Another unanswered flat earth question

  • 52 Replies
  • 7480 Views
?

Zackgb

Another unanswered flat earth question
« on: July 28, 2007, 08:36:19 PM »
What about the small pieces of Russia that are seen extending around the to the Western hemisphere on most maps? If this theory were to hold true then how could this area be populated or discovered without sailing or flying completely around the globe to reach its destination. Also this would also disprove the Bering Strait bridge where early humans crossed and migrated to North America.

This may have been answered as well, Id just like to bring it up again if it has. Assuming this were true, this would mean in order for me to fly from Canada to Japan I would have to go all the way east correct? That would make the flight time in relation to the distance traveled nearly impossible.

Just looking to hear some answers/clarification

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2007, 08:39:49 PM »
Read the FAQ please.
OMG!

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2007, 08:43:07 PM »
What about the small pieces of Russia that are seen extending around the to the Western hemisphere on most maps? If this theory were to hold true then how could this area be populated or discovered without sailing or flying completely around the globe to reach its destination. Also this would also disprove the Bering Strait bridge where early humans crossed and migrated to North America.

This may have been answered as well, Id just like to bring it up again if it has. Assuming this were true, this would mean in order for me to fly from Canada to Japan I would have to go all the way east correct? That would make the flight time in relation to the distance traveled nearly impossible.

Just looking to hear some answers/clarification
Zackgb,
Welcome.

First, you should know that the basic geography is explained in the FAQ and the RE Primer. You'll find that FE holds that the correct map is a polar projection with the North Pole at the center. The United Nations logo has one such rendition.

Second, you'll find that except for going over the South Pole, this map allows for most every conceivable route.

If I can do anything to help, don't hesitate to PM me.

?

Zackgb

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2007, 09:02:05 PM »
Ah sorry about that, skimmed through it fast and missed the map

 I also noticed that you say the sun and the moon are both 32 miles in diameter.

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites. When comparing those numbers it makes it inconcievable that you can have the sun reduced to that size and still cover sufficient amounts of the earth in order to provide the necessary heat for us to survive as the earth stays at a size of 24,900 miles in diameter.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35361
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2007, 09:43:46 AM »
Or so the conspiracy would have you think.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2007, 10:37:20 AM »
Ah sorry about that, skimmed through it fast and missed the map

 I also noticed that you say the sun and the moon are both 32 miles in diameter.

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites. When comparing those numbers it makes it inconcievable that you can have the sun reduced to that size and still cover sufficient amounts of the earth in order to provide the necessary heat for us to survive as the earth stays at a size of 24,900 miles in diameter.
These numbers were derived from the Round Earth numbers. IF you take the flatness into account, these numbers are legitimate.

FYI, Im RE'er.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2007, 10:56:47 AM »
Please disregard Creature's unproven and highly improbable statement.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2007, 09:30:40 PM »
The Sun, as you point out, is much smaller than REers claim, but it's also much closer. Current estimates are around 3000 miles above the Earth's surface.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Zackgb

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2007, 03:34:09 PM »
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2007, 03:36:05 PM »
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

Get a clue.  According to FE Theory, the entire makeup of the galaxy is vastly different.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Fritz Zwicky

  • 20
  • Einstein was a spherical bastard...
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2007, 04:06:53 PM »
The Sun, as you point out, is much smaller than REers claim, but it's also much closer. Current estimates are around 3000 miles above the Earth's surface.
On June 8, 2004 I personally observed the planet Venus transiting the Sun from 7 AM till noon. At that time I was located in Metz (France) doing some research on an unrelated topic. This simple observation has caused some concern on my part when trying to calculate the distance from the earth to the sun using flat earth theory. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion.
Theorizing is an empty brain exercise and therefore a waste of time unless one first ascertains what the population of the universe really consists of.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2007, 04:10:32 PM »
Easily explainable by the fact that Venus is also much smaller in FET than in RET.  Next question.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2007, 08:10:40 PM »
The Sun, as you point out, is much smaller than REers claim, but it's also much closer. Current estimates are around 3000 miles above the Earth's surface.
On June 8, 2004 I personally observed the planet Venus transiting the Sun from 7 AM till noon. At that time I was located in Metz (France) doing some research on an unrelated topic. This simple observation has caused some concern on my part when trying to calculate the distance from the earth to the sun using flat earth theory. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion.
I've included Venus's transit as an experiment in the RE Primer. The transit creates a challenge to FE in that the transit demonstrates that the planet moves across the sky, in front of the Sun, and behind the Sun. FE fails to predict when the transits will occur or how their appearance varies by the observer's location. RE does so elegantly.

When you combine this with the observed phases of Venus, FE is left with a lot to explain while RE predicts reality.

I'll lift your post for the RE Primer for that experiment. Thanks.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2007, 11:26:17 AM »
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The model we argue for is understandably different from the gravity-based RE one. The claim that planets (and the Earth) orbit the Sun is impossible (since the very idea of an orbit is a physical impossibility in FE models). There are different FE cosmos models, I argue for one which places the planets in similar situation to the Earth (flat, and resting on the Universal Accelerator). Other FEers argue that the planets are vastly different from the Earth.

Quote
I've included Venus's transit as an experiment in the RE Primer. The transit creates a challenge to FE in that the transit demonstrates that the planet moves across the sky, in front of the Sun, and behind the Sun. FE fails to predict when the transits will occur or how their appearance varies by the observer's location. RE does so elegantly.

Venus's transit does create some huge problems for FE models which would place Venus and other planets on the Universal Accelerator - Venus would have to actually leap off the UA and fly over the Earth, which is fanciful. It's more likely that Venus and Mercury are subject to the same forces as the Sun and Moon, while Mars etc. are Earth-style planets.

It's worth a mention that CKJ's universe model stands up robustly to the problem of plantary transits - Johnson (and many others) argued for a universe in which the Earth was unique and all celestial bodies flew freely above the atmolayer. Of course, the strengths of one model cannot be legitimately brought to the defense of another.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

sokarul

  • 15966
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2007, 12:28:24 PM »
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The model we argue for is understandably different from the gravity-based RE one. The claim that planets (and the Earth) orbit the Sun is impossible (since the very idea of an orbit is a physical impossibility in FE models). There are different FE cosmos models, I argue for one which places the planets in similar situation to the Earth (flat, and resting on the Universal Accelerator). Other FEers argue that the planets are vastly different from the Earth.

Quote
I've included Venus's transit as an experiment in the RE Primer. The transit creates a challenge to FE in that the transit demonstrates that the planet moves across the sky, in front of the Sun, and behind the Sun. FE fails to predict when the transits will occur or how their appearance varies by the observer's location. RE does so elegantly.

Venus's transit does create some huge problems for FE models which would place Venus and other planets on the Universal Accelerator - Venus would have to actually leap off the UA and fly over the Earth, which is fanciful. It's more likely that Venus and Mercury are subject to the same forces as the Sun and Moon, while Mars etc. are Earth-style planets.

It's worth a mention that CKJ's universe model stands up robustly to the problem of plantary transits - Johnson (and many others) argued for a universe in which the Earth was unique and all celestial bodies flew freely above the atmolayer. Of course, the strengths of one model cannot be legitimately brought to the defense of another.

You know, its quite pussy to post in a thread and then close it. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2007, 01:34:40 PM »
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The Bible makes no mention of other planets or space even existing. Please prove to me they are real.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2007, 01:39:22 PM »

You know, its quite pussy to post in a thread and then close it. 

I'm not closing it. Either another moderator or the thread starter has closed it twice so far, and I have re-opened it on both occasions.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2007, 01:45:41 PM »
Please go ahead and read Genisis, observing the mention of the creation of the heavens, ie the night sky.

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2007, 07:17:26 PM »
Please go ahead and read Genisis, observing the mention of the creation of the heavens, ie the night sky.
You do know that Danny is back? Right?
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

?

Zackgb

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2007, 05:13:04 PM »
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The Bible makes no mention of other planets or space even existing. Please prove to me they are real.

You sir are an idiot.

So then I suppose we're all inbred from adam eve and cain then right? or an ark that size was creatable.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2007, 05:19:20 PM »
You sir are an idiot.

So then I suppose we're all inbred from adam eve and cain then right? or an ark that size was creatable.

Even if the bible isn't true, we are technically still inbred somewhat.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2007, 05:54:34 PM »
Prove it.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2007, 06:12:20 PM »
Prove it.

Er...do you think humans just spawned on Earth? Inbreeding would of had to have occurred at some point.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2007, 08:21:27 PM »
Not neccesarilly.

Humans evolved in Africa, but that does not mean that they all stayed there. There were people that left and went over the land bridge into America at one point. How could they have been bred into the European mix? Are you saying that I am related to every single Native American if all of my ancestors (I can trace them back to the 1500s, so I know that they are not related to any Indians) have not married or had kids with Native Americans? I am not saying that the great majority of the world is not related, but there are at least a few people that are not related to any extent (the population of the Earth would have to have at least a few of these people, due to the sheer amount).

Also, "inbred" involves at least a mildly close relation. You can only really say that someone is "inbred" if their parents have "at least a couple cousins over" relationship. Beyond that, the genes that are passed on are barely, if at all, similar (unless by chance). The mere fact that all humans may have come from the same continent, and have all married eachother at one point or another does not mean that they are all inbred.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2007, 08:56:40 PM »
Not neccesarilly.

Humans evolved in Africa, but that does not mean that they all stayed there. There were people that left and went over the land bridge into America at one point. How could they have been bred into the European mix? Are you saying that I am related to every single Native American if all of my ancestors (I can trace them back to the 1500s, so I know that they are not related to any Indians) have not married or had kids with Native Americans? I am not saying that the great majority of the world is not related, but there are at least a few people that are not related to any extent (the population of the Earth would have to have at least a few of these people, due to the sheer amount).

Also, "inbred" involves at least a mildly close relation. You can only really say that someone is "inbred" if their parents have "at least a couple cousins over" relationship. Beyond that, the genes that are passed on are barely, if at all, similar (unless by chance). The mere fact that all humans may have come from the same continent, and have all married eachother at one point or another does not mean that they are all inbred.

What do you mean not necessarily? Inbreeding would of had to occur at some point. Where humans evolved doesn't really matter, other than to say that inbreeding would have ceased among certain sects of humans that moved. It still occurred, and we are all still related to one another in some way.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

sokarul

  • 15966
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2007, 10:03:32 PM »
Walking with man anyone?  The history channel.  
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2007, 10:39:01 PM »
Walking with man anyone?  The history channel. 

Besides the History Channel not always being accurate, can you give us a brief synopsis of what was shown? I can't seem to find any good information about the show online.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2007, 07:39:47 AM »
So then I suppose we're all inbred from adam eve and cain then right? or an ark that size was creatable.

Yes, and yes. The Ark was actually very small, Noah just fit about 998,000 animals per square foot.


Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2007, 08:27:29 AM »
Yes, and yes. The Ark was actually very small, Noah just fit about 998,000 animals per square foot.

Is that sarcasm or stupidity?  I can't tell.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64421
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2007, 08:30:27 AM »
Its fecking funny whatever it is
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?