Which way to the centre?

The North Pole is always depicted as being at the centre of a flat earth. Is there any evidence to suggest that North is central and South is around the edge, rather than the reverse? How do you know the Ice Wall isn't in the north? This idea would completely explain how people have explored Antarctica, circumnavigated it etc. and noticed nothing unusual.

It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.

It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.

No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:25:31 AM

It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.

No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.

Except that the southern part of the world is far more dominated by ocean. The continents as they have been charted will still fit on the map, all you need to realise is that the oceans are wider in the south than RET would suggest.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 11:05:48 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:25:31 AM

It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.

No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.

Except that the southern part of the world is far more dominated by ocean. The continents as they have been charted will still fit on the map, all you need to realise is that the oceans are wider in the south than RET would suggest.

Hmmm, funny that, why would the world's map makers have mapped the oceans in the southern hemisphere at half their real size, yet everything in the rest of the world accurately? Perhaps they sent Rowbottom to accomplish the task?

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 04:23:03 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 11:05:48 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:25:31 AM

It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.

No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.

Except that the southern part of the world is far more dominated by ocean. The continents as they have been charted will still fit on the map, all you need to realise is that the oceans are wider in the south than RET would suggest.

Hmmm, funny that, why would the world's map makers have mapped the oceans in the southern hemisphere at half their real size, yet everything in the rest of the world accurately? Perhaps they sent Rowbottom to accomplish the task?

Shipping in the south isn't as important, so they could get away with being lazy.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 04:53:30 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 04:23:03 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 11:05:48 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:25:31 AM

It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.

No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.

Except that the southern part of the world is far more dominated by ocean. The continents as they have been charted will still fit on the map, all you need to realise is that the oceans are wider in the south than RET would suggest.

Hmmm, funny that, why would the world's map makers have mapped the oceans in the southern hemisphere at half their real size, yet everything in the rest of the world accurately? Perhaps they sent Rowbottom to accomplish the task?

Shipping in the south isn't as important, so they could get away with being lazy.

Good grief, Wilcox knows nothing about history as well as science. I suggest you read up on the history of Captain James Cook, the founding of colonies in New Zealand and Australia (by both ancient and more modern people), Thor Heyerdahl's travels aboard the Kon Tiki and anything else you fancy about shipping in the 1800s. Then you will realise just how important knowing the size of the southern oceans was, because back then, unlike in the northern hemisphere, you had to go a hell of a long way between reference points on land.

Quote from: Kathleen Wilcox on September 20, 2009, 05:01:59 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 04:53:30 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 04:23:03 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 11:05:48 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:25:31 AM

It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.

No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.

Except that the southern part of the world is far more dominated by ocean. The continents as they have been charted will still fit on the map, all you need to realise is that the oceans are wider in the south than RET would suggest.

Hmmm, funny that, why would the world's map makers have mapped the oceans in the southern hemisphere at half their real size, yet everything in the rest of the world accurately? Perhaps they sent Rowbottom to accomplish the task?

Shipping in the south isn't as important, so they could get away with being lazy.

Good grief, Wilcox knows nothing about history as well as science. I suggest you read up on the history of Captain James Cook, the founding of colonies in New Zealand and Australia (by both ancient and more modern people), Thor Heyerdahl's travels aboard the Kon Tiki and anything else you fancy about shipping in the 1800s. Then you will realise just how important knowing the size of the southern oceans was, because back then, unlike in the northern hemisphere, you had to go a hell of a long way between reference points on land.

In the age of sail ships frequently went off course due to wind storms. No one ships anything south of australia.

This is just laughable.

Shipping in the south isn't as important, so they could get away with being lazy.

What about airlines that fly between South America, South Africa and Australia?

What about airlines that fly between South America, South Africa and Australia?

They follow strong air currents.

This is still laughable.

This is still laughable.

Can you please contribute more than how laughable everything is, or not contribute anything at all?  We do have a rule against low content posting here.

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 05:49:34 PM

What about airlines that fly between South America, South Africa and Australia?

They follow strong air currents.

Both ways?

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 05:55:24 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 05:49:34 PM

What about airlines that fly between South America, South Africa and Australia?

They follow strong air currents.

Both ways?

Absolutely, that's the conspiracy at work.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 05:55:24 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 05:49:34 PM

What about airlines that fly between South America, South Africa and Australia?

They follow strong air currents.

Both ways?

Yes.

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 08:20:01 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 05:55:24 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 05:49:34 PM

What about airlines that fly between South America, South Africa and Australia?

They follow strong air currents.

Both ways?

Yes.

Neat trick.  Now, if only you could support that claim with some evidence.

Neat trick.  Now, if only you could support that claim with some evidence.

It's not a trick; the air flows one way in one place; and a short distance away it flows the other way. The evidence is that a flight from Johannesburg to Perth (which I have personally travelled) takes eleven hours and not thirty.

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 11:14:38 PM

Neat trick.  Now, if only you could support that claim with some evidence.

It's not a trick; the air flows one way in one place; and a short distance away it flows the other way. The evidence is that a flight from Johannesburg to Perth (which I have personally travelled) takes eleven hours and not thirty.

How did you measure the wind velocity during that flight?

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 11:22:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 11:14:38 PM

Neat trick.  Now, if only you could support that claim with some evidence.

It's not a trick; the air flows one way in one place; and a short distance away it flows the other way. The evidence is that a flight from Johannesburg to Perth (which I have personally travelled) takes eleven hours and not thirty.

How did you measure the wind velocity during that flight?

He looked outside his window, obviously. 

It's not a trick; the air flows one way in one place; and a short distance away it flows the other way.

Doesn't it blow the pseudolites off course?

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2009, 11:14:38 PM

Neat trick.  Now, if only you could support that claim with some evidence.

It's not a trick; the air flows one way in one place; and a short distance away it flows the other way. The evidence is that a flight from Johannesburg to Perth (which I have personally travelled) takes eleven hours and not thirty.

Did you realise that is also evidence for a round earth? Because your winds would have to be travelling faster than the speed of sound to make the trip so quickly.
Oh yeah, Roundy? It's my thread, I posed the question, so if I want to say the FES's feeble attempts at excuses are laughable, I shall.

Did you realise that is also evidence for a round earth? Because your winds would have to be travelling faster than the speed of sound to make the trip so quickly.

And why is that a problem?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 21, 2009, 11:33:39 AM

Did you realise that is also evidence for a round earth? Because your winds would have to be travelling faster than the speed of sound to make the trip so quickly.

And why is that a problem?

It's a problem because of what would happen if a luckless aircraft should stray into one of these faster-than-a-tornado winds pointing in the wrong direction. It would be unable to make any headway at all. It would be blown backwards. Pilots would, at some point, have encountered this.
It's also a problem because winds that fast have never been measured on this planet. To claim that commercial aircraft routinely make use of them is therefore ludicrous.
It's also a problem with the general laws of gas pressure which would mean that there would be so much resistive force as air molecules slammed into each other that it would be impossible for them to sustain a long stream of wind without it dissipating in other directions. The only sustained long stream of wind left would be the hot air spewing forth from your babbling mouth.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 21, 2009, 11:33:39 AM

Did you realise that is also evidence for a round earth? Because your winds would have to be travelling faster than the speed of sound to make the trip so quickly.

And why is that a problem?

Because supersonic winds are impossible?

God, I must be slowing down.  It took me this long to realize that I've been suckered into another RoboSteveBinLaden troll. 

There is no logical reason why winds cannot surpass the speed of sound.

You forgot to mention the part about how the Hell the plane is staying at certain height away from the ground if the Earth is accelerating towards it, this would mean the plane is also accelerating vertically somehow at 9.8m/s2 or whatever

It's a problem because of what would happen if a luckless aircraft should stray into one of these faster-than-a-tornado winds pointing in the wrong direction. It would be unable to make any headway at all. It would be blown backwards. Pilots would, at some point, have encountered this.

You don't just go straight from stationary air to supersonic air. There's a gradient; as soon as the pilots noticed a calm headwind, they would steer clear of it. They'd never get to the extreme centre.

It's also a problem because winds that fast have never been measured on this planet. To claim that commercial aircraft routinely make use of them is therefore ludicrous.

They have been measured; that is how airlines know where they are.

It's also a problem with the general laws of gas pressure which would mean that there would be so much resistive force as air molecules slammed into each other that it would be impossible for them to sustain a long stream of wind without it dissipating in other directions.

It is probable that air has lower viscosity at higher relative speeds. I don't know if this has ever been tested.

You forgot to mention the part about how the Hell the plane is staying at certain height away from the ground if the Earth is accelerating towards it, this would mean the plane is also accelerating vertically somehow at 9.8m/s2 or whatever

Yes, it is "somehow" accelerating up. Never mind the fact that wings are designed to generate sufficient lift to keep a plane off the ground, it is "somehow" accelerating up.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 21, 2009, 02:20:36 PM

It's also a problem with the general laws of gas pressure which would mean that there would be so much resistive force as air molecules slammed into each other that it would be impossible for them to sustain a long stream of wind without it dissipating in other directions.

It is probable that air has lower viscosity at higher relative speeds. I don't know if this has ever been tested.

Please refer to Bernoulli's principle.

If the air was at a lower viscosity, (Or as levee would like to think of it, non-viscous) then airplanes WOULDN'T fly, since the lift couldn't be created. Also, there's a reason commercial jets don't fly that fast. They aren't made to go that fast, and I personally doubt they'd hold up well, and without notice of going supersonic speeds. All airline passengers are naturally acclimated to going that fast and they don't pass out?

Adam Savage from mythbusters did when he got to fly with the blue angels.