The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: PinkNINJA on September 07, 2008, 12:05:05 AM

Title: Flying
Post by: PinkNINJA on September 07, 2008, 12:05:05 AM
(http://img93.imageshack.us/my.php?image=test1ug6.jpg)
What happens if you get in a plane and do this?  Do you come out the other side, fall off, what?
Someone ought to get a camera and try it, and put an end to all of this.
If he/she makes it, the Earth is round.  If he/she doesn't, then the Earth is flat.

Title: Re: Flying
Post by: FETftw on September 07, 2008, 12:09:54 AM
read the FAQ.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: PinkNINJA on September 07, 2008, 12:22:11 AM
what do you think i spent the first 10 minutes doing?
I'm trying to get an experiment going.
Someone should have the resources to get a plane and fly it, well, any direction, eventually you'll hit the wall.
What happens when you fly towards wall? 
A: you keep going, and end up on the other side of the earth
B: government stops you

So let's go see which one happens.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2008, 01:23:15 AM
what do you think i spent the first 10 minutes doing?
I'm trying to get an experiment going.
Someone should have the resources to get a plane and fly it, well, any direction, eventually you'll hit the wall.
What happens when you fly towards wall? 
A: you keep going, and end up on the other side of the earth
B: government stops you

So let's go see which one happens.

Remember to document your trip across Antarctica with video evidence.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: inexorably advancing ice on September 07, 2008, 02:23:41 AM
eventually you'll hit the wall.
I would hope not, that would scupper all chances of sense getting through...
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 07, 2008, 04:19:12 AM
(http://img93.imageshack.us/my.php?image=test1ug6.jpg)
What happens if you get in a plane and do this?  Do you come out the other side, fall off, what?
Someone ought to get a camera and try it, and put an end to all of this.
If he/she makes it, the Earth is round.  If he/she doesn't, then the Earth is flat.
I've theorized that you will never travel in a straight line on the FE. In your FoR, your paths are straight. In the FE's FoR, your paths are curved. This explains why circumnavigation is possible on FE, where you travel in a straight line (in your FoR) and end up back where you started.

EDIT: The reason behind this is that our compass always point to the North, which is the center of the FE. Thus, traveling East or West is basically circling around the Earth.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Professor Stinkwrinkle on September 07, 2008, 01:01:26 PM
I've theorized that you will never travel in a straight line on the FE. In your FoR, your paths are straight. In the FE's FoR, your paths are curved. This explains why circumnavigation is possible on FE, where you travel in a straight line (in your FoR) and end up back where you started. This also explains why it is impossible for you to fly pass the edge of the world.

e.Jack, I simply can't follow what you mean here. The FAQ isn't helping explain it either. Can you run through this in other words?

1. What I'm trying to understand is this: you believe that airline flights are curved to avoid seeing the Ice Wall. Is this physics or misguided pilots?

2. If I devised some method, perhaps using a laser, to point a straight line (not a single curve in it, perfectly straight) for miles and then to follow this line in an airplane, wouldn't I eventually reach the Ice Wall with enough fuel? Now, if you observed this line, and determined to your satisfaction that it was straight, would you board the plane with me? If you answer is no, could you take a moment to explain why.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Kira-SY on September 07, 2008, 02:21:55 PM
I've theorized that you will never travel in a straight line on the FE. In your FoR, your paths are straight. In the FE's FoR, your paths are curved. This explains why circumnavigation is possible on FE, where you travel in a straight line (in your FoR) and end up back where you started. This also explains why it is impossible for you to fly pass the edge of the world.

e.Jack, I simply can't follow what you mean here. The FAQ isn't helping explain it either. Can you run through this in other words?

1. What I'm trying to understand is this: you believe that airline flights are curved to avoid seeing the Ice Wall. Is this physics or misguided pilots?

2. If I devised some method, perhaps using a laser, to point a straight line (not a single curve in it, perfectly straight) for miles and then to follow this line in an airplane, wouldn't I eventually reach the Ice Wall with enough fuel? Now, if you observed this line, and determined to your satisfaction that it was straight, would you board the plane with me? If you answer is no, could you take a moment to explain why.


Yes, you'd hit the wall, but I'll tell you what FE'ers are gonna answer:
It is impossible+Do it+Prove it.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: PinkNINJA on September 07, 2008, 02:59:08 PM
I'd do it if I had the resources.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 07, 2008, 08:01:21 PM
e.Jack, I simply can't follow what you mean here. The FAQ isn't helping explain it either. Can you run through this in other words?

1. What I'm trying to understand is this: you believe that airline flights are curved to avoid seeing the Ice Wall. Is this physics or misguided pilots?

2. If I devised some method, perhaps using a laser, to point a straight line (not a single curve in it, perfectly straight) for miles and then to follow this line in an airplane, wouldn't I eventually reach the Ice Wall with enough fuel? Now, if you observed this line, and determined to your satisfaction that it was straight, would you board the plane with me? If you answer is no, could you take a moment to explain why.

My theory is exactly the same reason why you can't fly an airplane straight out into space in the RE:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Straight.jpg)

As I've said before, it depends on which frame of reference are you talking about. Plus, straight is a relative term. Reread my previous post.

Yes, you'd hit the wall
But you can't pass it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dark Energy Field holds our massive accelerating atmolayer and any object that has mass (less than the atmolayer's) in place. This explains why direct or sustained space-flight is not possible in the FE. Because the DEF is a formation of Dark Energy, and Dark Energy is the mechanism of UA, it happens to shield us from UA. The DEF does not hold electromagnetic radiations and vibrations. The DEF is not the same as gravitation, so escape velocity does not exist.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TJ on September 08, 2008, 11:35:35 AM
That is what he said, He would hit the wall IF the earth was flat, Personally if i wasn't a 14 year old and my only income was a paper round and pocet money, I'd love to do that, A huge flight of fucking around because going in a straight line you could leave it to autopilot.

Badass.

But you wouldn't be shot down by the government, You wouldn't hit a wall, You'd find your self at the beggining.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2008, 02:54:37 PM
But you wouldn't be shot down by the government, You wouldn't hit a wall, You'd find your self at the beggining.

You're wrong.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: inexorably advancing ice on September 08, 2008, 03:38:11 PM
You're wrong.
Prove it. In your own words. (Side note: Gratz on spelling. Lots of fruitcakes would type 'Your wrong'. You have grammar :D)
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: PinkNINJA on September 13, 2008, 05:13:10 PM
in the meantime,. i encourage you to watch some of these completely fake videos.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocket+cam&search_type=&aq=f
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 17, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Soooooooo........if you can't fly in a straight line and you just fly in a big circle.........lets say your flight path veers to the left, going in a circle that way, why can't you steer to the right enough to compensate for the left handed veering so that you can actually fly in a straight line?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Mrs. Peach on September 17, 2008, 01:58:38 PM
You could.
But you wouldn't be able to on a supposedly round earth in a conventional aircraft.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 07:33:45 PM
Soooooooo........if you can't fly in a straight line and you just fly in a big circle.........lets say your flight path veers to the left, going in a circle that way, why can't you steer to the right enough to compensate for the left handed veering so that you can actually fly in a straight line?
Your frame of reference != Earth's frame of reference

Reread my post.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: MadDogX on September 18, 2008, 04:30:01 AM
All these "The Earth is flat but appears round due to [arbitrary mechanism of choice]" arguments are getting rather boring. Can we at least see some kind of rationalization for such theories, apart from "it must be true because the Earth is flat". Circular reasoning may be amusing for a while, but it's getting old very fast.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2008, 04:46:58 AM
Wow, there's a whole knot of wonko logic in that which really needs threshing out.

Are you saying that if I hold a straight rope between any two points, and then look down the rope, even though it looks like a straight line it's not?

So what you're calling for is (somehow) a magical curving of light, which increases as we travel further south?
If you can't distinguish your frame of reference from the Earth's, you need to stop refuting.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2008, 07:16:51 AM
Look up the term "frame of reference".

Here's a simple scenario: in RE, you fly in a straight line [your frame of reference], but your flight path is actually curved down relative to the Earth due to its atmosphere [Earth's frame of reference]. Otherwise, you fly straight out to space.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Straight.jpg)
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 18, 2008, 12:11:34 PM
Look up the term "frame of reference".

Here's a simple scenario: in RE, you fly in a straight line [your frame of reference], but your flight path is actually curved down relative to the Earth due to its atmosphere [Earth's frame of reference]. Otherwise, you fly straight out to space.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Straight.jpg)


That ^ makes sense.

However I've re-read your previous posts and I really, honestly, don't understand what you mean.

Please could you explain again in simpler terms? And what "frame of reference" am I supposed to be using to be able to understand it, please?  I just can't seem to get my head around it.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2008, 12:35:49 PM
Scenario #1: in FE, I fly my plane in a straight line to circumnavigate [my frame of reference], but my path is actually curved due to my compass [Earth's frame of reference]
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 19, 2008, 09:19:27 AM
Scenario #1: in FE, I fly my plane in a straight line to circumnavigate [my frame of reference], but my path is actually curved due to my compass [Earth's frame of reference]

Aha! I see what you mean now, thank you!

 But what if, in FE, you wanted to fly in a straight line toward the ice wall so you flew directly away from the North Pole (which is the centre of FE, I believe). Then your compass should continue to point to North as being directly behind you, shouldn't it? So then you should be able to fly in a straight line due south toward the ice wall, shouldn't you?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: C-Ray on September 19, 2008, 09:33:36 AM
Scenario #1: in FE, I fly my plane in a straight line to circumnavigate [my frame of reference], but my path is actually curved due to my compass [Earth's frame of reference]

Aha! I see what you mean now, thank you!

 But what if, in FE, you wanted to fly in a straight line toward the ice wall so you flew directly away from the North Pole (which is the centre of FE, I believe). Then your compass should continue to point to North as being directly behind you, shouldn't it? So then you should be able to fly in a straight line due south toward the ice wall, shouldn't you?

Magnetic declination would not allow you to do that.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 19, 2008, 09:34:36 AM
Scenario #1: in FE, I fly my plane in a straight line to circumnavigate [my frame of reference], but my path is actually curved due to my compass [Earth's frame of reference]

Aha! I see what you mean now, thank you!

 But what if, in FE, you wanted to fly in a straight line toward the ice wall so you flew directly away from the North Pole (which is the centre of FE, I believe). Then your compass should continue to point to North as being directly behind you, shouldn't it? So then you should be able to fly in a straight line due south toward the ice wall, shouldn't you?

Magnetic declination would not allow you to do that.

SOrry for being thick but can you explain how magnetic declination works? I don't think I've heard that term before.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: C-Ray on September 19, 2008, 09:45:43 AM
Scenario #1: in FE, I fly my plane in a straight line to circumnavigate [my frame of reference], but my path is actually curved due to my compass [Earth's frame of reference]

Aha! I see what you mean now, thank you!

 But what if, in FE, you wanted to fly in a straight line toward the ice wall so you flew directly away from the North Pole (which is the centre of FE, I believe). Then your compass should continue to point to North as being directly behind you, shouldn't it? So then you should be able to fly in a straight line due south toward the ice wall, shouldn't you?

Magnetic declination would not allow you to do that.

SOrry for being thick but can you explain how magnetic declination works? I don't think I've heard that term before.

Magnetic declination is the difference between where maps are drawn and where the compass points.  As you travel the declnation changes.  By looking at the RE declination map, it changes as much as 40 degrees, if you travel in a straight line, from Chile or Argentina or Peru.  Although, I am not sure why it wouldn't be possible to travel along the Agonic line, the line of zero degrees declination.  My geography is not all that hot, but it seems you could start in Mississippi and travel across the gulf, through Costa Rica travel the length of Peru, cut the corner on Chile and go across south America, traversing Argentina then back south to the continent of Antarctica.  I would imagine that would be pretty hard to do though.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 19, 2008, 10:08:46 AM
Scenario #1: in FE, I fly my plane in a straight line to circumnavigate [my frame of reference], but my path is actually curved due to my compass [Earth's frame of reference]

Aha! I see what you mean now, thank you!

 But what if, in FE, you wanted to fly in a straight line toward the ice wall so you flew directly away from the North Pole (which is the centre of FE, I believe). Then your compass should continue to point to North as being directly behind you, shouldn't it? So then you should be able to fly in a straight line due south toward the ice wall, shouldn't you?

Magnetic declination would not allow you to do that.

SOrry for being thick but can you explain how magnetic declination works? I don't think I've heard that term before.

Magnetic declination is the difference between where maps are drawn and where the compass points.  As you travel the declnation changes.  By looking at the RE declination map, it changes as much as 40 degrees, if you travel in a straight line, from Chile or Argentina or Peru.  Although, I am not sure why it wouldn't be possible to travel along the Agonic line, the line of zero degrees declination.  My geography is not all that hot, but it seems you could start in Mississippi and travel across the gulf, through Costa Rica travel the length of Peru, cut the corner on Chile and go across south America, traversing Argentina then back south to the continent of Antarctica.  I would imagine that would be pretty hard to do though.

You say that the declination on RE is as much as 40 degrees - do we know what it is on FE?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 19, 2008, 10:09:38 AM
You say that the declination on RE is as much as 40 degrees - do we know what it is on FE?

We don't.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 19, 2008, 10:19:21 AM
I'd suggest you try and make FE declination tie in with the RE.

FE declination from celestial north/south should match RE declination perfectly, in order for the observations to work. Which basically means that in the northern hemiplane, it should be the same. Celestial south and geographic south are not always the same direction in FET, though.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 19, 2008, 12:42:11 PM
I'd suggest you try and make FE declination tie in with the RE.

FE declination from celestial north/south should match RE declination perfectly, in order for the observations to work. Which basically means that in the northern hemiplane, it should be the same. Celestial south and geographic south are not always the same direction in FET, though.

So my question still remains unanswered. What will happen if you set off with the North pole directly behind you and travel directly south toward the Ice Wall?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 19, 2008, 09:30:23 PM
So my question still remains unanswered. What will happen if you set off with the North pole directly behind you and travel directly south toward the Ice Wall?

You'd reach the Ice Wall and immediately be shot down by the guards.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 20, 2008, 12:40:56 PM
So my question still remains unanswered. What will happen if you set off with the North pole directly behind you and travel directly south toward the Ice Wall?

You'd reach the Ice Wall and immediately be shot down by the guards.

 ???

So then, flying in a straight line IS possible as long as you're flying directly south, away from the North Pole!! Hurrah!!!

But this poses a new question. How does anyone know for sure that I'd reach the Ice wall and be shot down by the guards?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 20, 2008, 12:41:41 PM
I think TheCat deserves a Conspiracy medal for forcing a FE'er to refer to the conspiracy!

Well done! And only 23 posts! We'll have to keep an eye on you!

I thank you



I'm here all week   ;D
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: weliveonasphere on September 20, 2008, 12:59:11 PM
are you seriously telling everyone that you really belive the earth is flat
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Mrs. Peach on September 20, 2008, 01:02:25 PM
But this poses a new question. How does anyone know for sure that I'd reach the Ice wall and be shot down by the guards?

We'd tie some string round your plane. When it goes limp we know you've been shot down.
are you seriously telling everyone that you really belive the earth is flat


A meeting of the minds.  ;D
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: TheCat on September 20, 2008, 02:23:54 PM
But this poses a new question. How does anyone know for sure that I'd reach the Ice wall and be shot down by the guards?

We'd tie some string round your plane. When it goes limp we know you've been shot down.  :'( :'( :'(

ETA: Sad face

Maybe I've just landed in the Ice wall and gone for a picnic?!?!? Just because I've gone limp it doesn't mean you should shun me  :-[
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 20, 2008, 07:14:34 PM
But this poses a new question. How does anyone know for sure that I'd reach the Ice wall and be shot down by the guards?

Because the Earth is flat, and since of all the explorers who have visited Antarctica, none have made it to the Ice Wall and returned to tell us what they saw, there must be someone or something stopping them.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 07:15:43 PM
But this poses a new question. How does anyone know for sure that I'd reach the Ice wall and be shot down by the guards?

Because the Earth is flat, and since of all the explorers who have visited Antarctica, none have made it to the Ice Wall and returned to tell us what they saw, there must be someone or something stopping them.

Or.... No ice wall?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 20, 2008, 07:21:29 PM
Or.... No ice wall?

Well, that's a possibility. Of course, you could use the same logic to argue that because we don't know what someone would find if they dug to the centre of the Earth in RET, there is no centre of the Earth.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 07:25:29 PM
Or.... No ice wall?

Well, that's a possibility. Of course, you could use the same logic to argue that because we don't know what someone would find if they dug to the centre of the Earth in RET, there is no centre of the Earth.

I could say, "No one has been to the center and back because gaurds killed them." But that just sounds silly.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 20, 2008, 07:30:09 PM
I could say, "No one has been to the center and back because gaurds killed them." But that just sounds silly.

What if people repeatedly travelled to the centre of the Earth, and many disappeared, but some returned saying it was not possible to reach it?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 07:34:10 PM
I could say, "No one has been to the center and back because gaurds killed them." But that just sounds silly.

What if people repeatedly travelled to the centre of the Earth, and many disappeared, but some returned saying it was not possible to reach it?


How could we know if people repeatedly travelled to the center of the earth then? We would never know if anyone made it. But I think I'd say it was the FE gaurds...
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 20, 2008, 07:36:32 PM
How could we know if people repeatedly travelled to the center of the earth then? We would never know if anyone made it. But I think I'd say it was the FE gaurds...

Exactly. It's more logical to assume that they're being stopped than it is to assume that their destination does not exist.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 07:38:51 PM
How could we know if people repeatedly travelled to the center of the earth then? We would never know if anyone made it. But I think I'd say it was the FE gaurds...

Exactly. It's more logical to assume that they're being stopped than it is to assume that their destination does not exist.

Either the ice wall or the center of the (round)earth don't exist.  So we have to assume one is real and one doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 20, 2008, 07:43:09 PM
Either the ice wall or the center of the (round)earth don't exist.  So we have to assume one is real and one doesn't exist.

Correct. And since we don't have any documented evidence of journeys to such places, we have to rely on first hand evidence. When I look out of my window, the Earth appears flat. Therefore, it is flat, and it is the centre of the Round Earth that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2008, 07:43:25 PM
So then, flying in a straight line IS possible as long as you're flying directly south, away from the North Pole!! Hurrah!!!
No. You path will still slightly be curved if you fly from the North to the edge. The ice wall is not the true South pole.

Quote
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE.  Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE.  The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth.  The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field.  The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 07:52:07 PM
Either the ice wall or the center of the (round)earth don't exist.  So we have to assume one is real and one doesn't exist.

Correct. And since we don't have any documented evidence of journeys to such places, we have to rely on first hand evidence. When I look out of my window, the Earth appears flat. Therefore, it is flat, and it is the centre of the Round Earth that doesn't exist.

What creates magma in FE?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 20, 2008, 07:53:15 PM
What creates magma in FE?

Magma is being created, now? ???
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 07:54:30 PM
Well, whatever... Why does magma exist?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2008, 07:54:46 PM
What creates magma in FE?
Just like now magma is generated in RE...
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 07:57:40 PM
Is there anything that FE can explain that RE can't? Does it work both ways?

Sorry, I'm trying to learn, and I'm using this thread.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2008, 07:59:02 PM
FE and RE are pretty much the same. Some of the few differences are their shape and spaceflight.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 08:00:30 PM
FE and RE are pretty much the same. Some of the few differences are their shape and spaceflight.

Okay? 
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2008, 08:02:57 PM
Well, you RE'ers seriously need to stop thinking about the FE being so much different than the RE.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 08:05:48 PM
Well, you RE'ers seriously need to stop thinking about the FE being so much different than the RE.

Sorry? But how is there a forum built around the "look out your window" argument.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2008, 08:09:33 PM
The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop.  In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 08:11:54 PM
Either the ice wall or the center of the (round)earth don't exist.  So we have to assume one is real and one doesn't exist.

Correct. And since we don't have any documented evidence of journeys to such places, we have to rely on first hand evidence. When I look out of my window, the Earth appears flat. Therefore, it is flat, and it is the centre of the Round Earth that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2008, 08:14:30 PM
So you didn't really understand my previous quote? I thought so.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 08:17:25 PM
So you didn't really understand my previous quote? I thought so.

You thought I did? Or you thought so I didn't? Because would not make sense.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2008, 08:37:59 PM
I already knew you would not understand my quote before you responded, that's why I posted the "thought so". ::) Learn2English.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Sean on September 20, 2008, 08:42:26 PM
You got me good.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 21, 2008, 03:31:31 AM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/MAGNETIC_11.jpg)
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 21, 2008, 03:35:13 AM
What? You couldn't see my drawing?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 21, 2008, 03:38:23 AM
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/MAGNETIC_11.jpg
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 21, 2008, 08:40:29 AM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth111.jpg)

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth111.jpg

Underside of that red dot. Is this still too hard for you?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 21, 2008, 12:08:32 PM
It's hard for me if you don't tell me.

But now I'm confused. In the real world, there is a single southerly point where the magnetic field causes a compass to spin. (Because all directions are "north". The point has been visited on many occasions, and if you want to visit it yourself you can. Just apply here (http://www.amundsenomega3southpolerace.com/index.php?ID=12)

I know where this point is on a globe, but where is it on the flat earth?

I don't believe there is any single such point.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 12:08:50 PM
It's hard for me if you don't tell me.

But now I'm confused. In the real world, there is a single southerly point where the magnetic field causes a compass to spin. (Because all directions are "north". The point has been visited on many occasions, and if you want to visit it yourself you can. Just apply here (http://www.amundsenomega3southpolerace.com/index.php?ID=12)

I know where this point is on a globe, but where is it on the flat earth?

The Earth's magnetic north pole is not located at the same point as the South Geographic Pole.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Dr. Lia Roidi Moore on September 21, 2008, 12:16:10 PM
i saw a film once about these guys and they were travelling around the world.(or across it).


One of them was British, one was from Kansas and the other was German. Anyway they all boarded a plane from France, they met there first to get to know each other, etc. France was a good starting spot as the camera men, etc were from there.

They flew from there to southern Italy, and took in Gondela trip before having lunch and checking into their hotel so as could get rid of their bags to explore the city more.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 12:19:24 PM
Tell me where it is not where it isn't.

I'm meant in RET. You are talking about two different points as though they are the same point. When you provide clarification, so will I.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 12:23:18 PM
No I'm not. I'm talking about the magnetic south pole. Show me where that is.

The Arctic Ocean, I believe.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 12:39:17 PM
Uh... the geographic north pole is also in the Arctic Ocean.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 12:47:23 PM
So both the magnetic poles are in the Arctic Ocean? What luck!

No, only the magnetic south pole. The geographic north pole is not a magnetic pole.

But what's the name for the spot in the (ahem) southern hemisphere where no compass reference point can be found.

Hint, somewhere near here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Magnetic_Pole

It's not even in within the ice wall, so plenty of people have been there...

That would be the South Magnetic Pole, which is also a magnetic north pole. It is defined simply as the point on the Earth's surface where the magnetic field lines point directly up, so I am inclined to believe that there is more than one of them in the FE model, or that instead of a point it is a continuous ring around the edge.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Dr. Lia Roidi Moore on September 21, 2008, 12:49:41 PM
And what patrols the ring?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 12:50:42 PM
And what patrols the ring?

It probably isn't a ring. It doesn't really agree with observations for it to be one. But it is certainly a possibility.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 21, 2008, 06:07:11 PM
There's a single point on the earths surface called the magnetic north pole.
There is a single point on the earths surface called the magnetic south pole.
The magnetic north pole is somewhere in the arctic ocean.
To be a little more precise, it's not too far from 82.7° N 114.4° W (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_North_Pole)
The magnetic south pole is somewhere in the antarctic ocean
To be a little more precise, it's not too far from 63.5° S 138.0° E (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_South_Pole)

Would you agree?

Switch those co-ordinates around, and yes, I would, in RET. In FET, I would only agree that there is a single magnetic south pole. There may be multiple magnetic north poles.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 21, 2008, 10:28:42 PM
You've just contradicted E.Jack:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth111.jpg)
There is no contradiction. I thought you've read the FAQ, but it looked like you've not. The magnetic south pole is located at the geographic north pole, while the magnetic north pole is located underside of that.

Quote
Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole
So you admit that you were just being dumb?

Wow. The magnetic south pole is in the north?
Yeah, why?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Jack on September 21, 2008, 10:36:25 PM
So both the magnetic poles are in the Arctic Ocean? What luck!
Look up the word "underside".
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 05:14:59 AM
But Steve, there is no FE and RE only what is observable. From those observations we make assumptions on the shape of the earth. The coordinates I gave you are observed and recorded. They fit with the assumption of a Round Earth, but not that of a Flat Earth.

They do? So the north pole of a magnet points south? ???
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: roysloco on September 22, 2008, 12:30:21 PM
... When I look out of my window, the Earth appears flat. Therefore, it is flat, and it is the centre of the Round Earth that doesn't exist.

Sorry to come back to this - how would the view from your window differ if the earth was round and had a circumference of almost 25,000 miles (as proposed by the RE model)? It would look as it looks now surely?

(... sorry if I seem to be picking on you today - you just happen to be the one who provoked a couple of questions!  ;) )
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Parsifal on September 22, 2008, 12:34:48 PM
Sorry to come back to this - how would the view from your window differ if the earth was round and had a circumference of almost 25,000 miles (as proposed by the RE model)? It would look as it looks now surely?

(... sorry if I seem to be picking on you today - you just happen to be the one who provoked a couple of questions!  ;) )

It wouldn't, but that's like saying that the Andromeda galaxy is made of antimatter because our view of it wouldn't differ in such a case provided it was not in contact with matter. We would need additional evidence to consider it a reasonable possibility.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Chrls on September 28, 2008, 09:22:30 AM
After reading these forums for a few hours I can safely say that video evidence will not disprove FET, because all pictures and/or videos can be faked. Even if a respected member of the forum was to post video footage of the earth from space which they took themselves it would be discounted as the government using their name to release more fake images.

I would like to see an example of a situation that would prove to a FE theorist that the earth is round. (Please don't say "you can't! it's flat!)

For instance, here is what would prove the earth is flat:

Legitimate news agency films the ice wall. Hell, even a picture would do. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, NYTimes, Boston Globe, AP, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ect.

And now, a picture of a mountain won't do. I'd like to see the ocean hitting a wall of ice that's covering the horizon from one of these news agencies.
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 28, 2008, 09:36:59 AM
After reading these forums for a few hours I can safely say that video evidence will not disprove FET, because all pictures and/or videos can be faked. Even if a respected member of the forum was to post video footage of the earth from space which they took themselves it would be discounted as the government using their name to release more fake images.

I would like to see an example of a situation that would prove to a FE theorist that the earth is round. (Please don't say "you can't! it's flat!)

For instance, here is what would prove the earth is flat:

Legitimate news agency films the ice wall. Hell, even a picture would do. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, NYTimes, Boston Globe, AP, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ect.

And now, a picture of a mountain won't do. I'd like to see the ocean hitting a wall of ice that's covering the horizon from one of these news agencies.


(http://www.mbari.org/benthic/images/Antslides/ice%20shelf.jpg)
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Ski on September 29, 2008, 09:41:02 AM
http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/frigate.jpg


Title: Re: Flying
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 29, 2008, 11:42:34 PM
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: MadDogX on September 29, 2008, 11:59:27 PM
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Indeed. That frigate is obviously guarding the ice wall. The Earth is flat!
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: markjo on September 30, 2008, 05:21:27 AM
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Indeed. That frigate is obviously guarding the ice wall. The Earth is flat!

Maybe that frigate is trying to keep the killer penguins in.  Did you conspiracy types ever think of that?  Hmm...
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: markjo on September 30, 2008, 09:50:46 AM
Penguins can't swim. They commit mass suicide like lemmings.

That's right, penguins can't swim.  They fly underwater (ever heard of water wings?).
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Funk Master 420 on September 30, 2008, 10:43:51 AM
im curious.... there are no guards in any of your pictures. are they invisible??? and if these ships have reached the ice wall, why didn't the guards shoot them as you propose they would do? i don't wanna bring up anything about the government allowing these pictures because as you all know the government is not involved in the conspiracy.

btw... does NASA employ super-secret-invisible-ultra soldiers?
Title: Re: Flying
Post by: Ski on October 02, 2008, 01:16:15 AM
im curious.... there are no guards in any of your pictures. are they invisible??? and if these ships have reached the ice wall, why didn't the guards shoot them as you propose they would do? i don't wanna bring up anything about the government allowing these pictures because as you all know the government is not involved in the conspiracy.

btw... does NASA employ super-secret-invisible-ultra soldiers?

I don't think the ice wall is actively guarded really. So I doubt there are super-secret-invisible-ultra soldiers in the picture, but if you find one let me know.