[mannyvz17]

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?

[jroa]

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. 

[mannyvz17]

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?

[jroa]

Are you saying that nobody has seen Antarctica?  You are being very confusing. 

[mannyvz17]

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?

[jroa]

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. 

[mannyvz17]

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?

[jroa]

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? 

[mannyvz17]

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.

[jroa]

Well, in that model, north would be towards the center, or hubward, and south would be towards Antarctica, or rimward.  Like this:

[markjo]

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.

[Ghost of V]

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.

[spoon]

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.

[markjo]

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?

[Ghost of V]

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:



Could you tell where you are by comparing geography to this map?

[markjo]

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:



Could you tell where you are by comparing geography to this map?

That's the best you could do?  Seriously? 

[feynman]

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

[Ghost of V]

Global warming is a myth. Hence 'global'.

[feynman]

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  )

[jroa]

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.