Circumnavigation around Antarctica

You'll be able to follow on real time their progression:

http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/

Do plot their positions on your so-called FE map and you'll see the problem.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216816#msg1216816

I don't see the problem.

FET, 2 maps which contradicts themselves, which are both wrong in distances and in shapes and which are in fact RE map and you don't see the problem?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216816#msg1216816

I don't see the problem.

That does not look like the 1/8th 'pie slice' map published by Hampden in the 23 March 1883 issue of 'The Knowledge'. 

What experimental evidence do you have that the map you linked is accurate and not just another map based on pre-existing round earth cartography?

Did you make that map yourself?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216816#msg1216816

I don't see the problem.

I do; the fact that FE'ers have 5 different maps that they use at their whim and leisure.  From now on, that is the only map you are allowed to refer to, and if you ever reference another FE map, I'll call you out on it.

Attention FES: Tom Bishop has officially chosen the following map as the map that he will use to support FET. If he says otherwise, he is a troll.

It would make more sense if FE'ers said: Ok, we don't have a map, we're not cartographers, we cannot make a map.

If I was trying to use charts based on the different FE maps I would get very lost underway. On top of that how can you have two maps? why not just have one and update it accordingly? FE must be very new to the map game.

I highly doubt anyone even uses a chart based on an FE map to navigate anywhere including the dangerous cost of Antarctica. If you find someone who does please let me know I have questions for him on his sanity and how he is still alive or even how he keeps his captains license.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2012, 12:37:22 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216816#msg1216816

I don't see the problem.

I do; the fact that FE'ers have 5 different maps that they use at their whim and leisure.  From now on, that is the only map you are allowed to refer to, and if you ever reference another FE map, I'll call you out on it.

Physicists use different physics when calculating different things. Newtonian physics, Einsteinian, and so on.  They even seem to be able to sub in or out enormous variables such as coriolis effec or wind resistance at a whim. These practices are not only taught in schools and condoned, but actually encouraged.

People are so accustomed to this that when a scientist makes a statement about how something behaves differently near the speed of light, not a soul will raise his or her hand and object to which physics model the scienist is using or utter a sound about how they switch at their convenience.

You hold flat-earh science at an unfair double standard simple because it's not to your liking.

Quote from: naysayer on June 04, 2012, 12:51:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2012, 12:37:22 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216816#msg1216816

I don't see the problem.

I do; the fact that FE'ers have 5 different maps that they use at their whim and leisure.  From now on, that is the only map you are allowed to refer to, and if you ever reference another FE map, I'll call you out on it.

Physicists use different physics when calculating different things. Newtonian physics, Einsteinian, and so on.  They even seem to be able to sub in or out enormous variables such as coriolis effec or wind resistance at a whim. These practices are not only taught in schools and condoned, but actually encouraged.

People are so accustomed to this that when a scientist makes a statement about how something behaves differently near the speed of light, not a soul will raise his or her hand and object to which physics model the scienist is using or utter a sound about how they switch at their convenience.

You hold flat-earh science at an unfair double standard simple because it's not to your liking.

Both Zetetic and Theoretical sciences do advocate dismissing models based on conclusions drawn from experimental data.  For example - you do not see modern medical science referring to Phrenological models to explain human personality traits.

It sounds like forum user Tom Bishop has done just that - this behavior should be commended.  If his data is sound perhaps the Society logo should be changed?

Quote from: naysayer on June 04, 2012, 12:51:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2012, 12:37:22 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216816#msg1216816

I don't see the problem.

I do; the fact that FE'ers have 5 different maps that they use at their whim and leisure.  From now on, that is the only map you are allowed to refer to, and if you ever reference another FE map, I'll call you out on it.

Physicists use different physics when calculating different things. Newtonian physics, Einsteinian, and so on.  They even seem to be able to sub in or out enormous variables such as coriolis effec or wind resistance at a whim. These practices are not only taught in schools and condoned, but actually encouraged.

People are so accustomed to this that when a scientist makes a statement about how something behaves differently near the speed of light, not a soul will raise his or her hand and object to which physics model the scienist is using or utter a sound about how they switch at their convenience.

You hold flat-earh science at an unfair double standard simple because it's not to your liking.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Einstein or Newton, where's FE map (no distorsion, right distances)? In your hazy minds?

No one mapped out the true physics of the universe, just as no one mapped out the true layout of the earth. Just as Newton and Einstein presented models of the universe, I presented a model of the earth.

No one mapped out the true physics of the universe, just as no one mapped out the true layout of the earth. Just as Newton and Einstein presented models of the universe, I presented a model of the earth.

Well if that's the model you are presenting, then stick with it.  You can't use that map to explain one phenomenon, and then switch to a completely different map to explain another. Doing so invalidates your first model. The earth either has an ice wall, or it doesn't.  Unless... no, why didn't I see this before? Maybe the earth both has and ice wall and doesn't! Allow me to explain.

The earth, like Schrödinger's cat, is a superposition of states if you will, and will forever remain a superposition of states until directly observed. Thus, all FET maps can be valid at the same time until the earth is directly observed!

This is incredible, the very foundations of science have been shattered!

No one mapped out the true physics of the universe, just as no one mapped out the true layout of the earth. Just as Newton and Einstein presented models of the universe, I presented a model of the earth.

RE have got thousands of layout of the Earth, if you'd bothered looking.

Your model of the Earth is wrong, as your maps show.

PS I likevery much when you put yourself in the same sentence with Einstein and Newton. Brilliant.

No one mapped out the true physics of the universe, just as no one mapped out the true layout of the earth. Just as Newton and Einstein presented models of the universe, I presented a model of the earth.

As stated before - I'm interested in what experimental data you've uncovered to lead you to the conclusion that this is the correct model.

I applaud Mr Bishop for his Zetetism.
It is good too see someone go against the very Non Zetetic issues of the FAQ without fear of reprisals against "moderators" here.

Well Done

It would make more sense if FE'ers said: Ok, we don't have a map, we're not cartographers, we cannot make a map.

If you read the forum you would see that this has been said countless times and is never accepted as a reason.  When FE'ers say that the map is not exact and is instead an approximation based on what is known they get torn apart for not maping out all known areas- after all, how much can it cost!

Seriously- read the threads. Said almost every time.

No one mapped out the true physics of the universe, just as no one mapped out the true layout of the earth. Just as Newton and Einstein presented models of the universe, I presented a model of the earth.

False, why are charts used in navigation so accurate and updated constantly? Are the charts that I have to order ever few months just created from thin air? is it all just a guessing game?

Funny you say that no one has mapped out the true layout of the Earth. I have two full chart draws proving that the layout of the coast line and oceans are charted, updated frequently, and accurate.

Well if that's the model you are presenting, then stick with it.  You can't use that map to explain one phenomenon, and then switch to a completely different map to explain another. Doing so invalidates your first model. The earth either has an ice wall, or it doesn't.  Unless... no, why didn't I see this before? Maybe the earth both has and ice wall and doesn't! Allow me to explain.

Both models have an Ice Wall. It says on the thread I linked -- "There is still an Ice Wall in this model, but is it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters surrounding the earth will naturally freeze."

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2012, 02:19:50 PM

No one mapped out the true physics of the universe, just as no one mapped out the true layout of the earth. Just as Newton and Einstein presented models of the universe, I presented a model of the earth.

As stated before - I'm interested in what experimental data you've uncovered to lead you to the conclusion that this is the correct model.

I'm using the same experimental data you guys provide here on this forum for the circumnavigation of Antarctica, the South Celestial Pole, and the Antarctic Midnight Sun. If you really must insist that those observations are correct (It's possible that they are not correct -- we don't actually know that those racers went all the way around Antarctica rather than merely 14,000 miles along the coast), then this is a model which explains those things.

False, why are charts used in navigation so accurate and updated constantly? Are the charts that I have to order ever few months just created from thin air? is it all just a guessing game?

Well, if Satellites really did exist, why would maps need to be updated constantly? The matter of how the earth looks should have been settled in the 60's and 70's.

Well, if Satellites really did exist, why would maps need to be updated constantly? The matter of how the earth looks should have been settled in the 60's and 70's.

When a chart is updated and a new version is released it is usually due to a change in the depth of water, change in the shoreline, submerged object, and many other things. A satellite might be able to tell the major differences, but a person actually needs to survey the land and find what the exact change may be so an accurate description can be added. Satellites show a round Earth, but are not able to accurately determine exact changes for chart updates. The difference in even 3-4 yards is very important when navigating certain inlets and channels for larger vessels. The Earth is constantly changing, I know that because I have to do chart corrections regularly (weekly notice to mariners, new versions, and so on).

My opinion is that the Earth shape has been settled long before the 60's with scientific research and common sense. To say the Earth is not round, to me, is illogical sense that would mean we are the special case in the known universe and everything about us is special including our sun and moon. That sounds very empirical and selfish to me. Why are we so special? why are we different? who is to say that we are the only ones traveling through space on a flat Earth with our own sun and moon orbiting around us while every other observed planet is orbiting around a sun that is in the middle. That would mean that we do view outer space through telescopes in orbit and satellites do exist, so once again that is just my opinion and I am in no way qualified to debate such a claim. I am just a navigator and sailor who observes a round Earth on a daily basis using the tools at my disposal along with training.