1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: February 28, 2018, 08:55:04 PM »

Hey, this thread is finally getting lots of posts! Anyway, in the original post, I wasn't asking about a wall but instead a ring of ice, and about the flights from Adelaide and Sydney to Beunos Aires over Antarctica not taking hundreds of thousands of kilometres longer with a flat Earth. So far, nothing has been proved by a FEer about the OP. I am asking to try and find out if you can explain distorted distances in the Southern Hemisphere, not whether the mythical ice wall has got flat parts to it. I do realise that my last post was completely irrelevant, so I do apologise for that. As for the no planes flying over the Antarctic Circle part, flights from Adelaide to Buenos Aires do fly over the fringes of Antarctica, which doesn't disprove an ice wall, but that is off topic anyway. Could you please try to keep the topic to the questions asked in the original post?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The domed theory is heresy and here is why.

« on: February 28, 2018, 08:57:55 AM »

Teleblaster, how does any of the evidence you have given prove to us the shape of the Earth or the authenticity of the bible? You have given us a great many verses from the bible, but do any of them prove that a spear was made from an asteroid and passed through many generations, from iconic biblical figures to roman leaders? No, instead, all you are doing is drawing conclusions from evidence that isn't there.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: February 28, 2018, 08:26:13 AM »

So, if Antarctica is not a ring, where does that leave us?

You provided no reasoning to conclude this. Your friend claims to have seen a very small subsection of the ice wall, and "other than glaciers" (i.e. literally what makes up the ice wall) they couldn't see it.

Why, yes, of course. The other day I fell off the ladder, and other than perceiving a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms^-2 relative to the Earth, I could not perceive any gravity. Given that gravity no longer exists, where does that leave us?

Pete Svarrior, several things. Firstly, it was close family that saw Antarctica from the plane. Secondly, they mostly saw flat icy wasteland, nothing like what an ice wall would be. Thirdly, I didn't conclude that Antarctica isn't a ring, but instead simply put the question from the perspective that it isn't a ring. If you would care to read the entire post, you would see that I later addressed Antarctica as a ring, asking why every person who has ever seen it, including my close family is part of a massive conspiracy. And finally, what you are stating has little to no relevance to the original question, about flight paths over Antarctica and why distance in the Southern Hemisphere is so different to what it should be according to your model.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the "spotlight" sun FE model explain long summer days in Australia?

« on: February 27, 2018, 07:01:27 AM »

Not to mention that Antartica has long periods where ALL of it has 24 hour sunlight...

As some FE'ers point out, how do we know Antarctica is not a hoax, other than the movie "March of the Penguins" since Morgan Freeman might be in on the conspiracy.  We do know that people living in Southern Chile have 17 hours of daylight in the summer.  So I think other than to get into conspiracy stuff, the flat earth sun model would have to give Chile the 17 hours of daylight, 16 hours to Christchurch, and only 14.5 hours in Cape Town. It would still be tough model to replicate.

The FE theory pretty well guarantees that there will be some kind of asymmetry between North and South. The Southern hemisphere should have four times the area of the North. The weather and sunlight patterns should be entirely different. It should take twice as long to circumnavigate the Tropic of Capricorn compared to the Tropic of Cancer.

As it is, the experience of billions of people shows us that the seasons in the Southern hemisphere are the same as in the North, merely happening at opposite times of the year. The Sun in the FE model somehow covers four times the area in the same time, giving the same light. And we now live in a connected society where the head of flat Earth Australia can communicate with the head of flat Earth USA and tell him that yes, it's nighttime for him, and summer when it's daytime and winter at the antipodes.

I've noticed that bringing up this stuff, along with twice-daily tides, always shuts down the conversation with flat Earth supporters completely beyond personal attacks or a feeble "well we don't really know what the map looks like," which is pretty interesting. Like look at Pete's defensive response to this topic in the second post.

Honestly, I'm surprised no enterprising FE believer has invented anything like the "shadow object" in lunar eclipses to explain this huge discrepancy. I guess it's because Rowbotham never visited the southern hemipshere.

The general debate style of a Flat Earther typically starts off with a clever and short question from a question (i.e. Pete's typical "I know you are but what am I?" type style), then progresses to an attempt at using some type of (generally faulty and not well thought out) science / physics / and experiment, and then a duck and run when pushed further to clarify or explain at a richer and deeper level.

Folks like Pete and Tom Bishop likely know that there are major issues with the FE model; but confirmation bias and getting caught up in the Zetetic way of life tends to override common sense and facts. FE also see the world much different than a RE; i.e. one that is rife with conspiracy, hoaxes, technological advances that cannot possibly be true, and the need to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe.

I'd ask any flat Earth supporter who's reading this topic to keep an open mind and really dig into why your model can't explain such a common and widely reported phenomenon. Remember the most important part of science is to draw conclusions from the evidence, not the other way around. It's easy to ignore evidence that doesn't agree with you, but truth comes from instead rejecting hypotheses that don't agree with the evidence. This evidence doesn't necessarily prove mainstream science right but it appears to prove the FE hypothesis wrong.

Don't continue to fall prey to every conspiracy theorist Twitter account's favorite Mark Twain quote: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Of course if I'm the one who's wrong and in real life the southern hemisphere's seasons don't actually behave this way and instead act like the FE model predicts, I'd love to see it for the reasons posted above. I just haven't been swayed so far.

Well, Opeo, as someone who lives a short drive away from Sydney, seasons do behave like in a round Earth model. The reason I even made a flat earth account was simply to see how flat earthers could explain how the Southern Hemisphere could fit into a flat earth model. If the Earth was flat, then everything in Australia would be wildly different, such as time, perspective, seasons, distances and geography. But alas, no flat earthers will likely ever be able to explain this, and that is why there is probably no such thing as flat earthers living below the equator, and if there are, then their model would be completely different to TFES's.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: February 27, 2018, 06:35:46 AM »

So, if Antarctica is not a ring, where does that leave us? Well, if Antarctica is not a ring, then there are two possible explanations: 1. that Antarctica is actually in the centre of the map, and the north pole is a ring on the edge of the world, but there are many, many things wrong with this, or 2. that the world is round, which sorts out the whole issue and disappoints the conspiracy theorists. If Antarctica is a ring, then why is every person to ever have seen it suddenly part of a conspiracy, and why is distance (like I asked in the original post) so different to what you say it should be in the southern hemisphere? Flat earthers, please explain how this is possible, and how distance, travel and flight paths can work on a flat earth.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: February 23, 2018, 10:43:18 AM »

Why are you so fixated on them going over a pole?  And they only appear to travel in waves because that is their 3D elliptical path around the earth projected on to a 2D surface.

To have absolute proof that they can.
Right now I don't think they can because they don't.
If they don't then why?
And a FE answers that question why.

This is inaccurate, as there are quite a lot of satellites that do orbit over the poles, including the Iridium satellite constellation, which has over 60 active satellites orbiting over the poles, and has been orbiting for over 2 decades. These satellites are used for data coverage to satellite phones (along with other uses) and disproves your theory. The site you showed only seemed to be able to show a single satellite at a time, meaning that it would be very time consuming to find any polar orbiting satellites, which is probably why you didn't find any. Most satellites will generally not orbit over the poles as it uses more energy to orbit in a completely different direction to the rotation of the Earth, and it is difficult to get permanent coverage from a polar orbiting satellite. Hopefully this helped.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: February 22, 2018, 05:17:18 AM »

Potatohead,
I am glad you posted this.  I have often stated here that if we ignore that people might actually live south of the equator everything could work out fine.  When you watch the sun in the summer does it rise in the North east and set in the north west? 
Someone here claimed airplanes do not fly over Antarctica which proves the ice wall exists. So just to confirm, you have seen the continent and it is not 70,000 miles long in the form of a ring?

Yes, the Sun does rise in the north east and set in the north west, and many things here in Australia face north to catch sunlight. Personally I have not travelled to Argentina, but multiple close family members have and talked about seeing the shores of Antarctica. They didn't see any ice walls, and it wasn't 113000 km long in the shape of a ring either. Below is a map of flights from Adelaide and Sydney to Buenos Aires. I'm interested to see if any flat earthers will reply to this.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: February 21, 2018, 08:39:50 PM »

Hey Flat Earthers, just wondering, I live in Australia. When travelling from Sydney to Adelaide, it only took slightly under 1500 km to get there. However, if your projection of the world is true, it should have been thousands of kilometres longer. Also, when flying from Australia to Argentina, you fly over Antarctica. However, there are no ice walls to be seen, except for glaciers. Also, if you are flying over Antarctica to get to Argentina, it should take many tens of thousands of kilometres and many days to get there according to your model, when you only quickly pass over the frozen continent and arrive at Argentina the next day. Why would flights travel in a massive circle around the edge of the flat world when they could simply pass over the north pole in a much more direct route, if your projection is true? Wouldn't it cost far more in fueling costs for the plane to travel in a massive circle around the world than simply over the curved surface of the world? Why would airliner companies be willing to spend so much more money on flights such as this than to show that the world is flat? Please answer, and please don't use any pointless videos or false definitions to explain it.