Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica

  • 90 Replies
  • 38553 Views
Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« on: December 11, 2009, 02:08:21 PM »
According to the FAQ, the circumference of the flat earth is 78,000 miles. That means it would take 78,000 miles of travel distance to completely circumnavigate the icewall and end up where you started.

The coastline of Antarctica, which is actually this icewall, is about 11,000 miles in coastline. Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

There would be quite a noticeable time difference in travelling 11,000 miles compared to 78,000.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 02:10:05 PM by Arkanos »

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2009, 06:05:01 PM »
Also, I tried to travel along the ice wall the other day.  I went south, then when I got to the wall, I turned right when I got to the wall.  I expected, based on my flat earth map, to make all right turns, but I ended up having to make all lefts!  whats the deal??? 







now that I think about it, it didn't take nearly as long as expected either.... what gives?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2009, 07:31:55 PM »
Quote
Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

That's because it doesn't.

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2009, 07:34:04 PM »
Quote
Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

That's because it doesn't.

Then why is the coastline of Antarctica recorded to be 11,000 miles?

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2009, 08:52:42 PM »
The real question is why doesn't a motivated and enterprising flat earther try this his or her self?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2009, 08:56:08 PM »
Quote
Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

That's because it doesn't.

Then why is the coastline of Antarctica recorded to be 11,000 miles?

Who recorded it?

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2009, 11:26:20 PM »
Quote
Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

That's because it doesn't.

Then why is the coastline of Antarctica recorded to be 11,000 miles?

Who recorded it?

Fedor Konyukhov did it in 102 Days.   If it was 78,000 miles he would have had to average 767 miles per day!

As it stands, he would have averaged a more realistic 107 miles a day.

Tom, I know you are going to reject this evidence out of hand.  I'm interested to know the reason.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Atom Man

  • 195
  • Watch out for that tree
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2009, 05:09:35 AM »
Just for shits and giggles can we also get at least one reference that is not a FES one. As a point of interest, how come Tom you accept any random piece of FE theory with no proof or evidence. When it comes to RE evidence you pick on the smallest detail or ask for the data.
Urinal Etiquette is like Ghost Busting: Never Cross the Streams

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2009, 06:18:26 AM »
Waiting to see what these haters have to say about good ole Fedor...

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2009, 06:25:58 AM »
Who recorded it?

See Moons post above.

Who recorded the circumference for the flat earth map?

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2009, 07:29:53 AM »
I'm sure they didn't, Licey...  not doubt they took the pole to pole measurement of the globe and used that as the radius give or take and induced from there.  It'd probably be even more accurate if they used their own measurements instead of using those of unreliable REers

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2009, 01:57:54 PM »
Quote
Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

That's because it doesn't.

Then why is the coastline of Antarctica recorded to be 11,000 miles?

Who recorded it?

Fedor Konyukhov did it in 102 Days.   If it was 78,000 miles he would have had to average 767 miles per day!

As it stands, he would have averaged a more realistic 107 miles a day.

Tom, I know you are going to reject this evidence out of hand.  I'm interested to know the reason.

There's another large number of people that have to be added to the conspiracy list. Why sponsor a race around the icewall if you're trying to hide it?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2009, 07:20:59 PM »
Quote
Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

That's because it doesn't.

Then why is the coastline of Antarctica recorded to be 11,000 miles?

Who recorded it?

Fedor Konyukhov did it in 102 Days.   If it was 78,000 miles he would have had to average 767 miles per day!

As it stands, he would have averaged a more realistic 107 miles a day.

Tom, I know you are going to reject this evidence out of hand.  I'm interested to know the reason.

I don't think that account is fabricated. He might have gone around something. Not necessarily the Ice Rim.

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2009, 07:51:55 PM »
you think theres another fucking continent down there we found but didn't realize or aknowledge??? jesus childrapist christ what the fuck?  this can't really be what your saying can it?

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2009, 10:16:46 PM »
Quote
Why does it only take 11,000 miles to totally circumnavigate Antarctica and end up where you started, when it should take 78,000?

That's because it doesn't.

Then why is the coastline of Antarctica recorded to be 11,000 miles?

Who recorded it?

Fedor Konyukhov did it in 102 Days.   If it was 78,000 miles he would have had to average 767 miles per day!

As it stands, he would have averaged a more realistic 107 miles a day.

Tom, I know you are going to reject this evidence out of hand.  I'm interested to know the reason.

I don't think that account is fabricated. He might have gone around something. Not necessarily the Ice Rim.

You've got to be kidding.


Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2009, 10:40:48 PM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Antarctica

The distinct continent model fails hardcore.

I would love to see an accurate representation of Antarctica on a flat earth, if it is not this supposed "ice wall."

Also, it's kind of lame that you have these 'backup theories.'  "Oh, it doesn't make sense if Antarctica is an ice wall, good thing we have this other theory which states it may actually be a continent, which totally contradicts my initial beliefs"

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2009, 10:49:22 PM »
you think theres another fucking continent down there we found but didn't realize or aknowledge??? jesus childrapist christ what the fuck?  this can't really be what your saying can it?
Tom Bishop does not understand the minimum basics of navigation, but yet he frequently declares that everyone else is an illiterate on the subject.

He thinks nobody does a decent job of checking the compass regularly, use dead reckoning, use the sextant; in short, Tom Bishop has to insult every navigator in the world that has traveled south of the equator even though he has demonstrated no skill whatsoever in the field he criticizes everyone else.

Anyone could easily see that the continent Tom Bishop has just invented is not Antarctica and not the Ice Wall he invented just by looking at the compass every now and then and seeing that the bearing of the ship goes full circle from South to East to North to West (or the other way around) if they travel around an island or continent that is not Antarctica or the "ice wall".

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2009, 11:44:44 PM »
Fedor Konyukhov did it in 102 Days.   If it was 78,000 miles he would have had to average 767 miles per day!

As it stands, he would have averaged a more realistic 107 miles a day.

Tom, I know you are going to reject this evidence out of hand.  I'm interested to know the reason.

I don't think that account is fabricated. He might have gone around something. Not necessarily the Ice Rim.

You're very light on evidence here, Tom.   More inportantly, though:

Zeteticism is simply to start science from experiment rather than hypothesis and to leave no rock unturned or bush unmolested to reach the ultimate truths of the universe.

It seems like I've turned the "rock" over, you haven't liked the look of what's underneath, so you've chosen to put it back again.

-I call that "Selective Use of Evidence to Support Beliefs".   Another hallmark of pseudoscience.

YOU FAIL
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2009, 12:30:35 AM »
I've never said that the original FET map is correct. It's for visual purposes only, as I've been saying all along.

I never made any claim to measure or map out the layout of the entire world.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2009, 01:37:14 AM »
I've never said that the original FET map is correct. It's for visual purposes only, as I've been saying all along.

I never made any claim to measure or map out the layout of the entire world.

Oh yes you have:
I don't think that account is fabricated. He might have gone around something. Not necessarily the Ice Rim.

The "Ice Rim" sounds like a geographic object to me.

Also in an previous thread:
When James Clark Ross sailed along the coast of the Ice Wall he reported sailing a distance of over 60,000 miles. You can read all about it in Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and 100 Proofs, all of which are linked and available in my signature link.

That appears to be an attempt (by you) to define the boundaries of the FE.  Remember that like Ross, Fedor Konyukhov would have had a compass, telling him which direction he was sailing in.  It seems impossibly unlikely that he would have made such a blindingly obvious navigational mistake.

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2009, 01:50:48 AM »
Quote
Oh yes you have:

I haven't claimed to measure or map out anything. I've only related what Sir James Clark Ross did.

Quote
That appears to be an attempt (by you) to define the boundaries of the FE.  Remember that like Ross, Fedor Konyukhov would have had a compass, telling him which direction he was sailing in.  It seems impossibly unlikely that he would have made such a blindingly obvious navigational mistake.

The compass doesn't even work in the Antarctic or Arctic Circles. I don't know why you'd think that he would use one where it wouldn't work. The compass only really works on a narrow strip of land where the majority of the world lives.

Anyone living in the Arctic circle, for example, could tell you that the compass does not work there due to the field lines being vertical.

The compass barely even works at the longitude of Seattle, Washingtion. At that longitude the field lines are at an angle and compass needle is already scraping along its bottom.

Evidence: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html

    "So, what would happen to your compass as you walked north across Canada, towards the location of the North Magnetic Pole out on the Arctic ice? Well, here in Seattle the magnetic field is already tilting down into the ground, and I'm nowhere near the north pole. My compass still points north, but the needle is tilted, and the north end is scraping the bottom of the compass. If I started walking north, it would tilt more and more until it hit bottom and wouldn't work anymore."

The author of the article, William Beaty, goes on to explain that the compass is only usable in a very limited region between the Arctic and Antarctic circles. The compass needle is unable align with the vertical magnetic fields and defy "gravity" at the Northern and Southern regions of the earth, thus becoming useless to the explorer.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 02:55:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2009, 03:43:10 AM »
The compass doesn't even work in the Antarctic or Arctic Circles. I don't know why you'd think that he would use one where it wouldn't work. The compass only really works on a narrow strip of land where the majority of the world lives.

Anyone living in the Arctic circle, for example, could tell you that the compass does not work there due to the field lines being vertical.

The compass barely even works at the longitude of Seattle, Washingtion. At that longitude the field lines are at an angle and compass needle is already scraping along its bottom.

Evidence: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html

    "So, what would happen to your compass as you walked north across Canada, towards the location of the North Magnetic Pole out on the Arctic ice? Well, here in Seattle the magnetic field is already tilting down into the ground, and I'm nowhere near the north pole. My compass still points north, but the needle is tilted, and the north end is scraping the bottom of the compass. If I started walking north, it would tilt more and more until it hit bottom and wouldn't work anymore."

The author of the article, William Beaty, goes on to explain that the compass is only usable in a very limited region between the Arctic and Antarctic circles. The compass needle is unable align with the vertical magnetic fields and defy "gravity" at the Northern and Southern regions of the earth, thus becoming useless to the explorer.


As usual, Tom Bishop does not even read his own quoted articles. If you read the very next paragraph following the piece he quoted, you will read:

"If I used a good, expensive compass, then the needle would be on a little axel and would not be able to tilt."

and a few paragraphs later,

"There is another type of compass besides the normal, everyday type. These compasses are called 'dip needles,' and are positioned vertically. Their needles rotate downward, not sideways as with an everyday compass."

And as always, the claims Tom Bishop makes about James Clarke Ross' voyage are totally wrong. He spent years going back and forth along the coasts of Antarctica, and his total trip, with the initial leg to Antarctica and some trips to South America and Australia totaled some 60000 miles and covered about 5/6 of Antarctica's coastline. This has been shown so many times that Tom Bishop does not even bother to deny it any more, he just waits a few months and makes this claim again as if nobody had demolished his arguments before.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2009, 04:06:51 AM »
Quote
As usual, Tom Bishop does not even read his own quoted articles. If you read the very next paragraph following the piece he quoted, you will read:

"If I used a good, expensive compass, then the needle would be on a little axel and would not be able to tilt."

and a few paragraphs later,

"There is another type of compass besides the normal, everyday type. These compasses are called 'dip needles,' and are positioned vertically. Their needles rotate downward, not sideways as with an everyday compass."

Even the dip needle only gets you so far.

Once you get into the Arctic or Antarctic circle the dip needle points directly downwards as the field lines are vertical. You still don't know which way you are going, or which way is North. The dip needle is completely useless when it's pointing directly downwards throughout the entirety of the Arctic circle.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2009, 04:27:26 AM »
Good job we've got GPS as well now then isn't it?  ;)
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2009, 04:31:53 AM »
Good job we've got GPS as well now then isn't it?  ;)

GPS doesn't provide direction.

From http://www.gpsreview.net/electronic-compass/

    "The GPS system itself can only provide information about where the device is. At the core GPS does not provide speed information and it does not provide direction information."

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2009, 05:24:50 AM »
Good job we've got GPS as well now then isn't it?  ;)

GPS doesn't provide direction.

From http://www.gpsreview.net/electronic-compass/

    "The GPS system itself can only provide information about where the device is. At the core GPS does not provide speed information and it does not provide direction information."

You must get lost a lot if you can't figure out that GPS will tell you if you are going in the direction you want by comparing where it told you you were with where it tells you you are now. Duh. From that, the average human (not you with your vestigial hindbrain) could work out what direction they travelled in.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16842
Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2009, 05:30:31 AM »
We were talking about finding north.

GPS doesn't tell you which way is north.

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2009, 09:07:30 AM »

The compass barely even works at the longitude of Seattle, Washingtion. At that longitude the field lines are at an angle and compass needle is already scraping along its bottom.

Evidence: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html


really, tom?

I live at a latitude of 57.5 degrees north.
Seattle is 47.6 degrees north.

the compass works perfectly well here, I have many times in my life used compasses while mountaineering and hillwalking.

yet again, your claims are absolute and utter nonsense.

Re: Circumference of flat earth/coastline of Antarctica
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2009, 09:13:24 AM »
I never made any claim to measure or map out the layout of the entire world.

Arguing from a base of ignorance. Is there anything more satisfying?