Infinite Infiniteness!

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 06:01:26 PM

You're joking, right?  Why is the geographic north pole not in the center of that map as is proposed by FET?

Why would it need to?

Because that's the point above which the sun, moon and celestial objects orbit above the FE.  Please show us how these celestial objects can do this if the geographic north pole is not the center of the FE?  I'd love to see a diagram.

Because that's the point above which the sun, moon and celestial objects orbit above the FE.  Please show us how these celestial objects can do this if the geographic north pole is not the center of the FE?  I'd love to see a diagram.

The earth's size is unknown. How can you say what is and isn't the center without knowing how big it is?

How do you know that it's not the center?

Why would the North Pole need to be in the exact center? Why can't it be off center?

If the earth is an infinite plane, the center of what, exactly?

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 06:59:54 PM

Because that's the point above which the sun, moon and celestial objects orbit above the FE.  Please show us how these celestial objects can do this if the geographic north pole is not the center of the FE?  I'd love to see a diagram.

The earth's size is unknown. How can you say what is and isn't the center without knowing how big it is?

How do you know that it's not the center?

Why would the North Pole need to be in the exact center? Why can't it be off center?

If the earth is an infinite plane, the center of what, exactly?

I'm sorry, but I didn't see an infinite plane in that link.  But, if you want to play that game, then fine.  Please show me a version of that more accurate map that includes lines of longitude and latitude.  Or, better yet, a version of that map that shows the circular orbits of the sun and moon above the FE.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see an infinite plane in that link.  But, if you want to play that game, then fine.  Please show me a version of that more accurate map that includes lines of longitude and latitude.  Or, better yet, a version of that map that shows the circular orbits of the sun and moon above the FE.

No. You can draw your own circles.

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 07:50:28 PM

I'm sorry, but I didn't see an infinite plane in that link.  But, if you want to play that game, then fine.  Please show me a version of that more accurate map that includes lines of longitude and latitude.  Or, better yet, a version of that map that shows the circular orbits of the sun and moon above the FE.

No. You can draw your own circles.

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 06:01:26 PM

You're joking, right?  Why is the geographic north pole not in the center of that map as is proposed by FET?

Why would it need to?

So you present a true Flat Earth map but, when challenged to show lattitude and longitude, you refuse to clarify it?

Is that because you can't clarify it (you don't know how longitude and latitude work, or you don't appreciate how important they are for navigation) or are you, yet again, stubbornly refusing to engage in an adult manner?

Anyway - back to the question at hand:

Why do you discount Scott and Amundsen's testimonies - testimonies which describe two independent, long trips overland to the centre of Antarctica and the true Geographical South Pole - but believe the earlier testimony of Ross who said that Antarctic exploration was impossible?

So you present a true Flat Earth map but, when challenged to show lattitude and longitude, you refuse to clarify it?

If you want to see a map with little sun caricatures and latitude lines drawn across the continents you can make it your own damn self.

Further down in that thread I linked the author has already provided a version of the map with latitude and longitude lines.

Why do you discount Scott and Amundsen's testimonies - testimonies which describe two independent, long trips overland to the centre of Antarctica and the true Geographical South Pole - but believe the earlier testimony of Ross who said that Antarctic exploration was impossible?

What's not to believe? They went to an area under Sigma Octantis (the south pole star) and came back.

What's not to believe? They went to an area under Sigma Octantis (the south pole star) and came back.

OK - two things:

1. Their long journeys - which you now do not dispute - mean that you were wrong (or lying) when you said that exploration of Antarctica was impossible because conditions were too hostile. (*)

2. Please explain the results of the 'shadow length over 24 hours' experiment.

* Edit - here is your quote:

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

OK - two things:

1. Their long journeys - which you now do not dispute - mean that you were wrong (or lying) when you said that exploration of Antarctica was impossible because conditions were too hostile. (*)

I never said that it wasn't possible to go a thousand and a half miles inland and come back.

2. Please explain the results of the 'shadow length over 24 hours' experiment.

What experiment? I haven't seen any details of any experiment.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2009, 07:39:10 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 06:59:54 PM

Because that's the point above which the sun, moon and celestial objects orbit above the FE.  Please show us how these celestial objects can do this if the geographic north pole is not the center of the FE?  I'd love to see a diagram.

The earth's size is unknown. How can you say what is and isn't the center without knowing how big it is?

How do you know that it's not the center?

Why would the North Pole need to be in the exact center? Why can't it be off center?

If the earth is an infinite plane, the center of what, exactly?

I'm sorry, but I didn't see an infinite plane in that link.  But, if you want to play that game, then fine.  Please show me a version of that more accurate map that includes lines of longitude and latitude.  Or, better yet, a version of that map that shows the circular orbits of the sun and moon above the FE.

I realise this doesn't exactly strengthen our point, but why does this suddenly matter now? The maps we had were approximations only. If you draw a circle with the pole as centre that extends to (roughly) the equator, you still get the same results as in the other map. I don't agree with some aspects of this map, but I do think that the continents are probably laid out in a way similar to this, rather than as in the map you posted earlier.

Quote

OK - two things:

1. Their long journeys - which you now do not dispute - mean that you were wrong (or lying) when you said that exploration of Antarctica was impossible because conditions were too hostile. (*)

I never said that it wasn't possible to go a thousand and a half miles inland and come back.

Yes you did:

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

Quote

2. Please explain the results of the 'shadow length over 24 hours' experiment.

What experiment? I haven't seen any details of any experiment.

I think that my source - I saw it in a documentary on The BBC a few years ago - is as good as the source you always give for your experiments - Rowbotham wrote about it in the 1880s.

I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

First off, the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base is an American Military Base funded by the Department of Defense, the same guys who maintain our fleet of GPS satellites.

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

This would give the Northern Hemisphere its short winter days and the Southern Hemisphere its long winter days.

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

What sort of mechanism would do that?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 03:30:45 AM

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

What sort of mechanism would do that?

There is no "mechanism" which can explain "midnight sun" in the Antarctic from a Flat earth perspective.

Edit: without leaving huge swates of the Northern Hemisphere in permanent darkness, that is!

The Flat earth died in 1919 when Scott and Amundsen reached the South Geographical Pole.

End of story.

Quote

I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

First off, the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base is an American Military Base funded by the Department of Defense, the same guys who maintain our fleet of GPS satellites.

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

This would give the Northern Hemisphere its short winter days and the Southern Hemisphere its long winter days.

Which "Sigma Octantis"?

There are at least three identical "multiple, layered, counter-rotating geared star-systems"  in the sky south of The Equator!

This Flat Earth Model is getting ridiculous now ...

Edit:

This should help:

 There are places on earth that doesn't have stars above them?

There are places on earth that doesn't have stars above them?

On The Flat earth, yes!

But the only people who live under those pieces of blank sky are uneducated savages and they cannot contribute to science.

See, for example:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0

Quote

So you present a true Flat Earth map but, when challenged to show lattitude and longitude, you refuse to clarify it?

If you want to see a map with little sun caricatures and latitude lines drawn across the continents you can make it your own damn self.

It's not my map or my theory.  Why should I do your work for you?

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

Yes, it is inconceivable.  Especially when you consider that Sigma Octantis is very near the "axle" of that celestial gear.  If it was near the edge of a gear then maybe, but not that close to the center.

On the original FET map, the one with the north pole centralized, journeys around the earth were explained as simply following a circular path of latitude, remaining equidistant from the north pole.

How does one explain such a journey on the new map, Tom?  Can you fly west from say...Central America to get to Tokyo?  I'm pretty sure on your 'new' map you'd be flying off the edge of the earth.  In answering that question do we then refer back to the 'old' map?

So you guys need more than one map (or more accurately...diagram) to explain FET?  Depending on what direct observation you're trying to explain away?  Not much of a theory then is it?

Quote

How is that possible?  According to this map, South America and Australia are pointing about 180 degrees away from each other.

That map is just an azimuthal projection of the RE. The true map of the earth looks something like this:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=059bd408775a4746d2eecc3f5fb772ed&topic=544.0

That map was presented on the .net site by "Sadokhan" who is almost certaintly the same person as "Levee" here.

Edit: and I would like Tom or Levee to mark on it the locations of Polaris and Sigma Octanis so we can gauge the various "orbits" of stars and The Sun.

Quote

I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

First off, the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base is an American Military Base funded by the Department of Defense, the same guys who maintain our fleet of GPS satellites.

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

This would give the Northern Hemisphere its short winter days and the Southern Hemisphere its long winter days.

You have stated previously that the sun "switching gears" and orbiting around the southern geographic pole would explain the midnight sun in Antarctica.  However, if that were so, wouldn't the entire northern hemisphere be dark when the sun was below (relative to the map) the Antarctic continent?

In addition, The sun's orbit around the north pole has been observed to gradually widen (observed to rotate closer to the horizon) until it eventually disappears below the horizon as the December solstice approaches.  How do you account for this observation with your switching gears theory?  

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 03:02:05 AM

Quote

2. Please explain the results of the 'shadow length over 24 hours' experiment.

What experiment? I haven't seen any details of any experiment.

I think that my source - I saw it in a documentary on The BBC a few years ago - is as good as the source you always give for your experiments - Rowbotham wrote about it in the 1880s.

I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

It is well-documented that Amundsen took sextant readings of The Sun (to determine his lattitude) for a full 24 hours whilst at The South Geographical Pole:

http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html

So The Sun was clearly visible in the sky for a full day - clearly impossible if it were in "orbit" around The North Pole on a Flat Earth.

The declination of The Sun would also have been constant at The Pole, within the experimental error of his Edwardian instruments.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 07, 2009, 03:12:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 03:02:05 AM

Quote

2. Please explain the results of the 'shadow length over 24 hours' experiment.

What experiment? I haven't seen any details of any experiment.

I think that my source - I saw it in a documentary on The BBC a few years ago - is as good as the source you always give for your experiments - Rowbotham wrote about it in the 1880s.

I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

It is well-documented that Amundsen took sextant readings of The Sun (to determine his lattitude) for a full 24 hours whilst at The South Geographical Pole:

http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html

So The Sun was clearly visible in the sky for a full day - clearly impossible if it were in "orbit" around The North Pole on a Flat Earth.

The declination of The Sun would also have been constant at The Pole, within the experimental error of his Edwardian instruments.

At last - Amundsen's own words!

"soon after 11 p.m. -- we were out again, and ready to catch the sun; the weather
was of the best, and the opportunity excellent. We four navigators
all had a share in it, as usual, and stood watching the course of the
sun. This was a labour of patience, as the difference of altitude
was now very slight. The result at which we finally arrived was of
great interest, as it clearly shows how unreliable and valueless a
single observation like this is in these regions. At 12.30 a.m. we
put our instruments away, well satisfied with our work, and quite
convinced that it was the midnight altitude that we had observed. The
calculations which were carried out immediately afterwards gave us 89 [degrees]
56 [minutes] S. We were all well pleased with this result."

http://www.fullbooks.com/The-South-Pole-Volume-22.html

You have stated previously that the sun "switching gears" and orbiting around the southern geographic pole would explain the midnight sun in Antarctica.  However, if that were so, wouldn't the entire northern hemisphere be dark when the sun was below (relative to the map) the Antarctic continent?

Yes, the Northerm Hemisphere would be in darkness for half the day, like it is in reality.

In addition, The sun's orbit around the north pole has been observed to gradually widen (observed to rotate closer to the horizon) until it eventually disappears below the horizon as the December solstice approaches.  How do you account for this observation with your switching gears theory?

Over the year the sun's path moves from the Tropic of Cancer to the Equator to the Tropic of Capricorn. Once the sun moves beyond the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, it "goes with the flow" and starts to gradually rotate around Sigma Octantis (the South Pole Star).



The above diagram is just an approximation. I should have made the circles a little broader. The parent map also needs a bit of work.

But nonetheless, as we can see, when the sun is in the Northern Hemisphere the Southern Hemisphere receives less light and shorter days. When the sun is in the Southern Hemisphere the Southern Hemisphere receives longer days while the Northern Hemisphere receives shorter days. This is what causes the seasons.

So does the sun travel around the northern, or southern gear during the equinox, where the entire planet has 12 hours of daylight?

So does the sun travel around the northern, or southern gear during the equinox, where the entire planet has 12 hours of daylight?

During equinox the sun is in the middle of "switching gears" and is passing over the equator.

Quote

You have stated previously that the sun "switching gears" and orbiting around the southern geographic pole would explain the midnight sun in Antarctica.  However, if that were so, wouldn't the entire northern hemisphere be dark when the sun was below (relative to the map) the Antarctic continent?

Yes, the Northerm Hemisphere would be in darkness for half the day, like it is in reality.

How can that be?  I know for a fact that the entire northern hemisphere is never in darkness at any one time, which is what I meant with the question.  I live in Maryland, I have family that lives in Japan which I keep in touch with atleast once a month.  I have confirmed during phone conversations (during winter months where the sun would (according to this model) be orbiting the southern geographic pole, that when it is night here it is day in Japan, and vice versa.  That is just an example, we know from time zones and weather reports around the globe that there is always sunlight in atleast part of the northern and southern hemisphere.

Thanks for the update BTW it is certainly better than nothing, though I still stand by the problems that this model appears to have.

I live in Maryland, I have family that lives in Japan which I keep in touch with atleast once a month.  I have confirmed during phone conversations (during winter months where the sun would (according to this model) be orbiting the southern geographic pole, that when it is night here it is day in Japan, and vice versa.

It's possible for Maryland to be in night and Japan to be in day while the sun is in its Southern Solstice in the above model.

But when the sun is on the bottom half of antarctica, wouldn't the entire northern hemisphere (and most of the south except antarctica) be in darkness? 

But when the sun is on the bottom half of antarctica, wouldn't the entire northern hemisphere (and most of the south except antarctica) be in darkness?  

That would depend how big the sun's spotlight is.