Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 03:14:50 PM »
In the Ice Wall model, you obviously have the Ice Wall. But why has no one ever explored it? Surely we would be capable of that - at least we would be able to gather more information about it. Also, why not just fly a plane over it - even just to see how far it goes?

And in the bipolar map, there's usually no Ice Wall, meaning that nothing would stop ships from just going over the rim - or at least seeing that rim. Planes could also fly over it anytime. And wouldn't the oceans just drain down there? And, I've always wondered, if it's there, why has no one ever stumbled upon it?

Since some kind of rim at the edge seems to be one of the defining features of a Flat Earth model, it seems like the best way to confirm its veracity without a doubt would be to find said rim - since on a RE, there obviously would be nothing like it. It seems like there would also be tremendous scientific potential, with all the UA and dark energy stuff. So why has no one in the history of the FES ever tried to find it?

Summed up, if the Earth is in fact flat, why has no one ever seen its edge, nor tried to find it? If it has been tried, why could it possibly not have been discovered?

Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2017, 03:28:28 PM »
The ice-wall is as far as you can go. A militarized zone, not accessible to the public without nation state escort.

Why does a flat earth need an edge? Is it not possible that you reach a point that whichever direction you choose, it is no longer further from the center? To be so far from the center at its very limit, that the only direction to go is closer? One could hypothesize that once you are at a place that is as far as can be from another point, one cannot go any further and so any choice must bring you closer. Imagine eating in a hot dog competition. And you stuff down dog after dog and become full. When you reach your limit, and you stuff down another hot dog, which direction will that one go? Will it follow all the others, or make an effort to return to the source location no matter what you do? One more step on a flat earth away from the hub, becomes the first step back towards the center.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 03:42:23 PM by Screamer »

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2017, 03:38:45 PM »
The ice-wall is as far as you can go. A militarized zone, not accessible to the public without nation state escort.

Why does a flat earth need an edge? Is it not possible that you reach a point that whichever direction you choose, it is no longer further from the center? To be so far from the center at its very limit, that the only direction to go is closer? One could hypothesize that once you are at a place that is as far as can be from another point, one cannot go any further and so any choice must bring you closer. Imagine eating in a hot dog competition. And you stuff down dog after dog and become full. When you reach your limit, and you stuff down another hot dog, which direction will that one go? Will it follow all the others, or make an effort to return to the source location no matter what you do? One more step on a flat earth away from the hub, becomes the first step back towards the center.
Firstly, you are incorrect about Antarctica being a militarized zone, it is in fact the opposite as no nation is allowed to lay claim to it. Stop repeating that lie.

Secondly, what in the world are you babbling about? How can you move continuously in one direction away from the center of a plane, and suddenly be going back towards that center without crossing an edge? What you are describing is a globe or any other 3D object, not a flat plane. Try it with a piece of paper. Or attempt a better explanation, because your eating competition has no similarity to walking on a flat plane.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2017, 03:42:33 PM »
If you were on a round earth, and stood on the South pole, and I asked you to walk south, you'd reply "I can't, South no longer exists. I can only go back towards North". If you are at the furthest reach of a flat earth, it stands to reason you can go no further and away from the center also no longer exists. It matters not that the land spreads out in front of you in all directions, that is the same conundrum you found yourself in at the south pole, and yet you could still not travel South. Once further away is off the table, you found the limit of a flat earth.

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2017, 03:55:39 PM »
If you were on a round earth, and stood on the South pole, and I asked you to walk south, you'd reply "I can't, South no longer exists. I can only go back towards North". If you are at the furthest reach of a flat earth, it stands to reason you can go no further and away from the center also no longer exists. It matters not that the land spreads out in front of you in all directions, that is the same conundrum you found yourself in at the south pole, and yet you could still not travel South. Once further away is off the table, you found the limit of a flat earth.
No, it doesn't stand to reason unless you have found the edge. On a flat plane you will never reach a point that you cannot go further away from where you started, unless you literally cannot go further due to there being nothing to walk upon. So long as there is land/ice/solid in front of you, you can always keep going 'South' or away from your starting point. That's the nature of a flat plane.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2017, 03:55:59 PM »
If you were on a round earth, and stood on the South pole, and I asked you to walk south, you'd reply "I can't, South no longer exists. I can only go back towards North". If you are at the furthest reach of a flat earth, it stands to reason you can go no further and away from the center also no longer exists. It matters not that the land spreads out in front of you in all directions, that is the same conundrum you found yourself in at the south pole, and yet you could still not travel South. Once further away is off the table, you found the limit of a flat earth.

10/10

Lol, at the risk of a low content post, that was very well done.  I almost spit coffee all over my desk.  Again, well done.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

de·lu·sion
noun
1.   an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2017, 03:56:45 PM »
If you were on a round earth, and stood on the South pole, and I asked you to walk south, you'd reply "I can't, South no longer exists. I can only go back towards North". If you are at the furthest reach of a flat earth, it stands to reason you can go no further and away from the center also no longer exists. It matters not that the land spreads out in front of you in all directions, that is the same conundrum you found yourself in at the south pole, and yet you could still not travel South. Once further away is off the table, you found the limit of a flat earth.
No, it doesn't stand to reason unless you have found the edge. On a flat plane you will never reach a point that you cannot go further away from where you started, unless you literally cannot go further due to there being nothing to walk upon. So long as there is land/ice/solid in front of you, you can always keep going 'South' or away from your starting point. That's the nature of a flat plane.

No, you  missed his point, the guy is funny, go read some of his other posts.
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

de·lu·sion
noun
1.   an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2017, 04:02:39 PM »
If you were on a round earth, and stood on the South pole, and I asked you to walk south, you'd reply "I can't, South no longer exists. I can only go back towards North". If you are at the furthest reach of a flat earth, it stands to reason you can go no further and away from the center also no longer exists. It matters not that the land spreads out in front of you in all directions, that is the same conundrum you found yourself in at the south pole, and yet you could still not travel South. Once further away is off the table, you found the limit of a flat earth.
No, it doesn't stand to reason unless you have found the edge. On a flat plane you will never reach a point that you cannot go further away from where you started, unless you literally cannot go further due to there being nothing to walk upon. So long as there is land/ice/solid in front of you, you can always keep going 'South' or away from your starting point. That's the nature of a flat plane.

No, you  missed his point, the guy is funny, go read some of his other posts.
This appears likely. My detector is completely broken right now from being on this site. I can almost never read things as other than 100% serious right now. Especially on these forums.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2017, 04:09:44 PM »
If you were on a round earth, and stood on the South pole, and I asked you to walk south, you'd reply "I can't, South no longer exists. I can only go back towards North". If you are at the furthest reach of a flat earth, it stands to reason you can go no further and away from the center also no longer exists. It matters not that the land spreads out in front of you in all directions, that is the same conundrum you found yourself in at the south pole, and yet you could still not travel South. Once further away is off the table, you found the limit of a flat earth.
No, it doesn't stand to reason unless you have found the edge. On a flat plane you will never reach a point that you cannot go further away from where you started, unless you literally cannot go further due to there being nothing to walk upon. So long as there is land/ice/solid in front of you, you can always keep going 'South' or away from your starting point. That's the nature of a flat plane.


Oh dear. I didn't want to complicate things with mathematics, but here goes.

Imagine if you will, that the earth is a circular disc and you are on an aircraft. You decide to fly around the center at 30 degrees north. Now you decide to do the same the other side of the equator at 30 degrees South. That journey took the same time to complete but you traveled much further the second time. Or, you traveled 3 times as far in the same time even though you were at the same speed.

So if the distance increased and the speed stayed the same ... the time must have decreased. t=d/s

So time (although your perception of it remains constant) decreases the further away from the center you get. At some point t=0. Time stops. That is the end of the earth, not the edge. You can go no further as time will not allow it. You can make no further progress away from the center as there is no time to do so. You can only go back. You found the edge of the earth, where t=0 and you cannot progress. Instead of South disappearing, a different dimension ceased to be ... time. And that is why no one has found a physical edge or fallen off.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 04:18:54 PM by Screamer »

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2017, 04:28:55 PM »
Quote
So if the distance increased and the speed stayed the same ... the time must have decreased. t=d/s

So time (although your perception of it remains constant) decreases the further away from the center you get. At some point t=0. Time stops. That is the end of the earth, not the edge. You can go no further as time will not allow it. You can make no further progress away from the center as there is no time to do so. You can only go back. You found the edge of the earth, where t=0 and you cannot progress. Instead of South disappearing, a different dimension ceased to be ... time. And that is why no one has found a physical edge or fallen off.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, good luck proving that

Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2017, 04:29:58 PM »
Good luck proving the big bang. Proving a place where t=0 is notoriously difficult.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 04:32:20 PM by Screamer »

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2017, 05:22:12 PM »
Yes, but there's evidence for the Big Bang.

Quote
Imagine if you will, that the earth is a circular disc and you are on an aircraft. You decide to fly around the center at 30 degrees north. Now you decide to do the same the other side of the equator at 30 degrees South. That journey took the same time to complete but you traveled much further the second time. Or, you traveled 3 times as far in the same time even though you were at the same speed.

So your explanation for the fact that it takes the same time to complete a circle around Earth at 30 degrees north and south, respectively, is that

1. The Earth is flat
2. The circumference of the circle at 30 degrees south is greater than the north one
3. The reason both journeys take the same time to complete despite travelling further during one, is that for some unknown reason, the further someone moves away from the North Pole, the slower he magically appears to be for an outside observer until at some point, time entirely stops for said person
4. No one ever notices this (for example during international phone calls) because ...?


On the other hand, my explanation for the fact that it takes the same time to complete a circle around Earth at 30 degrees north and south, respectively, is that:

1. The Earth is a globe with the circles around 30 degrees north and south being the same length.


Now who makes the least number of outlandish assumptions?
http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor



Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2017, 10:10:21 PM »
So your explanation for the fact that it takes the same time to complete a circle around Earth at 30 degrees north and south, respectively, is that

1. The Earth is flat (It appears that way)
2. The circumference of the circle at 30 degrees south is greater than the north one (Well it would be, wouldn't it, on a flat earth)
3. The reason both journeys take the same time to complete despite travelling further during one, is that for some unknown reason, the further someone moves away from the North Pole, the slower he magically appears to be for an outside observer until at some point, time entirely stops for said person (I'm pretty sure Einstein called this relativity)
4. No one ever notices this (for example during international phone calls) because ...? (relativity)


Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2017, 10:33:18 PM »
Yes, I, too, noticed the parallels to relativity. But there is absolutely no reason it should occur here. Just because you are at a greater distance from the center you don't miraculously accelerate close to the speed of light (which would result in a distortion of time similar to what you described). There is not the tiniest bit of evidence to support that this is the case.

(On another note, it's still impossible to make time stop completely. As I said, the only way to accomplish slowing time by means of relativity is moving with a velocity close to c. Time will move slower, but it still won't stand still, because that is only the case when moving not close to, but at the speed of light - which is impossible for anything that has mass afaik.

That means, even if there was a magical border zone where time slowed, since time can't stand still for you, you would have no problem moving forward, since a point where "t=0", as you put it, cannot exist.)

I put all this in brackets because it is irrelevant - time doesn't slow at all under anything but extremely high speeds (0.1c), and relativity clearly does not apply in this case. If you want to assert that there is a zone on Earth where time for some reason flows much, much slower than elsewhere, the burden of proof is entirely on you.

Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2017, 10:54:12 PM »
Yes, I, too, noticed the parallels to relativity. But there is absolutely no reason it should occur here. Just because you are at a greater distance from the center you don't miraculously accelerate close to the speed of light (which would result in a distortion of time similar to what you described). There is not the tiniest bit of evidence to support that this is the case.

(On another note, it's still impossible to make time stop completely. As I said, the only way to accomplish slowing time by means of relativity is moving with a velocity close to c. Time will move slower, but it still won't stand still, because that is only the case when moving not close to, but at the speed of light - which is impossible for anything that has mass afaik.

That means, even if there was a magical border zone where time slowed, since time can't stand still for you, you would have no problem moving forward, since a point where "t=0", as you put it, cannot exist.)

I put all this in brackets because it is irrelevant - time doesn't slow at all under anything but extremely high speeds (0.1c), and relativity clearly does not apply in this case. If you want to assert that there is a zone on Earth where time for some reason flows much, much slower than elsewhere, the burden of proof is entirely on you.

So you say t=0 cannot exist. And then tell me there is proof of the big bang.
You say time cannot stand still, but there is mathematics to prove it can

You say there is no evidence to prove a magical border (it is more of a gradient), but I already gave you examples of aircraft travelling in the southern hemisphere.
Time is not only a function of the speed of light. E-mc^2. c = speed of light so have the dimensional analysis constants of distance and time. E is energy and has the constant in this case of temperature. Things at absolute zero are all at t=0. Electrons stop, no energy state changes, nothing happens, no rate of change ... ergo time does not happen to things at absolute zero (relatively speaking). When entropy is zero, time is also zero. Actually it is the 'flow of time' that is zero but this is getting to a level neither you nor I can debate as our brains aren't big enough.
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/the-flow-of-time-in-a-timeless-universe/
suffice to stay, when time ceases to flow, you aint taking one more step.

If the earth is a flat disc, it makes sense that the temperature gradient is going to dip, to that which matches space at the edges. As you approach the edge and get further from the sun, the temperature will keep dropping, freezing the sea to a giant ice shelf and getting colder and colder towards the edge until you reach the edge. Yes NASA claim space is a fraction warmer than zero, but they'd need to else they can't get away with moon strolling claims.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 11:01:37 PM by Screamer »

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2017, 11:29:45 PM »
Your first point is already a blatant lie. I said there was evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory, not proof.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense either. You're telling me the further I distance myself from the North Pole, the colder it gets? And that I will ultimately be unable to proceed further because at some point the environment will reach a temperature of 0K and that will make time stop? Come on.

Then you just threw some big blue formula at me with no further explanation at all. Oh wait, it's not even a formula - it's some kind of fraction. I know stuff about physics, but I'm not an expert and frankly, if you're not even telling me what the product of that fraction is, you'll have to help me out a bit.

You say an aircraft travelling in the Southern Hemisphere is evidence for a magical time gradient. Well, it's not, because there's a much simpler explanation. The Earth is a globe.

I could just as well assert that the Earth is actually donut-shaped. "Now, donuts have a big hole in the middle - yet you will notice that there is no such hole here on Earth! The explanation? Well, the hole is actually filled with weird "Dark Waves" that mysteriously turn to matter when observed. The fact that we can see no donut hole on Earth obviously proves this!"

It's called circular reasoning. You have an idea (The earth is flat / a donut) with a problem (distances on the Southern Hemiplane not working out in your Flat model / a donut-shaped Earth would have a huge hole), you propose an explanation (the distances are bigger in accordance to your model, but there's the weird time slowing stuff that compensates for it / the bullshit about the dark waves filling the hole when observed), and proceed to use your problem as evidence for the explanation, instead of questioning the original idea like you should.

Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2017, 12:08:04 AM »
Apologies. I thought you would instantly recognize the big blue formula. Some context. http://www.1728.org/reltivty.htm

I don't understand your point about the big bang. Are you saying there is evidence but that doesn't prove anything? Would you rather base arguments on zetetic observation than evidence based science? I can do that if you like.

Regarding the further from the north pole ... not exactly. I'm saying the further from the sun and the closer to the vacuum of space, the further the temperature declines. I didn't think this obvious statement would be a bone of contention. Sun hot, vacuum of space cold. Further from sun, to closer vacuum of space ... colder.

I don't think the earth being a globe is a simpler explanation. It runs into all kinds of problems. Such as a lunar eclipse and a full moon being the exact same thing, yet being both completely different observationally.

That's a full moon. Now draw the sun, moon and earth positions for a lunar eclipse. And yet they could not be more dissimilar (dark moon, bright moon).

I agree that the earth is not a donut. We can move on from there.

As for 'weird bullshit', round earth proponents can invoke relativity, dilations of time, singularities, multi-verses, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, invisible forces like gravity and any other kind of intangible magic to explain how the universe works with a round earth, but flat earthers cannot? I think you have a serious case of confirmation bias.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 12:13:30 AM by Screamer »

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2017, 12:34:36 AM »
I understand the confusion about the full moon / eclipse thing. I couldn't wrap my head around that either, until I realized that the moon is never 100% full - if in a position where it would be, it is obscured by the Earth, resulting in a lunar eclipse, as you correctly noted. But the moon is on a tilted orbit around the Earth - which means that Sun, Moon and Earth are comparatively seldom in one plane (twice a month - Full and New Moon), let alone in one line (Solar or Lunar eclipse). Considering the tilted axis, a two-dimensional model like the one in your post won't hold up anymore. This has a good explanation on the whole matter - I know it's from NASA, but it's what everyone else agrees upon, too, and it should at least help you understand the matter.

Quote
As for 'weird bullshit', round earth proponents can invoke relativity, dilations of time, singularities, multi-verses, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, invisible forces like gravity and any other kind of intangible magic to explain how the universe works with a round earth, but flat earthers cannot? I think you have a serious case of confirmation bias.
Those things have their foundations in science and are observable, provable, or acknowledged as being just theories. They are certainly more convincing than scientifically unfounded claims like Electromagnetic Acceleration, the Known Magnification Effect and ridiculous perspective tweaks that don't work without weird bendy light.

I'd like to comment on your other points, since you're actually quite pleasant to debate with, but unfortunately it's 2:30 am where I live and I'm growing tired - maybe I'll follow up tomorrow. Good night.

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2017, 12:41:05 AM »
Apologies. I thought you would instantly recognize the big blue formula. Some context. http://www.1728.org/reltivty.htm

I don't understand your point about the big bang. Are you saying there is evidence but that doesn't prove anything? Would you rather base arguments on zetetic observation than evidence based science? I can do that if you like.

Regarding the further from the north pole ... not exactly. I'm saying the further from the sun and the closer to the vacuum of space, the further the temperature declines. I didn't think this obvious statement would be a bone of contention. Sun hot, vacuum of space cold. Further from sun, to closer vacuum of space ... colder.

I don't think the earth being a globe is a simpler explanation. It runs into all kinds of problems. Such as a lunar eclipse and a full moon being the exact same thing, yet being both completely different observationally.

That's a full moon. Now draw the sun, moon and earth positions for a lunar eclipse. And yet they could not be more dissimilar (dark moon, bright moon).

I agree that the earth is not a donut. We can move on from there.

As for 'weird bullshit', round earth proponents can invoke relativity, dilations of time, singularities, multi-verses, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, invisible forces like gravity and any other kind of intangible magic to explain how the universe works with a round earth, but flat earthers cannot? I think you have a serious case of confirmation bias.
But a full moon and a lunar eclipse aren't the same thing at all? During a lunar eclipse the moon moves into the Earth's shadow cast behind it from the sun. During a full moon it simply crosses close to the shadow. A 2D map or image cannot accurately represent a 3D reality/environment. I know you're basically a troll, but this is the same problem Tom keeps having and it needs to be pointed out anywhere it occurs imo.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Screamer

Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2017, 01:08:40 PM »
So being as you both say earth and the moon are balls, you are both saying there is no such thing as a full moon. Well there are full moons. My calendar says there are 13 of them this year. So my point, saying the earth is round has a whole bunch of problems that a flat earth doesn't.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
There it is. A mathematical calculator using mathematics to tell you when the next full moon occurs. Not the next almost full moon. The next full moon ... which is impossible on a round earth because for the moon to be full, the sun has to be directly behind the earth, and that causes a lunar eclipse instead.