Does the world end at Antarctica?

I will concede that the Earth is flat, but how do we know that it ends at Antarctica? Couldn't there be more land past Antarctica?

In my opinion no. Clues like the Aurora Australis signify you are coming to the edge.

In my opinion no. Clues like the Aurora Australis signify you are coming to the edge.

I'm confused, do you think the ice wall is the edge of the earth or not? You seem to be saying both...

The ice-wall is not far from the edge. Its like a rim and holds the sea in so it doesn't spill over the edge.

As depicted below.

The ice-wall is not far from the edge. Its like a rim and holds the sea in so it doesn't spill over the edge.

As depicted below.

Nice old drawing. Even less a proof than a photo!

If a picture paints 1000 words, that saves you writing tl;dr after my post.

Its an explanation, not a proof.

If a picture paints 1000 words, that saves you writing tl;dr after my post.

Its an explanation, not a proof.

its an explaination of something wrong! buy a globe, not something obviously wrong!

Not even you think a globe is accurate. A globe is a sphere, not an oblate spheroid.

Not even you think a globe is accurate. A globe is a sphere, not an oblate spheroid.

you can spot the difference on a 1 ft diameter globe between a sphere and an oblate spheroid? you're good!

According to the round earth propaganda machine, the ratio of elipticity of the earth is 1/257 between the semi-major axis and the semi-minor axis.

1 ft is 304 mm. So could I notice a difference of more than 1mm? Lets see.

Detecting symmetries of 10-20' (3–6 m per 1 km) are possible with the human eye, see the measurements of Tycho Brahe and the Egyptians.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye

It'd be very close. 1000/3 = 333.              1/257     1/333 - its not a huge difference.

It certainly wouldn't be accurate to say a globe is correct.

According to the round earth propaganda machine, the ratio of elipticity of the earth is 1/257 between the semi-major axis and the semi-minor axis.

1 ft is 304 mm. So could I notice a difference of more than 1mm? Lets see.

Detecting symmetries of 10-20' (3–6 m per 1 km) are possible with the human eye, see the measurements of Tycho Brahe and the Egyptians.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye

It'd be very close. 1000/3 = 333.              1/257     1/333 - its not a huge difference.

It certainly wouldn't be accurate to say a globe is correct.

it's correct, for its size, much more than your drawing. see the shpe of africa on your map? nothing could be further than the reality!

You know Africa intimately do you? Walked every inch and know my version is wrong and the bubble earth version is correct?

Just because our map looks different does not mean ours is the one that is wrong.

since Antarctica has been fully explored, mapped, and occupied, i agree with Willmores Model,
and the if there is an edge, it is far beyond.

You know Africa intimately do you? Walked every inch and know my version is wrong and the bubble earth version is correct?

Just because our map looks different does not mean ours is the one that is wrong.

look also how precise is your map with the behring straits! my globe is far more accurate!

i know africa well enough to know that your map is lousy!

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2012, 04:46:19 PM

You know Africa intimately do you? Walked every inch and know my version is wrong and the bubble earth version is correct?

Just because our map looks different does not mean ours is the one that is wrong.

look also how precise is your map with the behring straits! my globe is far more accurate!

i know africa well enough to know that your map is lousy!

I am pleased that we have a Cartographer on these fine forums now.  Please, share your data with us so that we can know the true placement and shape of the continents. 

There are many here who believe that there is no edge, but that the Ice Wall extends outward infinitely.

According to that drawing, it would never get dark. The sun would revolve over the flat Earth, and it would be eternally day, or am I seeing that wrong?

According to that drawing, it would never get dark. The sun would revolve over the flat Earth, and it would be eternally day, or am I seeing that wrong?

No you're seeing it right.  As far as I'm aware the FE people never did make a model they could all agree on.  Also pretty sure anybody that supports the above depiction will mention something about light bending upwards, or some such nonsense.

Also, if you're using Aurora Australis to back up your argument, you agree that the Earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere.

An aurora is a natural light display in the sky particularly in the high latitude (Arctic and Antarctic) regions, caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere. The charged particles originate in the magnetosphere and solar wind and, on Earth, are directed by the Earth's magnetic field into the atmosphere.

So, you agree that the Earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere, but that it is not a sphere/oblate spheroid?

According to that drawing, it would never get dark. The sun would revolve over the flat Earth, and it would be eternally day, or am I seeing that wrong?

The sun lights up the part of the Earth that it's over.  As it revolves to another part of the Earth, night falls upon where it had just been.

But it never leaves the sky, you would still be able to see the sun, meaning there  would still be light hitting the other side of the world, because the sun is not being blocked by anything. You can still see stars at night, and the sun is obviously the closest star.

Other question. If the aurora australis is a hint of the edge of earth what does the very similar aurora borealis suggest? Thork, do you perhaps believe the earth to be donut shaped?

But it never leaves the sky, you would still be able to see the sun, meaning there  would still be light hitting the other side of the world, because the sun is not being blocked by anything. You can still see stars at night, and the sun is obviously the closest star.

Yes, but the sun is much smaller than RET suggests, making it difficult to see if it isn't currently over you.

So, the sun is always in sky. The sun is actually much smaller than RET theory suggests. What is happening at a sunset then? If the sun was always in the sky, when it gets darker, it would dwindle in size until there was no more light. However, when I observe a sunset, the sun's size is constant, and it appears to sink beneath the horizon. Now, if the Earth were semi-spherical, or if the sun revolved around our flat Earth, that would explain this effect. However, you can observe any sunset and see that the sun exits the sky, while maintaining its size. The theory you suggest is observably wrong, and the test can be repeated every night.

Also, if you're using Aurora Australis to back up your argument, you agree that the Earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere.

An aurora is a natural light display in the sky particularly in the high latitude (Arctic and Antarctic) regions, caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere. The charged particles originate in the magnetosphere and solar wind and, on Earth, are directed by the Earth's magnetic field into the atmosphere.

So, you agree that the Earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere, but that it is not a sphere/oblate spheroid?

why would there not be a magnetosphere?

Quote from: Flat Eric on October 16, 2012, 01:59:26 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2012, 04:46:19 PM

You know Africa intimately do you? Walked every inch and know my version is wrong and the bubble earth version is correct?

Just because our map looks different does not mean ours is the one that is wrong.

look also how precise is your map with the behring straits! my globe is far more accurate!

i know africa well enough to know that your map is lousy!

I am pleased that we have a Cartographer on these fine forums now.  Please, share your data with us so that we can know the true placement and shape of the continents.

try to go from america to asia via the behring straits with you car, you'll see that i am right!

So, the sun is always in sky. The sun is actually much smaller than RET theory suggests. What is happening at a sunset then? If the sun was always in the sky, when it gets darker, it would dwindle in size until there was no more light. However, when I observe a sunset, the sun's size is constant, and it appears to sink beneath the horizon. Now, if the Earth were semi-spherical, or if the sun revolved around our flat Earth, that would explain this effect. However, you can observe any sunset and see that the sun exits the sky, while maintaining its size. The theory you suggest is observably wrong, and the test can be repeated every night.

So maybe the earth rotates causing the sun to come in and out of view, and to account for there being light on one side of the earth and not the other, perhaps that means the earth is round? This is an amazing discovery! Can someone write this down?