Southern (so called) hemisphere.

I suppose the question we should all ask ourselves is: if the Earth is a globe and it supposedly spins as we are told it does around a sun, then why in the hell would the southern hemisphere be so sparse of land mass?

Why only Australia and New zealand, plus a small part of south America and Africa be on that part?

It might be more wiser looking into why they were put there on that part of the supposed globe, by those who question the globe.

I mean, seriously. Does it make any sense to have the northern hemisphere so congested compared to the southern?
Is it possible that the globe map is not only false but also, is it possible that the globe map is really back to front and the so called north pole is really the so called south pole and the so called south pole is really the so called north pole.


What does this mean?

Well. Is it possible that the reason why the global southern hemisphere is so sparse is because the energy we receive (the suns light/heat) is actually eminating from there n a flat Earth.
So they've used a globe to more or less sway us from understanding it.

By making the globe not only a globe but also arse first, it sort of makes a kind of desolate southern hemisphere a sort of no go area, except to what we deem as down under in terms of Australi and New zealand, which, given their climates, could be the opposite of where they are.

I mentioned this a while ago but I'll recap it.

Picture your globe and picture a globe model on your desk as having a stretched covering over it. Sort of like it's sitting inside a snug fitting balloon.
Now you copy all of the land masses onto that balloon.

You then have to open up that balloon but instead of opening it from the south pole end, you open it from the north pole end, so when you lay it on a table, you see that Australia and New zealand are situated nerer the centre of a flat map and Russia, etc are situated around the outer edge.

I once drew a map like this but the tracing paper used was difficult to draw on and things got missed out.
I intend to do another and set it out better and more clearer.

Arew there any people on here that fancy having a go at this as well. You may be a way better artists than I am, as I'm not exactly too clever at it. 

I'm going to give it another go but this time I'm going to use a rubber see through covering or something like that so I can see what I'm tracing and so it doesn't make it as difficult as the first time around.

I suppose the question we should all ask ourselves is: if the Earth is a globe and it supposedly spins as we are told it does around a sun, then why in the hell would the southern hemisphere be so sparse of land mass?

Why the hell shouldn't it?

Couldn't be bothered reading the rest.

Don't forget, of course, that the fact there's less land in the southern hemisphere means most of it comes much closer to the equator and tropics: which is why Australia is so hot. If that isn't a valid explanation, you need to explain why Egypt, Spain etc are all so hot.
And, also, don't forget the net temperature of the southern hemisphere is 2C lower than that in the upper, simply because water holds heat to a lesser extent than land. Given that the Sun would need to cover three times the area in whichever's the outer plane, this is the exact opposite of what you'd expect if the Northern was the outer.

As for why the Southern has less land mass, the simple question to ask is 'why not'?

Don't forget, of course, that the fact there's less land in the southern hemisphere means most of it comes much closer to the equator and tropics: which is why Australia is so hot. If that isn't a valid explanation, you need to explain why Egypt, Spain etc are all so hot.
And, also, don't forget the net temperature of the southern hemisphere is 2C lower than that in the upper, simply because water holds heat to a lesser extent than land. Given that the Sun would need to cover three times the area in whichever's the outer plane, this is the exact opposite of what you'd expect if the Northern was the outer.

As for why the Southern has less land mass, the simple question to ask is 'why not'?

If you turn the map back the way I mentioned but stweaked the countires around it, putting the hotter climate countries around that circle and the colder cliate ones further out, then it makes more sense for the sun's heat/light to hit those parts closest on either side of the inner part whilst not managing to reach the outer by at the very least the heat of it.

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

It's makes more sense to me.

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

If it's a reflection, then surely the countries closest to the ice dome would be warmest, as they are closest to the reflection?

It's makes more sense to me.

Well, apart from no working map, no explanation of sunsets, no explanation of seasons etc etc

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 04:57:10 AM

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

If it's a reflection, then surely the countries closest to the ice dome would be warmest, as they are closest to the reflection?

Let's not forget, not much sunlight should be able to reach the ice dome. It's ice, after all: if it was constantly affected by the Sun's rays, it'd be water by now. Whatever effect reflection off ice has, it needs to be minimal.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 04:57:10 AM

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

If it's a reflection, then surely the countries closest to the ice dome would be warmest, as they are closest to the reflection?

Quote

It's makes more sense to me.

Well, apart from no working map, no explanation of sunsets, no explanation of seasons etc etc

If the ice dome is concave to us, then a reflection is going to hit a point high up on one side of the circle and beam down to land mass on on that side, where people on the other side would be too far away to see much of it or at most see it as a setting sun, until it moves over to their side of which the people on the opposite side then see it as a setting sun due to distance over that dome.

We are talking one hell of a dome here.
Maybe I should draw a diagram.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 17, 2015, 05:04:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 04:57:10 AM

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

If it's a reflection, then surely the countries closest to the ice dome would be warmest, as they are closest to the reflection?

Let's not forget, not much sunlight should be able to reach the ice dome. It's ice, after all: if it was constantly affected by the Sun's rays, it'd be water by now. Whatever effect reflection off ice has, it needs to be minimal.

It's not the ice it would be reflecting off as such. It would be a massive concave water pool, except the water is helium/hydrogen up there that is in a less than frozen form against that ice dome.

If you turn the map back the way I mentioned but stweaked the countires around it, putting the hotter climate countries around that circle and the colder cliate ones further out, then it makes more sense for the sun's heat/light to hit those parts closest on either side of the inner part whilst not managing to reach the outer by at the very least the heat of it.

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

It's makes more sense to me.

You don't "tweak" the countries around in a map (assuming you want a useful map); it's completely irrelevant if it makes sense to your or not. To draw a map you need data gathered from the real world, and not your head.

Why only Australia and New zealand, plus a small part of south America and Africa be on that part?

Only if by "a small part of south america" you mean most of. And I don't get why the fact that the earth is spinning around the sun implies that there should be an equal distribution of landmass between north and south.

Quote

If you turn the map back the way I mentioned but stweaked the countires around it, putting the hotter climate countries around that circle and the colder cliate ones further out, then it makes more sense for the sun's heat/light to hit those parts closest on either side of the inner part whilst not managing to reach the outer by at the very least the heat of it.

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

It's makes more sense to me.

You don't "tweak" the countries around in a map (assuming you want a useful map); it's completely irrelevant if it makes sense to your or not. To draw a map you need data gathered from the real world, and not your head.

Quote

Why only Australia and New zealand, plus a small part of south America and Africa be on that part?

Only if by "a small part of south america" you mean most of. And I don't get why the fact that the earth is spinning around the sun implies that there should be an equal distribution of landmass between north and south.

Because I'm not happy with the silly globe. I'm not happy ith it at all. I think it's pathetic. I think the globe model is so stupid and the way it's portrayed is so pathetic that it needs to be re-evaluated into the form that is more reasonable that does not require magical forces and ridiculous thoughts that man and water can stay attached to it and continue about it's path as though.........wait for it...............it was all acting on a FLAT Earth or as near as damn it a flat Earth.

This is why I'm constantly going through thoughts. This is why I'm wanting a map tweaked to better fit a reality and discard one that does not = a globe.
I hope I've made myself clear.

If the ice dome is concave to us, then a reflection is going to hit a point high up on one side of the circle and beam down to land mass on on that side, where people on the other side would be too far away to see much of it or at most see it as a setting sun,

Being "too far away to see much" is completely different from seeing a setting sun.  It also doesn't explain why the sun will be rising in London and setting in Sydney ,or vice versa.

until it moves over to their side of which the people on the opposite side then see it as a setting sun due to distance over that dome.

I can't follow this at all.

Maybe I should draw a diagram.

Yes, you definitely need to.

Because I'm not happy with the silly globe. I'm not happy ith it at all. I think it's pathetic.

A lot of people are not happy with reality.  Deal with it.

I think the globe model is so stupid and the way it's portrayed is so pathetic that it needs to be re-evaluated into the form that is more reasonable that does not require magical forces and ridiculous thoughts that man and water can stay attached to it and continue about it's path as though.........wait for it...............it was all acting on a FLAT Earth or as near as damn it a flat Earth.

Do you mean magic like an ice dome made out of gasses that don't freeze under normal atmospheric pressure?  Or magic like particles that stack themselves neatly and push everything down for no apparent reason?  That kind of magic?

This is why I'm constantly going through thoughts. This is why I'm wanting a map tweaked to better fit a reality and discard one that does not = a globe.

If the current round earth maps that you disapprove of don't fit reality, then why are they so useful to people who use them to navigate all over the world?

I hope I've made myself clear.

Yes, it's quite clear that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Is it only me, or do others here think this ludicrous thread should be moved to "Complete Nonsense"?

It's obviously been started by sceptimatic (who else LOL) as a major trolling exercise with no serious intent.     

I'm still waiting for the explanation about why less land in the Southern Hemisphere disproves RE

I'm still waiting for the explanation about why less land in the Southern Hemisphere disproves RE

I never said it disproves it. Read what I did say.

I suppose the question we should all ask ourselves is: if the Earth is a globe and it supposedly spins as we are told it does around a sun, then why in the hell would the southern hemisphere be so sparse of land mass?

That seems to be what you are implying.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 04:40:03 AM

I suppose the question we should all ask ourselves is: if the Earth is a globe and it supposedly spins as we are told it does around a sun, then why in the hell would the southern hemisphere be so sparse of land mass?

That seems to be what you are implying.

I'm implying that it seems odd in how I stated. I said I was going to make another map a little better and clearer and asked anyone else if they want to try and make one in how I set it out.

That's it. I don't believe in a globe. This much is blatantly clear, so if you think I've implied that, you should simply know that irrespective of what you think I've implied in this topic, is not what I need to debate. What I want to debate, is the way Australia and New zealand just happen to be two lone islands in the whole southern section, apart form the minimal islands I mean.

What I want to debate, is the way Australia and New zealand just happen to be two lone islands in the whole southern section, apart form the minimal islands I mean.

Continental drift. That's just how things turned out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 07:56:07 AM

What I want to debate, is the way Australia and New zealand just happen to be two lone islands in the whole southern section, apart form the minimal islands I mean.

Continental drift. That's just how things turned out.

Nah, I'm not buying that.

Quote from: kman on February 17, 2015, 07:58:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 07:56:07 AM

What I want to debate, is the way Australia and New zealand just happen to be two lone islands in the whole southern section, apart form the minimal islands I mean.

Continental drift. That's just how things turned out.

Nah, I'm not buying that.

The continents are where they are - nothing to do with what you buy or don't buy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 08:00:21 AM

Quote from: kman on February 17, 2015, 07:58:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 07:56:07 AM

What I want to debate, is the way Australia and New zealand just happen to be two lone islands in the whole southern section, apart form the minimal islands I mean.

Continental drift. That's just how things turned out.

Nah, I'm not buying that.

The continents are where they are - nothing to do with what you buy or don't buy.

Of course it is. I'm questioning it. Just because you believe it to be  correct means nothing, crabby. You should understand this.

You still haven't explained why, on a round earth, 64% of the landmass can't be in the northern hemisphere.

No doubt if it was 50% of the landmass in the north, you'd be here going "This is bullshit, how can half the landmass be in each hemisphere?!?  What are they not telling us??  You're all weak fools etc"

You forgot the rather significant landmass of Antarctica on your list of land masses in the Southern Hemisphere.

Funny thing... around this time last year, sceptimatic posted an image of a rough draft of a flat earth map he was working on.  He told us at that time he was working on producing a decent, finished map of his concept of a flat earth, and that he'd be posting it in the near future.

It's now been 12 months, and either sceptimatic is a very, very slow draftsman, or his finished map was nothing more than a figment of his admittedly very fertile imagination.

So sceptimatic... where's your FE map?   

Quote from: kman on February 17, 2015, 07:58:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 07:56:07 AM

What I want to debate, is the way Australia and New zealand just happen to be two lone islands in the whole southern section, apart form the minimal islands I mean.

Continental drift. That's just how things turned out.

Nah, I'm not buying that.

Why?
The most you've said is 'it seems odd.' Why?

Funny thing... around this time last year, sceptimatic posted an image of a rough draft of a flat earth map he was working on.  He told us at that time he was working on producing a decent, finished map of his concept of a flat earth, and that he'd be posting it in the near future.

It's now been 12 months, and either sceptimatic is a very, very slow draftsman, or his finished map was nothing more than a figment of his admittedly very fertile imagination.

So sceptimatic... where's your FE map?   

That map is still under construction. It's a huge one using real rocks as mountains and stuff. I'm trying to make it look as real as possible.
When it's all finshed and looking good I'll post a nice video of it all in action. It may take some time so be patient and stop being pushy.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 17, 2015, 09:08:09 AM

Funny thing... around this time last year, sceptimatic posted an image of a rough draft of a flat earth map he was working on.  He told us at that time he was working on producing a decent, finished map of his concept of a flat earth, and that he'd be posting it in the near future.

It's now been 12 months, and either sceptimatic is a very, very slow draftsman, or his finished map was nothing more than a figment of his admittedly very fertile imagination.

So sceptimatic... where's your FE map?   

That map is still under construction. It's a huge one using real rocks as mountains and stuff. I'm trying to make it look as real as possible.

Sure you will scepti.  Sure.

In the meantime: You still haven't explained why, on a round earth, 64% of the landmass can't be in the northern hemisphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 10:48:06 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 17, 2015, 09:08:09 AM

Funny thing... around this time last year, sceptimatic posted an image of a rough draft of a flat earth map he was working on.  He told us at that time he was working on producing a decent, finished map of his concept of a flat earth, and that he'd be posting it in the near future.

It's now been 12 months, and either sceptimatic is a very, very slow draftsman, or his finished map was nothing more than a figment of his admittedly very fertile imagination.

So sceptimatic... where's your FE map?   

That map is still under construction. It's a huge one using real rocks as mountains and stuff. I'm trying to make it look as real as possible.

Sure you will scepti.  Sure.

In the meantime: You still haven't explained why, on a round earth, 64% of the landmass can't be in the northern hemisphere.

Does Australia, New zealand, south America and a small part of Africa take up 36% of the world's land mass?

Yes - well small typo - it's a 32/68 split. 

And you forgot Antarctica.  It's also roughly a third of Africa, not just a small part.

Here, do your own calculations: