Infinite Infiniteness!

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 08, 2009, 05:43:06 AM

You've got me there (I cannot guess) ...

Do tell!

By using the words "They went to an area under Sigma Octantis (the south pole star) and came back." he can deny at a later stage that he never said they went to Antarctica or that their expedition took them over the ice wall (for example).

He could suggest for example that the area under Sigma Octantis was an ice floe in the right area. Who can disprove it? The word obfuscation comes to mind but there might be a better one.

I'm just wondering how Amundsen could claim to be beneath Sigma Octantis when he reached that area during the perpetual daylight season and the only star visible would be Sol.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 08, 2009, 05:56:04 AM

In the past Tom has said this about "The Ice Wall":

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2007, 05:20:16 PM

Antarctica exists. It just does not exist as a continent.

But his new map clearly shows it as a distinct and finite continent.

The map is not Tom's, and I think he was simply using it to demondtrate a particular concept. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that Tom believes the earth is exactly as depicted in that map. Rather, I think he believes that the continents may be aligned in that way, within the rim continent (Antarctica).

That map clearly has Antactica as a distinct, finite continent at the bottom (white bordered in blue).

Tom now agrees that that is where Scott and Amundsen went.

So we now have multiple maps and multiple explanations for known observations to make FET 'fit' these observations.

How about a unified theory, so that you don't need multiple, mutually exclusive explanations for these observations?

In the absence of that, one must logically resort to the more unified explanation, RET.

Actually Tom has acknowledged that he believes in this model over the other for quite some time now.  After this thread.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.msg557032#msg557032

Ah that brings back memories, one of my favorite threads.

It would seem that Tom goes back and forth, though, depending on which rabbit he needs to pull out of his hat.

It would seem that Tom goes back and forth, though, depending on which rabbit he needs to pull out of his hat.

It would also seem that the same old questions/problems about/with FET keep cropping up again and again.

Are we just going around in circles like The Flat earth Sun?

Or should that be a figure of eight?

So, according to that map, since GMT is pretty much a strait line running from North to south pole, it would go strait down the center of the map.  Therefore the International date line, on this map would run from the north pole, between Alaska and Asia (Bering strait), and loop around the side of the map and end up hitting Antarctica from the bottom side.  The line is a bit jagged compared to GMT but it is the endpoints that matter here.

Using what we know of Timezones, this means when the sun is on the bottom side of Antarctica, on the international date line, we know that it is Noon all along that line, all the way up through the bering strait (sp?).  It would be about 1-2p.m at the coast of Alaska, where below the Antarctic circle we know there is always daylight at those times, which can and has been observed.  With this FE model, the entire state of Alaska should be in complete darkness at Noon.  The sun is actually closer to these locations at midnight.

It would seem that Tom goes back and forth, though, depending on which rabbit he needs to pull out of his hat.

I like to occasionally post the link to that topic whenever I see him or anybody argue for the disc model.

Another question, then, about the new map:

Assuming that there is a true North Magnetic Pole sticking up somewhere in the Arctic ...

Is there a true South Magnetic Pole sticking up somewhere in Antarctica?

I am sure that explorers have reported going there (e.g. Shackleton in 1909).

And if there are these two magnetic poles both sticking up out of The Flat Earth ...

What is generating such and odd magnetic field?

Does The Earth have a giant bar magnet under it (like in my ident pic)?

So, according to that map, since GMT is pretty much a strait line running from North to south pole, it would go strait down the center of the map.  Therefore the International date line, on this map would run from the north pole, between Alaska and Asia (Bering strait), and loop around the side of the map and end up hitting Antarctica from the bottom side.  The line is a bit jagged compared to GMT but it is the endpoints that matter here.

Using what we know of Timezones, this means when the sun is on the bottom side of Antarctica, on the international date line, we know that it is Noon all along that line, all the way up through the bering strait (sp?).  It would be about 1-2p.m at the coast of Alaska, where below the Antarctic circle we know there is always daylight at those times, which can and has been observed.  With this FE model, the entire state of Alaska should be in complete darkness at Noon.  The sun is actually closer to these locations at midnight.

We already know that FET is really bad at predicting things like the "terminator" - the line of transition between day and night over the Earth's surface.

"The Spotlight Sun" has to have a weird shape all the time, and a shape that changes throughout the year.

Edit - here's a link, but there a much better animations out there somewhere:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24117.0

Edit 2: "The Sky Mirror" - that's my fav' thread!

I don't see how the spotlight could even be contiguous.

I don't see how the spotlight could even be contiguous.

Perhaps the continents move around so that there *is* no true Flat Earth map?

No the best defense FE has for this is ignorance, since it is only a hypothetical.  Therefore since the disc model is already sufficiently disproven by Midnight sun (no matter how much they want to deny it, evidence is overwhelming), this is the best model they have.  If we disprove this or certain parts of it, FE will merely claim that maybe it isn't exactly like that.

I am merely presenting challenges to this proposed model.

If FE'ers now believe in a continent of Antarctica (well some of them), something has got me wondering.

Which direction, from a point in Antarctica they would travel to get to the Ice Wall?

Ice wall is present in the disc model.  This model either has an infinite plain, or some other object yet to be discovered.

So we're back to the conflicting FE arguments then. "There is an Ice wall" "No, the earth is an infinite plane".


My question is really for Tom Bishop as it is the map he posted on the previous page that got me wondering.  One FE theory says that if you go south you get to the ice wall that surrounds the flat earth. Tom Bishop's map on the previous page shows a continent of Antarctica but no Ice wall, conveniently contradicting that other theory.

So, it raises even more questions.

1)  If you are on the southern side of that Tom Bishop's Antarctica, what direction is the Ice wall?

2)  On Tom Bishop's map, If you go south from Africa or South America or Australia where will you end up?

Basically, Tom Bishops map, provided to show how the sun is supposed to work makes a mockery of the other theories. Try as they might, they are never going to get it right.

2)  On Tom Bishop's map, If you go south from Africa or South America or Australia where will you end up?

Well that's where it gets really weird ...

Assuming that there is a South Magnetic Pole near the middle of the Antarctic continent (it is currently near Vostok Station) ...

Then as you head off from the bottom on the continent towards the bottom of the map ...

You will actually be heading North by your compass bearing ...

Indeed.

I fear it'll take a better man than Tom Bishop to make it understandable.

Does The Earth have a giant bar magnet under it (like in my ident pic)?

I have just realised that that pic should probably have one "north" pole and one "south pole" (not two "norths") ...

In science it is always a good day when you spot your own mistakes before anyone else does!

Edit:

Fixed.

:-)

So, according to that map, since GMT is pretty much a strait line running from North to south pole, it would go strait down the center of the map.  Therefore the International date line, on this map would run from the north pole, between Alaska and Asia (Bering strait), and loop around the side of the map and end up hitting Antarctica from the bottom side.  The line is a bit jagged compared to GMT but it is the endpoints that matter here.

Using what we know of Timezones, this means when the sun is on the bottom side of Antarctica, on the international date line, we know that it is Noon all along that line, all the way up through the bering strait (sp?).  It would be about 1-2p.m at the coast of Alaska, where below the Antarctic circle we know there is always daylight at those times, which can and has been observed.  With this FE model, the entire state of Alaska should be in complete darkness at Noon.  The sun is actually closer to these locations at midnight.

bump.
 any comment?

Quote from: Ragnarr on July 08, 2009, 09:17:12 AM

So, according to that map, since GMT is pretty much a strait line running from North to south pole, it would go strait down the center of the map.  Therefore the International date line, on this map would run from the north pole, between Alaska and Asia (Bering strait), and loop around the side of the map and end up hitting Antarctica from the bottom side.  The line is a bit jagged compared to GMT but it is the endpoints that matter here.

Using what we know of Timezones, this means when the sun is on the bottom side of Antarctica, on the international date line, we know that it is Noon all along that line, all the way up through the bering strait (sp?).  It would be about 1-2p.m at the coast of Alaska, where below the Antarctic circle we know there is always daylight at those times, which can and has been observed.  With this FE model, the entire state of Alaska should be in complete darkness at Noon.  The sun is actually closer to these locations at midnight.

bump.
 any comment?

I'm still not sure if anyone has explained why the South Celestial Pole - the point in the southern sky around which all of the stars rotate - is always reported as being due south.

I really can't see how this can be true if The Earth isn't a sphere ...

Edit - sorry, wrong thread (am getting confusigated):

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30245.msg741319#msg741319

This is quite an interesting move by Tom.  First he accepted bendy light, now this.  I am agnostic on the issue, though.  I am working on a model under the traditional layout that may have the same star system visible across the entire southern annulus.

here is a map of Tom's projection, complete with lattitude and longitude.  My previous question still has not been answered.

That map's lovely but it contradicts the FAQ Answers:

1)  There is no Ice Wall

2) North is not in the middle.

There's probably more contradictions but those 2 major ones need to ironed out first I think.
 

Didn't I already explain this to you!?  Read the thread, there are two separate flat earth geographic models.  ONLY ONE OF THEM HAS ANTARCTICA AS AN ICE WALL.

Didn't I already explain this to you!?  Read the thread, there are two separate flat earth geographic models.  ONLY ONE OF THEM HAS ANTARCTICA AS AN ICE WALL.

There's no need to shout Ragnarr, I am well aware of the two FE models and until the differences are ironed out it's going to be difficult for you to get an answer. I'd like to see the answer as well.

I cannot believe for one moment though that Tom Bishop believes that this map is an accurate representation of the flat earth. He cannot keep posting "Read Earth Not a Globe by Stanley Birley Rowbotham" which in the second edition has this:

If we travel by land or sea, from any part of the earth in the direction of any meridian line, and towards the northern central star called "Polaris," we come to one and the same place, a region of ice, where the star which has been our guide is directly above us, or vertical to our position. This region is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH; and recent observations seem to prove that it is a vast central tidal sea, nearly a thousand miles in diameter, and surrounded by a great wall or barrier of ice, eighty to a hundred miles in breadth. If from this central region we trace the outline of the lands which project or radiate from it, and the surface of which is above the water, we find that the present form of the earth or "dry land," as distinguished from the waters of the "great deep," is an irregular mass of capes, bays, and islands, terminating in great bluffs or headlands, projecting principally towards the south, or, at least, in a direction away from the great northern centre.

The FES have a bad habit of ignoring questions that they either can't answer or find difficult to answer. I'm sure you have noticed that.

Tom uses this model whenever somebody pushes him with midnight sun in antarctica.  Some time ago I was able to show, using his requirements that there is overwhelming documented evidence of midnight sun in antarctica.  Pre-NASA observations as he requested.

I know he still argues the disc model, but I think that is just for Noobs, either that or he is just completely unwilling to except evidence shown to him.

The fact is, as I pointed out, both models have serious flaws in them, mostly with the sun's spotlight and movement.  Each model appears to explain some flaws of the other model, but there is no model that explains all phenomena.

Is the model to scale?

I've been to antarctica at the appropriate time and the sunsets and sunrises did not match up to the right times. 

I've been to antarctica at the appropriate time and the sunsets and sunrises did not match up to the right times. 

Care to elaborate?

You are well known for exaggerating the real or perceived failings of modern science's failings while totally sweeping your own "theories'" failings under the rug.