works at any location on earth as long as it can 'see' 3 satellites. Very handy for measuring travelled distances...
-
GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.
Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.
It's all in the published spec. gps.gov
I've read all about GPS specs. GPS receivers have clocks that set themselves, the distance from the beacon is determined via time stamp differences, the receiver's coordinates are determined via addition based on the beacon's preprogrammed coordinates, multiple beacons required to get direction information, etc.
Perhaps you can tell us how they really work.
How does a clock in a GPS receiver set itself? Link to details please.
It takes the timestamps from multiple gps signals around it and gauges its own inaccuracy. While less effective, this is a work-around solution to installing expansive atomic clocks in each gps receiver.
Hence GPS works at any location on earth as long as it can 'see' 3 satellites. Very handy for measuring travelled distances...
I'm sorry, what's your point?
-
GPS satellites orbit the round earth.
-
GPS satellites orbit the round earth.
What if those three satellite gps beacons were high altitude dirigibles, or antennas installed at military bases? Would GPS work then?
-
Have you ever met someone who calls themselves an "explorer"? They are universally brainless thrill seekers with too much money on their hands. Scientists are not explorers. Scientists are poor, and need to work for a living. The only reason a scientist goes to explore a far off exotic location like Antarctica is if a government is funding it, and the governments of the world lost interest in exploring Antarctica pretty much after they sent the first explorers in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Today some government institutions merely send people down there to study wildlife in a single spot, then return. Thorough, investigative and fundamental inquiry of the Antarctic continent is not conducted.
Every single time someone goes down to Antarctica in a challenge to cross it they merely trace steps of the early explorers, overly prepared with warm luxuries and survival safeguards of a millionaire on vacation, with books and stories in their bags about Antarctica and the people who died there. These people are merely doing it to say that they crossed Antarctica.
I don't see anyone crossing Antarctica horizontally to those few vertical paths. A true explorer wouldn't pride himself on taking a path others have taken.
I am sorry you are having trouble Tom, let me try and help you. You said that these explorers were just retracing steps; this may or may not be true. If you want someone to believe you, you should quote a source that supports your position. You should not make Ad Hominem attacks against all explorers (what's up with that? Jealous?). When prompted to support your position, you should not just repeat the point again.
Want to try again?
-
GPS satellites orbit the round earth.
What if those three satellite gps beacons were high altitude dirigibles, or antennas installed at military bases? Would GPS work then?
GPS satellites orbit the earth, 24 give full coverage.
-
Compasses don't work there.
Compasses work there. They point to the magnetic poles always. While the geographic and magnetic poles don't align and compasses must be allowed to point downward near the magnetic poles, they do indeed work.
-
GPS satellites orbit the round earth.
What if those three satellite gps beacons were high altitude dirigibles, or antennas installed at military bases? Would GPS work then?
GPS satellites orbit the earth, 24 give full coverage.
You evaded the question. What if? For what it's worth, I do think there are satellites above the earth, as I've observed them. I don't think they are at the altitudes reported, however.
-
GPS satellites orbit the round earth.
What if those three satellite gps beacons were high altitude dirigibles, or antennas installed at military bases? Would GPS work then?
GPS satellites orbit the earth, 24 give full coverage.
You evaded the question. What if? For what it's worth, I do think there are satellites above the earth, as I've observed them. I don't think they are at the altitudes reported, however.
So why don't you measure their altitudes and stop just "thinking" about it? See: http://io9.com/5688939/how-to-measure-the-distance-from-the-earth-to-the-moon (http://io9.com/5688939/how-to-measure-the-distance-from-the-earth-to-the-moon)