Circumnavigation of Antarctica disproves the flat earth

If circumnavigating Antarctica (or the south pole) one must constantly turn your craft towards the ice, just like when doing so for the north pole.  If what we think is Antarctica was actually an ice barrier around the permitter of the flat earth than to circumnavigate it one would have to constantly turn your craft away from the ice and of course it would take a much longer time.  But that is not what we experience.  Ergo the earth is not flat.

Have you actually checked this? If so, what did you use to determine which way to turn?
At this scale, I don't know of a single form of dead reckoning that would be accurate enough.

For the FE, at 60 degrees south, that is equivalent to a circle with a radius of 16 666 km. That is a circumference of 104720 km.
That equates to a degree every 291 km. Do you have dead reckoning that accurate, in water which is pushing you around?

For the RE, it is harder because of the angle. But taking a lazy approach, 60 degrees south is a circle with a radius of 3186 km, giving 1 degree every 56 km. Still quite difficult to achieve, and as said, now at an angle making it harder.

An easier option would be to use the south celestial pole.

Have you actually checked this?

no.

If so, what did you use to determine which way to turn?
At this scale, I don't know of a single form of dead reckoning that would be accurate enough.

It would not have to be 1 degree at a time, you could continue straight and then make larger corrections.  It could also be by air as well as sea.  In any case the "being on the inside" when traveling near or around the southern pole has never been reported as far as I can tell and it seems like it would be pretty obviously not what was expected.  As well of course of having the circumnavigation taking vastly longer than expected.

It would not have to be 1 degree at a time, you could continue straight and then make larger corrections.  It could also be by air as well as sea.  In any case the "being on the inside" when traveling near or around the southern pole has never been reported as far as I can tell and it seems like it would be pretty obviously not what was expected.  As well of course of having the circumnavigation taking vastly longer than expected.

The issue isn't how much you turn or when, it is how you maintain the course.
Can you construct a straight line for 56 km? If so, how? What are you doing to maintain this heading?
You cannot use a compass of any form, as that that would allow you to continually correct your course without needing to account for the turns. e.g. a compass heading east would just mean you go in the circle without any specific correction.

If you would like a simple test, and have access to a large open area, take a car out to the middle and mark your position, then aim in a particular direction and mark something off in the distance in that direction.
Then cover up the windows of the car, and try driving slowly in that direction for some time. Feel free to use any inertial navigation unit to help.
Then stop, and see how well you went on a straight line. Even better if you film it from either your starting point or the intended destination.

You could also do it walking blindfolded.

Quote from: ichoosereality on May 01, 2024, 04:27:09 PM

It would not have to be 1 degree at a time, you could continue straight and then make larger corrections.  It could also be by air as well as sea.  In any case the "being on the inside" when traveling near or around the southern pole has never been reported as far as I can tell and it seems like it would be pretty obviously not what was expected.  As well of course of having the circumnavigation taking vastly longer than expected.

The issue isn't how much you turn or when, it is how you maintain the course.

How about multiple craft in a line in constant radar contact or celestial navigation?

How about multiple craft in a line in constant radar contact or celestial navigation?

If you are going to use celestial navigation, you have already gotten a round Earth, as that is based upon a round Earth and doesn't make sense for a FE.

For multiple craft in a line, are you suggesting having them encircling the pole?
If so, that would require a ridiculous amount of ships.
If not, you have the issue of keeping the craft in line, especially with currents.
And even ignoring that, there is still the issue of how accurate you can be.

If you have a spot on each craft 15 m above water level to see, then the horizon for it is roughly 14 km away, allowing a span of 28 km from one craft, to the horizon to a distant craft.

For that distance, you are looking at half a degree for the RE, and 0.10 degrees for the FE.
If you go to a more modest 5 m, then you get a span of 16 km and an angle of 0.28 degrees for the RE and 0.05 degrees for the FE.

If not, you have the issue of keeping the craft in line, especially with currents.
And even ignoring that, there is still the issue of how accurate you can be.

If you have a spot on each craft 15 m above water level to see, then the horizon for it is roughly 14 km away, allowing a span of 28 km from one craft, to the horizon to a distant craft.

For that distance, you are looking at half a degree for the RE, and 0.10 degrees for the FE.
If you go to a more modest 5 m, then you get a span of 16 km and an angle of 0.28 degrees for the RE and 0.05 degrees for the FE.

Just to stay in line you would only need 3 ships which could be closer though you would have to have a protocol to manage how the line would be managed.  So perhaps not practical.  Of course there is always the much greater distance traveling around the perimeter of a flat earth would be compared to circling the antarctic.  Saildrone's (https://www.saildrone.com/news/unmanned-vehicle-completes-antarctica-circumnavigation) circumnavigation in 2019 even with all its wiggles clocked in at 22,000Km which is not nearly enough distance to have traveled around the edge of a FE.

While I suppose sailing around Antarctica would prove it did not form an ice wall as some crazy people think. it would be so much easier just to consult the admiralty charts required for such a hazardous voyage. These charts show exactly the nature of that particular landmass.

https://www.seachest.co.uk/admiralty-planning-charts-of-the-world/4009-antarctic-region-admiralty/

Quote from: ichoosereality on May 01, 2024, 04:27:09 PM

It would not have to be 1 degree at a time, you could continue straight and then make larger corrections.  It could also be by air as well as sea.  In any case the "being on the inside" when traveling near or around the southern pole has never been reported as far as I can tell and it seems like it would be pretty obviously not what was expected.  As well of course of having the circumnavigation taking vastly longer than expected.

The issue isn't how much you turn or when, it is how you maintain the course.
Can you construct a straight line for 56 km? If so, how?

That's easy.  Set up a laser level and follow that line! 

What are you doing to maintain this heading?
You cannot use a compass of any form, as that that would allow you to continually correct your course without needing to account for the turns. e.g. a compass heading east would just mean you go in the circle without any specific correction.

Isn't that what you are trying to do, go always east?  Then you could measure your distance traveled.  Globe earth a handful of thousands of miles and on a flat earth, many thousands of miles.  You don't need much precision in your measurement to distinguish the two.  Oh, assuming the military doesn't blow you out of the water.

If you would like a simple test, and have access to a large open area, take a car out to the middle and mark your position, then aim in a particular direction and mark something off in the distance in that direction.
Then cover up the windows of the car, and try driving slowly in that direction for some time. Feel free to use any inertial navigation unit to help.
Then stop, and see how well you went on a straight line. Even better if you film it from either your starting point or the intended destination.

You could also do it walking blindfolded.

Huh?

Just to stay in line you would only need 3 ships which could be closer though you would have to have a protocol to manage how the line would be managed.  So perhaps not practical.  Of course there is always the much greater distance traveling around the perimeter of a flat earth would be compared to circling the antarctic.  Saildrone's (https://www.saildrone.com/news/unmanned-vehicle-completes-antarctica-circumnavigation) circumnavigation in 2019 even with all its wiggles clocked in at 22,000Km which is not nearly enough distance to have traveled around the edge of a FE.

The issue is that the closer they are, the more accurately you need to get that angle. But yes, I do not think it is practical.
Distance on the other hand works well.
A very big issue with the common FE map is that distances in the south are much to large.

That's easy.  Set up a laser level and follow that line!

The issue is how accurate is that laser? Including things like beam divergence.

Isn't that what you are trying to do, go always east?

Not quite.
We don't merely want to travel east. We want to do it in a way where we can tell if that is turning left or turning right.
Using something to determine which way is east and correcting for that wont allow us to determine that.

Then you could measure your distance traveled.

Yes, distance is a much better method.

Huh?

It is a test to show how hard it is to travel in a straight line.

If circumnavigating Antarctica (or the south pole) one must constantly turn your craft towards the ice, just like when doing so for the north pole.  If what we think is Antarctica was actually an ice barrier around the permitter of the flat earth than to circumnavigate it one would have to constantly turn your craft away from the ice and of course it would take a much longer time.  But that is not what we experience.  Ergo the earth is not flat.

For further corroboration, you could also consult Linda Blair who wrote the book on circumnavigating Antarctica by sailing, not once, but twice. I think her entire two trips were tracked by GPS. On the popular and spectacularly flawed flat earth model with ice ring wall, circumnavigation of Antarctica is impossible.

If circumnavigating Antarctica (or the south pole) one must constantly turn your craft towards the ice, just like when doing so for the north pole.  If what we think is Antarctica was actually an ice barrier arounpermitter of the flat earth than to.     circumnavigate it one would have to constantly turn your craft away from the ice and of course it would take a much longer time.  But that is not what we experience.  Ergo the earth is not flat.

why can't Antarctica be sailed around a flat earth?

Watch videos of the huge wall of ice, not the part they always show of it, which is an outlying stretch of ice from it.

These videos show aerial views of the ice walls, which stretch out for hundreds of miles, in some of these clips.

They show something peculiar that isn’t seen in other coastlines over aerial views of such distances.

They show this wall of ice, hundreds of feet high, which is not found on ANY other coastline of our actual continents on Earth.

Because it is not a continent at all, nor is it a coastline of an actual continent.

Seen over a very long distance in aerial shots, it gently curves inward, not around lands of a continent’s coastline, jutting outward and back inward along it. 

Actual continents of Earth all have life, as originating on our continents, there’s no life on their made up ‘continent’.

They made maps of this great ice wall which encircles the Earth. They didn’t all make that a circle by some amazing coincidence! They saw the great ice wall around Earth, and mapped the wall around Earth back then.

We’ve flown directly over the continents, from one side or coast to the other side or coast.

We’ve flown over the oceans from one coast of continents to the coast of other continents.

Nobody can fly over their made up continent, it’s not one, it’s the ice wall around Earth.

They show something peculiar that isn’t seen in other coastlines over aerial views of such distances.

Because most coastlines aren't at the pole.

They show this wall of ice, hundreds of feet high

Prove it.
Care to provide such a video?

Seen over a very long distance in aerial shots, it gently curves inward

This depends entirely upon what region you are looking at.

Actual continents of Earth all have life

Including Antartica.

They made maps of this great ice wall which encircles the Earth.

As a continent. Not as a magic ice wall.

We’ve flown directly over the continents, from one side or coast to the other side or coast.

Including Antarctica.

Watch videos of the huge wall of ice, not the part they always show of it, which is an outlying stretch of ice from it.

These videos show aerial views of the ice walls, which stretch out for hundreds of miles, in some of these clips.

They show something peculiar that isn’t seen in other coastlines over aerial views of such distances.

They show this wall of ice, hundreds of feet high, which is not found on ANY other coastline of our actual continents on Earth.

Because it is not a continent at all, nor is it a coastline of an actual continent.

Seen over a very long distance in aerial shots, it gently curves inward, not around lands of a continent’s coastline, jutting outward and back inward along it. 

Actual continents of Earth all have life, as originating on our continents, there’s no life on their made up ‘continent’.

They made maps of this great ice wall which encircles the Earth. They didn’t all make that a circle by some amazing coincidence! They saw the great ice wall around Earth, and mapped the wall around Earth back then.

We’ve flown directly over the continents, from one side or coast to the other side or coast.

We’ve flown over the oceans from one coast of continents to the coast of other continents.

Nobody can fly over their made up continent, it’s not one, it’s the ice wall around Earth.

Nonsense! You can board a plane in Melbourne Australia and fly over Antarctica.

Watch videos of the huge wall of ice, not the part they always show of it, which is an outlying stretch of ice from it.

These videos show aerial views of the ice walls, which stretch out for hundreds of miles, in some of these clips.

They show something peculiar that isn’t seen in other coastlines over aerial views of such distances.

They show this wall of ice, hundreds of feet high, which is not found on ANY other coastline of our actual continents on Earth.

Because it is not a continent at all, nor is it a coastline of an actual continent.

Seen over a very long distance in aerial shots, it gently curves inward, not around lands of a continent’s coastline, jutting outward and back inward along it. 

Actual continents of Earth all have life, as originating on our continents, there’s no life on their made up ‘continent’.

They made maps of this great ice wall which encircles the Earth. They didn’t all make that a circle by some amazing coincidence! They saw the great ice wall around Earth, and mapped the wall around Earth back then.

We’ve flown directly over the continents, from one side or coast to the other side or coast.

We’ve flown over the oceans from one coast of continents to the coast of other continents.

Nobody can fly over their made up continent, it’s not one, it’s the ice wall around Earth.

Have you ever been to Antartica?
I have a number of years ago on a wildlife photography trip.

There is no mystery about Antartica rather it’s something you need to support your delusional fiction.

You reject reality in favour of believing in a long list of fictions to support your own flat earth belief. The fiction relating to Antartica is just one of them.

Many thousands of tourists like myself go to Antarctica every year.
What you believe in is nonsense .

If you were really interested in finding out the truth you could Igo on one of these:-

https://www.naturalworldsafaris.com/en-us/polar-regions/antarctica/stories-and-inspiration/antarctica-photography

The flat earthers fiction about Antartica clearly demonstrates their anti-truth stance and willingness to ignore the  truth at every opportunity.

They try to sell themselves as free thinkers only interested in getting to the heart of any matter. As with everything related to flat earth ideology the actual truth is very diffident with flat earth believers rejecting the truth at every turn in favour of their fiction.

For flat earth believers their flat earth fiction is all and they will perform any kind of mental gymnastics to distort the truth to hold on to their flat earth belief.

Antartica is one such required distortion. For their fictional belief to hold water Antartica has to form a wall around their fictional disc. Back in the day of their founder, Samuel Birley Rowbotham little was known about Antartica and the general population were relatively ignorant about the geography of that part of the world. As a result such claims about ice walls were difficult to challenge.

Tiurn the clock forward just under 200 years and the world is a very different place. Antartica has permanent scientific bases. Tourists visit during its summer months. Accurate maps exist of the continent. Images from space reveal its true nature and extent. There is no mystery. There is no conspiracy hiding its true nature….the truth is in plain sight.

Yet flat earthers require an ice wall to hang on to their belief. The truth for them is irrelevant what matters is the belief therefore the truth must be abandoned in favour of a  sub-fiction that helps to maintain and support their main fiction.

I myself have visited Antartica on a photographic tour several years ago, something that is open to anyone who has the time and money. It’s a big industry with several companies offering different types of adventures. These trips can only really take place during Antarctica’s summer months as the winter weather makes for dangerous conditions as the southern seas can be extremely hazardous.

Its not a case about circumnavigation disproving the flat earth it’s more a case of reality disproving it.

So, if I understand correctly, the "ice wall" is really Lucite?

So, if I understand correctly, the "ice wall" is really Lucite?

You got that wrong . The flat earth ‘ice wall’ is made from 100 proof ficticium.