The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Cop Ernie Cuss on February 16, 2011, 12:33:59 PM
-
I've circumnavigated the globe twice. Once by boat, and once by plane. I've started at one point (California by plane, Australia by boat), and ended up at the exact same place after traveling the entire way around the globe. This is possible because the earth is round. I find it very difficult to believe that Flat Earthers really think their theory cannot be disproved, when they could sail around the world and see it for themselves! There are no guards keeping you from getting to the edge. Only penguins. I do not even want to start debating Flat Earthers about stars, because it seems to be totally useless presenting facts, but I urge you to look into the FACT that thousands of people have circumnavigated the globe. Even tourists:
http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/arctic-expeditions/arctic-circumnavigation-world-cruise/itinerary
http://www.cruisevacationcenter.com/articles/holland_america_50th_anniversary.htm
-
Ah, another sailor astronomer scientist. Put him with the others.
-
What does that mean? Anyone who has actually proved to themselves that the earth is indeed round gets banished? Because facts are irrelevant? That makes no sense. I've sailed around the world. Fact.
This is all a joke, right? It's got to be. You guys are good. I guess I fell for it, but you guys are laughing it up. Kudos.
-
http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/arctic-expeditions/arctic-circumnavigation-world-cruise/itinerary
Eastwards and Westwards circumnavigation like that is possible on a Flat Earth.
In the Flat Earth model the earth is laid out in a manner similar to the United Nations logo.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Logo_of_the_United_Nations_%28B%26W%29.svg/600px-Logo_of_the_United_Nations_%28B%26W%29.svg.png)
North is Hubwards, South is Rimwards, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.
-
...However, it's still not explained how you can travel "rimwards" and still circumnavigate the Earth. Have you done this, Ernie?
-
Remember, the northern point on the compass is pointing toward the center of the Earth. If you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you have just gone around the world in a circle. Thus, circumnavigation is possible on FE.
-
Remember, the northern point on the compass is pointing toward the center of the Earth. If you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you have just gone around the world in a circle. Thus, circumnavigation is possible on FE.
...However, it's still not explained how you can travel "rimwards" and still circumnavigate the Earth.
-
...However, it's still not explained how you can travel "rimwards" and still circumnavigate the Earth.
Look at the path Lincoln Ellsworth took on his supposed crossing of Antarctica
From http://www.south-pole.com/p0000110.htm -
(http://www.south-pole.com/ellsw-8.jpg)
It looks like he just crossed a peninsula off the coast of Antarctica; not the mainland itself.
Perhaps these supposed crossings of Antarctica are really a matter of crossing a peninsula sticking out of the Antarctic mainland.
-
But I've also flown all the way around the world! And using a compass, GPS, and seeing the earth myself, I've seen that if you start in one place and fly due whatever, you'll make your way back again! You can talk about flat maps and whatnot when it comes to sailing, but how can you possibly deny the thousands of people who have flown all the way around the world?
-
But I've also flown all the way around the world! And using a compass, GPS, and seeing the earth myself, I've seen that if you start in one place and fly due whatever, you'll make your way back again! You can talk about flat maps and whatnot when it comes to sailing, but how can you possibly deny the thousands of people who have flown all the way around the world?
East/West circumnavigation is possible on the Flat Earth model. Scroll up and look at the United Nations map again. When you travel Eastwards your compass is at a right angle to North; hence Eastwards travel would curve around the North Pole and bring you back where you started.
As an analogy, imagine that you are standing twenty feet from the North Pole. If you travel Eastwards where will your path take you?
That's right. Your path takes you in a circle around the North Pole.
-
That makes no sense whatsoever. You don't even know how a compass works!
If I take off from Los Angeles and travel due West, I will return to Los Angeles. By your logic, I would really be flying in a circle, not flying straight. But every navigation device in the plane says otherwise!
I give up. You guys are either serious jokers, and if so, you rule, you totally are the greatest; or you're so delusional for absolutely no reason at all. You don't know why this conspiracy is in place, it doesn't have anything to do with your religion, from what I can tell, and your FAQ actually states that you believe the earth is flat because that's what you see!
(Why am I even wasting time on this site????)
-
...However, it's still not explained how you can travel "rimwards" and still circumnavigate the Earth.
I don't know that it's been shown you can travel "rimwards" and still circumnavigate the Earth. A thought experiment is worth little here. It's akin to me saying: "RET has not explained how one may travel 'south' and not end up heading 'north.'"
That makes no sense whatsoever. You don't even know how a compass works!
If I take off from Los Angeles and travel due West, I will return to Los Angeles. By your logic, I would really be flying in a circle, not flying straight. But every navigation device in the plane says otherwise!
Even if the earth were round, one's route would be in a circle not straight.
-
That makes no sense whatsoever. You don't even know how a compass works!
If I take off from Los Angeles and travel due West, I will return to Los Angeles. By your logic, I would really be flying in a circle, not flying straight. But every navigation device in the plane says otherwise!
Yep, you would be traveling in a circle.
The RET model is no different. You're also traveling in a circle when you travel Westwards on a Round Earth. East and West are also curved in the Round Earth model. They're not straight.
Imagine that you are standing on top of a Round Earth, twenty feet from the North Pole. If you decide to travel Westwards continuously, where will your path take you?
-
I don't know that it's been shown you can travel "rimwards" and still circumnavigate the Earth.
It has. Look up the Transglobe Expedition.
A thought experiment is worth little here.
Maybe, but you can't substitute a thought experiment for what actually happened.
Also, Tom, in regards to this:
It looks like he just crossed a peninsula off the coast of Antarctica; not the mainland itself.
Ranulph Fiennes (who participated in the Transglobe Expedition) crossed the mainland of Antarctica.
(http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/images/expedition/antarctic/globe-lrg.jpg)
-
I don't know that it's been shown you can travel "rimwards" and still circumnavigate the Earth.
It has. Look up the Transglobe Expedition.
A thought experiment is worth little here.
Maybe, but you can't substitute a thought experiment for what actually happened.
Also, Tom, in regards to this:
It looks like he just crossed a peninsula off the coast of Antarctica; not the mainland itself.
Ranulph Fiennes (who participated in the Transglobe Expedition) crossed the mainland of Antarctica.
http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/images/expedition/antarctic/globe-lrg.jpg
Really? He took that exact path? How do we know that he didn't just cross a peninsula on the coast of Antarctica like the others?
-
You know what, I bet he just trolled everybody. It's not like the guy hasn't climbed Mount Everest or walked unaided to the Arctic before.
...
What makes you think he did anything other than what he said he did?
-
You know what, I bet he just trolled everybody. It's not like the guy hasn't climbed Mount Everest or walked unaided to the Arctic before.
...
What makes you think he did anything other than what he said he did?
What he did contradicts the flat earth theory. Flat earth believers deny things that do that.
-
It's easy to trick yourself into believing that the earth is a globe on such an excursion.
Say that you were an Antarctic explorer who believed that the earth was round. You travel Southwards until you hit 90 degrees south. You proclaim that you have reached the South Pole and set up camp for the night. What do you do the next morning? If you believe that you are on a globe you follow the sun Northwards. You cannot go South of the South Pole after all.
Under FET if you traveled Northwards towards the sun after hitting 90 degrees South you would just turn right back around.
It's possible that these explorers who claim to have reached the South Pole traveled inland to 90 degrees and then traveled Northwards again, under the belief that were are on a globe earth, telling everyone back home that they had "crossed Antarctica".
-
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that is what took place? Furthermore, if such an explanation is so easily accepted by you, why couldn't any of the other longitudinal circumnavigaters have made a similar mistake and actually did travel on the mainland?
-
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that is what took place?
Through deductive reasoning.
You are an explorer who believes that he is on the underside of a Round Earth traveling Southwards across the featureless tundra of Antarctica. What direction will you head once you hit 90 degrees South? You're going to go North, right? That's the only way you can go on an RE after all.
In FET traveling Northwards at 90 degrees South takes you back to the ocean and habitable areas.
Furthermore, if such an explanation is so easily accepted by you, why couldn't any of the other longitudinal circumnavigaters have made a similar mistake and actually did travel on the mainland?
It's likely that the others would make the same mistake.
Even if they tried to travel the opposite direction they came in at, the moment they looked at their compass and at the sky they would see that they were traveling in the wrong direction and adjust their path towards the North and towards the sun accordingly, believing that they were on a globe and that North was the most appropriate direction to travel after hitting 90o S.
The error stems from believing that the earth is a globe.
-
What does that mean? Anyone who has actually proved to themselves that the earth is indeed round gets banished?
No, it means we get people who claim to be astronomers/sailors/pilots every other day. It's quite shocking that they still keep coming!
Because facts are irrelevant?
What facts?
I've sailed around the world. Fact.
Evidence?
This is all a joke, right? It's got to be. You guys are good. I guess I fell for it, but you guys are laughing it up. Kudos.
I assure you most of us are dead serious.
-
In FET traveling Northwards at 90 degrees South takes you back to the ocean and habitable areas.
But the magical, musical question is "at 90 degrees south, where does traveling south take you on a FE?" Also, how would you know when you hit 90 degrees south?
-
But the magical, musical question is "at 90 degrees south, where does traveling south take you on a FE?"
If you traveled the opposite way you came and continued on a straight path, without adjusting your path in any way through a compass or the sun, you would die in the infinite tundra of Antarctica.
-
But the magical, musical question is "at 90 degrees south, where does traveling south take you on a FE?"
If you traveled the opposite way you came and continued on a straight path, without adjusting your path in any way through a compass or the sun, you would die in the infinite tundra of Antarctica.
That's nice, but doesn't answer my question (you do that a lot, don't you?). During the Antarctic summer, the sun is above the horizon for a significant part of the day so navigation should be possible. So, how would you know when you reach (the equivalent of) 91 degrees south latitude?
-
Man, what a polarizing topic!
Haha, no but seriously I have nothing to add, except that I am observing a rigorous adherence to the Zetetic Method in this thread. Supporting conjecture must be put forth in place of any opposing firsthand accounts, which in any case may be readily dismissed as inaccurate (intentionally so or otherwise). When presented with evidence, they will ask for proof. If anything resembling proof is put forth, it must be necessarily a deception, because all evidence must support FET because the world is flat. It is the very same mindset of a typical theist*, who firstly asserts the existence of a deity and so must "logically" embrace supporting evidence and reject all else.
It is essentially a reversal of the Scientific Method and this all supports the idea that FET is a faith-based belief structure and unrelated to any real scientific framework (see also: Creationism).
In conclusion, in the world of RET and traditional science, we (ideally) begin with the premise that we know nothing. In the world of FET, we begin with the premise that the world is flat.
* One such group, for example, has Jesus and the Bible; the other has Rowbotham and his book.
-
I think I've made my point.
Me: How does circumnavigation among longitudes work in FE?
FE-ers: Doesn't happen.
Me: This guy did it.
FE-ers: Didn't happen.
Really?
-
But the magical, musical question is "at 90 degrees south, where does traveling south take you on a FE?"
If you traveled the opposite way you came and continued on a straight path, without adjusting your path in any way through a compass or the sun, you would die in the infinite tundra of Antarctica.
That's nice
No, it's not.
During the Antarctic summer, the sun is above the horizon for a significant part of the day so navigation should be possible. So, how would you know when you reach (the equivalent of) 91 degrees south latitude?
There are numerous ways one can find one's latitude. Perhaps you should read more.
In conclusion, in the world of RET and traditional science, we (ideally) begin with the premise that we know nothing. In the world of FET, we begin with the premise that the world is flat.
If you guys start with the premise that you know nothing, why do you keep presenting NASA's claims as truth without knowing firsthand?
I think I've made my point.
Me: How does circumnavigation among longitudes work in FE?
FE-ers: Doesn't happen.
Me: This guy did it.
FE-ers: Didn't happen.
Really?
I've presented a perfectly plausible argument for how an explorer can be misled by RET into tracking back to the coast and thinking that he had performed a crossing of Antarctica.
-
I've presented a perfectly plausible argument for how an explorer can be misled by RET into tracking back to the coast and thinking that he had performed a crossing of Antarctica.
Okay. So it's completely plausible that Rowbotham was wrong about a Flat Earth then. There are books published about both people.
-
I've presented a perfectly plausible argument for how an explorer can be misled by RET into tracking back to the coast and thinking that he had performed a crossing of Antarctica.
Okay. So it's completely plausible that Rowbotham was wrong about a Flat Earth then. There are books published about both people.
Rowbotham is only one person.
Please don't clutter the thread with poor sentence structure.
-
I suggest you lurk around rif for a bit. I was referring to Ranulph and Rowbotham. There are books documenting both of their "experiments". If Ranulph is fallible due to a possibility for error, why is Rowbotham not?
-
Yeah, there's no real logic here.
I understand that when close the either pole, you're going to be dealing with different circumstances with your compass.
However, if, as I originally said, you take off from Los Angeles and fly due West (not westward from the north pole!) -- let's say you travel the 34th parallel -- you will end up back in L.A. and you WILL NOT have traveled in a "circle"! You will have traveled STRAIGHT around the globe. That's not a circle!
Again, why am I bothering? You guys don't believe that astronauts have circumnavigated the earth, so why would you believe that I (or any of us so-called sailors/pilots/scientists) know for a fact the world is a sphere.
-
Ernie...if I were you, I'd have begun pleading the fifth after your original post.
-
How do you go straight around a globe or disc without having traveled in a circle? That seems completely irrelevant.
Tom, you asked me to clarify something in my previous post and I would be happy to do just that. The accumulation of traditional scientific knowledge does not begin with a clean slate every generation, for the obvious reason that you do not need to, say, continuously invent the wheel if it has been demonstrated to work. Rather, knowledge is gathered through observation and experimentation and all that through the ages, building and revising and elaborating upon itself through the collective work of investigative minds. New ideas are formed; some are discarded, some are altered. The idea is not to arbitrarily assume anything, which is precisely what is happening with modern FET.
The idea of a discal world is simply accepted outright (thanks to literal interpretations of the Bible and casually looking around) and thereafter no rational inquiry is employed to test the validity of this. Instead, evidence which is scientifically valid is misinterpreted in order to satisfy the presupposed conclusion, or evidence is simply created. It doesn't really matter; ultimately, the evidence is secondary to the conclusion. This is called faith.
-
During the Antarctic summer, the sun is above the horizon for a significant part of the day so navigation should be possible. So, how would you know when you reach (the equivalent of) 91 degrees south latitude?
There are numerous ways one can find one's latitude. Perhaps you should read more.
The problem is that most methods of determining latitude just don't work on a flat earth. For example, due to the relatively close proximity of the sun, measuring the elevation of the sun at noon only been shown to work at the equator and 45 degrees north and south latitude on the days of the equinox. On other days of the year and at different latitudes, this method simply does not provide consistent results. This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.
-
I suggest you lurk around rif for a bit. I was referring to Ranulph and Rowbotham.
It wasn't apparent who you were referring to. We were talking about multiple explorers in this thread. If we're talking about multiple explorers and you chime in talking about someone in singular it's just bad grammar.
There are books documenting both of their "experiments". If Ranulph is fallible due to a possibility for error, why is Rowbotham not?
Rowbotham's experiments are not fallible because I have reproduced them successfully myself.
However, if, as I originally said, you take off from Los Angeles and fly due West (not westward from the north pole!) -- let's say you travel the 34th parallel -- you will end up back in L.A. and you WILL NOT have traveled in a "circle"! You will have traveled STRAIGHT around the globe. That's not a circle!
As we've said, East and West are not straight lines even in the Round Earth model.
Again - if you are on top of a Round Earth 20 feet from the North Pole and decide to travel Westwards, where will your path take you?
Tom, you asked me to clarify something in my previous post and I would be happy to do just that. The accumulation of traditional scientific knowledge does not begin with a clean slate every generation, for the obvious reason that you do not need to, say, continuously invent the wheel if it has been demonstrated to work. Rather, knowledge is gathered through observation and experimentation and all that through the ages, building and revising and elaborating upon itself through the collective work of investigative minds. New ideas are formed; some are discarded, some are altered.
That doesn't sound like "starting afresh" to me. It sounds like you're blindly trusting the work of others.
This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.
Knowledge that the latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled is another way one could know that they are at 91 degrees south.
-
There are books documenting both of their "experiments". If Ranulph is fallible due to a possibility for error, why is Rowbotham not?
Rowbotham's experiments are not fallible because I have reproduced them successfully myself.
Tom Bishop cannot be in error? :O
-
Ah yes, the infallibility of Rowbotham's experiments. Now, Tom, I'm wondering if you can make a distinction for me: What is the difference between you successfully reproducing one of Rowbotham's experiments and some scientist successfully reproducing some other mainstream scientist's experiment?
-
Ah yes, the infallibility of Rowbotham's experiments. Now, Tom, I'm wondering if you can make a distinction for me: What is the difference between you successfully reproducing one of Rowbotham's experiments and some scientist successfully reproducing some other mainstream scientist's experiment?
The difference is that I've seen the results firsthand (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626), whereas with two scientists performing an experiment I would need to trust in the methodology of others.
-
Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?
-
Man, what a polarizing topic!
Haha, no but seriously I have nothing to add, except that I am observing a rigorous adherence to the Zetetic Method in this thread. Supporting conjecture must be put forth in place of any opposing firsthand accounts, which in any case may be readily dismissed as inaccurate (intentionally so or otherwise). When presented with evidence, they will ask for proof. If anything resembling proof is put forth, it must be necessarily a deception, because all evidence must support FET because the world is flat. It is the very same mindset of a typical theist*, who firstly asserts the existence of a deity and so must "logically" embrace supporting evidence and reject all else.
It is essentially a reversal of the Scientific Method and this all supports the idea that FET is a faith-based belief structure and unrelated to any real scientific framework (see also: Creationism).
In conclusion, in the world of RET and traditional science, we (ideally) begin with the premise that we know nothing. In the world of FET, we begin with the premise that the world is flat.
* One such group, for example, has Jesus and the Bible; the other has Rowbotham and his book.
Now you understand how funny it is when they ask me for evidence to prove my theories and when they call my theories unscientific? Now you see?
-
However, if, as I originally said, you take off from Los Angeles and fly due West (not westward from the north pole!) -- let's say you travel the 34th parallel -- you will end up back in L.A. and you WILL NOT have traveled in a "circle"! You will have traveled STRAIGHT around the globe. That's not a circle!
As we've said, East and West are not straight lines even in the Round Earth model.
Again - if you are on top of a Round Earth 20 feet from the North Pole and decide to travel Westwards, where will your path take you?
but instruments on an airplane are reletive to the airplane right? (gyroscopic compass? maybe? accelerometers?)
thus on the round earth, going straight east west would mean the airplane is going forward relative to its previouls location (albiet in a circle when viewed from the north pole)
and on a flat earth an airplane would actually have to turn to be in a circle, and hence, if anyone brought a gyroscopic compass, or accelerometer, you could detect htis right?
just a speculation, i dont know what instruments are on an airplane
but i do belive my thinking is correct
-
Well, New Earth, If you're asking me if I see the futility of demanding evidence to substantiate faith-based claims, then of course...this is self-evident. But I'm guessing that most contemporary proponents of FET are laboring under the delusion that their model relies on precisely the opposite of faith; indeed, they ironically accuse others of blind faith. And, in the case of Tom at least, the philosophy seems to be driven by some kind of solipsistic "If I haven't personally verified the experiment it is false" mindset, which has some pretty major drawbacks.
Anyway, none of that is immediately relevant to the OP. Is there any meaningful way for an airplane to ascertain the shape of the world with a simple latitudinal circumnavigation, given the models at hand? It doesn't seem like it to me.
Vhu, I think the problem with your visualization is that you're rendering the FET's model as a simple Euclidean disc in which you would have to constantly bank as you circumnavigate, as if you were simply flying in a circle over land. But this is not the case, their model utilizes curved space such that, if I'm not mistaken...the plane does actually fly in a straight line, but its path through space will still curve about in a circle when you look down on a flat representation of the model.
Incidentally, the same principle applies to RET, if you look at a "straight trip" from one point to another on a flat map, the path will be curved. But don't even try to ask about the convoluted nature of FET's world geometry.
-
sorry, i just always seen the FE map as a flat disk,
but bending space? how does that work?
-
Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?
Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?
In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.
If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.
-
Hmm, interesting...fair enough. I'm glad you brought up witchcraft, actually, as it seems to suggest that this philosophy does not exclusively relate to determining our cosmology, but ultimately to every aspect of our human experience. Is that fair to say?
-
Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?
Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?
In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.
If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.
Problem is you can't test most things for yourself to be sure because you are lacking proper equipment and resources that are only available to mainstream scientists who are directly funded by the government.
-
Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?
Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?
In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.
If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.
Tom has just stated (based on the reasoning of his previous post) that he does not accept atoms, molecules, electrons or any subatomic particles exist. He needs to see them.
-
This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.
Knowledge that the latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled is another way one could know that they are at 91 degrees south.
What evidence do you have that latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled?
-
sorry, i just always seen the FE map as a flat disk,
but bending space? how does that work?
I'm fairly certain that this is a recently made up thing. I've been telling them that they needed bendy space for ages. Less then a year ago, Parsifal made up some stuff about the fourth dimension, that sounded reminiscent of a certain PS2 era fighting game, and most likely partially copypasta'd from the dimensions-math.org videos. It involved things being close together through the forth dimension but far away in the 3rd and lower dimensions. He called it tetaken.
-
This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.
Knowledge that the latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled is another way one could know that they are at 91 degrees south.
and if by 72.5, you mean 69.1666666666666rep
then yes
-
sorry, i just always seen the FE map as a flat disk,
but bending space? how does that work?
I'm fairly certain that this is a recently made up thing. I've been telling them that they needed bendy space for ages. Less then a year ago, Parsifal made up some stuff about the fourth dimension, that sounded reminiscent of a certain PS2 era fighting game, and most likely partially copypasta'd from the dimensions-math.org videos. It involved things being close together through the forth dimension but far away in the 3rd and lower dimensions. He called it tetaken.
I like it
-
it is quite complicated to have a bended space that makes a circular path straight right?
-
Tom is right. I, for instance, am well known among the forums for rejecting the idea of organs based on this school of thought. If your doctor ever mentions any of your organs, he's a crook.
-
I really don't understand why people can't grasp the concept of flat map where continents represent a huge circle. It is the same as the globe except its unfolded. Picture the globe, now unfold it, there you got a flat earth map, nothing complicated. The land masses and oceans are huge so even though they are laid out in a circle, a traveler either by car or plane is not gonna notice the curve, it will still fill like a straight line due to the great size of landmasses.
-
Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?
Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?
In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.
If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.
You might not want to hear this, and I'm sure I'll get flamed and trolled for this, but do you realise that there is a witch reading this, and yet you imply that witchcraft has not been around since the middle ages.
-
Man this forum is getting crazier and crazier, I love it. lol
-
I really don't understand why people can't grasp the concept of flat map where continents represent a huge circle. It is the same as the globe except its unfolded. Picture the globe, now unfold it, there you got a flat earth map, nothing complicated. The land masses and oceans are huge so even though they are laid out in a circle, a traveler either by car or plane is not gonna notice the curve, it will still fill like a straight line due to the great size of landmasses.
I think that we can all grasp the concept just fine, it's only that it has little bearing on reality (like, indeed, this forum).
-
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that is what took place?
Through deductive reasoning.
You are an explorer who believes that he is on the underside of a Round Earth traveling Southwards across the featureless tundra of Antarctica. What direction will you head once you hit 90 degrees South? You're going to go North, right? That's the only way you can go on an RE after all.
In FET traveling Northwards at 90 degrees South takes you back to the ocean and habitable areas.
Furthermore, if such an explanation is so easily accepted by you, why couldn't any of the other longitudinal circumnavigaters have made a similar mistake and actually did travel on the mainland?
It's likely that the others would make the same mistake.
Even if they tried to travel the opposite direction they came in at, the moment they looked at their compass and at the sky they would see that they were traveling in the wrong direction and adjust their path towards the North and towards the sun accordingly, believing that they were on a globe and that North was the most appropriate direction to travel after hitting 90o S.
The error stems from believing that the earth is a globe.
Your only argument is that he thought he was continuing South (from his perspective, in relation to the path he had previously been taking) but had really... turned around and headed back the same way he came?
-
Tom is right. I, for instance, am well known among the forums for rejecting the idea of organs based on this school of thought. If your doctor ever mentions any of your organs, he's a crook.
My god...we're going to need to add Surgeons, Coroners, et al to the Sailor/Astronaut/Pilot group! It might be useful to begin compiling a list of professions that we can immediately discredit on here.
-
Tom is right. I, for instance, am well known among the forums for rejecting the idea of organs based on this school of thought. If your doctor ever mentions any of your organs, he's a crook.
My god...we're going to need to add Surgeons, Coroners, et al to the Sailor/Astronaut/Pilot group! It might be useful to begin compiling a list of professions that we can immediately discredit on here.
Put your profession at the top of the list.
-
Tom is right. I, for instance, am well known among the forums for rejecting the idea of organs based on this school of thought. If your doctor ever mentions any of your organs, he's a crook.
My god...we're going to need to add Surgeons, Coroners, et al to the Sailor/Astronaut/Pilot group! It might be useful to begin compiling a list of professions that we can immediately discredit on here.
Put your profession at the top of the list. I don't like you because you are dumb and even though I have no idea what your profession is and you have never invoked one to try to validate your opinion, I am going to attack it anyway and btw tides lol (:'( on the inside)
There we go, I think that's a bit more accurate. Is that enough derailing ad hominems for now, or...
-
That makes no sense whatsoever. You don't even know how a compass works!
If I take off from Los Angeles and travel due West, I will return to Los Angeles. By your logic, I would really be flying in a circle, not flying straight. But every navigation device in the plane says otherwise!
I give up. You guys are either serious jokers, and if so, you rule, you totally are the greatest; or you're so delusional for absolutely no reason at all. You don't know why this conspiracy is in place, it doesn't have anything to do with your religion, from what I can tell, and your FAQ actually states that you believe the earth is flat because that's what you see!
(Why am I even wasting time on this site????)
Well, technically, even if you are flying around the world on a "round Earth", you'd still be flying in a circle (since you are traversing across the surface of a sphere). If you flew in a straight line you'd fly up in to space and away from the Earth.. That's neither here-nor-there though, of course.
And yeah, no one on this forum actually believes in the flat Earth theory. Everyone who claims they do is just a troll, egging on the other trolls who are pretending the same thing. It becomes more apparent the longer you stick around. Why are you wasting your time on this site? Because it is entertaining reading I suppose. But don't ever think you'll end up changing anyone's mind. There's no mind to change.
-
no one on this forum actually believes in the flat Earth theory. There's no mind to change.
False. There are people who actually believe in FET, and you're not one to say otherwise (considering how little time you've actually spent on this site). And most FE'ers are actually pretty smart/clever people, which they would have to be to argue FET's case.
So go away.
-
And yeah, no one on this forum actually believes in the flat Earth theory. Everyone who claims they do is just a troll, egging on the other trolls who are pretending the same thing. It becomes more apparent the longer you stick around. Why are you wasting your time on this site? Because it is entertaining reading I suppose. But don't ever think you'll end up changing anyone's mind. There's no mind to change.
Actually if you stick around long enough it is likely that the evidence of the flat earth on this side will help you open your eyes to the true shape of the earth.
-
Actually if you stick around long enough it is likely that the evidence of the flat earth on this side will help you open your eyes to the true shape of the earth.
I could not agree more.
-
Anyways...
A guy with modern equipment somehow made a mistake and still ended up in the right places? Come on now.
(http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/images/expedition/globe.gif)
-
And yeah, no one on this forum actually believes in the flat Earth theory. Everyone who claims they do is just a troll, egging on the other trolls who are pretending the same thing. It becomes more apparent the longer you stick around. Why are you wasting your time on this site? Because it is entertaining reading I suppose. But don't ever think you'll end up changing anyone's mind. There's no mind to change.
Actually if you stick around long enough it is likely that the evidence of the flat earth on this side will help you open your eyes to the true shape of the earth.
this really isnt the best place to read to find any evidence of much at all. it makes good reading but actually proving anything using a forum and posting pictures is very hard. oh and the links you send us, well the web has to be taken like any tabloid paper anyway
-
Why is a thread about an angry noob who thought he'd be "original" and claim to be a sailor/pilot still in FEG? ???
-
Why is a thread about an angry noob who thought he'd be "original" and claim to be a sailor/pilot still in FEG? ???
Why do you say "sailor/pilot" as if it's an improbable combination?
-
Why do Flat Earthers think Ranulph made a mistake, when his complete path has been tracked and verified?
-
pp you seem threatened by his presence, stop calling people noobs its not nice
-
Why do you say "sailor/pilot" as if it's an improbable combination?
Oh, no, I'm not saying that. It is perfectly possible for a person to be a sailor and a pilot. What I do find improbable is that so many noobs (I feel threatened by their presence!) newcomers to FES have circumnavigated the Earth, and not just once. Most of them have done it at least twice, and many of them - both as sailors and pilots. A significant group within those claim to own telescopes and to be adept at using them. An excellent example of the combination of all three would be Thermal Detonator. Now, if they'd like to show some evidence (not proof, as that would be practically impossible; well, unless they do have some, in which case I'd obviously like to see that too), I would be much more easily convinced.
-
What I do find improbable is that so many noobs (I feel threatened by their presence!) newcomers to FES have circumnavigated the Earth, and not just once. Most of them have done it at least twice, and many of them - both as sailors and pilots. A significant group within those claim to own telescopes and to be adept at using them.
And FE believers are all ignorant and know about this supposed conspiracy. They all know what the rest of the world doesn't.
I would be much more easily convinced.
No, you won't. Trust me, you won't.t.
-
I was initially surprised by the number of people on here claiming circumnavigation of some sort, and indeed I'd say the actual number is less; however, I'm inclined to believe at least some of them (although in reality we might be dealing with 'partial' circumnavigators, strictly speaking) because this is precisely the sort of forum that those people would flock to. Man, that was a long rambling sentence.
-
Why do Flat Earthers think Ranulph made a mistake, when his complete path has been tracked and verified?
-
Why do Flat Earthers think Ranulph made a mistake, when his complete path has been tracked and verified?
Because someone wrote a fairy tale titled it Earth Not a Globe and some people just really hate the government that much.
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
-
you cant argue a simple fact though.
CONSPIRACY i tell you
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Hoppy, do any of your (currently) 118 posts have any value? Choices:
A.) Yes
B.) No
C-Z.) <clumsy ad hominem retort further demonstrating my point>
-
no one on this forum actually believes in the flat Earth theory. There's no mind to change.
False. There are people who actually believe in FET, and you're not one to say otherwise (considering how little time you've actually spent on this site). And most FE'ers are actually pretty smart/clever people, which they would have to be to argue FET's case.
So go away.
They may be smart, but many never show it. You don't have to be smart to come up with their excuses. You have to be good at lying and manipulating the truth; there's a difference. Since when was convincing people of false things a mark of intelligence? Most arguments fall under the slightest bit of scientific knowledge, but as most people know very little science, they don't have the skills to do this. In this way, FE arguments often rely not on the FE'ers intelligence, but on the reader's stupidity. Being smarter than idiots doesn't make you smart.
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Hoppy, do any of your (currently) 118 posts have any value? Choices:
A.) Yes
B.) No
C-Z.) <clumsy ad hominem retort further demonstrating my point>
A. Yes Most ,if not all have very high value.
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Hoppy, do any of your (currently) 118 posts have any value? Choices:
A.) Yes
B.) No
C-Z.) <clumsy ad hominem retort further demonstrating my point>
A. Yes Most ,if not all have very high value.
I knew that would be said, why ask them to evaluate themselves?
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Hoppy, do any of your (currently) 118 posts have any value? Choices:
A.) Yes
B.) No
C-Z.) <clumsy ad hominem retort further demonstrating my point>
A. Yes Most ,if not all have very high value.
I knew that would be said, why ask them to evaluate themselves?
Because he knows everyone else's answer will be everything but A. Someone needs to defend him...
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Hoppy, do any of your (currently) 118 posts have any value? Choices:
A.) Yes
B.) No
C-Z.) <clumsy ad hominem retort further demonstrating my point>
A. Yes Most ,if not all have very high value.
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Why don't you try keeping your mouth shut next time yo want to say something.
Then GTFO
You're a real tough guy, or woman.
In the begining God created the heaven and the earth.
Apparently a few slipped through quality assurance.
-
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Hoppy, do any of your (currently) 118 posts have any value? Choices:
A.) Yes
B.) No
C-Z.) <clumsy ad hominem retort further demonstrating my point>
A. Yes Most ,if not all have very high value.
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
Why don't you try keeping your mouth shut next time yo want to say something.
Then GTFO
You're a real tough guy, or woman.
In the begining God created the heaven and the earth.
Apparently a few slipped through quality assurance.
You're taking this thread way off topic.
You must take those quotes in context. Please don't ruin this thread any further. PS My apologies to Berny,& the general
-
You're taking this thread way off topic.
You must take those quotes in context. Please don't ruin this thread any further. PS My apologies to Berny,& the general
Hmm what? Did I miss something?
Berny
Fast threads and work don't mix
-
No RE victory here, my real name is Lance Armstrong. Before I went to the moon, I sailed around the earth. It was flat sailing the whole way, no up or down any hills. If you don't believe me call Buzz Aldrin ,it was his sail boat that we sailed on.
You Please don't ruin this thread any further.
-
Now, now children, behave and play nice.
-
hoppy i love you, seriously thats some funny shit.
'Why don't you try keeping your mouth shut next time yo want to say something.'
and
'You're a real tough guy, or woman.'
are my favourites :D