General rebuttal to FET

I plan to set forward a number of very simple rebuttals across several disciplines as to why FET cannot be true.

1. History: Several antarctic explorers have ventured to the magnetic south pole, and found articles left there by previous expeditions. THe most famous example is the Scott/Amundsen antarctic expedition. How is this explained by having a great ice wall? If it were only one expedition, I could believe it was a cover-up; but the sheer number of expeditions to the south pole make this explanation implausible.
17th century sailors reported seeing the masts of tall ships before the hulls. What is the explanation for this discovery?

2. Geography: If the world were distorted to account for the FET, then Australia's landmass would be several times larger than it has been measured to be, and Alaska would be smaller than Texas as it is closer to the North Pole. Is every cartographer ever part of a cover-up?

3. Physics: If the earth were flat and accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2, then what prevents the atmosphere from spilling out over the Ice Wall into the black abyss? Magic?
Lab experiments have shown that even at a small scale, gravitational forces exist: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf What is driving this?
What forces keep the sun in the sky? What is cosmic background radiation's source? etc.

4. Logic: Much of the proof of round-earth theory has been discredited by flat-earthers as part of a government cover-up. I ask you: who is profiting from this cover-up? why would it be perpetrated for so long and so effectively?

Welcome, Isidor.  Many of your questions are answered in the FAQ or the wiki.  Please read over them in order to have a better understanding of this great society. 

FAQ

wiki

1.  People have truly believed that they made it to the south pole.  They calculated the distance they would need to travel based on a round Earth.  They then traveled that distance and proclaimed that they made it to the pole.

2.  I don't understand your logic on this one.  Apples do not equal oranges, even though they are both fruit.

3.  There are several theories about this.  My theory is that it is so cold when you are far away from the sun that the gases in the air liquify before reaching the edge.

4.  A small amount of people benefit from all of the money spent on space exploration.

Welcome Isidor,

1. There is a common RET misconception about the mast/hull relationship.  Living near the ocean I have had the opportunity to study this subject extensively.  The 17th century sailors are in fact, incorrect.  The reality of mast/hull is described and proven in the FET literature.

Enjoy the site and I hope your study of FET serves you well.   

If the earth is round then why does it look flat?

I plan to set forward a number of very simple rebutels across several disciplines as to why FET cannot be true.

1. History: Several antarctic explorers have ventured to the magnetic south pole, and found articles left there by previous expeditions. THe most famous example is the Scott/Amundsen antarctic expedition. How is this explained by having a great ice wall? If it were only one expedition, I could believe it was a cover-up; but the sheer number of expeditions to the south pole make this explanation implausible.
17th century sailors reported seeing the masts of tall ships before the hulls. What is the explanation for this discovery?

2. Geography: If the world were distorted to account for the FET, then Australia's landmass would be several times larger than it has been measured to be, and Alaska would be smaller than Texas as it is closer to the North Pole. Is every cartographer ever part of a cover-up?

3. Physics: If the earth were flat and accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2, then what prevents the atmosphere from spilling out over the Ice Wall into the black abyss? Magic?
Lab experiments have shown that even at a small scale, gravitational forces exist: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf What is driving this?
What forces keep the sun in the sky? What is cosmic background radiation's source? etc.

4. Logic: Much of the proof of round-earth theory has been discredited by flat-earthers as part of a government cover-up. I ask you: who is profiting from this cover-up? why would it be perpetrated for so long and so effectively?

It is better for this to be rephrased as "Rebuttal to FES FAQ" because you certaintley did not disprove FET:

1. Not all FEs beleive that the Earth is centered around North Pole and surounded by an icewall. I myself and many others beleive in the bipoler model which puts the north and south poles at each end of the earth and throws out the icewall and puts Antartica as a continent insted. So thus this is no evidence

2. We do not have the money and profesionel cartographers to get this info. Ether way the REs are right about there mesurements. The one thing they got wrong is the shape!

3. I dont beleive UA. Gravitey works perfectley fine on a flat earth. I have a hipothesis that states that Earth is the vary base of the universe and so thus is being pulled in all directions by our expanding universe keeping it from rounding up

4. The Conspiracey does not exist. Space photos are vary much real. Look at a photo of earth from space: the sun is a sphere and so thus shines a circle of light upon the earth. It blocks out the rest of the disc and gives the ilusion of a round earth

I beleive YOU are the one WHI has been rebutled

"If the earth is round why does it look flat"
simple: because the curvature of the Earth is so slight that from a vantage point 2 metres above the ground, it is impossible to observe a curve. However, if one is at a very great altitude (such as in a plane), it is often possible to see: as one example.

"It's not the area they got wrong, it's the shape!!!111!!11!"
This argument simply makes no sense. Cartographers determine the area of a landmass by calculating its shape by triangulation, then applying mathematics to determine the area. If the shape is wrong, then so is the area.

"The gasses liquefy before they reach the edge"
The liquids  would still run over the sides.

"They just calculated the distance they needed to travel based on RET"
No. They figured it out when a magnetic compass spins around when standing at a point, and it still doesn't explain how Scott could find something left by Amundsen if they left from opposite sides of the world.

"The gasses liquefy before they reach the edge"
The liquids  would still run over the sides.

The gases would liquefy in the liquefaction zone.  If the liquid did flow farther from the sun and towards the edge, it would eventually be so cold that it would become a solid, which would block the flow of the other liquids.  Eventually, the liquid makes it back to warmer climates where it evaporates and mixes with the rest of the gases. 

"They just calculated the distance they needed to travel based on RET"
No. They figured it out when a magnetic compass spins around when standing at a point, and it still doesn't explain how Scott could find something left by Amundsen if they left from opposite sides of the world.

Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting.   

Welcome Isidor,

1. There is a common RET misconception about the mast/hull relationship.  Living near the ocean I have had the opportunity to study this subject extensively.  The 17th century sailors are in fact, incorrect.  The reality of mast/hull is described and proven in the FET literature.

Enjoy the site and I hope your study of FET serves you well.

Did you get the same result as the experiment done at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50707.0.html which showed that magnification didn't restore sinking ship ?

"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

Amundsen and Scott's starting points were less than 700 km apart and they were using maps to get there.  Why should they not get to the same place?  You seem to be grasping at straws here.

Quote from: Isidor on October 09, 2013, 01:26:42 AM

"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

Amundsen and Scott's starting points were less than 700 km apart and they were using maps to get there.  Why should they not get to the same place?  You seem to be grasping at straws here.

A map? So did some unknown group of people explore the south pole before them to map it? You must be kidding or trolling right?

If the south pole is south then how come when I go past the north pole I go south?

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 02:22:43 AM

Quote from: Isidor on October 09, 2013, 01:26:42 AM

"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

Amundsen and Scott's starting points were less than 700 km apart and they were using maps to get there.  Why should they not get to the same place?  You seem to be grasping at straws here.

A map? So did some unknown group of people explore the south pole before them to map it? You must be kidding or trolling right?

You act like those two expeditions were the first to discover Antarctica.  The fact is that people had been walking around on Antarctica for more the 50 years prior to Amundsen and Scott's expeditions.  Previous expeditions had made it as far as 88 degrees.  Yes, they had maps and most of the two routes that they took were following in the footsteps of other expeditions.  In fact, I would not be surprised if they had the exact same map, since their expeditions started so close to each other.

Both started from the same side of Antarctica, only around 700km apart.  Both started from the Ross ice shelf, not from opposite sides of the world, as Isidor claims. It would be like me starting from Savannah, Georgia and you starting from Montgomery, Alabama, and both of us ending up finding Orlando, Florida using the same map and then claiming that we started on opposite sides of the Earth.  No big surprise there.

This map will show you just how close they were to each other.  Scott's is the green route, Amundsen's is the red route.

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 02:42:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 02:22:43 AM

Quote from: Isidor on October 09, 2013, 01:26:42 AM

"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

Amundsen and Scott's starting points were less than 700 km apart and they were using maps to get there.  Why should they not get to the same place?  You seem to be grasping at straws here.

A map? So did some unknown group of people explore the south pole before them to map it? You must be kidding or trolling right?

You act like those two expeditions were the first to discover Antarctica.  The fact is that people had been walking around on Antarctica for more the 50 years prior to Amundsen and Scott's expeditions.  Previous expeditions had made it as far as 88 degrees.  Yes, they had maps and most of the two routes that they took were following in the footsteps of other expeditions.  In fact, I would not be surprised if they had the exact same map, since their expeditions started so close to each other.

Both started from the same side of Antarctica, only around 700km apart.  Both started from the Ross ice shelf, not from opposite sides of the world, as Isidor claims. It would be like me starting from Savannah, Georgia and you starting from Montgomery, Alabama, and both of us ending up finding Orlando, Florida using the same map and then claiming that we started on opposite sides of the Earth.  No big surprise there.

This map will show you just how close they were to each other.  Scott's is the green route, Amundsen's in the red route.

Do you have any proof showing that someone reached the Geographic South Pole before Amundsen and his party?

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 03:54:35 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 02:42:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 02:22:43 AM

Quote from: Isidor on October 09, 2013, 01:26:42 AM

"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

Amundsen and Scott's starting points were less than 700 km apart and they were using maps to get there.  Why should they not get to the same place?  You seem to be grasping at straws here.

A map? So did some unknown group of people explore the south pole before them to map it? You must be kidding or trolling right?

You act like those two expeditions were the first to discover Antarctica.  The fact is that people had been walking around on Antarctica for more the 50 years prior to Amundsen and Scott's expeditions.  Previous expeditions had made it as far as 88 degrees.  Yes, they had maps and most of the two routes that they took were following in the footsteps of other expeditions.  In fact, I would not be surprised if they had the exact same map, since their expeditions started so close to each other.

Both started from the same side of Antarctica, only around 700km apart.  Both started from the Ross ice shelf, not from opposite sides of the world, as Isidor claims. It would be like me starting from Savannah, Georgia and you starting from Montgomery, Alabama, and both of us ending up finding Orlando, Florida using the same map and then claiming that we started on opposite sides of the Earth.  No big surprise there.

This map will show you just how close they were to each other.  Scott's is the green route, Amundsen's in the red route.

Do you have any proof showing that someone reached the Geographic South Pole before Amundsen and his party?

No, I never said that.  Now, you are the one that seems to be trolling.  I said most of their routes where through known territory, not all of it.  Did you miss the part where I said that a previous expedition had made it to 88 degrees south?

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 03:59:26 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 03:54:35 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 02:42:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 02:22:43 AM

Quote from: Isidor on October 09, 2013, 01:26:42 AM

"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

Amundsen and Scott's starting points were less than 700 km apart and they were using maps to get there.  Why should they not get to the same place?  You seem to be grasping at straws here.

A map? So did some unknown group of people explore the south pole before them to map it? You must be kidding or trolling right?

You act like those two expeditions were the first to discover Antarctica.  The fact is that people had been walking around on Antarctica for more the 50 years prior to Amundsen and Scott's expeditions.  Previous expeditions had made it as far as 88 degrees.  Yes, they had maps and most of the two routes that they took were following in the footsteps of other expeditions.  In fact, I would not be surprised if they had the exact same map, since their expeditions started so close to each other.

Both started from the same side of Antarctica, only around 700km apart.  Both started from the Ross ice shelf, not from opposite sides of the world, as Isidor claims. It would be like me starting from Savannah, Georgia and you starting from Montgomery, Alabama, and both of us ending up finding Orlando, Florida using the same map and then claiming that we started on opposite sides of the Earth.  No big surprise there.

This map will show you just how close they were to each other.  Scott's is the green route, Amundsen's in the red route.

Do you have any proof showing that someone reached the Geographic South Pole before Amundsen and his party?

No, I never said that.  Now, you are the one that seems to be trolling.  I said most of their routes where through known territory, not all of it.  Did you miss the part where I said that a previous expedition had made it to 88 degrees south?

Only one expedition reached 88 degrees south before them. And it is not the Geographic South Pole. What route did they take? What kind of map did they make? Amundsen/Scott took two different routes. If you are not trolling then it means your logic is completely twisted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_Expedition

Shackleton's party covered the distance in 29 days compared with Scott's 59, using a track considerably east of Scott's to avoid the surface problems the earlier journey had encountered

The three men used three different routes. Your map claim is just rubbish.

Why are you trying to derail this thread by asking me to present irrelevant information?  I answered the OP's question.  Why should I do a bunch of research for you?  Does google  not work on your computer?  Maybe your Linux is broken or something?

Why are you trying to derail this thread by asking me to present irrelevant information?  I answered the OP's question.  Why should I do a bunch of research for you?  Does google  not work on your computer?  Maybe your Linux is broken or something?

Next time, think or do some research before saying anything that would make you look foolish.

Amundsen and Scott's starting points were less than 700 km apart and they were using maps to get there.  Why should they not get to the same place?  You seem to be grasping at straws here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_Expedition

Quote

Shackleton's party covered the distance in 29 days compared with Scott's 59, using a track considerably east of Scott's to avoid the surface problems the earlier journey had encountered

The three men used three different routes. Your map claim is just rubbish.

That quote says that Scott knew where to go and where not to based on prior expeditions.  Sounds to me like he had a map.

Once again, you fail at trying to trip me up.

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 04:21:38 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_Expedition

Quote

Shackleton's party covered the distance in 29 days compared with Scott's 59, using a track considerably east of Scott's to avoid the surface problems the earlier journey had encountered

The three men used three different routes. Your map claim is just rubbish.

That quote says that Scott knew where to go and where not to based on prior expeditions.  Sounds to me like he had a map.

Once again, you fail at trying to trip me up.

Do you know what it means to find the Geographical South Pole? It's to find 90 degrees south! Everyone (except you obviously) knows what to aim. They navigated using sextant or theodolite to get there. Next time, think or do some research before saying anything that would make you look foolish.

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 04:25:43 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 04:21:38 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_Expedition

Quote

Shackleton's party covered the distance in 29 days compared with Scott's 59, using a track considerably east of Scott's to avoid the surface problems the earlier journey had encountered

The three men used three different routes. Your map claim is just rubbish.

That quote says that Scott knew where to go and where not to based on prior expeditions.  Sounds to me like he had a map.

Once again, you fail at trying to trip me up.

Do you know what it means to find the Geographical South Pole? It's to find 90 degrees south! Everyone knows what to aim. They navigated using sextant or theodolite to get there. Next time, think or do some research before saying anything that would make you look foolish.

Here is a representation of both Scott's and Shackletons's routes.  Both made a beeline right to their respective mountain pass.  Once again, they knew where they were going.  People do this by using maps to pre plan their route.  The way they navigated had nothing to do with their planning of a route.  So, once again, you are using straw man tactics after I crushed your argument. 

You don't seem to have a leg to stand on at this point.  They had maps.  You can back out any time you feel like it.

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 04:29:17 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 04:25:43 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 04:21:38 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_Expedition

Quote

Shackleton's party covered the distance in 29 days compared with Scott's 59, using a track considerably east of Scott's to avoid the surface problems the earlier journey had encountered

The three men used three different routes. Your map claim is just rubbish.

That quote says that Scott knew where to go and where not to based on prior expeditions.  Sounds to me like he had a map.

Once again, you fail at trying to trip me up.

Do you know what it means to find the Geographical South Pole? It's to find 90 degrees south! Everyone knows what to aim. They navigated using sextant or theodolite to get there. Next time, think or do some research before saying anything that would make you look foolish.

Here is a representation of both Scott's and Shackletons's routes.  Both made a beeline right to their respective mountain pass.  Once again, they knew where they were going.  People do this by using maps to pre plan their route.  The way they navigated had nothing to do with their planning of a route.  So, once again, you are using straw man tactics after I crushed your argument. 

You don't seem to have a leg to stand on at this point.  They had maps.  You can back out any time you feel like it.

Showing me a map doesn't mean they had a map! You are really foolish

Do you know why you failed with that map jroa? That map had dates on Amundsen route. It means, that map was made by Amundsen after or during the expedition. Not before. Next time, think or do some research before saying anything that would make you look foolish. You can back out any time you feel like it.

Are you drunk, or are you trying to show me what you have to put up with when debating with sceptimatic?

Are you drunk, or are you trying to show me what you have to put up with when debating with sceptimatic?

You know very well how to come up clean jroa. Show me a proof that they had a map of the Geographical South Pole prior to the expedition.

Isn't there a special device that tells you exactly where the geographic south pole is? What could it be?

A map?

A map?

Something like this maybe?

I see it! There is the south pole. It is there and there and there and there and there.