South Polar Base

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 08:13:22 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 07:57:50 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 07:54:04 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 07:39:23 AM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:57:19 AM

Where would it be on a Flat Earth Map though?

Quote from: Tausami on October 09, 2011, 06:35:11 AM

It's around there.

Explain how that dot is 1500km from New Zealand's Scott base, (which can be seen on the conventional Antarctic map.
There's only two ways it can be. Either the polar base is further round the rim towards NZ, or Antarctica is not a rim round the earth.

It's not 1500 km from New Zealand's base.

http://www.antarcticanz.govt.nz/scott-base
A quote from this site (which has a webcam too): "The Base is located on Ross Island in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. Ross Island is 3932 km (2114 nautical miles) from Christchurch New Zealand and 1500 km from the South Pole. The Antarctic mainland is 70 km across McMurdo Sound from Scott Base. The closest neighbour to Scott Base is the American base, McMurdo Station, at 3km distancel."

That's wrong.

So your response to people who have actually lived and worked in Antarctica is to tell them they are wrong about how far things are from each other, distances which are vitally important to know in the instances where people travel between one location and another in an environment that could kill you. Remind me never to take a road trip in Death Valley with you.

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 09:33:38 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 08:13:22 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 07:57:50 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 07:54:04 AM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 07:39:23 AM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:57:19 AM

Where would it be on a Flat Earth Map though?

Quote from: Tausami on October 09, 2011, 06:35:11 AM

It's around there.

Explain how that dot is 1500km from New Zealand's Scott base, (which can be seen on the conventional Antarctic map.
There's only two ways it can be. Either the polar base is further round the rim towards NZ, or Antarctica is not a rim round the earth.

It's not 1500 km from New Zealand's base.

http://www.antarcticanz.govt.nz/scott-base
A quote from this site (which has a webcam too): "The Base is located on Ross Island in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. Ross Island is 3932 km (2114 nautical miles) from Christchurch New Zealand and 1500 km from the South Pole. The Antarctic mainland is 70 km across McMurdo Sound from Scott Base. The closest neighbour to Scott Base is the American base, McMurdo Station, at 3km distancel."

That's wrong.

So your response to people who have actually lived and worked in Antarctica is to tell them they are wrong about how far things are from each other, distances which are vitally important to know in the instances where people travel between one location and another in an environment that could kill you. Remind me never to take a road trip in Death Valley with you.

No, I'm telling you that they are lying about it, due to the Conspiracy.

No, I'm telling you that they are lying about it, due to the Conspiracy.

Can you prove this? Why should we believe you without evidence to support your claims? A valid theory puts forth hypotheses which can be proven true or false based on evidence. Your theory is reduced to just an idea because you state a conspiracy which cannot be validated. If you truly claim to seek the truth, then why not go to Antarctica and provide us with some evidence? Since you claim to believe in the Zetetic method, then you should have no problem conducting the experiments and gathering the evidence yourself. Unless of course, you are hypocritical to your beliefs and accept evidence provided by others who claim to have provided such evidence. Sounds to me like you accept theories without verifying the facts yourself.

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 12:50:07 PM

No, I'm telling you that they are lying about it, due to the Conspiracy.

Can you prove this? Why should we believe you without evidence to support your claims? A valid theory puts forth hypotheses which can be proven true or false based on evidence. Your theory is reduced to just an idea because you state a conspiracy which cannot be validated. If you truly claim to seek the truth, then why not go to Antarctica and provide us with some evidence? Since you claim to believe in the Zetetic method, then you should have no problem conducting the experiments and gathering the evidence yourself. Unless of course, you are hypocritical to your beliefs and accept evidence provided by others who claim to have provided such evidence. Sounds to me like you accept theories without verifying the facts yourself.

Of course they can't prove it. Resorting to the Conspiracy is an automatic fail for FET, basically an admission that they can't argue any further and are painted in a corner. Tausami is more or less admitting that FET is unable to explain the layout of Antarctica.

Quote from: EllipsoidEarthSupporter on October 16, 2011, 01:04:21 PM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 12:50:07 PM

No, I'm telling you that they are lying about it, due to the Conspiracy.

Can you prove this? Why should we believe you without evidence to support your claims? A valid theory puts forth hypotheses which can be proven true or false based on evidence. Your theory is reduced to just an idea because you state a conspiracy which cannot be validated. If you truly claim to seek the truth, then why not go to Antarctica and provide us with some evidence? Since you claim to believe in the Zetetic method, then you should have no problem conducting the experiments and gathering the evidence yourself. Unless of course, you are hypocritical to your beliefs and accept evidence provided by others who claim to have provided such evidence. Sounds to me like you accept theories without verifying the facts yourself.

Of course they can't prove it. Resorting to the Conspiracy is an automatic fail for FET, basically an admission that they can't argue any further and are painted in a corner. Tausami is more or less admitting that FET is unable to explain the layout of Antarctica.

Of course we can prove it. Read the Conspiracy articles on the Wiki. We wouldn't make these things up.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: EllipsoidEarthSupporter on October 16, 2011, 01:04:21 PM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 12:50:07 PM

No, I'm telling you that they are lying about it, due to the Conspiracy.

Can you prove this? Why should we believe you without evidence to support your claims? A valid theory puts forth hypotheses which can be proven true or false based on evidence. Your theory is reduced to just an idea because you state a conspiracy which cannot be validated. If you truly claim to seek the truth, then why not go to Antarctica and provide us with some evidence? Since you claim to believe in the Zetetic method, then you should have no problem conducting the experiments and gathering the evidence yourself. Unless of course, you are hypocritical to your beliefs and accept evidence provided by others who claim to have provided such evidence. Sounds to me like you accept theories without verifying the facts yourself.

Of course they can't prove it. Resorting to the Conspiracy is an automatic fail for FET, basically an admission that they can't argue any further and are painted in a corner. Tausami is more or less admitting that FET is unable to explain the layout of Antarctica.

Of course we can prove it. Read the Conspiracy articles on the Wiki. We wouldn't make these things up.

Would you care to provide a link to one of these articles? I'd certainly like you to back this claim up.

Of course we can prove it. Read the Conspiracy articles on the Wiki. We wouldn't make these things up.

Why should we consider the articles on your Wiki when you won't even consider ours. Anyone can write nonsense and try to pass it off as actual fact. This is why science requires reproducible evidence based on experiments and observations. The day you accept evidence in the form of photos and our Wiki articles is the day I'll accept your photos and Wiki articles. Otherwise, you do not have a valid theory. Just an idea that has been poorly constructed using ancient and modern theories.

Yeah, like you can compare the real wiki with the one-line arguments of FES.

Yeah, like you can compare the real wiki with the one-line arguments of FES.

No.. But, their idea would be easily disproved if both FErs and RErs accepted the same evidence. Otherwise, they are allowed to use photos and their Wiki to support their ideas, but we cannot use ours. Pretty much a one sided debate.

Present an evidence to a FE'er and he will tell you it's bullshit and a RE'er will tell you its evidence.

And vice-versa.

The fact is RE'rs have so much more data than FE'ers, enven excluding wikipedia.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy

Knock yourself out.

... Also known as "pure speculation".

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy

Knock yourself out.

I'll accept your evidence if you'll accept mine showing valid Wikipedia articles and photos of space. Plus, I will provide more that one source for articles and photos. I would also like your explanation for UA in regards to the following:

If the Earth is flat, has an edge, and is accelerating upward, what is actually maintaining the air pressure? The air would flow around the edge of the FE. Surely you don't expect us to believe that this alleged ice barrier keeps all of the air contained. If so, then how can airplanes fly in altitudes above the barriers height?

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 04:45:21 PM

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy

Knock yourself out.

I'll accept your evidence if you'll accept mine showing valid Wikipedia articles and photos of space. Plus, I will provide more that one source for articles and photos. I would also like your explanation for UA in regards to the following:

If the Earth is flat, has an edge, and is accelerating upward, what is actually maintaining the air pressure? The air would flow around the edge of the FE. Surely you don't expect us to believe that this alleged ice barrier keeps all of the air contained. If so, then how can airplanes fly in altitudes above the barriers height?

When an aether comes in contact a gas, it causes surface tension much like when a gas comes in contact with a liquid.

There's no such thing as aether. It's a 19th century misconception.

There's no such thing as aether. It's a 19th century misconception.

Proof?

Quote from: EllipsoidEarthSupporter on October 16, 2011, 04:52:15 PM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 04:45:21 PM

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/The_Conspiracy

Knock yourself out.

I'll accept your evidence if you'll accept mine showing valid Wikipedia articles and photos of space. Plus, I will provide more that one source for articles and photos. I would also like your explanation for UA in regards to the following:

If the Earth is flat, has an edge, and is accelerating upward, what is actually maintaining the air pressure? The air would flow around the edge of the FE. Surely you don't expect us to believe that this alleged ice barrier keeps all of the air contained. If so, then how can airplanes fly in altitudes above the barriers height?

When an aether comes in contact a gas, it causes surface tension much like when a gas comes in contact with a liquid.

Please stay on topic. Discuss the details of something you have no observational or experimental data for in a different thread.

Google it!

I've heard of the 12 particles (and there anti-particles), rays and waves, dark energy or dark matter, but in modern science, aether... I'm afraid that's a no.

Google it!

I've heard of the 12 particles (and there anti-particles), rays and waves, dark energy or dark matter, but in modern science, aether... I'm afraid that's a no.

It's not its own particle. Notice I use 'aether' in the same context as I use 'gas' or 'liquid'. Aether is a step above Quark-gluon plasma.

There isn't anything known as "aether" which interacts with gas causing a surface tension.

There isn't anything known as "aether" which interacts with gas causing a surface tension.

That's because it can't be created by man. It began in the Big Bang.

How relevant is that?

It has just not been observed! I am not talking about its creation and who created it.

How relevant is that?

It has just not been observed! I am not talking about its creation and who created it.

How could it possibly be observed if modern technology can't even create it?

Some background might help. Aether was created in the moment when all matter and energy in the universe was combined into the area of a single particle. As in, more pressure and heat than could possibly be created without breaking the third law of thermodynamics. It only exists outside of our atmolayer. We've never been out of our atmolayer. Ispo facto, we've never observed it.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 16, 2011, 05:23:28 PM

There isn't anything known as "aether" which interacts with gas causing a surface tension.

That's because it can't be created by man. It began in the Big Bang.

And you (or others) are detecting its presence by what method? Also, where on the FE map is the South Polar base located? Indicate a spot within 1500km of Scott Base, please.

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 05:28:13 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 16, 2011, 05:23:28 PM

There isn't anything known as "aether" which interacts with gas causing a surface tension.

That's because it can't be created by man. It began in the Big Bang.

And you (or others) are detecting its presence by what method? Also, where on the FE map is the South Polar base located? Indicate a spot within 1500km of Scott Base, please.

We're past this. Please stop being obtuse.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 05:36:47 PM

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 05:28:13 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 16, 2011, 05:23:28 PM

There isn't anything known as "aether" which interacts with gas causing a surface tension.

That's because it can't be created by man. It began in the Big Bang.

And you (or others) are detecting its presence by what method? Also, where on the FE map is the South Polar base located? Indicate a spot within 1500km of Scott Base, please.

We're past this. Please stop being obtuse.

We're not past this. You have not given any explanation for how Scott Base can be 1500km from the pole other than "it can't be, so it isn't." Unacceptable answer I'm afraid.

I already explained about the conspiracy.

I already explained about the conspiracy.

Your wiki page is sadly lacking in information regarding how the Conspiracy controls "The Ice Wall".

You've also failed to give us more than "Everyone who goes there is Killed or Manipulated By the Conspiracy." I've made a thread regarding Antarctic Tourism, showing that due to the large number of people in the Antarctic, it would be impractical to "Kill or Manipulate," everyone there.

You've failed to provide evidence of any kind that would indicate a conspiracy.

When an aether comes in contact a gas, it causes surface tension much like when a gas comes in contact with a liquid.

That statement makes no sense. Let's just say for argument that there is an aether. An acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 is not enough to produce a force to provide a surface tension that keeps air from flowing off the edge. Proof: Take a flat disc and force it upward. This provides an acceleration greater than gravity. You can even attach a small propeller to the side of it and watch the airflow spin it. Because air would be denser than the aether, we have just proved your statement is flawed. Because if the aether was denser than air, then we wouldn't have any air to breath. Denser material settles on the bottom, especially under acceleration.

But shouldn't the Earth be going faster than the speed of light by now? According to you we are constantly being accelerated upward. Therefore our velocity is increasing. How come I can still see the ground? I am, according to UA, moving faster than light can travel after millions of years of acceleration.

Quote from: Tausami on October 16, 2011, 05:05:43 PM

When an aether comes in contact a gas, it causes surface tension much like when a gas comes in contact with a liquid.

That statement makes no sense. Let's just say for argument that there is an aether. An acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 is not enough to produce a force to provide a surface tension that keeps air from flowing off the edge. Proof: Take a flat disc and force it upward. This provides an acceleration greater than gravity. You can even attach a small propeller to the side of it and watch the airflow spin it. Because air would be denser than the aether, we have just proved your statement is flawed. Because if the aether was denser than air, then we wouldn't have any air to breath. Denser material settles on the bottom, especially under acceleration.

But shouldn't the Earth be going faster than the speed of light by now? According to you we are constantly being accelerated upward. Therefore our velocity is increasing. How come I can still see the ground? I am, according to UA, moving faster than light can travel after millions of years of acceleration.

Do you actually know what surface tension is? And we answer the speed of light question a lot. You can probably find a thread about it pretty easily. If I get a chance I'll link one to you.