About that "150 foot wall of ice"...

Quote

Ok, so the answer to "hundreds of scientists" is the unverified story of one man/crew and a quote from a famous FE'er?  I fail to see any argument here, and yet everyone is just discussing these two, very insignificant items as though they have meaning.  Nothing can come of this.

Where is the actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides)?

Sir James Clark Ross' trip is exploratory evidence.

So that is yes.  You answer "hundreds of scientists" with "Sir James Clark Ross."

and hundreds of RE exploratory trips aren't evidence?

What trips? The ones where they make a circle around the same icy landmass?

It is extraordinary to think the RET model of earth can be so inaccurate, yet nobody seems to have trouble using it for navigation.

Navigation is possible on either model.

Your evidence - Second-hand FE hearsay.
My evidence  -  Current, with the Log from the person who made the voyage.

I wonder which one most people would choose ?

I didn't say that the voyage is impossible. If you weren't so thick you would see that I've been saying that it is possible on a Flat Earth.

My evidence  -  Current, with the Log from the person who made the voyage.

The word of one man is not actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides), and therefore, you have no evidence.

If you weren't so thick you would see that I've been saying that it is possible on a Flat Earth.

And if you weren't so rude we might be more likely to think kindly of your outrageous, un-scientific pseudo-evidence.

The word of one man is not actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides), and therefore, you have no evidence.

Exploration doesn't require the usage of the Scientific Method. Creating and testing a hypothesis isn't necessary to sail along an ice rim. Exploration is exploratory evidence.

And if you weren't so rude we might be more likely to think kindly of your outrageous, un-scientific pseudo-evidence.

There's nothing pseudo-scientific about sailing around an icy landmass or sailing along an ice rim.

Quote

And if you weren't so rude we might be more likely to think kindly of your outrageous, un-scientific pseudo-evidence.

There's nothing pseudo-scientific about sailing around an icy landmass or sailing along an ice rim.

There is if you can't jolly well prove you've done it!

Quote

and hundreds of RE exploratory trips aren't evidence?

What trips? The ones where they make a circle around the same icy landmass?

Quote

It is extraordinary to think the RET model of earth can be so inaccurate, yet nobody seems to have trouble using it for navigation.

Navigation is possible on either model.

Quote

Your evidence - Second-hand FE hearsay.
My evidence  -  Current, with the Log from the person who made the voyage.

I wonder which one most people would choose ?

I didn't say that the voyage is impossible. If you weren't so thick you would see that I've been saying that it is possible on a Flat Earth.

there are plenty of RE exploratory trips, I'll link some very old ones (becouse nowadays we use sattelities to map lands )

Apparently even ancient chinese people already knew the earth was a globe, this is a very old world map  http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/Beijing_1481_Presentation/Introduction.htm

The conspiracy is strong is china since along time ago.


More old maps http://www.antarctic-circle.org/tooley.htm

The first australian map of antartica http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/23/2282648.htm (I'm sure those damn aussies are part of the conspiracy)

I don't know, looks like to me that the idea of a round earth had been around centuries before the conspiracy.

Exploration doesn't require the usage of the Scientific Method.

If it is scientific exploration, it does.  All science requires it.

Creating and testing a hypothesis isn't necessary to sail along an ice rim.

True, but irrelevant.  Distraction.

Exploration is exploratory evidence.

The term is meaningless, scientifically, so it's definition is equally so.

Hey, listen.  If you are willing to admit that you are not offering any scientific basis for your belief in FE, then fine.  It's the fact that you are pretending to be scientific when you clearly are not that others may object to.

Navigation is possible on either model.

Of course it's possible, but obviously the maps of FET are very different from RET, so it might be a little more difficult with the more inaccurate one. Your ETA would be incorrect, and you wouldn't have enough fuel/supplies for the entire trip. You would encounter land masses where there shouldn't be one. Inconsistencies would be inevitable. Such an erroneous earth model used successfully for navigation without any inconsistencies being noticed is extraordinary.

Why didn't you answer my question about a compass?

Why didn't you answer my question about a compass?

Because he'd have to concede that referring to a compass on such an expedition would prove that you weren't sailing around Antactica because the compass bearing of the southern side of the island from your would be north, not south.

There is if you can't jolly well prove you've done it!

Why would Ross need to prove that he did it?

I don't know, looks like to me that the idea of a round earth had been around centuries before the conspiracy.

Of course it was. Man's capacity for self delusion is boundless.

If it is scientific exploration, it does.  All science requires it.

What the hell are you talking about? The Scientific Method isn't required to travel along an ice rim.

True, but irrelevant.  Distraction.

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with exploration.

The term is meaningless, scientifically, so it's definition is equally so.

Hey, listen.  If you are willing to admit that you are not offering any scientific basis for your belief in FE, then fine.  It's the fact that you are pretending to be scientific when you clearly are not that others may object to.

You're pretty dense if you think that the "Scientific Method" is required for exploration. The Scientific Method requires us to create a hypothesis and then create an experiment to test that hypothesis. James Clark Ross satisfied those requirements in one fell swoop with his journey. The journey itself is the experiment.

Why would Ross need to prove that he did it?

All claims must be proven in a way acceptable by both sides.

Of course it was. Man's capacity for self delusion is boundless.

Indeed it is.  That's why The Scientific Method must always be used.

What the hell are you talking about?

The subject line of my topic is quite clear... to some.

The Scientific Method isn't required to travel along an ice rim.

True.

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with exploration.

This is false.

You're pretty dense if you think that the "Scientific Method" is required for exploration. The Scientific Method requires us to create a hypothesis and then create an experiment to test that hypothesis. James Clark Ross satisfied those requirements in one fell swoop with his journey. The journey itself is the experiment.

Oh yea?  Well you're just a Poopy-Head!
Insulting me proves you have nothing meaningful to say.

He uses one of his tools of disruption to deviate from the discussion once again, rendering any debate pointless.

Just like always.

Wouldn't the real test for whether you've sailed around Antarctica or the great ice wall be this?

Head south (away from north!) till you can go no further.  Just before you slam into the ice, turn right and follow the coast till you get back where you started. (Simply leave Tom behind with some cereal, milk, and some kind of toy so you'll know when you got back to your starting point)

Did your overall journey take you in a clockwise or counter-clockwise circle?

Wouldn't the real test for whether you've sailed around Antarctica or the great ice wall be this?

Head south (away from north!) till you can go no further.  Just before you slam into the ice, turn right and follow the coast till you get back where you started. (Simply leave Tom behind with some cereal, milk, and some kind of toy so you'll know when you got back to your starting point)

Did your overall journey took you in a clockwise or counter-clockwise circle?

Oh, I like this one...  Is it gonna be the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") or just something about the definition of clockwise?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 15, 2009, 10:37:36 AM

There is if you can't jolly well prove you've done it!

Why would Ross need to prove that he did it?

Actually I was referring to the complete lack of proof for Flat Earthers' hypothetical "Ice Wall".

Wouldn't the real test for whether you've sailed around Antarctica or the great ice wall be this?

Head south (away from north!) till you can go no further.  Just before you slam into the ice, turn right and follow the coast till you get back where you started. (Simply leave Tom behind with some cereal, milk, and some kind of toy so you'll know when you got back to your starting point)

Did your overall journey take you in a clockwise or counter-clockwise circle?

I am not sure that you would know if you were travelling clockwise or anti-clockwise - all you could tell is that you were sailing due west or due east which would hold true on a flat or a round Earth.

You'd only be able to tell which way around the circel you'd gone if you were floating above your course:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=827.0

A simple gyroscopic inertial guidance system could easily tell you if you are rotating on any axis.  Since it is entirely internal to the vessel, there could not be any influence from the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy")

A simple gyroscopic inertial guidance system could easily tell you if you are rotating on any axis.  Since it is entirely internal to the vessel, there could not be any influence from the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy")

If the ship is going in a circle and The earth is spinning on its axis in a circel - will that mess things up?

A gyroscope in one location will precess once every 24 hours.

(A fact which Flat earthers acribe to the influence of The Sun in the sky!)

An interesting thing is that on a flat earth you would have to "trim" right (assuming clockwise navigation around antarctica) to avoid the wall and its army of sniper penguins.

Wouldn't you just go around a line of constant lattitude either way ...

And so have no way of knowing if the line of lattitude encircled the continent or vice versa?

If the ship is going in a circle and The earth is spinning on its axis in a circel - will that mess things up?

A gyroscope in one location will precess once every 24 hours.

(A fact which Flat earthers acribe to the influence of The Sun in the sky!)

Here's the way I understand it.

The precess effect in the way you are referring to is "local" within the sphere of the gyro meaning that it does not continue all the way around any axis.  The general orientation remains the same except for the "wobble" of one axis.  Any precession effects will be so small and distinct from the sum of all rotation (all lefts + all rights) of the vessel, that the results would be perfectly clear.  We're only interested in which direction occurred more than the other.  Easy.  Wobble becomes a non-issue.

At the end of the journey, the gyros will show that you turned one direction (left/ccw or right/cw) more than the other.  If you turned right/cw at the ice wall and your gyro says you went right/cw more than left/ccw to get back to that point, then the ice wall is a giant ring surrounding the part on which we live.

Yea, what is their answer for the journey time?

Antarctica has about 11,000 miles of coastline, compared to FE's 78,225 miles.  That's a bit off.

Hey, I just realized, WE'RE ON TOPIC!! 

Yea, what is their answer for the journey time?

Ocean currents.  The same with airline flight times in the southern hemidisc.  Apparently there are thousand mile per hour jet streams.  No real evidence for these, but they must be there, as they're needed for FET.

Hey, I just realized, WE'RE ON TOPIC!! 

Wait, what?

Yes, it's not just an illusion or a conspiracy, we are on topic...

...but we haven't gotten answers to my OP.

Nor have we any explanation for the inertial guided trip around Antarctica/Ice Wall experiment.  It posits that if you go South, turn right at the wall and go all the way 'round to your starting point, and your gyros tell you that you when clockwise(right), then you went around the inside of an ice wall.  It's a way of testing FET.  If your gyros say that you went counter-clockwise, then you went around the outside of an island.  In addition, the distance of the journey should be 78k miles for FER and only around 11k for REF.

Oh crap! I modified rather than quoted this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_Experiment

Interesting ...

The Flat Earth Society is on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

As is Rowbotham:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham

But "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" (1881) isn't.

So, my dear Flat earthers, could one or two of you remedy this by drafting a Wikipedia article which summarises two or three of Rowbotham's best experiments?

It might be a useful publicity tool for your thoeries, given how popular Wikipedia is.

And I, for one, would enjoy reading a nice, neat, logical and concise summary of the guy's life work.

One could also see it as a tribute or homage to one of your "founding fathers".

The Wallace-Hampden experiment was a wager, not a proper experiment. The wager was for a years worth of pay. Whoever lost had to give up the money to the other and live in poverty. An experiment would be conducted on the Bedford Canal to come to the truth of the matter. After the experiment was conducted, both men had walked away claiming that they and won their side of the argument and neither agreed to pay up.

Years later there was a libel suit between the two men, entirely unrelated to the wager. The court case was not about the shape of the earth.

Oh and, please quote the entire article in it's entirety:

The planists, however, were not yet defeated: On 11 May 1904 Lady Anne Blount hired a commercial photographer to use a telephoto lens camera to take a picture from Welney of a large white sheet she had placed, touching the surface of the river, at Rowbotham?s original position six miles away. The photographer, Edgar Clifton from Dallmeyer?s studio, mounted his camera two feet above the water at Welney and was surprised to be able to obtain a picture of the target, which should have been invisible to him given the low mounting point of the camera. Lady Blount published the pictures far and wide and, apart from some hypothesising concerning refraction, and dark hints of collusion between Blount and Clifton, these have not been explained.

You can read about all of this and more in the book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by the historian Christine Garwood. It's available on Amazon.

Oh crap! I modified rather than quoted this:

Just remembered what my post said before I stupidly obliterrated it.

Nor have we any explanation for the inertial guided trip around Antarctica/Ice Wall experiment.  

Flat earthers don't seem to be interested in experiments ...

Read "Earth Not A Globe" seems to be sufficient ...

Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment was proved bogus in a British court of law ...

Refernece on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_Experiment

That's why I, and others, don't trust his experiments.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment was proved bogus in a British court of law ...

The court case has nothing to do with the Bedford Canal Experiment. It was to do with the men threatening eachother's lives.

Please check out a copy of Christine Garwood's "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" before you presume to know the first thing about Flat Earth History or write any more assumptive nonsense on these message boards.

The Wallace-Hampden experiment was a wager, not a proper experiment.

What?

The wager wasn't on a horse race or a cricket match ...

The two guys repeated the same experiment, got different results and the Round Earther was proved right in court (The Bedford Level is not flat) because the Flat Earther was a libelous git.

The court case has nothing to do with the Bedford Canal Experiment. It was to do with the men threatening eachother's lives.

What?

That would have been a court case about affray or assualt ...

Not libel!