Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.Yes, it certainly is irrelevant. The entire purpose of your existence has nothing to do with the non-irrelevancy of this matter.
Than he's a pussy!Yet somehow levee has produced a map.And he still ignores my simple request for latitude and longitude lines. I guess he doesn't have much faith in his map.
Sliver, unless your brand new to this place, you should know by now that Levee doesn't answer little peoples like you and me.
Yet somehow levee has produced a map.And he still ignores my simple request for latitude and longitude lines. I guess he doesn't have much faith in his map.
You finally post in this thread and you don't even answer the question??? Well, you dodged it earlier, but you never followed up to my rebuttal.
"Rebuttal" is a rather grand way to describe a post which contained an irrelevant side-point and continued ignorance. Nevertheless...QuoteHe answers! Perhaps you should modify the map I posted? You know, showing instead of a definitive edge, some sort of "gray area".
Why? This is what's known, and this is what's presented. I'm not going to attempt to outline any of what lies beyond the known Earth, because it is unknown. There is no 'definite edge', just a limit to what we have explored.QuoteAs for the navigation, your map suggests that one could use to travel due south, then across the south pole, and then on to the "edge/gray area". On a globe, once you cross the south pole, you are then heading north, on your map, you are still heading south. I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"
I'd like to see a scale added to this and the other FE maps as well.Good idea!! Perhaps a new thread is in order?
It was meant as a joke. But, hey, it worked! He posted about 20 min after you did.Well, 5.5 hours with nothing from James. RE WIN!!!!
Waiting 5.5 hours for someone who only shows up maybe every few days or so is a win?
So you were simply making things up and you have no intention of backing them up? Thank you for clarifying. Would you mind refraining from doing this in the serious forums?Kind of like the maps provided by FES? They are made up and I've not encounted a single FE'er with any intention of finding evidence to back them up. I wish they would refrain from doing this.
I cannot respond to the OP with anything other than "this is incorrect."I guess you could also stick your thumbs in your ears, wave your hands, and say, "Nah, Na, Nah, Na, Nah, Nah!" But no one would see that.
I think he meant that their "FE evidence" would be shot down by a kid with a public high school education.You could lie and say your speaking to help the students develop their skills of skepticism. Then Hit um hard with the truth!Most people in the developed world are brainwashed from birth by the insidious doctrines of globularism. This is why many people are not Flat Earth believers.
Most schools welcome guest speakers. Good luck.
Too bad any FE'ers would likely get shot down by any highschooler with a decent education.
Don't feed the trolls guys..Your response makes the most sense. Those were the two questions I posed in the OP. So it seems that the simple of it is that FES has no real answer. They threw out this map, and then, when it was questioned, they to the "It's not a complete map," defense. I'd imagine any other questions regarding this map would be met with similar answers.
Anyway, whether the interior is unknown or not. Like Sliver said, this is not about the interior; it's about the surface.
If someone provides a map, it gives the viewer the impression that that person knows what is located on that surface. When that viewer then proceeds to ask the provider questions about the map and it turns out that an essential part of the map (the outer ring, which determines its shape) is unknown, it undermines the credibility of the map.
That does not mean the map is incorrect; it simply is fair to ask questions about it and it's fair to be surprised when there are great unknown areas on it. Speculating that someone else's map is incorrect because there are might be unknown areas outside of the portrayed surface of the map is rubbish. The RE map is not showing the inside, and even if it did it is no valid argument to defend hiates in the FE map.
So.. it is unknown what is on the outer ring of this FE map.
Therefor nobody knows what happens if you would succeed in following the red line because and apparently nobody did.
Also, it is unknown what holds the water in.
Let's get on with your next question, Sliver. I'm curious to see if anyone knows the answer to that one..
No, because it's not a map of the Earth's interior, it's a map of it's surface. This is a map of what some think the flat Earth's surface looks like. It has been proven wrong.Than I guess that makes this map a failure.
Is the RE model a failure because the details of its interior are unknown?
Than I guess that makes this map a failure.To which I replied...Quote from: SliverHe answers! Perhaps you should modify the map I posted? You know, showing instead of a definitive edge, some sort of "gray area". As for the navigation, your map suggests that one could use to travel due south, then across the south pole, and then on to the "edge/gray area". On a globe, once you cross the south pole, you are then heading north, on your map, you are still heading south. I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"At which point he had nothing more to say. See, the problem with his answer is that, at this point, we have explored a vast amount of the surface of this planet. Someone would have been to the edge by now.
"A vast amount" does not mean the same thing as "all".On to the second part of my problem with this map. What holds the water in?
If what is outside it is unknown, how do you expect anyone to know the answer to that?
To which I replied...See that friggin red line? Start at the top of it, and go to the end of it. Notice how this map allows you to pass that white island we call Antarctica and keep going in the SAME DIRECTION??? I'm asking what happens when you reach the edge of THIS MAP! We're not talking about magnetic north, magnetic south or any of that other crap you keep using to derail the thread. Just take a stab at explaining what would happen when you reached the edge. That's it. If you can handle that without acting like a twit, we'll move on to the other question in my OP.
Wilmore already answered that for you, two pages ago:First, what lies beyond the known Earth is, rather unsurprisingly, unknown. There may be an ice sheet, there may be continents and landmasses, who knows? There is no point just making things up. The extent of the Outer Ocean has yet to be ascertained.
He answers! Perhaps you should modify the map I posted? You know, showing instead of a definitive edge, some sort of "gray area". As for the navigation, your map suggests that one could use to travel due south, then across the south pole, and then on to the "edge/gray area". On a globe, once you cross the south pole, you are then heading north, on your map, you are still heading south. I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"At which point he had nothing more to say. See, the problem with his answer is that, at this point, we have explored a vast amount of the surface of this planet. Someone would have been to the edge by now.
Please, by all means, post the correct math.If the sun act as a spotlight projecting a circular area of light on the earth, the diameter of this circle would need to be close to half of the diameter of the earth and can cover only 1/4 of the earth surface at a time (A=Pi*r^2 --> Pi*(r/2)^2=(1/4)Pi*r^2=A/4). The sun would therefore cover only one quarter of the equator line at solstice.
This is incorrect.
The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.Not necessarily. If they flew close to the surface, they would be almost constantly dodging things like trees and buildings. They would also have to exert more energy because they would be too close to the ground to take advantage of updrafts and wind currents.
Look, jack ass! Take a long hard look at this map.OK, use whatever method you want, just start at the north pole, head south, when you pass the south pole, and keep heading south, as this map suggests, what's gonna happen when you run off the edge?
You can't travel south from the south pole. If you could, it wouldn't be the south pole.
Far from troling, Parsifal is demonstrating an understanding of basic concepts that most of you appear not to understand. The best way to understand this is to imagine that the 'lattitude' and 'longitude' lines are the magnetic field lines (though this is not strictly accurate). Travelling North involves following the field lines, not heading in a fixed direction.You finally post in this thread and you don't even answer the question??? Well, you dodged it earlier, but you never followed up to my rebuttal.
He answers! Perhaps you should modify the map I posted? You know, showing instead of a definitive edge, some sort of "gray area". As for the navigation, your map suggests that one could use to travel due south, then across the south pole, and then on to the "edge/gray area". On a globe, once you cross the south pole, you are then heading north, on your map, you are still heading south. I guess this is where you're going to exclaim, "It's an incomplete map!"
OK, use whatever method you want, just start at the north pole, head south, when you pass the south pole, and keep heading south, as this map suggests, what's gonna happen when you run off the edge?How? If the compass needle is pointing north, and you keep the needle pointing BEHIND you, you are heading south. Try reading some simple orienteering books. Do you need a diagram?
The needle doesn't point north, the needle aligns itself with the local magnetic field. To keep magnetic north behind you, you need to walk in the direction that the magnetic south pole of the compass is pointing. Which type of magnetic pole attracts a magnetic south pole?
How? If the compass needle is pointing north, and you keep the needle pointing BEHIND you, you are heading south. Try reading some simple orienteering books. Do you need a diagram?Um, the directions I just gave would be for traveling AWAY from Earth's magnetic north pole. Which on the map I posted, would lead you beyond the magnetic south pole.
The directions you gave would lead one to the Earth's magnetic north pole. Try picking up an electromagnetism textbook sometime.
Um, the directions I just gave would be for traveling AWAY from Earth's magnetic north pole. Which on the map I posted, would lead you beyond the magnetic south pole.Take a compass, find north, turn the compass so north is directly behind you, off you go. Now keep going, always keeping north directly behind you. That work for you, Parsitroll?
Sure, but what does travelling to the Earth's magnetic north pole prove?
Take a compass, find north, turn the compass so north is directly behind you, off you go. Now keep going, always keeping north directly behind you. That work for you, Parsitroll?Not in RET model. However their paths do cross after going aroudn the world so you could say they have been going roughly in opposite directions. Also North and South are only opposite of each other in reference to the viewpoint of one person.
In FET model I'm not sure. It depends on which FET model and map you use. Using the map presented in this thread I'd say they're either indeed moving in opposite direction (taking north as the top of the map and south as the bottow) or moving in different directions at an angle of about 90 degrees (taking the large piece of ice in the top part as the north pole and the large piece of ice in the lower part as the south pole.
Of course it also depend on if we mean the magnetic pole or the geographical pole..
So the answer is "no." Thanks for clearing that up.I'd say that if someone (using the map of this thread) traveled from Ghana, then crossed Antarctica and on the other side encountered the island group seen crossing the red line (whether it is New Zealand or Hawaii.. kinda hard to tell with this map) pretty much has confirmation of traveling in a straigh line. Just continue like that from that moment on and you should be getting to the infamous edge soon
You can't tell whether a curve is a straight line or not using that method; Antarctica is wide enough to permit various different curves between Ghana and New Zealand which pass over it. Even if you could, just because you've been moving in a straight line previously doesn't mean you will continue to do so. Furthermore, you still haven't explained what navigational method should be used to ensure one is travelling in a straight line; what does "just continu[ing] like that" mean, exactly? Continue like what? What navigational method was used to ensure that one ended up in New Zealand and not Tasmania? Your whole argument relies on just coincidentally happening to be moving in a straight line.
Oh, and I find it incredible that you can't tell the difference between Hawaii and New Zealand. Hint: One thing this map doesn't lack is an Equator.
Are you trying to say that a commercial plane would intentionally SLOW DOWN to keep a schedule? That seems a bit much. You're talking about an industry that makes as many flights per day as possible. This is how they make their money. If a flight arrives early, no one complains! It makes everyone happy. And happy customers are repeat customers.Commercial planes tend to vary airspeed to keep to schedules, also differing approach and departure paths because of conflicting traffic. Any timings taken from these flights are completely meaningless.To a pilot, who is not a scientist...........Flying aircraft is by no means accurate. Even if the flight is directly between two VOR beacons, I doubt that even in still air, with the same indicated airspeed, the flights could be duplicated with enough accuracy to give the results you desire.I've taken a flight from El Paso, TX to Las Vegas, NV about 6 times. Round trips. Each flight was right around the 2 hour mark. These were made at various times of year in various weather conditions. They still managed to take about the same amount of time.
Factors such as air temperature, air pressure have a noticeable effect on the performance of a plane.
As your two paths, on a two hour flight, in an affordable plane, with an airspeed of approx 110 knots.(typical light plane) would in my experience be only a few yards different in length. the difference is not going to be measurable.
I think for the experiment suggested, the two flight patch would need to have a very large difference predicted in them. I difference in distance that would create a difference in flight times around 2 hours. Then, if the one predicted to take 2 hours longer did or didn't you'd have your answers.
The experiment cannot be done using commercial planes
Once again let's take them one at a time, starting from the bottom and where you so conveniently ignored me last time. The ice wall is set on a huge mountain range and therefore holds in the ocean, it is not floating ice. Next point?
Set on a huge mountain range...? That still leaves the question of height. If it truly holds in the atmosphere, this ice wall/mountain range must be over 500 miles high. There's no way to hide a 500-mile high wall of ice.
Something that high would probably be visible from just about anywhere on Earth. Next topic.Once again let's take them one at a time, starting from the bottom and where you so conveniently ignored me last time. The ice wall is set on a huge mountain range and therefore holds in the ocean, it is not floating ice. Next point?
Set on a huge mountain range...? That still leaves the question of height. If it truly holds in the atmosphere, this ice wall/mountain range must be over 500 miles high. There's no way to hide a 500-mile high wall of ice.
That's just lazy. You obviously have nothing to counter my post on fiber optics, and are now trying to change the subject. Bugger off.The word "bent" cannot be properly applied to a liquid.Was there any mention of the water being liquid?
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?He's just gonna tell you his beliefs are irrelevant.
