The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: silverhammermba on March 26, 2007, 12:00:27 PM
-
RAmenBrother said this as a reply to another thread, but it was such a big point that I felt like it really deserved it's own post.
On the FE model, why is the north pole at the center of the disk? Wouldn't a south pole-centric model be just as viable? This isn't completely fantastic reasoning either. Many ancient cartographers drew maps of the world that would be considered "upside down" by modern standards. Luckily with the RE model, it doesn't matter how the continents are oriented - you FE'ers, however, need to pick one. Considering that the two different orientations would result in wildly different geography, you've got a bit of a problem there.
Think about it, the labels North and South are completely redundant. Same with positive and negative when referring to magnetism. Both could be switched with absolutely no effect. The same goes with the completely redundant ordering of North before South.
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3351/femodelvj9.png)
-
El Polo Sur existe en múltiples lugares inmediatamente.
-
Ahh, I feel so special that I was mentioned in another post! Invisible hugs all around!
In all seriousness though, that's one thing that's been on my mind. FE'ers describe the earth as somewhat resembling the UN symbol (an ironic coincidence, don't you think?), but like silverhammer mentioned, that doesn't take into account the work of many ancient and prolific cartographers. in fact, the only reason the north pole is "on top" is because we arbitrarily made it so. It is perfectly acceptable to say that the south pole is "the top" instead.
However, FE'ers glean their map from work done by mostly Western cartographers. They fail to consider the ancient, and quite accurate, maps of the East like the Indian Ocean and much of Oceania, which, while below the equator to us, was on the top of their maps. This is wildly different from FE dogma, which uncompromisingly makes the north pole the "middle" and the south pole nonexistent.
-
I think it's because Antarctica is land covered in ice and the North pole is just floating ice so wouldn't really fit into the whole Ice-wall idea.
-
That's another good point. Antarctica is a continent and a land mass, and the north pole is merely a geographical location: it's just ocean.
Also, why would a wall 45 metres high keep ANYTHING from flying over the edge of the Earth? Large tidal and seismic actions propel material far higher than that, not to mention that the atmosphere would bleed over the edge until we all died of asphyxiation.
-
Man, seriously Communist, it was funny the first few times. Now you're just derailing posts.
-
I think it will be funny for approx. another 37 posts.
-
I say 41
-
We'll see.
-
Since the local area is surrounded by what we call the "South Pole," that is why we place it all around. It's not arbitrary.
-
I'm afraid that I don't understand your response, Franc.
And we need more FE'ers to respond to this! I suppose it makes sense that the North pole is the center because what we think is Antarctica is really the ice wall, but wouldn't that imply that people have seen enough of the ice wall to verify that it is, in fact, the edge? Doesn't that make it kind of pointless for the international conspiracy to be guarding it so closely if we already know definitively of its existence?
-
I'm afraid that I don't understand your response, Franc.
What exactly is hard to understand about my response?
"Since the local area is surrounded by what we call the "South Pole," that is why we place it all around. It's not arbitrary."
I used short words, and the sentence structure is not complicated... maybe you need a more straightforward point by point:
* The fact that we "chose" the South Pole is not arbitrary.
BECAUSE...
* Our local area is surrounded by what we call the "South Pole."
SO...
* That's why we place it all around.
-
Tom usually says at this point that people have seen the ice-wall. It is the Ross Ice Shelf. That usually kills the conversation by the power of sheer bull-shit alone.
-
Where did Scott actually plant his flag if not the south pole but a point on the ice wall?
-
* The fact that we "chose" the South Pole is not arbitrary.
BECAUSE...
* Our local area is surrounded by what we call the "South Pole."
SO...
* That's why we place it all around.
GAH! That's still arbitrary! Imagine with me, if you will, that the Earth is flat and at the center of this flatness is the South Pole. Then, by your argument:
*Our local area is surrounded by what we call the "North Pole."
*That's why we place it all around.
Your argument is completely circular! The whole point of my original post was that if took out a compass and walked either straight North or straight South, you would hit a pole no matter you started from. Thus, we are "surrounded" by BOTH poles and either orientation of these poles on a flat surface is valid.
-
It really couldn't be the opposite way round because the North Pole isn't land it's just water and frozen water.
-
* The fact that we "chose" the South Pole is not arbitrary.
BECAUSE...
* Our local area is surrounded by what we call the "South Pole."
SO...
* That's why we place it all around.
GAH! That's still arbitrary! Imagine with me, if you will, that the Earth is flat and at the center of this flatness is the South Pole. Then, by your argument:
*Our local area is surrounded by what we call the "North Pole."
*That's why we place it all around.
Your argument is completely circular! The whole point of my original post was that if took out a compass and walked either straight North or straight South, you would hit a pole no matter you started from. Thus, we are "surrounded" by BOTH poles and either orientation of these poles on a flat surface is valid.
That makes no sense. The center of the flatness is the North Pole, not the South Pole. Ergo that is why we draw the maps that way. What don't you understand about this?
-
It's YOU, Francerty, that doesn't understand. "We" don't draw maps with the north pole in the centre. YOU, and maybe a dozen other people do. That does NOT make it true.
The argument here is that if you look at any map made by ancient Oceanic cartographers, what we call the south pole is actually their north pole, and is in fact a point on a land mass, not the rim of a disc-shaped world. The fact that they describe the south pole as a point, and not a rim, discredits you. That these peoples went on ships across the Indian Ocean and other bodies of water to physically explore this territory, which you have NOT done, discredits you.
Once again, Frankis, you make statements that cannot be backed up, because you fancy yourself as some prodigal little bullcrapper who thinks he's the saviour of truth in a God-forsaken world. I mean, I cannot fathom how someone like you gets so blatantly arrogant. You're just some little puke who thinks that fervor makes something important and factual. I've read your other posts, like basically getting down on your knees and kissing Tom Bishop's toes. You have called science a "religion" before, but I think it's YOUR ideas that are the theological dogma here, bound by no need for proof or sense.
Well, sorry to break it to you, but your FE argument is not important to anyone, nor will it ever be.
-
Bla bla bla. Any bullshit you can spout will not make reality change, North become South, or flat become round.
-
My upstairs neighbors are really going at it right now. I suppose they are on a flat earth in this case. Well, unless they are standing up, then it's balls to the wall.
-
When the flag was planted at the 'south pole' where in actual fact was it on the ice wall? if for example it was placed south from America then logically on a FE model if we headed south from say Australia, then we wouldn't find the site, correct?
-
Correct.
-
Also, if the Earth is infinite and the sun is the only heat source (thus creating the aforementioned ice wall) then logically at some point away from the sun's circling of us there will be a point where the temperature reaches absolute zero so, as air expands outwards, pushed out by the heat of the sun and human/animal/other activity, then there will be a point where that air liquifies and freezes so surely then our air supply is finite which doesn't equate to an infinite Earth
-
Ok, that's just stupid. If they saw the ice wall, wouldn't they just want to take a peek over it? It's a hundred and fifty feet high! Christ, it's not like Ringworld where it's like 100 miles or anything.
I'd still love to see Frankis give ANY indication that there's any worldwide conspiracy at all. Just saying "because they withold the truth" doesn't make it so.
-
Also, if the Earth is infinite and the sun is the only heat source
Wrong.
-
Frankis, you can't just say "wrong" and nothing else. Back it up, fool.
-
There is not one Sun, but seven suns only for our local area. Over the whole of the Infinite Plane, there are infinite suns.
-
What data do you have to support this?
-
That makes no sense. The center of the flatness is the North Pole, not the South Pole. Ergo that is why we draw the maps that way. What don't you understand about this?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Now that that's out of my system.
Franc, my question is not "Why do we draw maps of the FE with the North Pole at the center?" My question is "Why does the FE have the North Pole at the center?" The two are completely different.
Look, Franc, it's simple logic. The labels "North" and "South" are completely arbitrary. There is no Holy Law that states "This magnetic pole shall be called 'North' and the other shall forever be called 'South'". They're just names! What if we called the North pole the "Spoon brigade" and the South pole the "Larry King Live!"? Okay, then our magnets would look stupid but all of physics and all of existence would be completely unchanged! Now, imagine if you will, that we were to change the names of the North pole to "South Pole" and South Pole to "North Pole". Still, existence would be exactly the same but the North Pole would be along the outer ring of the Earth. You see? Similarly, if you were to invert the layout of the flat Earth so that what is now the middle is instead stretched along the edge and then switched the naming of the poles, you would have a model that fits exactly with everything that all of the FE'ers are arguing for!
So, assuming that all you FE'ers are completely right in every aspect, there are two perfectly viable models of the Earth that have completely different geography from each other. That's a problem.
-
That makes no sense. The center of the flatness is the North Pole, not the South Pole. Ergo that is why we draw the maps that way. What don't you understand about this?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Now that that's out of my system.
Franc, my question is not "Why do we draw maps of the FE with the North Pole at the center?" My question is "Why does the FE have the North Pole at the center?" The two are completely different.
Why is Europe between the Americas and Asia? Why is Japan an island? What you are asking is a geological question, and I am not a geologer.
-
Trust me, it's not geography. Maybe this will help.
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3351/femodelvj9.png)
(Gimme a break, I drew it in MS Paint in like 2 minutes)
Anyway, do you see what I mean? The map on the right is entirely equivalent to the other as far as the placement and relations of the continents and both would conform perfectly to what all of the FE'ers are arguing for. But they clearly have entirely different geography! It's got to be one or the other, but either the sizes of the continents are immensely different or (if the sizes are the same between the two versions) the distances between them are.
With an RE model, switching the North and South poles is no big deal: if you turn a globe upside-down, it's still the same globe. But with FE, if you switch the edge of the disk with the center, you get a dramatically different object.
-
And the point of all this is...? Obviously we live in the first case, and therefore any examination of the other is pointless.
-
Obviously we live in the first case
Ooooh, so you might as well say "Obviously the Earth is flat." and end your argument there. My question is why is it the first case when the second case is just as viable?
And why are there no other FE'ers responding to this? It's a big issue with your theory!
-
I cant belive that i made an account just for this this but anyway...... THE EARTHE CANT BE FLAT!!!! WHERE THE F@#& THOSE THE SUN GO AT NIGTH....... TO A HOLE IN THE FLAT EARTH????? GEEEZZ PEOPLE
-
What if we called the North pole the "Spoon brigade"
I suuport this 110%.
-
Spork Brigade. Heathens!
-
Silverhammer:
What point are you trying to make? As stated previously, asking "why is the North Pole at the center" is akin to asking "why is japan an island?". There is no magic reason why this is the case, it just is. If you want a literal answer, it would be a big long chronology of the geological movements of the Earth's materials throughout the history of time.