Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« on: March 16, 2018, 05:09:07 PM »
Hi,

The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2018, 06:56:59 PM »
Hi,

The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)

The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2018, 08:41:39 PM »
Hi,

The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)

The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.

Are any of them accurate enough to navigate by?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2018, 09:30:58 PM »
Hi,

The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)

The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
The Wiki says "images of the two geographic models...", so by "multiple" you mean two, otherwise it would say "images of two potential geographic models". And besides, the two models explicitly and visibly contradict each other. They cannot both be right so you are saying that one is definitely wrong. Theories about the sun, the stars, navigation etc. that support one model contradict the other, and vice versa, therefore the various flat earth theories espoused don't work and are inconsistent by your own admission. Strangely the theories that support round earth are entirely consistent.....

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2018, 09:50:22 PM »
Hi,

The Wiki has a nicely detailed page about the Ice Wall, its formation and structure. I was wondering how the FES accept this given the primacy of their demand for empirical evidence. If they are using the quoted source material as their evidence, how can they discount everything in the same source that contradicts their belief in a Flat Earth? (Source: Drewry, D. J., ed. (1983). Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio)

The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.

I find it quite telling the there exist different FET models. For example, the problem of distances in the southern half of the earth on the FET unipolar map were addressed with the introduction of the bipolar map, to which a portion of FEers appear to subscribe. Unfortunately, it introduces even greater problems, not the least of which is that it allows no possible way to describe the motion of the sun above the earth.

As I've said before, if the earth were flat, then presently known distances and angles, when reproduced on a planar surface, would create an accurate representation of the surface of the earth.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2018, 09:57:32 PM »
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2018, 10:42:49 PM »
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2018, 10:46:54 PM »
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

I've checked it out. That doesn't make the map any less useless in its ability to depict the earth as it is experienced on a day to day level.

I noticed that you've yet again avoided my mention "that it allows no possible way to describe the motion of the sun above the earth".

No comment on that whatsoever? I would find that telling, as well.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2018, 01:24:21 AM »
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.

The ancient Chinese only knew that the magnetic field lines ran North to South. They didn't have much information about the nature of the South.

Rowbotham knew about magnets, but it  did not follow that the southern magnetic field lines intersected at a point on the earth's surface. On a Flat Earth Monopole model the magnetic field lines would look like this.

The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

I've checked it out. That doesn't make the map any less useless in its ability to depict the earth as it is experienced on a day to day level.

I noticed that you've yet again avoided my mention "that it allows no possible way to describe the motion of the sun above the earth".

No comment on that whatsoever? I would find that telling, as well.

Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 01:31:14 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2018, 01:45:15 AM »

Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.

Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2018, 02:33:33 AM »

Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.

Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...

Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 02:36:07 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2018, 04:14:35 AM »

Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.

Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...

Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?

I didn't ask for a regurgitation, maybe an original Tom Bishop thought, and possibly a pointer to her writing, specifically regarding her bi-polar model. I've read at least one tract by the Lady Blount. It was extremely difficult to wade through the religious trash.

You're too lazy to do much of anything beyond pounding out mythology on a keyboard, so I'll go and have a look around and get back to you.

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2018, 05:31:46 AM »
Since we're pointing out works which support one side or the other, I imagine you are quite sure this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment is bogus.

What happened to the 3-D mock up of the Neo-Classical model? It was removed - too embarrassing?

It seems to me that FEers should spend more time investigating the Davis Model. It does a wonderful job of obfuscation and bending physical laws to suit his agenda.

The Shifting Constellations section fails to take into account the fact that the distance to the nearest stars was first calculated by the parallax created by observations taken at two opposite points on the earth's orbit, IE, one taken June 21st and another December 21st. But, since FE has no "earth orbit around the sun", this must be ignored.

I see that the "Flat Earth Model" is still a work in progress, with zero information posted. Why would that be? Nobody there has the time? No one knows what to post? No one has anything useful to post? I lean toward the latter.

I really like this line, from Flat Earth Literature: Thomas Winship presents conclusive evidence demonstrating that the world is not a rotating-revolving globe, but a stationary plane circle. If it's so convincing and so conclusive FEers should have it memorized and be quoting it constantly.

Still nothing on Lady Blount and her bipolar model. Now I've lost interest.

Did come across this: "A woman named Lady Blount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work". I tried to read that once several months ago. Couldn't get all the way through the religious hype. In retrospect though, I find I must admit that it certainly could be considered a "peer review", as Blount and Rowbotham were definitely peers with respect to their views and their general (lack of) knowledge. I can't fault them, though, since substantially more than half of human knowledge has been achieved since their deaths.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 09:47:48 AM by Scroogie »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2018, 05:05:05 PM »
Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?

Nobody is asking you to quote huge parts of it, nor reprint it.

If you're going to say "Lady Blount and her society said/wrote X, Y and Z", then I don't think it's unreasonable for everyone to expect you to indicate where you read X, Y and Z, and where others might look to find such. Name of publication, when published, publisher, etc.   Else how are we to know WHICH member of her society wrote it?

Such as;

http://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/footnote/secondary
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2018, 05:43:37 PM »

Lady Blount does talk about the sun in her bi-polar model. Its not described in the Wiki, but her works are online.

Why don't you go ahead and refresh my memory on what it was that Lady Blount had to say?
Better still, possibly you could add some thoughts of your own. A novel idea, I know, an original Tom Bishop thought, but it could happen...

Lady Blount and her society of the time wrote their ideas down many times across journals and books for you. It is rude that you are ignoring their efforts and are expecting others to regurgitate it for you. What is the point of us writing studies and books for you if you aren't going to read them?
Are there any studies written in the last 10years?

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2018, 09:12:07 PM »
The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.

So what are you actually doing to determine which one is correct?
Can you honestly not see how crazy this sounds?
You think the earth is flat because of...reasons. In the Wiki you declare this as an "obvious truth" which is strange when it flies in the face of 2000+ years of science. Your only basis for this seems to be "the horizon looks flat" although in your "High Altitude Photos" page you "explain" how a curve can be seen at high altitudes. So you DO understand the concept that a large enough curve can appear locally flat. So the horizon looking flat is NOT evidence for a flat earth.

Anyway, whatever. But then you must have some idea of how the flat earth works. A model which matches observations - something you claim is important to you. If you can't make one then the premise of a flat earth must be wrong.
The model as outlined in your Wiki clearly doesn't tick that box. It doesn't match observations. The sun would be visible all the time for one thing. I know you explain this using "perspective". Wrongly, you don't understand perspective, but whatever, you have an explanation at least.
But then how do you explain the 24 hour sun at Antarctica? With the model in your Wiki Antarctica seems to be a ring around the disc so you wouldn't get the 24 hour sun. Your model clearly doesn't work. So your two options now are:

1) Deny that the 24 hour sun occurs - that would be strange given how many people can testify to this, the fact there's a research base at the south pole which you can literally go to if you have the money. You lot have claimed stranger things, but it would be a strange claim.

2) Accept the model as outlined in the Wiki is wrong and Antarctica is indeed a continent. But that creates a bunch of other problems. How does your sun move now which matches observations? I saw one video on YouTube which was all kinds of crazy, the headline was it claimed there are two suns.

Do you really not see how big these problem are?
You can't decide if there's one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored.
You can't agree on a map - in the real world airlines get people around just fine using great circles plotted on a globe.
These are pretty fundamental problems.

Your model is full of desperate rationalisations which you have to make up to try and explain things.
The "shadow object", never been observed but you make it up to fill an otherwise gaping hole in your theory.
The sun has to keep changing height and its orbit and speed above the plane as it's your way of explaining lunar phases and seasons. You have no way of explaining what makes it do that (and actually if there are two poles then your explanation for seasons doesn't work anyway).
You have no understanding of how the sun actually works - what would keep powering a sun that small for as long as it has clearly been working for.
You don't believe in gravity and sneer at the idea of gravitons which are admittedly theoretical but then you rationalise the effect of gravity by making up UA and saying it's powered by "dark energy" - another completely made up concept with no explanation.

There are a bunch of other problems.
A more rational person might consider whether the reason that all these problems exist is that the premise they are based on - a flat earth - is incorrect...
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2018, 02:57:16 PM »
This debate pretty much ends as all the others.  If you take the stance of Rowbotham and assume that anyone that is not from where you live does not matter, you can build a model that works for you.  Whether the south pole exists or is a ring does not matter because anyone living south of the equator is less important and we do not have to consider what they might claim to see, such as a southern cross in the sky.  Around people that matter, the south magnetic lines diverge so they can keep diverging or start converging, who cares.

Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2018, 12:30:31 PM »
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.

The ancient Chinese only knew that the magnetic field lines ran North to South. They didn't have much information about the nature of the South.

Rowbotham knew about magnets, but it  did not follow that the southern magnetic field lines intersected at a point on the earth's surface. On a Flat Earth Monopole model the magnetic field lines would look like this.


A flat earth monopole model, right. This means that any one holding a compass south of the equator say in Chile will have a different heading from any one holding a compass in say Sydney. The fact that people in those 2 cities look in the same direction any time thy look south, see the same stars (more or less) any time they look south, have the heavens rotate around the same south celestial pole totally destroys a flat earth and not just the mono pole bs.

Respond to that, Tom.

*

Offline Beorn

  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2018, 01:51:15 PM »
The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.

The ancient Chinese only knew that the magnetic field lines ran North to South. They didn't have much information about the nature of the South.

Rowbotham knew about magnets, but it  did not follow that the southern magnetic field lines intersected at a point on the earth's surface. On a Flat Earth Monopole model the magnetic field lines would look like this.


A flat earth monopole model, right. This means that any one holding a compass south of the equator say in Chile will have a different heading from any one holding a compass in say Sydney. The fact that people in those 2 cities look in the same direction any time thy look south, see the same stars (more or less) any time they look south, have the heavens rotate around the same south celestial pole totally destroys a flat earth and not just the mono pole bs.

Respond to that, Tom.

Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?
Am I in the right place?

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2018, 02:39:40 PM »


Have you stood in both Chile and Sydney at the same time and checked that you looked in the same direction when looking south?

It is offensive to suggest that people living south of the equator are confused about the directions they go when they think they are heading south.  Two roads heading south get closer together the farther south you go, just like the need for correction lines in the north.  As I mentioned many times, the FE model works great if you ignore the fact that there are other people in other countries that matter a little bit.  You can distort the map of the southern hemisphere and believe it, so long as you ignore that people live in the areas that are wildly distorted and they do not have to travel great distances to get to their neighbors.  They are not all bumbling idiots.