So No One Has Flown or Sailed Around the World? I Have!

Yeah, there's no real logic here.

I understand that when close the either pole, you're going to be dealing with different circumstances with your compass.

However, if, as I originally said, you take off from Los Angeles and fly due West (not westward from the north pole!) -- let's say you travel the 34th parallel -- you will end up back in L.A. and you WILL NOT have traveled in a "circle"! You will have traveled STRAIGHT around the globe. That's not a circle!

Again, why am I bothering? You guys don't believe that astronauts have circumnavigated the earth, so why would you believe that I (or any of us so-called sailors/pilots/scientists) know for a fact the world is a sphere.

Ernie...if I were you, I'd have begun pleading the fifth after your original post.

How do you go straight around a globe or disc without having traveled in a circle? That seems completely irrelevant.

Tom, you asked me to clarify something in my previous post and I would be happy to do just that. The accumulation of traditional scientific knowledge does not begin with a clean slate every generation, for the obvious reason that you do not need to, say, continuously invent the wheel if it has been demonstrated to work. Rather, knowledge is gathered through observation and experimentation and all that through the ages, building and revising and elaborating upon itself through the collective work of investigative minds. New ideas are formed; some are discarded, some are altered. The idea is not to arbitrarily assume anything, which is precisely what is happening with modern FET.

The idea of a discal world is simply accepted outright (thanks to literal interpretations of the Bible and casually looking around) and thereafter no rational inquiry is employed to test the validity of this. Instead, evidence which is scientifically valid is misinterpreted in order to satisfy the presupposed conclusion, or evidence is simply created. It doesn't really matter; ultimately, the evidence is secondary to the conclusion. This is called faith.

Quote from: markjo on February 16, 2011, 04:53:52 PM

During the Antarctic summer, the sun is above the horizon for a significant part of the day so navigation should be possible.  So, how would you know when you reach (the equivalent of) 91 degrees south latitude?

There are numerous ways one can find one's latitude. Perhaps you should read more.

The problem is that most methods of determining latitude just don't work on a flat earth.  For example, due to the relatively close proximity of the sun, measuring the elevation of the sun at noon only been shown to work at the equator and 45 degrees north and south latitude on the days of the equinox.  On other days of the year and at different latitudes, this method simply does not provide consistent results.  This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.

I suggest you lurk around rif for a bit. I was referring to Ranulph and Rowbotham.

It wasn't apparent who you were referring to. We were talking about multiple explorers in this thread. If we're talking about multiple explorers and you chime in talking about someone in singular it's just bad grammar.

There are books documenting both of their "experiments". If Ranulph is fallible due to a possibility for error, why is Rowbotham not?

Rowbotham's experiments are not fallible because I have reproduced them successfully myself.

However, if, as I originally said, you take off from Los Angeles and fly due West (not westward from the north pole!) -- let's say you travel the 34th parallel -- you will end up back in L.A. and you WILL NOT have traveled in a "circle"! You will have traveled STRAIGHT around the globe. That's not a circle!

As we've said, East and West are not straight lines even in the Round Earth model.

Again - if you are on top of a Round Earth 20 feet from the North Pole and decide to travel Westwards, where will your path take you?

Tom, you asked me to clarify something in my previous post and I would be happy to do just that. The accumulation of traditional scientific knowledge does not begin with a clean slate every generation, for the obvious reason that you do not need to, say, continuously invent the wheel if it has been demonstrated to work. Rather, knowledge is gathered through observation and experimentation and all that through the ages, building and revising and elaborating upon itself through the collective work of investigative minds. New ideas are formed; some are discarded, some are altered.

That doesn't sound like "starting afresh" to me. It sounds like you're blindly trusting the work of others.

This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.

Knowledge that the latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled is another way one could know that they are at 91 degrees south.

Quote

There are books documenting both of their "experiments". If Ranulph is fallible due to a possibility for error, why is Rowbotham not?

Rowbotham's experiments are not fallible because I have reproduced them successfully myself.

Tom Bishop cannot be in error? :O

Ah yes, the infallibility of Rowbotham's experiments. Now, Tom, I'm wondering if you can make a distinction for me: What is the difference between you successfully reproducing one of Rowbotham's experiments and some scientist successfully reproducing some other mainstream scientist's experiment?

Ah yes, the infallibility of Rowbotham's experiments. Now, Tom, I'm wondering if you can make a distinction for me: What is the difference between you successfully reproducing one of Rowbotham's experiments and some scientist successfully reproducing some other mainstream scientist's experiment?

The difference is that I've seen the results firsthand, whereas with two scientists performing an experiment I would need to trust in the methodology of others.

Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?

Man, what a polarizing topic!

Haha, no but seriously I have nothing to add, except that I am observing a rigorous adherence to the Zetetic Method in this thread. Supporting conjecture must be put forth in place of any opposing firsthand accounts, which in any case may be readily dismissed as inaccurate (intentionally so or otherwise). When presented with evidence, they will ask for proof. If anything resembling proof is put forth, it must be necessarily a deception, because all evidence must support FET because the world is flat. It is the very same mindset of a typical theist*, who firstly asserts the existence of a deity and so must "logically" embrace supporting evidence and reject all else.

It is essentially a reversal of the Scientific Method and this all supports the idea that FET is a faith-based belief structure and unrelated to any real scientific framework (see also: Creationism).

In conclusion, in the world of RET and traditional science, we (ideally) begin with the premise that we know nothing. In the world of FET, we begin with the premise that the world is flat.

* One such group, for example, has Jesus and the Bible; the other has Rowbotham and his book.

Now you understand how funny it is when they ask me for evidence to prove my theories and when they call my theories unscientific? Now you see?

Quote

However, if, as I originally said, you take off from Los Angeles and fly due West (not westward from the north pole!) -- let's say you travel the 34th parallel -- you will end up back in L.A. and you WILL NOT have traveled in a "circle"! You will have traveled STRAIGHT around the globe. That's not a circle!

As we've said, East and West are not straight lines even in the Round Earth model.

Again - if you are on top of a Round Earth 20 feet from the North Pole and decide to travel Westwards, where will your path take you?

but instruments on an airplane are reletive to the airplane right? (gyroscopic compass? maybe?  accelerometers?)
thus on the round earth, going straight east west would mean the airplane is going forward relative to its previouls location (albiet in a circle when viewed from the north pole)

and on a flat earth an airplane would actually have to turn to be in a circle, and hence, if anyone brought a gyroscopic compass, or accelerometer, you could detect htis right?

just a speculation, i dont know what instruments are on an airplane

but i do belive my thinking is correct

Well, New Earth, If you're asking me if I see the futility of demanding evidence to substantiate faith-based claims, then of course...this is self-evident. But I'm guessing that most contemporary proponents of FET are laboring under the delusion that their model relies on precisely the opposite of faith; indeed, they ironically accuse others of blind faith. And, in the case of Tom at least, the philosophy seems to be driven by some kind of solipsistic "If I haven't personally verified the experiment it is false" mindset, which has some pretty major drawbacks.

Anyway, none of that is immediately relevant to the OP. Is there any meaningful way for an airplane to ascertain the shape of the world with a simple latitudinal circumnavigation, given the models at hand? It doesn't seem like it to me.

Vhu, I think the problem with your visualization is that you're rendering the FET's model as a simple Euclidean disc in which you would have to constantly bank as you circumnavigate, as if you were simply flying in a circle over land. But this is not the case, their model utilizes curved space such that, if I'm not mistaken...the plane does actually fly in a straight line, but its path through space will still curve about in a circle when you look down on a flat representation of the model.

Incidentally, the same principle applies to RET, if you look at a "straight trip" from one point to another on a flat map, the path will be curved. But don't even try to ask about the convoluted nature of FET's world geometry.

sorry, i just always seen the FE map as a flat disk,

but bending space? how does that work?

Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?

Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?

In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.

If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.

Hmm, interesting...fair enough. I'm glad you brought up witchcraft, actually, as it seems to suggest that this philosophy does not exclusively relate to determining our cosmology, but ultimately to every aspect of our human experience. Is that fair to say?

Quote from: Around And About on February 16, 2011, 11:05:29 PM

Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?

Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?

In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.

If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.

Problem is you can't test most things for yourself to be sure because you are lacking proper equipment and resources that are only available to mainstream scientists who are directly funded by the government.

Quote from: Around And About on February 16, 2011, 11:05:29 PM

Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?

Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?

In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.

If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.

Tom has just stated (based on the reasoning of his previous post) that he does not accept atoms, molecules, electrons or any subatomic particles exist.  He needs to see them.

Quote

This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.

Knowledge that the latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled is another way one could know that they are at 91 degrees south.

What evidence do you have that latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled?

sorry, i just always seen the FE map as a flat disk,

but bending space? how does that work?

I'm fairly certain that this is a recently made up thing. I've been telling them that they needed bendy space for ages. Less then a year ago, Parsifal made up some stuff about the fourth dimension, that sounded reminiscent of a certain PS2 era fighting game, and most likely partially copypasta'd from the dimensions-math.org videos. It involved things being close together through the forth dimension but far away in the 3rd and lower dimensions. He called it tetaken.

Quote

This is why I ask if you have some other ways of determining one's latitude, especially beyond the artificial 90 degree south limit.

Knowledge that the latitude lines increase with every 72.5 miles traveled is another way one could know that they are at 91 degrees south.

and if by 72.5, you mean 69.1666666666666rep
then yes

Quote from: vhu9644 on February 17, 2011, 12:15:07 AM

sorry, i just always seen the FE map as a flat disk,

but bending space? how does that work?

I'm fairly certain that this is a recently made up thing. I've been telling them that they needed bendy space for ages. Less then a year ago, Parsifal made up some stuff about the fourth dimension, that sounded reminiscent of a certain PS2 era fighting game, and most likely partially copypasta'd from the dimensions-math.org videos. It involved things being close together through the forth dimension but far away in the 3rd and lower dimensions. He called it tetaken.

I like it

it is quite complicated to have a bended space that makes a circular path straight right?

Tom is right. I, for instance, am well known among the forums for rejecting the idea of organs based on this school of thought. If your doctor ever mentions any of your organs, he's a crook.

I really don't understand why people can't grasp the concept of flat map where continents represent a huge circle. It is the same as the globe except its unfolded. Picture the globe, now unfold it, there you got a flat earth map, nothing complicated.  The land masses and oceans are huge so even though they are laid out in a circle, a traveler either by car or plane is not gonna notice the curve, it will still fill like a straight line due to the great size of landmasses.

Quote from: Around And About on February 16, 2011, 11:05:29 PM

Sure, that's reasonable...and what is it that would convince you to trust a scientist's methodology? Or are you saying that you never would?

Why should I trust the results of something I've never experienced or tested for myself?

In the middle ages there were plenty of self declared men of higher learning who claimed that witches existed and were the cause of certain phenomena. A large majority of people believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft for a span of several hundred of years.

If I was alive in the middle ages what reason would I have to believe their claims? I would need to see witchcraft for myself to be convinced of its validity.

You might not want to hear this, and I'm sure I'll get flamed and trolled for this, but do you realise that there is a witch reading this, and yet you imply that witchcraft has not been around since the middle ages.

Man this forum is getting crazier and crazier, I love it. lol

I really don't understand why people can't grasp the concept of flat map where continents represent a huge circle. It is the same as the globe except its unfolded. Picture the globe, now unfold it, there you got a flat earth map, nothing complicated.  The land masses and oceans are huge so even though they are laid out in a circle, a traveler either by car or plane is not gonna notice the curve, it will still fill like a straight line due to the great size of landmasses.

I think that we can all grasp the concept just fine, it's only that it has little bearing on reality (like, indeed, this forum).

Quote from: IOA on February 16, 2011, 03:43:22 PM

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that is what took place?

Through deductive reasoning.

You are an explorer who believes that he is on the underside of a Round Earth traveling Southwards across the featureless tundra of Antarctica. What direction will you head once you hit 90 degrees South? You're going to go North, right? That's the only way you can go on an RE after all.

In FET traveling Northwards at 90 degrees South takes you back to the ocean and habitable areas.

Quote

Furthermore, if such an explanation is so easily accepted by you, why couldn't any of the other longitudinal circumnavigaters have made a similar mistake and actually did travel on the mainland?

It's likely that the others would make the same mistake.

Even if they tried to travel the opposite direction they came in at, the moment they looked at their compass and at the sky they would see that they were traveling in the wrong direction and adjust their path towards the North and towards the sun accordingly, believing that they were on a globe and that North was the most appropriate direction to travel after hitting 90^o S.

The error stems from believing that the earth is a globe.

Your only argument is that he thought he was continuing South (from his perspective, in relation to the path he had previously been taking) but had really... turned around and headed back the same way he came?

Tom is right. I, for instance, am well known among the forums for rejecting the idea of organs based on this school of thought. If your doctor ever mentions any of your organs, he's a crook.

My god...we're going to need to add Surgeons, Coroners, et al to the Sailor/Astronaut/Pilot group! It might be useful to begin compiling a list of professions that we can immediately discredit on here.

Quote from: Tausami on February 17, 2011, 06:31:58 PM

Tom is right. I, for instance, am well known among the forums for rejecting the idea of organs based on this school of thought. If your doctor ever mentions any of your organs, he's a crook.

My god...we're going to need to add Surgeons, Coroners, et al to the Sailor/Astronaut/Pilot group! It might be useful to begin compiling a list of professions that we can immediately discredit on here.

 Put your profession at the top of the list.