Here's an Easy One

According to Nasa and Wikipedia the Coastline of Antarctica stretches 11,165 miles. If Antarctica was a solid mass at the South Pole then it should cover nearly 1/4 of the Spherical Globe in the southern hemisphere if the Earth's Circumference is 25,000 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Geography

Can you see Antarctica?

More satellite evidence:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=885

It's right there where it should be:

Weird what's with all the conflicting images?

Pretty neat youtube video showing all the bases on the Edge of Antarctica:



Pretty easy to see how Antarctica could be an ice wall and they manipulated the images to flip it inside out to appear as a continent:



The Antarctic peninsula is where the inverted circle comes together.

Come on Clocktower, Zarg where you guys at? Surely you have some mathematic formula or techmological device that explains why Antarctica behaves the way it does?

This is what we SHOULD be looking at:

Come on Clocktower, Zarg where you guys at? Surely you have some mathematic formula or techmological device that explains why Antarctica behaves the way it does?

I believe that markjo has already answered your nonsense quite well. Your failure is clear without any comment from me.

As you can plainly see the proponents of Spherical Earth Theory cannot explain even the most simplest of inconsistencies.

For those of you new to Flat Earth Theory you can learn more about the Ice Wall surrounding our flat earth at http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Ice_Wall

It's right there where it should be:

That picture shows a landmass with maybe a 3000 mile coastline and that is a generous estimate. Not quite the 11,165 mile figure that Wikipedia presents.

And before you start asking how I arrived at the 3000 mile estimation just look at the picture for a second. If the Earth is 25,000 miles circumference then Antarctica should have a 11,165 mile coastline nearly a quarter of a way up the sphere. It should be at least twice that size.

And before you start asking how I arrived at the 3000 mile estimation just look at the picture for a second. If the Earth is 25,000 miles circumference then Antarctica should have a 11,165 mile coastline nearly a quarter of a way up the sphere. It should be at least twice that size.

I refer you to the woodshed: http://www.learner.org/courses/mathilluminated/units/5/textbook/07.php#how. Google is your friend.

And before you start asking how I arrived at the 3000 mile estimation just look at the picture for a second. If the Earth is 25,000 miles circumference then Antarctica should have a 11,165 mile coastline nearly a quarter of a way up the sphere. It should be at least twice that size.

ALERT!  ALERT!, Logic fail!

Coast lines are not linear!

So you're saying they measured every single curve and bend and it comes out to 11,165 miles but since it curves and bends it is a lot smaller geographically due to the scrunched upness?

That is a good explanation I'll give you that but what is the diameter of Antarctica? How many miles wide is Antarctica from coast to coast.

Here's something I noticed while on the wikipedia page that is interesting. It says that Antarctica is made up 44% of Ice shelf (floating ice front), 38% Ice walls (resting on ground), 13% Ice stream/outlet glacier (ice front or ice wall), and 5% rock. So basically it is made up of one big Ice Wall all the way around.

But even if Antarctica was "scruntched up' a little bit, the "scruntches" don't go very far back into the mass so I would assume the difference in circumference would not vary 7000+ miles.

But still explain why the Continent is not visible even slightly in the first image? Surely those scruntches don't account for more than the circumference of the land mass thus making the difference negative and ultimately invisible to the naked eye?

Even with the scrunches the land mass would have a circumference of at least 6000 miles but more like 8000-9000 miles.

Even with the scrunches the land mass would have a circumference of at least 6000 miles but more like 8000-9000 miles.

Pure speculation.

LOL,

It's pretty easy to see that in order for those "scrunches" to make any kind of dent in the circumference they would literally have to make a DENT:

LOL,

It's pretty easy to see that in order for those "scrunches" to make any kind of dent in the circumference they would literally have to make a DENT:

Again pure speculation, you have done zero calculations.

Well then, can you provide any calculations that show the curves in the coastline can account for 7000 miles loss in total circumference?

dude to the scrunched upness

This is going to be my new bro-greeting.

And before you start asking how I arrived at the 3000 mile estimation just look at the picture for a second. If the Earth is 25,000 miles circumference then Antarctica should have a 11,165 mile coastline nearly a quarter of a way up the sphere. It should be at least twice that size.

Let me make this really easy for you.  Antarctica is roughly (very roughly) a circle. Now, you should be able to figure this out even with your Middle School math: if the coastline (circumference) is 11,165 miles, how big is the circle?

Well then, can you provide any calculations that show the curves in the coastline can account for 7000 miles loss in total circumference?

You are the one making the original claim, its your responsibility to provide evidence not me.  And where did 7000 miles come from?  Did you just pull that number out of thin air like everything else in this thread? 

But still explain why the Continent is not visible even slightly in the first image? Surely those scruntches don't account for more than the circumference of the land mass thus making the difference negative and ultimately invisible to the naked eye?

You are making the assumption that any view which shows a planet as a globe is showing one entire hemisphere in view at once. This is not actually the case. There's a name for it I can't remember but from a closer distance you can't actually see the whole sphere. I used to have a poster of Mars with two views like this.

Quote from: iWitness on February 11, 2012, 02:53:27 PM

Well then, can you provide any calculations that show the curves in the coastline can account for 7000 miles loss in total circumference?

You are the one making the original claim, its your responsibility to provide evidence not me.  And where did 7000 miles come from?  Did you just pull that number out of thin air like everything else in this thread?

The figures state the coastline to be 11,165 miles and I am saying the photographs of the "Globe" do not show it to be so. You are saying that it is not fully 11,165 miles because the curves and bends in the coastline which are not accounted for and I say "Ridiculous."

So prove to me how those bends can account for the 11,165 mile circumference of the continent to not appear as shown in photographs in relation to the 25,000 circumference of the Earth.

You are saying that it is not fully 11,165 miles because the curves and bends in the coastline

Wait, what? The curves don't subtract from the coastline, they add to it.

Do you understand the difference between width and perimeter?

What is the TRUE circumference without measuring curves and bends just the general shape? How much does the curves and bends Add to the True circumference?

My guess would be not much... =/

Care to do the calculations?

Using this image as a reference you can see that the diameter of Antarctica in some places reaches 2000-3000 miles:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Antarctica.svg


The diameter of the earth is 7,926.3352 miles.

I guess that does not mean much if the earth is a sphere because wouldn't Antarctica have to stretch around the globe thus making it not as visible? Well it's not visible at all from a lot of satellite photos and you'd think a 3000 mile wide ice block would be. And judging by the 3000 mile diameter at points you can see that the 11,195 figure doesn't account for the bends and curves much. =/

Let me make this really easy for you.  Antarctica is roughly (very roughly) a circle. Now, you should be able to figure this out even with your Middle School math: if the coastline (circumference) is 11,165 miles, how big is the circle?

Do you need me to do this for you, or do you think you can handle it?

What is the TRUE circumference without measuring curves and bends just the general shape? How much does the curves and bends Add to the True circumference?

My guess would be not much... =/

Care to do the calculations?

First of all, fractals such as the Koch snowflake show how a relatively small form can have an infinite circumference.

Secondly, land area is generally a better indication of how big a land mass is, not the length of its coast line.

Is that the best ya'll got? No one else denies that the 11,165 mile coastline of Antarctica is amazingly absent from a majority of so-called "Space Photographs"?

A Win for the Flat Earthers! YEAH

Look it's Antarctica from SPACE!



I guess they were floating underneath the planet when they took this shot?