Circumnavigation.

So, if one starts from the Port of Palos, Spain, & goes West until one can go straight South to the Equator, & sails West across every ocean, & marches West across all the land (IOW, making an exact line on the Equator) until one can proceed directly North from the Equator back to the Port of Palos, Spain, that is called circumnavigation. It is not possible on a flat earth. Someone demonstrate that my penultimate sentence is wrong.

You think you are going west but in actuality moving along a circular path.  What is widely regarded as the north "pole" is approximately the center of that circle.

So why do compasses tell me otherwise? & next question. Let us assume I'm in an airplane flying along the Equator. That, according to all observable science, is where the trip should be longest. But FET says the trip would be MUCH longer @ the tip of S. America. This has never been shown to be true. Rather, the equatorial trip has been shown to be the longest. Why?

North is in the center of the circle when you travel west.  A compass points towards the north pole.  As long as you travel west, you travel in a circle. 

This is what I meant.  Thank you.  I said "west" when I meant "straight line".

& my next question?

& my next question?

Are you a pilot or ship captain?  No?  Then how do you know how long the trip is?

If you left Ecuador heading too Nauru it would be quicker to go near Hawaii than follow the equator on an FE. Get real. 

Jroa, don't ask stupid questions. Look @ a round earth map. Then an FE map. An RE map clearly shows the longest trip is around the equator. Science has confirmed this. Any pilot or businessman can tell you that a flight along the equator is longer than on the latitude of the Falklands. Again, how far ARE the Falklands from Sydney? An RE map shows the distance being much shorter than an FE map. & the RE measurement has been confirmed by ships & planes alike.

This is where the FE'ers tell us that there is no (accurate) FE map and thus how can we criticise something that doesn't exist?

I think a pertinent question which is still relevant to this topic is where is your accurate FE map, FE'ers? A map that complies with measured/known distances, is consistent with sunrise/sunset (including Antarctica) and where circumnavigation would work.

It really goes without saying that if you cannot produce such a map, then it leaves your FE hypothesis firmly in the realm of fantasy and make-believe. After all, the RE map is consistent and works with all of the above and every known observation, so why the hell would we throw it out in favour of some ludicrous FE nonsense which doesn't conform to reality in the slightest?

This is where the FE'ers tell us that there is no (accurate) FE map and thus how can we criticise something that doesn't exist?

I think a pertinent question which is still relevant to this topic is where is your accurate FE map, FE'ers? A map that complies with measured/known distances, is consistent with sunrise/sunset (including Antarctica) and where circumnavigation would work.

It really goes without saying that if you cannot produce such a map, then it leaves your FE hypothesis firmly in the realm of fantasy and make-believe. After all, the RE map is consistent and works with all of the above and every known observation, so why the hell would we throw it out in favour of some ludicrous FE nonsense which doesn't conform to reality in the slightest?

FlatOrange made one once.
I lost it.
Also, nooooooooooooooooooooooo we've been defeatedddddddddd!!1! NO ONE HAS EVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE. Let's pack up our shit, people. We had a good run. Shut TFES down.

So why do compasses tell me otherwise? & next question. Let us assume I'm in an airplane flying along the Equator. That, according to all observable science, is where the trip should be longest. But FET says the trip would be MUCH longer @ the tip of S. America. This has never been shown to be true. Rather, the equatorial trip has been shown to be the longest. Why?

That is because this entire society is based on pseudoscientific lies. They say they have 'evidence' backing up their 'theories' but fail to recognize the OVERWHELMING evidence that supports the fact that the earth is nearly a sphere. When faced with obvious evidence like things in orbit that we can see from the ground (http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/#.U7jP_fldVEx). In reality, these people are a laughing stock to the scientific community because they base all of their beliefs on conspiracies about the government lying about a spherical earth. They act as if that's the only evidence, which it isn't, and cite absolutely no sources that are reliable.

Why do you assume they are serious? They are comedy actors with non-standard sense of humor and this site is just a big LOL for entertainment purposes.

Why do you assume they are serious? They are comedy actors with non-standard sense of humor and this site is just a big LOL for entertainment purposes.

 

It has been said that this website is - quote - "One big hoax (and) or one big joke."
Note my signature line.