Antartica

  • 34 Replies
  • 11945 Views
Antartica
« on: March 05, 2007, 01:57:29 PM »
I brought this topic up in the General Discussion forum, but recived no satisfactory answer.

Some of my family went on a cruise a few years ago, which circumnavigated Antarctica in a little less than 40 days.

I understand that circumnavigation is possible in FE, but circumnavigating antartica in 40 days is quite impossible.

The Flat Earth is supposed to be about 130,000 km in circumference.  My family was in sight of Antarctica for the entire trip, so I think it's fair to assume that they must have traveled at least 120,000 kilometers in the course of 40 days.

120,000 kilometers in 40 days comes to an average speed of over 65 knots, almost 75 miles per hour.  I think I can confidently say that there is no full sized cruise ship that can make that kind of speed.

In addition, this is assuming they spent the entire time under way.  In reality; they spent most of their days on shore.  So the true average speed would have to be much higher, and the maximum speed probably well over 100 miles per hour.

In RE, this isn't a problem because Antarctica is only about 18,000 km in circumference, giving an average speed of about 10 knots, which is quite reasonable for a full sized cruise ship.

How is this possible in FE?  Many cruise lines offer trips like this, they can't all be in on the conspiracy.



Note:  If you are going to say that my family was captured by the ice wall guards and brainwashed.  Don't bother posting.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: Antartica
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2007, 02:12:10 PM »
You cant go around antarctica, you'd fall off the edge (well you wouldn't as the icewall would intervene...), your family were lead to believe you were going around antarctica, however you were going around a smaller icy island which looks like the antarctica that the government speak of

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Antartica
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2007, 02:27:12 PM »
Quote
Some of my family went on a cruise a few years ago, which circumnavigated Antarctica in a little less than 40 days.

Does the cruise company guarantee a complete circumnavigation of Antarctica? It's quite possible that like other scams, they are simply cruising part way around Antarctica to fulfill the promise of a 40 day voyage and returning home.



Also, as mentioned above, the cruise ship could very well be circumnavigating a smaller icy island.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 05:02:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Antartica
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2007, 02:28:41 PM »
I didnt even think of that  :o
Well noticed Tom!

Re: Antartica
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2007, 02:46:02 PM »
Yes Tom, the cruise company promises full circumnavigation.

And yes, I do remember your 'Antarctic Island' theory to explain this.  But as I pointed out in the General Discussion version of this topic:  There are also cruises which circumnavigate Antarctica at a slightly more northern latitude, and stop at the southern tips of South America, Africa, and Australia, covering distances in time spans impossible if the above map were correct.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 02:53:59 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: Antartica
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2007, 02:53:12 PM »


Also, as mentioned above, the cruise ship could very well be circumnavigating a smaller icy island.



Im so proud, tom bishop acknowledged my post was correct and used it in his answer!!!

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Antartica
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2007, 03:07:22 PM »
Quote
Yes Tom, the cruise company promises full circumnavigation.

Then, it is your duty as a law abiding citizen to report these nefarious cruise companies to the Better Business Bureau. It is impossible to circumnavigate the Ice Wall on a ship in as little as 40 days.

Re: Antartica
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2007, 03:11:59 PM »
Quote
Yes Tom, the cruise company promises full circumnavigation.

Then, it is your duty as a law abiding citizen to report these nefarious cruise companies to the Better Business Bureau. It is impossible to circumnavigate the Ice Wall on a ship in as little as 40 days.

What a well thought out snappy comeback. (Pat on the back for Tom)

Unfortunately you seemed to ignore his question, directed towards you I believe, about how the cruises can circumnavigate the Antarctica and stop at places all across the globe at the southern tips.

*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: Antartica
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2007, 03:18:41 PM »
Tom, I believe Max Fagin mentioned that his family had Antartica in sight the whole trip, so your "part way" explenation hardly cuts it.
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: Antartica
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2007, 04:39:24 PM »
Tom, I believe Max Fagin mentioned that his family had Antartica in sight the whole trip, so your "part way" explenation hardly cuts it.
Why not?

~D-Draw

Re: Antartica
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2007, 04:50:57 PM »
Tom, I believe Max Fagin mentioned that his family had Antartica in sight the whole trip, so your "part way" explenation hardly cuts it.

Tom said that they would be bordering Antarctica throughout the trip until they left for home. So his explanation does cut it.

*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: Antartica
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2007, 08:04:41 PM »
Come to think of it, Max, how was your family sure they circumnavigated Antartica? Some landmark of sorts?
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Antartica
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2007, 09:33:02 PM »
Come to think of it, Max, how was your family sure they circumnavigated Antartica? Some landmark of sorts?

Well, if I recall correctly, their cruise ship stopped for sight seeing excursions on both the Antarctic Peninsula, and the Shackelton ice shelf.  Two locations which are known to be located at opposing ends of the continent.  The easiest way to hit both of these locations, and always stay in sight of the coast, would be to circumnavigate Antarctica.

However, I can think of several reasons that this won't count as evidence to many FE'ers (Was it really the Shackelton ice shelf?  It could have been an island! They could have turned around in the middle of the night!)

If any FE'er is planning to raise an objection like these, consider this.  All of these objections imply that the cruise company/ship's crew was in on the conspiracy. 

Playing the conspiracy card is dangerous in this situation because in order for FE to be plausible, the number of people who know the "truth" must be kept small.  In addition, we all know that there is really no argument for the shape of the Earth for which the conspiracy can not be used, but we all also know that shouting "conspiracy" at every argument decreases it's plausibility as an explanation, to say nothing of it being an intellectual cop out.

I hope a better explanation can be provided.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: Antartica
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2007, 04:24:37 AM »

Also, as mentioned above, the cruise ship could very well be circumnavigating a smaller icy island.


That is what your answer is going to be, unfortunately.

Re: Antartica
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2007, 11:08:48 AM »
I suppose the British Antartic Survey must be in on the conspiracy too?

Re: Antartica
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2007, 12:04:55 PM »
There are also cruises which circumnavigate Antarctica at a slightly more northern latitude, and stop at the southern tips of South America, Africa, and Australia, covering distances in time spans impossible if the above map were correct.
How does FE account for this?

Re: Antartica
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2007, 12:27:17 PM »
There are also cruises which circumnavigate Antarctica at a slightly more northern latitude, and stop at the southern tips of South America, Africa, and Australia, covering distances in time spans impossible if the above map were correct.
How does FE account for this?

See Earth: Not a Globe, please.
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

Re: Antartica
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2007, 12:49:20 PM »
See Earth: Not a Globe, please.

I haven't found anything in Rowbothams book which explains this.  Remember, if his dimensions for the Earth are correct, these massive cruise ship would have to cruise day and night at speeds that many cars can't achieve.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: Antartica
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2007, 02:26:20 PM »
There are also cruises which circumnavigate Antarctica at a slightly more northern latitude, and stop at the southern tips of South America, Africa, and Australia, covering distances in time spans impossible if the above map were correct.
How does FE account for this?

See Earth: Not a Globe, please.
I have. As Max Fagin pointed out, it did not explain how this is possible. I hate to sound rude, but perhaps you should just STFU if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

Re: Antartica
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2007, 02:35:57 PM »
See Earth: Not a Globe, please.

I haven't found anything in Rowbothams book which explains this.

You read the whole book? Every single page, and every line? look harder it's there

Re: Antartica
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2007, 01:48:31 PM »
Maybe, surrounding the smaller Antarctica, that the cruise ships travel around have islands that resemble South America, Africa and Australia.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Antartica
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2007, 04:11:34 AM »
Talking about long trips that few people do plays right into the hand of Flat Earthers. You can always say they were confused, conned, brainwashed or part of the conspiracy.

What cannot be explained away are the simple observations anyone can do with a simple telescope with an equatorial mount (that is, a mount designed for astronomical observation). Almost anyone can spare a few hundred dollars and some nights of star observation. Millions have done it during the last 400 years or so, and any one of us could have reported simple observations supporting the hovering sun hypothesis, any of the ideas about eclipses or the notion that stellar objects are only a few hundred kilometers away. Repeating your observations some 200 kilometers further North or South absolutely destroys any

You have to create the illusion that experiments about the shape of Earth are complicated, expensive and easily controlled by conspirators if you want to keep the Flat Earth alive. It is easier to explain away a few people who had direct experiences with Antartica than to explain why you do not want to see first hand the clear signs of a hovering sun.

To believe in the Flat Earth theory you have to be poor, severely challenged with mathematics or too lazy to make your own observations with your own telescope.

Re: Antartica
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2007, 06:05:25 AM »
Talking about long trips that few people do plays right into the hand of Flat Earthers. You can always say they were confused, conned, brainwashed or part of the conspiracy.

What cannot be explained away are the simple observations anyone can do with a simple telescope with an equatorial mount (that is, a mount designed for astronomical observation). Almost anyone can spare a few hundred dollars and some nights of star observation. Millions have done it during the last 400 years or so, and any one of us could have reported simple observations supporting the hovering sun hypothesis, any of the ideas about eclipses or the notion that stellar objects are only a few hundred kilometers away. Repeating your observations some 200 kilometers further North or South absolutely destroys any

You have to create the illusion that experiments about the shape of Earth are complicated, expensive and easily controlled by conspirators if you want to keep the Flat Earth alive. It is easier to explain away a few people who had direct experiences with Antartica than to explain why you do not want to see first hand the clear signs of a hovering sun.

To believe in the Flat Earth theory you have to be poor, severely challenged with mathematics or too lazy to make your own observations with your own telescope.

This promoted no further of this arguement; the thread having trhe title "Antartica."
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Antartica
« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2007, 09:12:33 AM »
Quote
There are also cruises which circumnavigate Antarctica at a slightly more northern latitude, and stop at the southern tips of South America, Africa, and Australia, covering distances in time spans impossible if the above map were correct.

It's pretty well established that the topology of FE space is non-euclidean. The distances between the tips of Australia, Africa, and South America are exactly the same as they are in the RE model. The main difference is a perceptual one. The distances are severely misrepresented on a globe. There is unseen distance embedded within the curvature of the globe itself.

You must remember, when traveling on a globe you are never going in straight lines, but are also traveling up and down, curving around the earth. The only way to travel in a perfectly straight line on a RE globe is to tunnel into the earth. This additional distance traveling up and down on RE is directly proportional to the preceptual increase in horizontal distance on an FE map. In reality, the distances are exactly the same despite seeming radically different.

In practice, one cannot compare an apparent straight line on a globe to the FE model without realizing that there is additional unseen distance due to the globe's roundity.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 11:21:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

sokarul

  • 16048
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Antartica
« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2007, 11:13:00 AM »
There is no way the distance fromt he tip of South America to the tip of Africa is the same distance on both a flat earth map and the globe.  Someone hasnt looked at the FAQ yet. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Antartica
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2007, 11:26:46 AM »
There is no way the distance fromt he tip of South America to the tip of Australia is the same distance on both a flat earth map and the globe.  Someone hasnt looked at the FAQ yet. 

Find South America on a globe. Turn it around a full 180 degrees you will find Australia. The two points are separated by a massive bulge of the globe's roundity.

Traveling between the two points is no walk in the park. After all, even in RE, one must travel half way around the world.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 11:47:35 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Antartica
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2007, 12:22:25 PM »
There is no way the distance fromt he tip of South America to the tip of Australia is the same distance on both a flat earth map and the globe.  Someone hasnt looked at the FAQ yet. 

Find South America on a globe. Turn it around a full 180 degrees you will find Australia. The two points are separated by a massive bulge of the globe's roundity.

Traveling between the two points is no walk in the park. After all, even in RE, one must travel half way around the world.

Nice poor explanation.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

sokarul

  • 16048
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Antartica
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2007, 04:23:32 PM »
There is no way the distance fromt he tip of South America to the tip of Australia is the same distance on both a flat earth map and the globe.  Someone hasnt looked at the FAQ yet. 

Find South America on a globe. Turn it around a full 180 degrees you will find Australia. The two points are separated by a massive bulge of the globe's roundity.

Traveling between the two points is no walk in the park. After all, even in RE, one must travel half way around the world.

Are you blind?

Your flat earth map

To make it easy, if the tips of South America to the tip of Australia were on the icewall, it would be at a max distance, which would be 24,900 miles according to Faq.  The circumference of the round Earth is 25,00 miles.  So half that 12,500 miles would be the equator to equator passing Antarctica.  As you know the actual distance would be way less do to the tip of south American and Australia are way below the equator.  That distance is much less then your flat Earth route where you would have to go across all south America, Arctic, and Asia.   
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Antartica
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2007, 07:14:08 AM »
I suppose the British Antartic Survey must be in on the conspiracy too?

Not necessarily. Most people in BAS work on the offshore island bases of Signy, Bird Island and Rothera. Other bases are coastal. Pretty much no-one ventures into the alleged 'interiour' of the 'Continent.'
It would be perfectly conceivable for your common or garden marine or polar scientist to be blissfully unaware of the true nature of the Antarctic. (I should know. I am one.)
We do not know anything. We can just believe that which we feel no cause to doubt

Re: Antartica
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2007, 07:17:36 AM »
Yeah apart from the satellie images of it.