If satellites don't exist...

http://www.maerskline.com/link/?page=brochure&path=/routemaps/newnetwork/sam/ASAS_Eastbound
http://www.maerskline.com/link/link/?page=brochure&path=/routemaps/newnetwork/sam/ASAS2%20EAB

Look at the route. Look at the times.

According to the first page it takes them 26 days to go from Brazil to Singapore.

On the second page it says it takes 11 days to go from Brazil to South America, and it takes them 18 days to go from Brazil to Hong Kong.

Are these numbers from ship logs, or are they estimates? It does not say.

Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17speed.html

Maersk travels slow to save fuel.

Or maybe they say they travel slow to handwave away the reason why they're always late to their customers.

Quote

Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17speed.html

Maersk travels slow to save fuel.

Or maybe they say they travel slow to handwave away the reason why they're always late to their customers.

But you have no evidence that they do. Evidence of plausibility is not the same as evidence of existence.

Still noone of the FEs replied about distance between Argentina and New Zealand. My last post begs for your replies, and yet you choose to ignore it... Ignoring facts won't change them.

Water is a polar molecule. The seas are held onto the Earth in spite of the wobbles due to huge electromagnetic forces caused by charged plates of rock on the seabed.

In that case no strong currents could exist, and that's what you need to support FE theory, apart from mariners not being aware of 50mile/h current carrying their ships.

Even if you are delivering cargo in bulk, which will eventually be split up and transported elsewhere, it's still more efficient to schedule stops at multiple ports along your way to pick up and drop off cargo. More cargo is getting delivered and passing through the ship than one single large shipment.

You are assuming that the cargo ship isn't already full of cargo going to a single destination.  The logistics of loading and unloading a cargo ship going to a single distribution center is complex enough without having to constantly rearrange everything as you travel from port to port.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2011, 01:41:19 PM

Even if you are delivering cargo in bulk, which will eventually be split up and transported elsewhere, it's still more efficient to schedule stops at multiple ports along your way to pick up and drop off cargo. More cargo is getting delivered and passing through the ship than one single large shipment.

You are assuming that the cargo ship isn't already full of cargo going to a single destination.  The logistics of loading and unloading a cargo ship going to a single distribution center is complex enough without having to constantly rearrange everything as you travel from port to port.

not to mention all ports can't even dock bigger ships...
but can we please get back to the issue at hand - the distance between NZ and ARG...

Quote from: Lord Xenu on September 16, 2011, 10:50:49 AM

Water is a polar molecule. The seas are held onto the Earth in spite of the wobbles due to huge electromagnetic forces caused by charged plates of rock on the seabed.

In that case no strong currents could exist, and that's what you need to support FE theory, apart from mariners not being aware of 50mile/h current carrying their ships.

Nonsense. Merely because the body of water as a whole is attracted to the magnetised plates does not mean that currents cannot move independently of the main mass.

Quote from: dado on September 16, 2011, 03:40:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Xenu on September 16, 2011, 10:50:49 AM

Water is a polar molecule. The seas are held onto the Earth in spite of the wobbles due to huge electromagnetic forces caused by charged plates of rock on the seabed.

In that case no strong currents could exist, and that's what you need to support FE theory, apart from mariners not being aware of 50mile/h current carrying their ships.

Nonsense. Merely because the body of water as a whole is attracted to the magnetised plates does not mean that currents cannot move independently of the main mass.

Congratullations, you found "electropseudogravity", another FE patented bypass for gravity

Quote from: Lord Xenu on September 17, 2011, 06:00:12 AM

Quote from: dado on September 16, 2011, 03:40:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Xenu on September 16, 2011, 10:50:49 AM

Water is a polar molecule. The seas are held onto the Earth in spite of the wobbles due to huge electromagnetic forces caused by charged plates of rock on the seabed.

In that case no strong currents could exist, and that's what you need to support FE theory, apart from mariners not being aware of 50mile/h current carrying their ships.

Nonsense. Merely because the body of water as a whole is attracted to the magnetised plates does not mean that currents cannot move independently of the main mass.

Congratullations, you found "electropseudogravity", another FE patented bypass for gravity

You're too kind!

bit random...

I believe that this guy is using a bad translator...

Everyone knows GPS is a fabrication of the conspiracy.

No it's not, flatearthers do not try to disprove GPS, but are merely saying that it does not function with satellites.
You can buy from the store for your car. Mobile devices have GPS.

The wobbles shouldn't affect the depth of the ocean. 

The amount of water from atmosphere to the bottom of ocean is what we consider the depth of the ocean. Wobbles are part of the water.

Atmospheric perspective and the gradual curvature of the wobbles makes this impossible.

Such gradual curvature wouldn't explain your theory that there is such a big distance difference between flying and sailing.
(Which is incorrect.)

Quote from: Lord Xenu

Everyone knows GPS is a fabrication of the conspiracy.

No it's not, flatearthers do not try to disprove GPS, but are merely saying that it does not function with satellites.
You can buy from the store for your car. Mobile devices have GPS.

It may function, but the conspiracy has fiddled it to hide the true shape of the earth.

It may function, but the conspiracy has fiddled it to hide the true shape of the earth.

Nope. it has not.

Quote

It may function, but the conspiracy has fiddled it to hide the true shape of the earth.

Nope. it has not.

Evidence?

Quote from: Syntax on September 17, 2011, 08:27:51 AM

Quote

It may function, but the conspiracy has fiddled it to hide the true shape of the earth.

Nope. it has not.

Evidence?

The burden of proof is on you. You made the first claim.

Quote from: Syntax on September 17, 2011, 08:27:51 AM

Quote

It may function, but the conspiracy has fiddled it to hide the true shape of the earth.

Nope. it has not.

Evidence?

I'm sorry. You are trying to state something ridicolous and impossible to cover. you bring the evidence.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on September 17, 2011, 08:28:38 AM

Quote from: Syntax on September 17, 2011, 08:27:51 AM

Quote

It may function, but the conspiracy has fiddled it to hide the true shape of the earth.

Nope. it has not.

Evidence?

I'm sorry. You are trying to state something ridicolous and impossible to cover. you bring the evidence.

I have evidence: the Earth is flat.

That is a statement, which needs evidence, because 99.999%(read: almoust everyone) of sane people do not believe so, due to the lack of evidence.

That is a statement, which needs evidence, because 99.999%(read: almoust everyone) of sane people do not believe so, due to the lack of evidence.

Why should it concern me what the brainwashed masses think? This forum has proven the true shape of the Earth innumerable times, which is clear evidence that the Conspiracy is tampering with GPS in some way. If you do not have anything useful to add to this debate, I suggest that you concede defeat.

By withdrawing from the debate due to the lack of evidence supporting you theory, you should consider yourself defeated.

This forum has proven the true shape of the Earth innumerable times

And i have proven it wrong several times.

By withdrawing from the debate due to the lack of evidence supporting you theory, you should consider yourself defeated.

As I just reminded you, the repeated proof of the flat shape of the Earth is enough, is it not?

And i have proven it wrong several times.

You wish.

Saying repeatedly "The earth is Flat" is not the evidence nor proof of a flat earth. The science starts where the measuring begins.

Saying repeatedly "The earth is Flat" is not the evidence nor proof of a flat earth.

I know it isn't. However, this fact has been repeatedly proven by my FEer brethren.

Quote from: Syntax on September 17, 2011, 08:57:30 AM

Saying repeatedly "The earth is Flat" is not the evidence nor proof of a flat earth.

I know it isn't. However, this fact has been repeatedly proven by my FEer brethren.

Can you link to one page, which contains a proof of a flat earth?

Quote from: Lord Xenu on September 17, 2011, 09:07:33 AM

Quote from: Syntax on September 17, 2011, 08:57:30 AM

Saying repeatedly "The earth is Flat" is not the evidence nor proof of a flat earth.

I know it isn't. However, this fact has been repeatedly proven by my FEer brethren.

Can you link to one page, which contains a proof of a flat earth?

Read ENaG

Quote from: Lord Xenu on September 17, 2011, 09:07:33 AM

Quote from: Syntax on September 17, 2011, 08:57:30 AM

Saying repeatedly "The earth is Flat" is not the evidence nor proof of a flat earth.

I know it isn't. However, this fact has been repeatedly proven by my FEer brethren.

Can you link to one page, which contains a proof of a flat earth?

Here is one of many examples:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1055176#msg1055176

That is not a proof of a flat earth. The glass is made on artificial structure.

Plus you may have flat surface for few miles on round earth, because earth is not a perfect sphere.

That is not a proof of a flat earth. The glass is made on artificial structure.

Plus you may have flat surface for few miles on round earth, because earth is not a perfect sphere.

This is not the "debate any part of Flat Earth Theory you like" thread. Argue in the thread I linked you to if you wish to challenge it.

There is nothing to challenge nor disprove, because the glass doesn't occur naturally, but is made in artificial controlled environment.
I'm still waiting for a proof of a flat earth.