The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: 7string on November 06, 2006, 09:33:11 AM
-
Are any of the members of the flat earth society actually scientists? Or Ivy League graduates? Why are there no satellite photos of this "flat earth"? How come there are "ice barriers" surrounding the earth, yet we have seasons. In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons. Explain that. If the earth was flat, the weather would be equivalent throughout the world. We're a planet, not a fucking pancake. There's no such thing as a government conspiracy when this knowledge is GLOBAL. What's the point of this society? Show me a VIDEO or a REAL PICTURE of the flat earth rather than arguing with negations. Haven't you guys ever downloaded Google Earth? Do it and put in any address and there you'll find ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that will prove to you what every preschooler knows. Oh yeah, and gravity. If gravity is in the center of the earth, than there would be less of it the further you go away from it. Like a magnet. Grow up.
-
i'm convinced! :o
-
Read the FAQ before making new threads. All of your questions are answered there, that's why it says "Flat Earth FAQ *READ BEFORE POSTING".
-
No, not all of my questions are not answered there. I asked specifically if any of FE's are actually scientists and/or ivy league graduates. Don't be a jackass and tell me that everything's a conspiracy and a coverup like 9/11. Nonconformity is healthy, but you guys are taking this thing way too far. NASA's in on the conspiracy? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
How bout the Russian Space Station? There's no such thing as a conspiracy, not in America. Go watch an IMAX movie or something. Read a book, attend a kindergarten class. This argument is like saying 2+2 is only 4 because the government tells you so. SHOW ME SOME PROOF, don't tell me. Hmmm..... yea read a book and stop wasting your life away.
-
It is soo apparent to me that this person has the intellectual abilities of a raisin.
Read the FAQ dude, can you not jump into a hypothetical debate without going all tard mode?
-
It is soo apparent to me that this person has the intellectual abilities of a raisin.
Read the FAQ dude, can you not jump into a hypothetical debate without going all tard mode?
Not all of his questions are answered in the FAQ.
-
Fine, if it will make you happy:
Are any of the members of the flat earth society actually scientists? Or Ivy League graduates?
I'm an engineer, does that count?
Why are there no satellite photos of this "flat earth"?
Satellites don't exist.
How come there are "ice barriers" surrounding the earth, yet we have seasons.
The ice wall is the furthest point on the FE from the sun. That's why it's cold there and it is warm somewhere else.
In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons. Explain that. If the earth was flat, the weather would be equivalent throughout the world.
Change in the sun's 'orbit'.
We're a planet, not a fucking pancake.
:shock:
There's no such thing as a government conspiracy...
It wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if everyone knew about it.
Show me a VIDEO or a REAL PICTURE of the flat earth rather than arguing with negations. Haven't you guys ever downloaded Google Earth? Do it, put in and put in any address and there you'll find ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that will prove to you what every preschooler knows.
It will prove to me what? That pictures can be taken from above my house?
Oh yeah, and gravity. If gravity is in the center of the earth, than there would be less of it the further you go away from it.
It's a good thing the FE doesn't have any.
-
Right, so FE doesn't have gravity. That's why I'm levitating right now. Satellites don't exist: are you mentally handicapped? Haven't you heard of the international space station? Are you serious? Download Google Earth before you speak out of your ass and say satellites don't exist. How about the satellite TV I have in my living room? I guess that's all just a global government cover up because international conflict doesn't really exist, that's all just a cover up. Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting so you can have the freedom to join these groups and have the freedom to attempt to deny WHAT EVERY NON-RETARDED PERSON KNOWS. This is a cult .
-
Right, so FE doesn't have gravity. That's why I'm levitating right now.
The FE doesn't have gravity, it has acceleration. So, sorry, no levitation for you.
Download Google Earth before you speak out of your ass and say satellites don't exist.
The picture of my house on Google Earth look just like the one I took as I flew over it. How does that prove there are satellites?
-
Right, so FE doesn't have gravity. That's why I'm levitating right now.
The FE doesn't have gravity, it has acceleration. So, sorry, no levitation for you.
Download Google Earth before you speak out of your ass and say satellites don't exist.
The picture of my house on Google Earth look just like the one I took as I flew over it. How does that prove there are satellites?
THAT'S where all the gas is going ... for airplanes to fly over people's houses to take pictures to pretend that sattelites exist. It all makes sense now ...
-
Read a book on satellites before saying that they're fake. You have no proof that they are fake. By you saying that satellites don't exist, you're saying that satellite TV doesn't exist. You're saying the Hubble Telescope is a fraud, and you're basically saying that people who graduated from far more prestigous schools than you (because they paid attention in school) and work in a professional scientific field are incorrect. And you're trying to make a legit argument that YOU'RE OWN TAX DOLLARS are going to "fake satellites" - wow, what a genius you are. And obviously Google Earth is just an airplane that takes accurate pictures of THE WHOLE WORLD (which is obviously flat...... cookoo) airplanes aren't still btw and if you say helicopters you deserve to be smacked. Only a satellite could take a picture of that magnitude. It would take decades to put together a collage of pictures like that and then "pretend" that the earth is round - Something's wrong with you dude. Go drink the kool aid.
-
Read a book on satellites before saying that they're fake. You have no proof that they are fake. By you saying that satellites don't exist, you're saying that satellite TV doesn't exist. You're saying the Hubble Telescope is a fraud, and you're basically saying that people who graduated from far more prestigous schools than you (because they paid attention in school) and work in a professional scientific field are incorrect.
Actually, they're not saying anything like that.
-
And obviously Google Earth is just an airplane that takes accurate pictures of THE WHOLE WORLD (which is obviously flat...... cookoo) airplanes aren't still btw and if you say helicopters you deserve to be smacked.
It's not one airplane. You do realize that we have airplanes that are used for reconnaissance right? They fly very high and take very detailed pictures of the earth. You have a few UAVs fly around the earth and take pictures. They would be indistinuishable from 'satellite' pictures.
-
Right, so FE doesn't have gravity. That's why I'm levitating right now.
The FE doesn't have gravity, it has acceleration. So, sorry, no levitation for you.
Download Google Earth before you speak out of your ass and say satellites don't exist.
The picture of my house on Google Earth look just like the one I took as I flew over it. How does that prove there are satellites?
i have sirius satellite radio, i have direct tv, and i also get my internet through direct way. satellite! also i have seen the directv satellite in the sky before with my telescope.
-
Having the word "Satellite" on it does not mean the signal actually comes from a satellite.
-
i have sirius satellite radio, i have direct tv, and i also get my internet through direct way.
All of which work perfectly with more down-to-Earth technology.
also i have seen the directv satellite in the sky before with my telescope.
Well, you've seen an object. You didn't know how far it was, or whether it was in orbit around the Earth.
-
i have sirius satellite radio, i have direct tv, and i also get my internet through direct way.
All of which work perfectly with more down-to-Earth technology.
right then why do i have to point my dish to an exact spot in the sky? if it was Terrestrial i could just point it any were and it would work.
-
right then why do i have to point my dish to an exact spot in the sky? if it was Terrestrial i could just point it any were and it would work.
Because you have to point it in a direction where it will recieve a signal from whatever is broadcasting them.
-
It's not one airplane. You do realize that we have airplanes that are used for reconnaissance right? They fly very high and take very detailed pictures of the earth. You have a few UAVs fly around the earth and take pictures. They would be indistinuishable from 'satellite' pictures.
HAHA YOU SAID AROUND, GOTCHA BITCH. If you were a real believer you would've said aflat the world.
-
HAHA YOU SAID AROUND, GOTCHA noble seamstress. If you were a real believer you would've said aflat the world.
How do you know what a true FE would say?
-
right then why do i have to point my dish to an exact spot in the sky? if it was Terrestrial i could just point it any were and it would work.
Because you have to point it in a direction where it will recieve a signal from whatever is broadcasting them.
right and that happens to be... Azimuth 220, Elevation 52
clearly that is not pointing to a Terrestrial broadcasting point.
-
right and that happens to be... Azimuth 220, Elevation 52
clearly that is not pointing to a Terrestrial broadcasting point.
Airplanes are not terrestrial broadcasting points.
-
HAHA YOU SAID AROUND, GOTCHA noble seamstress. If you were a real believer you would've said aflat the world.
I said around. It is possible to go around in a circle, you know. Like going around on a merry-go-round.
-
right and that happens to be... Azimuth 220, Elevation 52
clearly that is not pointing to a Terrestrial broadcasting point.
Airplanes are not terrestrial broadcasting points.
so you think directv, sirius, xm, hughesnet, directway, GPS are all ran by airplane satellites ?
-
so you think directv, sirius, xm, hughesnet, directway, GPS are all ran by airplane satellites ?
Possibly.
-
Not exactly, more like lighter than air broadcasting platforms.
-
so you think directv, sirius, xm, hughesnet, directway, GPS are all ran by airplane satellites ?
Possibly.
i have seen the damm satellites with my telescope for directv.
-
i have seen the damm satellites with my telescope for directv.
You mean you have seen some object flying through the air which may or may not be a satellite. I own a 10" Newtonian reflecting telescope and have viewed satellites on multiple occasions, I was never able to see more than a speck of light shooting across the sky. There is no way to accurately verify whether what you are seeing is a satellite or not.
-
i have seen the damm satellites with my telescope for directv.
You mean you have seen some object flying through the air which may or may not be a satellite. I own a 10" Newtonian reflecting telescope and have viewed satellites on multiple occasions, I was never able to see more than a speck of light shooting across the sky. There is no way to accurately verify whether what you are seeing is a satellite or not.
i was at a university with my astrological professor and he verified it along with 5 people who believe the earth to be flat.
-
i was at a university with my astrological professor and he verified it along with 5 people who believe the earth to be flat.
You mean they verified that it looked like what a satellite is generally presumed to look like through a telescope, not that they could actually make out any detail. The fact is that it is virtually impossible to verify with any degree of accuracy that what you saw was, in fact, a satellite.
-
so you think directv, sirius, xm, hughesnet, directway, GPS are all ran by airplane satellites ?
Possibly.
i have seen the damm satellites with my telescope for directv.
No no, no. Engineer just told you, they're from Lighter than air platforms. Which includes lighter than air broadcasting equipment that no one ever saw. No one ever saw those platforms because they're too high to bee seen (unlike "satellites", which are higher but can still be seen because of an optical illusion) and no airplane has ever flown anywhere near them either. You can't see them with telescopes either because the material they're made with is telescope proof. Engineer will explain how that works.
There is a lot of material on earth that you can use to make lighter than air broadcasting stations, you've just never seen it by some coincidence.
Of course, we don't just pretend that lighter than air broadcasting platforms exists. We can prove and demonstrate that they do, Engineer will show you evidence of this shortly.
The fact that people can see satellites but not those stations is irrelevant, so don't bother pointing that out. Besides, you probably didn't see what you think you saw. I mean, you were there and we weren't, so we we know what it was better than you.
-
i was at a university with my astrological professor and he verified it along with 5 people who believe the earth to be flat.
You mean they verified that it looked like what a satellite is generally presumed to look like through a telescope, not that they could actually make out any detail. The fact is that it is virtually impossible to verify with any degree of accuracy that what you saw was, in fact, a satellite.
IT had a logo like this
(http://www.carhacks.org/archives/directv-200-bg.jpg)
so i think it was the right one.
-
IT had a logo like this
so i think it was the right one.
You must have been using a bloody huge telescope, as you can't even make out that much detail on a low-flying airplane with mine.
-
IT had a logo like this
so i think it was the right one.
You must have been using a bloody huge telescope, as you can't even make out that much detail on a low-flying airplane with mine.
.
like i said this was at the university. uf to be exact. (go gators)
-
like i said this was at the university. uf to be exact. (go gators)
What was the magnification on the telescope you were using?
Because if it was anything near what you say it was, the satellite would have been in your field of view for less that half a second- hardly enough time to make out any logos on the side.
-
You must have been using a bloody huge telescope, as you can't even make out that much detail on a low-flying airplane with mine.
And a bloody steady one too.
-
Exactly.
-
No no, no. Engineer just told you, they're from Lighter than air platforms. Which includes lighter than air broadcasting equipment that no one ever saw. No one ever saw those platforms because they're too high to bee seen (unlike "satellites", which are higher but can still be seen because of an optical illusion) and no airplane has ever flown anywhere near them either.
People have seen them. The government has been working on this technology since WWII. Recently, the private sector has started research into doing the same thing. They normally operate at 180,000 ft, which is way to high for an airplane to go.
You can't see them with telescopes either because the material they're made with is telescope proof. Engineer will explain how that works.
The material is telescope proof? Uh, yea, don't know how that would work.
There is a lot of material on earth that you can use to make lighter than air broadcasting stations, you've just never seen it by some coincidence.
You've never seen metal, composites, plastics and textiles? Where do you live?
Of course, we don't just pretend that lighter than air broadcasting platforms exists. We can prove and demonstrate that they do, Engineer will show you evidence of this shortly.
Unfortunately, I can't find the link the article about the 'next gen' version, which is undergoing testing. I will link it when I find it. In the mean time, here's the basic idea:
A group of researchers in Sweden have completed a successful trial this week, launching a 12,000 cubic meter weather balloon at an altitude of 24 kilometers. The balloon transmitted a steady data link at a transmission speed of 11Mbps.
This test is the latest in a series of efforts to prove that transmitting broadband Internet via lighter-than-air craft is not only technically feasible but economically practical. Ultimately, the goal is to launch balloons that can transmit at speeds that are much higher. Dr. David Grace, the projects' lead scientific officer, explained:
Proving the ability to operate a high data rate link from a moving stratospheric balloon is a critical step in moving towards the longer term aim of providing data rates of 120Mbps.
-
bite my boner flatty
-
Fine, if it will make you happy:
Are any of the members of the flat earth society actually scientists? Or Ivy League graduates?
I'm an engineer, does that count?
Why are there no satellite photos of this "flat earth"?
Satellites don't exist.
How come there are "ice barriers" surrounding the earth, yet we have seasons.
The ice wall is the furthest point on the FE from the sun. That's why it's cold there and it is warm somewhere else.
In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons. Explain that. If the earth was flat, the weather would be equivalent throughout the world.
Change in the sun's 'orbit'.
We're a planet, not a fucking pancake.
:shock:
There's no such thing as a government conspiracy...
It wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if everyone knew about it.
Show me a VIDEO or a REAL PICTURE of the flat earth rather than arguing with negations. Haven't you guys ever downloaded Google Earth? Do it, put in and put in any address and there you'll find ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that will prove to you what every preschooler knows.
It will prove to me what? That pictures can be taken from above my house?
Oh yeah, and gravity. If gravity is in the center of the earth, than there would be less of it the further you go away from it.
It's a good thing the FE doesn't have any.
Oh my, your a fucking engineer and you dont think Satellites exist, you should be fired and shot.
-
A 'fucking' engineer? Well only in my spare time! In my professional life, I'm a mechanical engineer.
-
Engineer, you know as well as I do that anything in the atmosphere at that height would need a good sized fuel expenditure to maintain steady location. Fuel is heavy, especially for lighter than air equipment. Textiles and plastics are one thing, but keeping that much helium within a balloon like structure is not pheasable. Not to mention the size those things would have to be to support massive broadcasting equipment.
180,000 ft. Nice, round number, and utterly impossible (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/CassandraEng.shtml). Remember freshman physics? It's coming back to bite you. There's this little thing called density, and you cannot have something float above a certain height due to the lack of air to push up. You are looking at less than a single kPa at that height. That means that your baloon's density must be below (PV = NRT, M/V = MM * P/R/T (.01 atm* 29 g / T/ .0826) .03 grams/Liter. That's impossibly small. The size of the balloon would have to be fantasticly large to stay airborne. No matter the color, it would be noticeable above the clouds and from its shadow. Now you are talking dozens, hundreds of them, with no photographic proof or even suspicion. This isn't even laughable anymore it's getting annoying.
-
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.
-
utterly impossible (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/CassandraEng.shtml).
Maybe you should read your referenced site a little better.
-
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.
That would make it too heavy.
-
I apologize for my poor wording, though I fail to see what I was mistaken about in my reference.
It is utterly impossible to have massive broadcasting equipment. The maximum balloon height ever was 140,000 feet, and that was an extraordinary feat.
You know that density I calculated (.03 grams/Liter). Refute that while I explain how big this baloon of yours would have to be.
Broadcasting equipment with range of >30 miles straight down, plus a minimum 100 mile radius on the ground. That's not light, at least 50 kg. Propellers to keep it stationary and solar panels to power it are at a bare minimum (and this is very, very generous), 10 kg, not that it matters.
That's 60 kg. To keep that amount up, you need a size of 2,000 cubic meters. Assuming a perfect sphere, that's 7 meters in radius, or 14 meters in diameter.
But, that's not all. You also need the balloon. Nylon isn't heavy, but you need a lot of it. Say, 1 mm thickness. I know that most balloons aren't that thick, but most baloons don't stay up for decades at a time. The density of nylon is 1150 kg/cubic m
.03 = (60 kg+ 1150*.001*4*Pi*r^2)/(4/3 Pi r^3)
The solution is that the radius is almost 12 meters. Therefore, the balloon is At MINIMUM 20 meters across. That is supported by A METRIC TON of nylon. Even if there is no additional load, you need 11.5 meters of radius for the balloon to keep itself airborne. Did I forget to mention that I'm not counting the weight of the 1500 of cubic meters of helium in the baloon? Now, tell me how dozens or hundreds of 60 foot wide balls aren't showing up in everyone's telescopes and binoculars. Heck, you might even be able to see those with the naked eye. They should be observable everywhere, but they aren't.
Need I go on about how ludicrous your balloon concept is?
-
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.
That would make it too heavy.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-44_pf.html
-
Need I go on about how ludicrous your balloon concept is?
It would be ludicrous if I had made it up. However, this is a very real concept.
However, I can not locate my source of the 180,000ft operational ceiling (I think it was in a trade publication). This altitude is attainable by what is called an orbital airship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_airship), which is a two or three stage system. Until the source can be located, I will recind the 180,000ft claim and generalize the service ceiling to be 'the stratosphere' (The max ceiling for a conventional airship is about 130,000ft).
Now, the private sector has been working on this concept in this and simpler forms with much success. For example:
A spherical broadcasting (http://www.21stcenturyairships.com/HighWireless) system, tested right here in Arizona.
A larger unmanned (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/haa.htm) version for national security.
Here is a plan to carry telescopes (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9377-blimpborne-telescopes-could-rival-hubble.html) into the stratosphere.
This is a Stratellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite), which the company says will stay aloft for 18 months at a time.
Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q3/nr_020730m.html) and another company are looking at a lighter than air cargo craft, for those of you who think they can't lift a payload.
This (http://www.aerosml.com/pr2002-06.asp) is a Korean company giving it a try.
An abstract (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/610754.html) of a larger write up about a Japaneese company using a 'stratellite' for navigation/postioning service.
Here is a patent (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6427943.html) for one of the technologies needed. Here (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6386480.html) is another one.
This is just from the private sector. Imagine what the military has achieved since it began work on them during WWII!
-
So why make up the satellites? It makes no sense to make up satelites when you have no need for them and just publically use balloons.
There is a simple explanation where the satelites we see are shot up into space and orbit the Earth doing what everyone claims they do, and a complex explanation, where the satelites are shot up nowhere (there is no way that a standard satelite rocket could hold a balloon of that size, they don't save much fuel by not going into space), are taken care of by explosives or whatever in the upper stratosphere so they don't fall back to Earth (which is impossible since there are amature astronomers who track those things from launch pad to orbit). Then, in secret, giant balloon-based broadcasting equipment is launched (also impossible, nothing that big can be kept secret when so many people have to know and could give the story of the century to the media), and are somehow not dectected as they maintain geosynchronous orbit (also impossible, as shown above).
So, according to Occam's razor, you have two choices, a rational one that assumes the Earth is round, or an impossible one which the government and businesses have no real reason to enact while keeping up the satelite facade. It costs tens of millions to launch something into orbit, a cost that is impossible to hide due to all the people recieving money (money has to come from somewhere), and probably a million or more to create one of your arial platforms. Why didn't they just say "Satellites are too expensive, our arial platforms can do the work for a fraction of the price"? Why don't they do that now? Maintaining satellites is not necessary for your flat-Earth conspiracy, and it makes a whole lot of holes and opportunities for people to look into.
Rational or irrational, impossible, and ludicrous.
-
Are any of the members of the flat earth society actually scientists? Or Ivy League graduates?
Almost there are some scientists who are members of the forums, and are even arguing that the earth is flat. We definitely have engineers and graduate students. I would be very surprised if any of them actually believe that the earth is flat.
Why are there no satellite photos of this "flat earth"? How come there are "ice barriers" surrounding the earth, yet we have seasons. In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons. Explain that. If the earth was flat, the weather would be equivalent throughout the world.
Answered elsewhere, mostly in the FAQ
We're a planet, not a fucking pancake.
Is this an angry rant? This sounds like an angry rant.
There's no such thing as a government conspiracy.
Excuse me? Ever hear of Iran-Contra? The weapons of mass destruction we were supposed to find in Iraq (e.g. the yellowcake forgery)? Watergate?
What's the point of this society?
To give us a break from all that internet porn.
-
So why make up the satellites? It makes no sense to make up satelites when you have no need for them and just publically use balloons.
Money. Operating a stratellite costs a fraction of operating a satellite. You simply launch a rocket with a dummy payload and pocket the money you saved by using a lighter than air broadcasting system.
also impossible, nothing that big can be kept secret when so many people have to know and could give the story of the century to the media
You didn't know about it. You thought I was making it all up.
and are somehow not dectected as they maintain geosynchronous orbit (also impossible, as shown above).
Who is to say they havn't been detected? How do you know you have not seen one and assumed it was a satellite, since that is what you expected to see?
a cost that is impossible to hide due to all the people recieving money (money has to come from somewhere)
Do you know where all your tax dollars go?
-
The cost to launch a satellite is on the order of 10s to 100s of millions of dollars. This is paid to everyone making the satellites, rockets, launchpads, insurance companies, and hundreds of other people involved. Unless you believe the IRS is in on the conspiracy as well, there's nothing to pocket, and no single part is nearly enough for hush money.
You never answered a couple of impossibles there. People claim to track the satellites from ground to orbit. Wait, of course they're in on the conspiracy.
And there's a big difference between missing some minor headlines about balloon research and missing hundreds of orbital balloon launches. You dismissed the question instead of answering it.
Why haven't corporations just go out and say how their balloons can perform the functions of satellites at a fraction of the price, therefore ignoring billions of dollars in expenses bribing everyone at NASA?
-
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.
That would make it too heavy.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-44_pf.html
-
YOU'RE OWN TAX DOLLARS ... what a genius you are ... And obviously Google Earth is just an airplane ..
I believe software is an airplane. VROOOOOM!
-
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.
That would make it too heavy.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-44_pf.html
That's not exactly a baloon is it?
being stationary above Hawai is not exactly the same as beinf in orbit around the earth either is it? How would someone that doesn't live in Hawai ever see it?
-
In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons.
This is pretty good evidence of 7string's intelligence. I'm sure Rick James got a good laugh at that (Canberra can get extremely cold in winter) and probably Beast too (not sure though - I've never been to Tasmania). The funny thing is that the whole sentence implies that Australia doesn't have seasons, which would go against a round earth.