General rebuttal to FET

Cartesian, if someone planted a box in the middle of the desert, and we had maps and navigational equipment to find it, I could show you how to navigate. 

Also, Antarctica is a desert. 

Cartesian, if someone planted a box in the middle of the desert, and we had maps and navigational equipment to find it, I could show you how to navigate. 

Also, Antarctica is a desert.

jroa, you just need the coordinate to find the box. A map is not mandatory. Prove me that Amundsen and Scott used a map that told them which point to plant/find a flag.

So, you are saying that nobody made a map of Antarctica before the discussed expeditions.  It is hard to prove a negative. Now, what do you expect me to do?  Do you want me to prove that fairies don't exist, or the boogyman?

So, you are saying that nobody made a map of Antarctica before the discussed expeditions.  It is hard to prove a negative. Now, what do you expect me to do?  Do you want me to prove that fairies don't exist, or the boogyman?

Ah so now you try to twist the story. You are the one who said they had a map of that uncharted territory. So prove it, jroa.

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:25:16 AM

So, you are saying that nobody made a map of Antarctica before the discussed expeditions.  It is hard to prove a negative. Now, what do you expect me to do?  Do you want me to prove that fairies don't exist, or the boogyman?

Ah so now you try to twist the story. You are the one who said they had a map of that uncharted territory. So prove it, jroa.

Are you saying that they had no maps?  Are you saying that in 70 years, no one made a map?  Cartesian says that they just pointed their compasses and went at it.  And, they were the first set foot on the rim continent. 

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 07:28:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:25:16 AM

So, you are saying that nobody made a map of Antarctica before the discussed expeditions.  It is hard to prove a negative. Now, what do you expect me to do?  Do you want me to prove that fairies don't exist, or the boogyman?

Ah so now you try to twist the story. You are the one who said they had a map of that uncharted territory. So prove it, jroa.

Are you saying that they had no maps?  Are you saying that in 70 years, no one made a map?  Cartesian says that they just pointed their compasses and went at it.  And, they were the first set foot on the rim continent.

How many times do you think I have to repeat this? Prove your claim they had a map that led them to the same point. You can't, can you?

Ok, tell me how they went in straight lines towards the passes without knowing where they were going or planning it.

Ok, tell me how they went in straight lines towards the passes without knowing where they were going or planning it.

Prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point. You can't, can you?

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:36:55 AM

Ok, tell me how they went in straight lines towards the passes without knowing where they were going or planning it.

Prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point. You can't, can you?

Prove that you are not a jack ass.  I am done with you.

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 07:37:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:36:55 AM

Ok, tell me how they went in straight lines towards the passes without knowing where they were going or planning it.

Prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point. You can't, can you?

Prove that you are not a jack ass.  I am done with you.

So you can't prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point, can you? Next time, think or do some research before posting. OK, jroa?

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:43:10 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 07:37:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:36:55 AM

Ok, tell me how they went in straight lines towards the passes without knowing where they were going or planning it.

Prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point. You can't, can you?

Prove that you are not a jack ass.  I am done with you.

So you can't prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point, can you? Next time, think or do some research before posting. OK, jroa?

No, I have proof that you are an arse. 

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 07:44:31 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:43:10 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 07:37:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2013, 07:36:55 AM

Ok, tell me how they went in straight lines towards the passes without knowing where they were going or planning it.

Prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point. You can't, can you?

Prove that you are not a jack ass.  I am done with you.

So you can't prove your claim they had a map of that uncharted territory that led them to the same point, can you? Next time, think or do some research before posting. OK, jroa?

No, I have proof that you are an arse.

Is insulting people the best you can do when you cannot prove your own claim? Try to be a good boy jroa. Try to use your brain and do some research before posting next time. OK, jroa? 

Now that jroa is out, this question has remained unanswered:

It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

In a world that looks like

Precisely. Also, in the interest of more information:
[url]http://www.coolantarctica.com/antarctica_video/antarctic_video_commonwealth_trans_antarctic_expedition.htm[\url]

A group of explorers set foot from one side of Antarctica, trekked across the south pole and ended up at... wait for it... the other side of antarctica. If you try to tell me that they went sideways, that would mean that they walked more than 12 times the length of the USA in the middle of freezing conditions. How is this possible?

Which brings up a new argument: Economics. If antarctica (or the so called "sea wall") has a landmass equivalent to all of the inhabited countries in the world, then why has no-one gone to special expense to claim it? it is divided up more or less like a pizza:

South America, Africa and Oceania should have an area 10 times that of Asia and North America, and the distance by ocean between Australia and South America should be greater than the distance to the US. Please elaborate how this makes sense considering the actual travel times and shipping costs between these regions.

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?

I'll have a crack at this.

1. While jroa's argument with Cartesian was entertaining, it still didn't answer one very important question: how did two tracks, starting with a good deal of separation and heading pretty much due south, end up in the same place? Two tracks which, after a point, were into thus far uncharted territory (I say after a point, assuming that the outer areas of Antarctica had been mapped by this time, leaving only the inner areas uncharted).
As for masts being visible before hulls, this has been done to death, so I won't bother rehashing it, except to say that the only credible explanation is that the earth is round.

2. Having been born in Australia and lived here all my life, I can say that neither FE 'map' is accurate, however all maps based on a round earth (that I have used) are.

3. Also, the Eötvös effect can only (as far as I can figure) exist on a round, rotating earth subject to gravity.

4. Why lie? They could make just as much by saying it was flat and pretending to be drilling down to the bottom in search of free energy from the UA.

While jroa's argument with Cartesian was entertaining, it still didn't answer one very important question: how did two tracks, starting with a good deal of separation and heading pretty much due south, end up in the same place? Two tracks which, after a point, were into thus far uncharted territory (I say after a point, assuming that the outer areas of Antarctica had been mapped by this time, leaving only the inner areas uncharted).

That was exactly the whole point of my debate with jroa. His argument was that there was a map of that uncharted territory which led both teams to the same exact point in the middle of ice using two different routes while my argument was that what both teams needed to do was simply to find a point at one very specific location. There can only be one and one point only located at 90 degrees south in RE, but in FE monopolar map, there is an infinite number of points which you call 90 degrees south. So yes the question remains; how did the two teams manage to meet at one point out of infinity in FE?

They knew where the passes where.  Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, believe they did not have maps to show them where the passes were?

They knew where the passes where.  Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, believe they did not have maps to show them where the passes were?

Are you talking about a map of uncharted territory again jroa? I thought you're done with this.

Quote from: jroa on October 10, 2013, 02:48:24 AM

They knew where the passes where.  Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, believe they did not have maps to show them where the passes were?

Are you talking about a map of uncharted territory again jroa? I thought you're done with this.

No, I am talking about the charted areas.  When they passed the mountains, they just had to follow a bearing, which lead both parties to the same spot.  This is freaking ridiculous that I have to explain this over and over. 

Quote from: Cartesian on October 10, 2013, 02:58:34 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 10, 2013, 02:48:24 AM

They knew where the passes where.  Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, believe they did not have maps to show them where the passes were?

Are you talking about a map of uncharted territory again jroa? I thought you're done with this.

No, I am talking about the charted areas.  When they passed the mountains, they just had to follow a bearing, which lead both parties to the same spot.  This is freaking ridiculous that I have to explain this over and over.

One of them didn't even have a map to go through the mountains. Do you want to prove that they both had maps? Or shall I show you that at least one of them didn't have a map of the route to keep you quiet?

What the heck.  Prove to me that one of them did not have a map.  They just aimlessly went into the wilderness. 

What the heck.  Prove to me that one of them did not have a map.  They just aimlessly went into the wilderness. 

You are just so lazy!

Unlike Scott, who would be following the Beardmore Glacier route pioneered by Shackleton, Amundsen had to find his own route through the mountains. After probing the foothills for several days and climbing to around 1,500 feet (460 m), the party found what appeared to be a clear route, a steep glacier 30 nautical miles (56 km) long leading upwards to the plateau.

Amundsen's route through unknown land
Scott's route the same as that chartered by Shackleton until 88° 23' S

Now that we're over the ridiculous map discussion. Can you tell me what bearing they followed? They went towards 90 degrees south, right? Where is 90 degrees south in FE?

Are you trying to say that Amundsen did not know where he was and just wandered aimlessly?

Are you trying to say that Amundsen did not know where he was and just wandered aimlessly?

Don't you realize that it is a question for you jroa? In RE, heading 90 degrees south is not wandering aimlessly. They both went towards the one and only one point located at 90 degrees south regardless of the route taken and avoided any obstacle found on the way. In FE, that is indeed wandering aimlessly because there is not only one point located at 90 degrees south. So now will you answer the question. How did Scott find Amundsen flag in FE when they wandered aimlessly?

I'm still not understanding why it's so hard to find a pass without a map.  It seems to me, that by it's very nature, a pass is lower than the land on either side of it.  This would make it very probably that you could see said pass from quite a distance, especially with something as simple as a set of binoculars.  It also seems reasonable, that once you are in said pass, it is easy to stay pretty much in the middle of the pass as you are negotiating it.

I'm still not understanding why it's so hard to find a pass without a map.  It seems to me, that by it's very nature, a pass is lower than the land on either side of it.  This would make it very probably that you could see said pass from quite a distance, especially with something as simple as a set of binoculars.  It also seems reasonable, that once you are in said pass, it is easy to stay pretty much in the middle of the pass as you are negotiating it.

Indeed. Fortunately pioneers are more sensible than jroa, otherwise all then-uncharted places will never be explored until today. But unfortunately, I still don't know where 90 degrees south is in FE. Maybe the earth is not flat after all.

When you find a pass, you don't walk straight towards it.  You walk around until you find it. 

When you find a pass, you don't walk straight towards it.  You walk around until you find it.

Ah, that doesn't make a lot of sense jroa. Once you find a pass, the logical thing to do is head straight for it, as terrain permits of course. Meaning that, if there are no obstacles, your path to the pass would be a straight line. You don't wander around saying "oh, I see the pass! Now I just have to wander aimlessly until I stumble into it." That's how your comment read.

Also they started a large distance away from each other. In RET, as they go towards the north pole their paths get closer and closer together. In FET, they get further and further away.

When you find a pass, you don't walk straight towards it.  You walk around until you find it.

Where is the 90 degrees south in FE?