Why cant we go further North than the North pole?

If the earth was flat, then obviously the South pole is at the centre (because theres a base there) so why cant we go beyond the north pole?

Engage brain before fingers.

Engage brain before fingers.

Reported for low content.

Quote from: Thork on July 16, 2011, 02:53:37 PM

Engage brain before fingers.

Reported for low content.

If you want to report something, just do it; there's no need to post about it and contribute to the low content posting yourself.

As for the OP:

Engage brain before fingers.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 02:56:03 PM

Quote from: Thork on July 16, 2011, 02:53:37 PM

Engage brain before fingers.

Reported for low content.

If you want to report something, just do it; there's no need to post about it and contribute to the low content posting yourself.

As for the OP:

Quote from: Thork on July 16, 2011, 02:53:37 PM

Engage brain before fingers.

Oh, so no answer? You dont contribute ideas, I can only assume you dont know and the question makes you so angry that you have to be insulting. I dont know the answer, which is why Im asking.

If the earth was flat, then obviously the South pole is at the centre (because theres a base there) so why cant we go beyond the north pole?

Your question does not make sense. As far as I know, nobody believes that Antarctica is at the center of the world, and you'll have to provide more evidence to support this notion than "because there's a base there".

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 02:52:54 PM

If the earth was flat, then obviously the South pole is at the centre (because theres a base there) so why cant we go beyond the north pole?

Your question does not make sense. As far as I know, nobody believes that Antarctica is at the center of the world, and you'll have to provide more evidence to support this notion than "because there's a base there".

How do you know nobody believes Antarctica is not at the centre? Because its not what YOU pretend to believe? If one postulates a map with either the north or south pole at the centre, it is far easier to have the south pole there because then there is no need to invent theories to explain how there can be a polar base, circumnavigation of a mapped coastline, and many other things. Whereas the north pole has no permanent manned base, no landmass and a constantly changing ice edge. On the evidence available to us all it is more logical that the south pole be the centre. After all, everyone in Australia and New Zealand and South Africa etc has witnessed stars rotating around the South celestial pole, havent they?

Quote from: Particle Person on July 16, 2011, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 02:52:54 PM

If the earth was flat, then obviously the South pole is at the centre (because theres a base there) so why cant we go beyond the north pole?

Your question does not make sense. As far as I know, nobody believes that Antarctica is at the center of the world, and you'll have to provide more evidence to support this notion than "because there's a base there".

How do you know nobody believes Antarctica is not at the centre?

Perhaps you missed the important qualifier, "as far as". It might help if you read slower.

Because its not what YOU pretend to believe?

It sounds like you've made an assumption about my beliefs.

If one postulates a map with either the north or south pole at the centre, it is far easier to have the south pole there

If you ignore the fact that if you travel north from Siberia, you won't encounter Antarctica any time soon.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 03:39:15 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on July 16, 2011, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 02:52:54 PM

If the earth was flat, then obviously the South pole is at the centre (because theres a base there) so why cant we go beyond the north pole?

Your question does not make sense. As far as I know, nobody believes that Antarctica is at the center of the world, and you'll have to provide more evidence to support this notion than "because there's a base there".

How do you know nobody believes Antarctica is not at the centre?

Perhaps you missed the important qualifier, "as far as". It might help if you read slower.

Quote

Because its not what YOU pretend to believe?

It sounds like you've made an assumption about my beliefs.

Quote

If one postulates a map with either the north or south pole at the centre, it is far easier to have the south pole there

If you ignore the fact that if you travel north from Siberia, you won't encounter Antarctica any time soon.

I have made no assumption about your beliefs. Your phrase was "As far as I know, nobody believes that Antarctica is at the center of the world". This means that you CANNOT believe that, because "nobody" is self-inclusive. You didnt say "nobody except..." therefore your statement must apply to everyone that you have knowledge of, which MUST include yourself, because you know what you are thinking.
I get the impression that you think I mean that Antarctica is north of Siberia. This is not what I mean at all. I am suggesting that if the earth was a flat surface, Antarctica would be south of Australia, South America etc. Of course going north from Siberia you wouldnt encounter Antarctica, but I want to know why when you reach the north pole you cant just keep on going? Does the land extend beyond there? Is that where the edge is? You tell me...

Quote from: Particle Person on July 16, 2011, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 03:39:15 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on July 16, 2011, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 02:52:54 PM

If the earth was flat, then obviously the South pole is at the centre (because theres a base there) so why cant we go beyond the north pole?

Your question does not make sense. As far as I know, nobody believes that Antarctica is at the center of the world, and you'll have to provide more evidence to support this notion than "because there's a base there".

How do you know nobody believes Antarctica is not at the centre?

Perhaps you missed the important qualifier, "as far as". It might help if you read slower.

Quote

Because its not what YOU pretend to believe?

It sounds like you've made an assumption about my beliefs.

Quote

If one postulates a map with either the north or south pole at the centre, it is far easier to have the south pole there

If you ignore the fact that if you travel north from Siberia, you won't encounter Antarctica any time soon.

I have made no assumption about your beliefs. Your phrase was "As far as I know, nobody believes that Antarctica is at the center of the world". This means that you CANNOT believe that, because "nobody" is self-inclusive. You didnt say "nobody except..." therefore your statement must apply to everyone that you have knowledge of, which MUST include yourself, because you know what you are thinking.
I get the impression that you think I mean that Antarctica is north of Siberia. This is not what I mean at all. I am suggesting that if the earth was a flat surface, Antarctica would be south of Australia, South America etc. Of course going north from Siberia you wouldnt encounter Antarctica, but I want to know why when you reach the north pole you cant just keep on going? Does the land extend beyond there? Is that where the edge is? You tell me...

Where do you think the center of a flat earth would be? South of Australia?

I am also interested in the answer to this question, lets get it back on track.  What happens if you head north, go past the north pole, and continue

I am also interested in the answer to this question, lets get it back on track.  What happens if you head north, go past the north pole, and continue

The same thing that would happen if you traveled over the north pole on a round earth. You keep going.

You can't go North of the North Pole.

If you go North to the North pole and keep going, you are no longer going North.

You can't go North of the North Pole.

If you go North to the North pole and keep going, you are no longer going North.

The OP is operating under a south pole-centric model. Please try to keep up.

You can't go North of the North Pole.

If you go North to the North pole and keep going, you are no longer going North.

Please reread my statement, head north to the north pole, and then continue.     (not ......, and then continue north)

If you have trouble understanding the concept of continuing in a direction, imagine that you are using a gyroscope, do not make any left or right turns.

Antarctica is south,
but it is a separate continent, and yes, many people live there, and it has been explored.

please look at Master Lord Willmores map of our giant disc.

Antarctica is south,
but it is a separate continent, and yes, many people live there, and it has been explored.

please look at Master Lord Willmores map of our giant disc.

Please look up the difficulties of sun exposure time on that disk.

I have, and have theorized that due to the forces on the UA, and the uneven weight of the earth, the earth tilts.
This is what cause the seasons and the phenomenon know as midnight sun.

I have, and have theorized that due to the forces on the UA, and the uneven weight of the earth, the earth tilts.
This is what cause the seasons and the phenomenon know as midnight sun.

We are talking about the suns daily movements as well as the year.

My tetakenic model of the Earth can easily be extended to show that continuing to walk off one edge of the Earth will bring you back onto the other. Here is an old post of mine in which I explain the workings of this model:

Quote from: James on May 16, 2010, 08:27:22 AM

Now Steven that is a very interesting theory about the Earth, and certainly one which I have not heard before, but what, in your opinion, causes this non-Euclidean inversion?

In order to give a meaningful answer to this question, I must first explain the mechanism behind the process, which I will do here.

I believe that the universe itself exists within a four-dimensional spatial matrix, not the usual three dimensions considered obvious to most. Points which are disconnected in three dimensions may be brought together by a connection in the fourth, without any visible disruption to the occupants of that space. The normal three dimensions are typically labelled as height, width and breadth; the fourth dimension we shall call tetaken (from Ancient greek "tetartos" (fourth) and "kenoma" (space)), and it is this dimension which governs the proximity of various parts of the Earth's surface, which is in reality a non-contiguous surface in 3-space.

So, for example, in June the Arctic ocean is intetaken (nearby in fourth-space), while Antarctica is extetaken (spread out in fourth-space; not concentrated into one region). In December, the converse is true. While this explains the mechanism, however, it does not answer your question as to why there should be a semi-annual shift in the orientation of tetaken, and this is what I intend to elucidate on now.

Unlike the other three spatial dimensions, tetaken is very closely linked with time. There is obviously a clear annual cycle in time; that is how long it takes the Sun to leave one tropic, move to the other and then return to its starting point. The Sun being arguably the most significant object in the sky, this can be seen as a fundamental rhythm of time; every year, the Sun comes back to where it was at the start. Tetaken, while strictly speaking a spatial dimension, also features this cyclic property of time; it shifts from one extreme to another, but being fundamentally spatial it also has more resistance to this change than purely temporal changes, and so it stays fixed in one position for six months at a time before inverting in its eternal metronomic synchronicity with time itself.

I hope that has answered your question satisfactorily; I will be happy to field any further questions you may have about tetaken and how it applies to this model of the Earth.

My tetakenic model of the Earth can easily be extended to show that continuing to walk off one edge of the Earth will bring you back onto the other. Here is an old post of mine in which I explain the workings of this model:

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:13:24 AM

Quote from: James on May 16, 2010, 08:27:22 AM

Now Steven that is a very interesting theory about the Earth, and certainly one which I have not heard before, but what, in your opinion, causes this non-Euclidean inversion?

In order to give a meaningful answer to this question, I must first explain the mechanism behind the process, which I will do here.

I believe that the universe itself exists within a four-dimensional spatial matrix, not the usual three dimensions considered obvious to most. Points which are disconnected in three dimensions may be brought together by a connection in the fourth, without any visible disruption to the occupants of that space. The normal three dimensions are typically labelled as height, width and breadth; the fourth dimension we shall call tetaken (from Ancient greek "tetartos" (fourth) and "kenoma" (space)), and it is this dimension which governs the proximity of various parts of the Earth's surface, which is in reality a non-contiguous surface in 3-space.

So, for example, in June the Arctic ocean is intetaken (nearby in fourth-space), while Antarctica is extetaken (spread out in fourth-space; not concentrated into one region). In December, the converse is true. While this explains the mechanism, however, it does not answer your question as to why there should be a semi-annual shift in the orientation of tetaken, and this is what I intend to elucidate on now.

Unlike the other three spatial dimensions, tetaken is very closely linked with time. There is obviously a clear annual cycle in time; that is how long it takes the Sun to leave one tropic, move to the other and then return to its starting point. The Sun being arguably the most significant object in the sky, this can be seen as a fundamental rhythm of time; every year, the Sun comes back to where it was at the start. Tetaken, while strictly speaking a spatial dimension, also features this cyclic property of time; it shifts from one extreme to another, but being fundamentally spatial it also has more resistance to this change than purely temporal changes, and so it stays fixed in one position for six months at a time before inverting in its eternal metronomic synchronicity with time itself.

I hope that has answered your question satisfactorily; I will be happy to field any further questions you may have about tetaken and how it applies to this model of the Earth.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Your original question, as far as I can tell, is about crossing the outer rim of the earth. Parsifal's explanation is relevant.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 06:10:09 PM

Irrelevant.

Your original question, as far as I can tell, is about crossing the outer rim of the earth. Parsifal's explanation is relevant.

No, its about why you CANT go further north than the north pole. Parsifal is trying to state that you can, but he is wrong as there is no evidence to support what he says happening.

No, its about why you CANT go further north than the north pole. Parsifal is trying to state that you can

Correct. I am saying that you are wrong, which is entirely relevant to the claim that you are wrong about.

Quote from: Particle Person on July 16, 2011, 06:15:32 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 06:10:09 PM

Irrelevant.

Your original question, as far as I can tell, is about crossing the outer rim of the earth. Parsifal's explanation is relevant.

No, its about why you CANT go further north than the north pole. Parsifal is trying to state that you can, but he is wrong as there is no evidence to support what he says happening.

Why are you still referring to the rim as the north pole? In every flat earth model, northward is always toward the center.

You can't go farther north than the north pole because the north pole is, by definition, the northiest place on Earth. There is nowhere northier. Thus,  in your model, there is no north pole.

/thread

You can't go farther north than the north pole because the north pole is, by definition, the northiest place on Earth. There is nowhere northier. Thus,  in your model, there is no north pole.

/thread

Semantics.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 06:22:00 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on July 16, 2011, 06:15:32 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 06:10:09 PM

Irrelevant.

Your original question, as far as I can tell, is about crossing the outer rim of the earth. Parsifal's explanation is relevant.

No, its about why you CANT go further north than the north pole. Parsifal is trying to state that you can, but he is wrong as there is no evidence to support what he says happening.

Why are you still referring to the rim as the north pole? In every flat earth model, northward is always toward the center.

Why?  What evidence is there that the North Pole is the center?  Nobody has come up with any conclusive proof one way or another.  There is not even land mass that is above the surface of the ocean where the supposed center would be.

Berny
FE'ers are NorthCentric.

If the earth was flat, then obviously the South pole is at the centre (because theres a base there) so why cant we go beyond the north pole?

In FE and RE , if you travel from the north pole you must be moving south. There is no other possibility.  What base are you talking about? KFC?

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 06:22:00 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on July 16, 2011, 06:15:32 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 16, 2011, 06:10:09 PM

Irrelevant.

Your original question, as far as I can tell, is about crossing the outer rim of the earth. Parsifal's explanation is relevant.

No, its about why you CANT go further north than the north pole. Parsifal is trying to state that you can, but he is wrong as there is no evidence to support what he says happening.

Why are you still referring to the rim as the north pole? In every flat earth model, northward is always toward the center.

There is a flat earth model in which south is at the centre, as mentioned in the original post which I suggest you read. Why do you assume north would be at the centre if the earth was flat? Do you have evidence that south cannot be central?