I have a question...

I was just hoping for some clarification.

For my hypothetical to work, one needs to assume that one could get relatively close to the Icewall without being impeded by the government.  So just bear with me please. 

If one were to climb into a boat and sail to the Icewall, and then proceed to sail East, one would eventually sail, ostensibly, around the outside of the entire flat earth.  This, needless to say, would constitute an extremely large distance.

The problem arises when comparing this to the distance it actually takes to sail around Antarctica.  These two distances, (The inside of Icewall and the distance around RE Antarctica) are not close to one another in the least.

I was hoping that someone could clarify this discrepancy for me.

simply put: only on a round earth would it be a short distance.

of course, in their faq, they explain it away by saying the crew of the boat are all part of the "conspiracy", just as they say about any FACT that doesn't fit their...worldview.

hm...worldview, that's a good one.

Um...I'm fully aware that the distance would be short on a round world...

That is why I asked the question, believe it or not.

I was just hoping for some clarification.

For my hypothetical to work, one needs to assume that one could get relatively close to the Icewall without being impeded by the government.  So just bear with me please. 

If one were to climb into a boat and sail to the Icewall, and then proceed to sail East, one would eventually sail, ostensibly, around the outside of the entire flat earth.  This, needless to say, would constitute an extremely large distance.

The problem arises when comparing this to the distance it actually takes to sail around Antarctica.  These two distances, (The inside of Icewall and the distance around RE Antarctica) are not close to one another in the least.

I was hoping that someone could clarify this discrepancy for me.

Sir James Clark Ross reported a distance of 60,000 miles traveled in his voyage around the ice wall.  That's pretty damn big.

I believe you are a bit mistaken in your numbers...

Sir James Clark Ross did record a distance of over 60,000 miles in his 1814 voyage, but that was the TOTAL distance, not the distance around the "Icewall."  That includes the journey from England and all of the stops in between.  The total amount of coastline that his group mapped is closer to 18,000 miles. 

Quote from: FEPav on November 03, 2007, 08:43:15 PM

I was just hoping for some clarification.

For my hypothetical to work, one needs to assume that one could get relatively close to the Icewall without being impeded by the government.  So just bear with me please. 

If one were to climb into a boat and sail to the Icewall, and then proceed to sail East, one would eventually sail, ostensibly, around the outside of the entire flat earth.  This, needless to say, would constitute an extremely large distance.

The problem arises when comparing this to the distance it actually takes to sail around Antarctica.  These two distances, (The inside of Icewall and the distance around RE Antarctica) are not close to one another in the least.

I was hoping that someone could clarify this discrepancy for me.

Sir James Clark Ross reported a distance of 60,000 miles traveled in his voyage around the ice wall.  That's pretty damn big.

hmmm...a 19th century explorer...the actual number is 11,160 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html#Geo)

You're right, silly me.  I meant to say Kilometers, not miles.  For my number, that is.

Only speculation would say that this refutes the flat Earth claims. I might as well use this as proof that the round Earth theory is incorrect, because it wouldn't do me any better than it does you. The fact remains that nobody that has sailed "around Antarctica" has been a logical scientist who wasn't under the control of the government (or, further, the conspiracy)--whether known or unknown to us.

Such is that all that remains is speculation. If the Earth is round, it would be shorter. If the Earth is flat, it would be longer. Proof leans neither way.


~D-Draw

Ummm....

Ross is credited with mapping almost 90% of Antarctica's coastline...

So sure, not all the way around...but damned close.

Just wondering, is antarctica's actual coastline infinite in length (due to the idea of fractals), and also the fact that it constantly changes. The more accurately you measure the length of a coastline, the longer it gets.

Only speculation would say that this refutes the flat Earth claims. I might as well use this as proof that the round Earth theory is incorrect, because it wouldn't do me any better than it does you. The fact remains that nobody that has sailed "around Antarctica" has been a logical scientist who wasn't under the control of the government (or, further, the conspiracy)--whether known or unknown to us.

Such is that all that remains is speculation. If the Earth is round, it would be shorter. If the Earth is flat, it would be longer. Proof leans neither way.


~D-Draw

ok, but according to your flat earth theory, all scientists and government people are involved in this "conspiracy."  so you're always going to say that there is no logical scientist.  and i, as well as other people, believe you guys are a bunch of quacks. so any person you have create a map, or bring about "evidence," we would say was full of B.S., lying... and never went out to gather any evidence.  so how do you propose a solution to your issue of proving the earth is flat?

Nobody ever claimed that all scientists were part of the conspiracy. 

No, they are all just sheep who blindly follow what the government tell them to publish.

I'[m sure they follow their own observations.  They are simply interpreting what they see incorrectly.  You have to remember that they have the dogma of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of accepted science guiding their experiments.  Thus they don't even consider what should be blindingly obvious to be plausible.  The vast majority of scientists, even the biggest ones, have never even considered the possibility that the world might be flat.  Thus all data will be interpreted from a round view perspective.

Obviously at least some of the scientists employed by NASA, or another space agency, must know the truth.  I don't need to tell you that they're employed by the conspiracy.

Excuse me, isn't the oldest dogma that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe? You can't call RE dogma, without calling FE Dogma².

Excuse me, isn't the oldest dogma that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe? You can't call RE dogma, without calling FE Dogma².

That's a straw man.  The accepted dogma is that the earth is round, therefore that is the dogma that applies here.  FEers have centuries of experiments interpreted from a round earth world view going against them.

Quote from: Darth Bishop on November 05, 2007, 12:49:54 PM

Excuse me, isn't the oldest dogma that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe? You can't call RE dogma, without calling FE Dogma².

That's a straw man.  The accepted dogma is that the earth is round, therefore that is the dogma that applies here.  FEers have centuries of experiments interpreted from a round earth world view going against them.

So you say that experimental results can be interpreted?? You just threw out your own experimental "evidence" by saying that, you realise.

The accepted dogma used to be that the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe. RE fought aggainst millenia of observations intepreted from a flat earth perspective. I certainly remember the fact that Galileo and Copernicus got a lot of hastle from the geocentric community when they put their theory and evidence forward.

Quote from: Roundy has been sacked on November 05, 2007, 03:31:51 PM

Quote from: Darth Bishop on November 05, 2007, 12:49:54 PM

Excuse me, isn't the oldest dogma that the earth is flat and the centre of the universe? You can't call RE dogma, without calling FE Dogma².

That's a straw man.  The accepted dogma is that the earth is round, therefore that is the dogma that applies here.  FEers have centuries of experiments interpreted from a round earth world view going against them.

So you say that experimental results can be interpreted??

Duh.

Have you heard of a hypothesis or should I run you through seventh grade science again?

~D-Draw

Here's a refresher:

The Scientific Method

So we've got about five different distances from different explorers. All this goes to show is how difficult accurate Antarctic navigation is.

wtf is seventh grade? Sorry that has no relevance to me.
Yes, scientific theories are based on interpretations of evidence and observation. Zetetic theories are made up and then evidence and observations are thrown together/made up to support them.
You claim that evidence in favour of RE is wrong because it has been interpreted from an RE perspective. What I am asking is do you acknowledge the fact that evidence in favour of FE could be equally as wrong because it is merely intepreted from an FE perspective.

That's the problem.  You have to consider both perspectives to have a shot at coming up with the correct answer.  REers simply don't, while FEers really have no choice.

So, the earth is neither a sphere or a plane? Since both sides interpret the evidence wrong?

Since this site is really a battle between the scientific and zetetic (although nobody uses it) methods, the scientific method has given us technology and other things, what has the zetetic method yielded, apart from "proof" the Earth is flat?

So, the earth is neither a sphere or a plane? Since both sides interpret the evidence wrong?

Since this site is really a battle between the scientific and zetetic (although nobody uses it) methods, the scientific method has given us technology and other things, what has the zetetic method yielded, apart from "proof" the Earth is flat?

Rofl's and LAWL's.

And we couldn't do without those. Oh yeah, and Tom Bishop.

So, the earth is neither a sphere or a plane? Since both sides interpret the evidence wrong?

Since this site is really a battle between the scientific and zetetic (although nobody uses it) methods, the scientific method has given us technology and other things, what has the zetetic method yielded, apart from "proof" the Earth is flat?

Seriously, you almost have 1000 posts and you still post crap like this? Sigh.