Antarctica questions

  • 171 Replies
  • 47007 Views
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2014, 06:01:49 AM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2014, 06:56:04 AM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2014, 07:18:51 AM »
your idea (coherently, please)
Good luck with that.

Quote

 better yet, draw it or provide an illustration?
He can't draw it, as it

Quote
Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets?
It doesn't account for anything, let alone sunsets.  For example, when asked how seasons worked under his ice dome I got this:

Quote
As for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it. This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
Really.

Quote
From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
It can be quite funny, that's the best you can say about it.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2014, 01:53:14 PM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204

Thanks for the link, but, yikes... almost 100 pages! On the other hand, if that thread is anything like most of them here, the last half or more will be a flame war and off-topic digressions with little actual discussion, so maybe it's not as daunting as it looks. I do recall references to the Ice Dome now, but forgot - or never really knew - the details.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2014, 03:49:52 PM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204

Thanks for the link, but, yikes... almost 100 pages! On the other hand, if that thread is anything like most of them here, the last half or more will be a flame war and off-topic digressions with little actual discussion, so maybe it's not as daunting as it looks. I do recall references to the Ice Dome now, but forgot - or never really knew - the details.
Serious deep thinking will only allow you to probe deeper into what I'm talking about. I don't expect you to take any notice of any of it unless you are prepared to allow your mind to process it. If you can't, won't or cannot grasp it in any way, shape or form, then no problem; that's your prerogative.
That's my unindoctrinated theory.

*

Moosedrool

  • 342
  • Ice Wall Guardian
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2014, 06:22:05 PM »
The simple act of spinning and momentarily stopping a raw egg disproves a large portion of scepti's nonsense.

Think that's enough reason for everyone to refrain from reading a 100 page thread with your "unindoctrinated theories" smeared all over it.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 06:30:51 PM by Moosedrool »
I'm not trying to disprove gravity. I've succeeded in disproving it. It's called denpressure.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2014, 01:28:48 AM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.


The North pole (and the South pole) are not imaginary locations.  They're both defined precisely—to the metre scale in fact.  This location however does vary steadily and periodically by around 9m every 433 days—check out "Chandler wobble".  The precise point of the pole at any given moment is known as the "instantaneous pole".  Both Newton and Euler predicted this wobble 300 years ago, based on their studies of the dynamics of rotating bodies, and the known ellipticity of the earth.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2014, 01:45:40 AM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.


The North pole (and the South pole) are not imaginary locations.  They're both defined precisely—to the metre scale in fact.  This location however does vary steadily and periodically by around 9m every 433 days—check out "Chandler wobble".  The precise point of the pole at any given moment is known as the "instantaneous pole".  Both Newton and Euler predicted this wobble 300 years ago, based on their studies of the dynamics of rotating bodies, and the known ellipticity of the earth.
Don't waste your time telling me this nonsense, Geoffrey. You know my thoughts on these past so called super scientists and their so called thoughts on what gullible people accept even today, based on absolutely nothing physically provable, except for some to say, "it is provable."...IT ISN'T.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2014, 02:40:04 AM »
Don't waste your time telling me this nonsense, Geoffrey. You know my thoughts on these past so called super scientists and their so called thoughts on what gullible people accept even today, based on absolutely nothing physically provable, except for some to say, "it is provable."...IT ISN'T.


So now you're telling me that you're more academically qualified than all the other geophysicists in the world, but at the same time you refuse to name even one of the 13 formal qualifications you claim to hold.

Is there any particular reason that you won't disclose even commonly held qualifications such as a BSc or a BEng for example?  What's the big secret?

Or have I called your bluff, and you've been untruthful about your alleged qualifications?  Oh dear.  Not good enough at all my friend.

At least I can honestly claim a diploma of civil engineering from the RMIT University in Melbourne.  You can telephone their archives division at +61 3 9925 6067 if you want hard evidence.  Tell them you're searching my credentials as a job applicant with the first name GEOFFREY (no middle name) and the surname PXXXXXXN for the year 1964.  They'll give you a ticket number, which you can post here.  Once I get that, I'll contact RMIT and authorise the release of my surname and diploma details to you.  But... RMIT will require your full name and address in order to do that.

The ball is in your court now.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2014, 02:56:54 AM »
So now you're telling me that you're more academically qualified than all the other geophysicists in the world, but at the same time you refuse to name even one of the 13 formal qualifications you claim to hold.
I didn't claim anything. I said I had 13. I didn't say anything other than 13.
Is there any particular reason that you won't disclose even commonly held qualifications such as a BSc or a BEng for example?  What's the big secret?
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.
It's like me telling someone  too have a look around my Bugatti and then asking them what they think of it. When they say, "wow" or something like that, I can then print them out a qualification as a Bugatti expert, even though all they've done is seen it's presence and have no clue about anything in it or what makes it work.
Or have I called your bluff, and you've been untruthful about your alleged qualifications?  Oh dear.  Not good enough at all my friend.
I can only be untruthful if I state my qualifications whilst not having them. Have I?
At least I can honestly claim a diploma of civil engineering from the RMIT University in Melbourne.  You can telephone their archives division at +61 3 9925 6067 if you want hard evidence.  Tell them you're searching my credentials as a job applicant with the first name GEOFFREY (no middle name) and the surname PXXXXXXN for the year 1964.  They'll give you a ticket number, which you can post here.  Once I get that, I'll contact RMIT and authorise the release of my surname and diploma details to you.  But... RMIT will require your full name and address in order to do that.

The ball is in your court now.
Ok, I'll do this. I'll get back to you on this.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2014, 04:38:49 AM »
Quote
It's like me telling someone  too have a look around my Bugatti and then asking them what they think of it. When they say, "wow" or something like that, I can then print them out a qualification as a Bugatti expert, even though all they've done is seen it's presence and have no clue about anything in it or what makes it work.
What hell are you rambling on about?

Only 14 year olds with self confidence problems pretend they have a Bugatti.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

macrohard

  • 139
  • IQ over 180
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2014, 07:42:21 AM »
PXXXXXXXN is a strange last name.  How do you pronounce that?  Also, I an as well a 14 year old with a Bugatti.

Source: my IQ is over 180

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2014, 11:00:54 AM »
You scumbag! Publishing someone's full name on an Internet forum without their permission after they've made an effort to obscure it is a huge breach of netiquette. I realize that you don't like him, but this is a really low-class thing to do.

Twit.

[Edit] The referred-to post has been removed. This does not change my opinion of sceptimatic or his lack of ethics.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 06:19:49 AM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2014, 02:19:56 PM »
You scumbag! Publishing someone's full name on an Internet forum without their permission after they've made an effort to obscure it is a huge breach of netiquette. I realize that you don't like him, but this is a really low-class thing to do.

Twit.
How about screwing on your head and stop acting like a frenzied schoolgirl.  ;D
How about not acting like an ass.

[Edit] forget it...  ain't gonna happen
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2014, 02:39:19 PM »
You scumbag! Publishing someone's full name on an Internet forum without their permission after they've made an effort to obscure it is a huge breach of netiquette. I realize that you don't like him, but this is a really low-class thing to do.

Twit.
How about screwing on your head and stop acting like a frenzied schoolgirl.  ;D

You have acted similarly when someone posted a mere PM, so it looks like you are leading the schoolgirl charge.  Anyway I reported it to the moderators as it is a breach of the rules and one of the more serious ones I think.  Hopefully something happens.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2014, 10:00:00 PM »
Hopefully something happens.
I reported it more than 10 hours ago asking no more than the last names be redacted. At least one of the people named is an innocent bystander.

Nothing yet...

[Edit] The offending post is now gone.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 06:14:30 AM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2014, 02:20:11 AM »
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.


So of the thirteen academic qualifications you claim to hold, you're now admitting that not one of them is related to the sciences?  Can you tell me then exactly what fields of research your qualifications are involved with?

You're also claiming that science or engineering degrees or doctorates are "worthless"?  Why do you claim that, and how can you explain the millions of scientists all over the world that utilise those sorts of academic qualifications every day?  Stephen Hawking for example holds several; so are you claiming that his qualifications as an astrophysicist are bogus?

I also can't understand that you managed to secure a position as a researcher "gathering samples" in Antarctica without any science qualifications at all.  As far as a I know, a Bachelor at least, or preferably a Doctorate, is required for that sort of high-tech research.  What non-scientific qualification enabled you to carry out strictly scientific work?  And were you working for a government organisation, or a private company?

Anyway... can you name for us a few of your qualifications not "commonly" recognised by the science community—or even the community at large?




?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #47 on: October 02, 2014, 03:37:46 AM »
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.


So of the thirteen academic qualifications you claim to hold, you're now admitting that not one of them is related to the sciences?  Can you tell me then exactly what fields of research your qualifications are involved with?

You're also claiming that science or engineering degrees or doctorates are "worthless"?  Why do you claim that, and how can you explain the millions of scientists all over the world that utilise those sorts of academic qualifications every day?  Stephen Hawking for example holds several; so are you claiming that his qualifications as an astrophysicist are bogus?

I also can't understand that you managed to secure a position as a researcher "gathering samples" in Antarctica without any science qualifications at all.  As far as a I know, a Bachelor at least, or preferably a Doctorate, is required for that sort of high-tech research.  What non-scientific qualification enabled you to carry out strictly scientific work?  And were you working for a government organisation, or a private company?

Anyway... can you name for us a few of your qualifications not "commonly" recognised by the science community—or even the community at large?
I could name you all kinds of things that you would reject, which is why I won't waste my time. The best thing for you to do, is to accept that I will disclose something when I'm ready to do so. Until then, you will be rendered guessing.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 12:53:54 AM by sceptimatic »

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #48 on: October 02, 2014, 05:49:21 AM »
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.

Anyway... can you name for us a few of your qualifications not "commonly" recognised by the science community—or even the community at large?
I could name you all kinds of things that you would reject, which is why I won't waste my time. The best thing for you to do, is to accept that I will disclose something when I'm ready to do so. Until then, you will be rendered guessing.


Uh... how do you know that I'd "reject" them out of hand?  Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant?

Apparently you're concerned that they won't stand up to close scrutiny by saying that.

How about just giving me a few, and letting me decide whether or not I accept them?  I can't understand why you're so afraid of actually naming any of these alleged "qualifications" of yours?  And if they're legitimate, I'll be the last person to reject them.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #49 on: October 02, 2014, 07:07:15 AM »
Uh... how do you know that I'd "reject" them out of hand?  Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant?
Why would I need to be clairvoyant? all I need is the use of observational skills and intuition to know how you work, Geoffrey.
Apparently you're concerned that they won't stand up to close scrutiny by saying that.
Close scutiny by who? you?...nahhhhh. You mean nothing to me ,Geoffrey - nothing.
How about just giving me a few, and letting me decide whether or not I accept them?
What you accept or not is of no concern to me.
I can't understand why you're so afraid of actually naming any of these alleged "qualifications" of yours?  And if they're legitimate, I'll be the last person to reject them.
You're not in any position to confirm or reject anything, Geoffrey.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #50 on: October 02, 2014, 07:24:41 AM »
ausGeoff, this is not a debate forum.  Thanks. 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39040
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2014, 09:17:38 AM »
ausGeoff, this is not a debate forum.  Thanks.
To be fair, it's not as if sceptimatic is answering any questions either.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2014, 10:25:26 PM »
ausGeoff, this is not a debate forum.  Thanks.
To be fair, it's not as if sceptimatic is answering any questions either.


Don't be to concerned markjo.

This is just another of the many examples of unsatisfactory moderation on these forums.  A flat earther gets away with repeated debate-type responses, but it's inevitably the round earther that earns the reprimand for doing exactly the same thing.

You'll also notice—all too conveniently—that it effectively lets sceptimatic off the hook as far as answering my question about his academic qualifications, but receiving—thus far—no answer.

A Q&A forum has a different meaning for round earthers and flat earthers apparently LOL.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2014, 12:11:27 AM »
Many of the academic qualifications thar Scepti claims to have will have been gained at school when he was 16 or 18.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2014, 02:22:49 AM »
Many of the academic qualifications thar Scepti claims to have will have been gained at school when he was 16 or 18.

Plus I think he'll find that science has advanced a lot in the last 18 months to two years.


Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #55 on: October 06, 2014, 05:09:01 PM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204

Thanks for the link, but, yikes... almost 100 pages! On the other hand, if that thread is anything like most of them here, the last half or more will be a flame war and off-topic digressions with little actual discussion, so maybe it's not as daunting as it looks. I do recall references to the Ice Dome now, but forgot - or never really knew - the details.
Finally slogged through that thread. It was mostly repetition with relatively little actual description of how or why things we can see in the sky behave. The "Ice Dome" idea presented is terribly incomplete, seems very poorly thought out, and no less preposterous - perhaps more, if that's possible - than the other FE ideas we've seen here. There is no plausible explanation for the apparent motion of the sun across the sky at all, much less sunrises and sunsets - at least not in that thread.

Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #56 on: October 07, 2014, 01:00:25 AM »
Finally slogged through that thread. It was mostly repetition with relatively little actual description of how or why things we can see in the sky behave. The "Ice Dome" idea presented is terribly incomplete, seems very poorly thought out, and no less preposterous - perhaps more, if that's possible - than the other FE ideas we've seen here. There is no plausible explanation for the apparent motion of the sun across the sky at all, much less sunrises and sunsets - at least not in that thread.

Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.
What you think of it is entirely up to you. That's the beauty about it all - you can decide.
That's why I have an alternative thought, because the one given out - the one you adhere to, makes absolutely no sense at all when it's logically thought about - but can make sense to anyone that reads into fantasy and embraces that.

The difference with mine is, it's not given out as any official model, it's merely a thought process that requires a lot of work, which I admit.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 01:02:04 AM by sceptimatic »

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #57 on: October 07, 2014, 01:19:53 AM »
Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.


Your latter assumption is the correct one.  Despite his totally unevidenced claim that he'd been to Antarctica on a secret research mission, and gathering samples of an unidentified nature, the whole thing was nothing more than a fabrication stemming from some kind of weird self-delusion on seceptimatic's part—or, as some would rightly say—a fabric of lies.

Unfortunately for sceptimatic, he's got a lousy memory, and his earlier lies often catch him out later on.  To be a competent liar, one has to have an excellent memory, and that's one thing—amongst many other mental attributes—that he lacks.

In previous threads, he's repeatedly told us that—as a continent—Antarctica doesn't exist (it's simply our misinterpretation of the flat earth "ice wall" and that it's unapproachable).  Now he's admitting that Antarctica does exist, and he's actually been there physically.  Although, surprisingly, he must've forgotten to take his camera, as he's unable to post any of the photos of the sort that any normal person would take during such an epic journey.

I'll be interested in seeing how sceptimatic responds to these claims—if he does, that is—but I'm also guessing he'll simply post a couple of lines of totally meaningless "excuses" or personal invective in an attempt to avoid providing any confirmatory evidence of his alleged visit to Antarctica.
 
—We'll see.   :P



Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #58 on: October 07, 2014, 06:19:28 AM »
Finally slogged through that thread. It was mostly repetition with relatively little actual description of how or why things we can see in the sky behave. The "Ice Dome" idea presented is terribly incomplete, seems very poorly thought out, and no less preposterous - perhaps more, if that's possible - than the other FE ideas we've seen here. There is no plausible explanation for the apparent motion of the sun across the sky at all, much less sunrises and sunsets - at least not in that thread.

Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.

What you think of it is entirely up to you. That's the beauty about it all - you can decide.

Quote from: Daniel Patrick Moynihan
You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

What's the value in deciding something if it's wrong?

The Universe doesn't care what you (or I, or anyone else) think. You can think and wish with all your might that something should or will to happen, it won't have any effect on whether it happens or not. You can, however, try to understand what has happened in the past, what is happening now, and use what has been learned to make predictions about what will happen in the future. The value of this is how well the predictions work.

Quote
That's why I have an alternative thought, because the one given out - the one you adhere to, makes absolutely no sense at all when it's logically thought about - but can make sense to anyone that reads into fantasy and embraces that.

Where are the logical flaws in mainstream models for life, the Universe, and everything? Note: your simply not liking or not believing them - for whatever reason - is not a logical flaw.

They're mainstream not because some evil cabal is forcing them down our unwitting throats; they're mainstream because they explain what we see, and predict what hasn't happened yet very well.

So where, specifically, is a flaw in the heliocentric spheroidal-earth model? Pick any one you think you see. How does your model explain it better? What predictions can your model make that will be different than the mainstream model? Predictions that can only be tested in the distant future aren't particularly useful in discussions such as these.

Quote
The difference with mine is, it's not given out as any official model, it's merely a thought process that requires a lot of work, which I admit.

This is an advantage? "Given out as an official model", even if true, doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. See earlier comments about why mainstream is mainstream and useful predictions.

"Merely a thought process" devoid of actual observations and checks against reality is usually described as "arm waving", or, in some cases, "raving". It can be amusing to dream up, and to poke holes in, but has limited usefulness otherwise.

Since I asked you for an example of a flaw in the mainstream model, I'll describe what I see as a major shortcoming in yours:

Someone is in, say, New Orleans, Louisiana (approx. Lat 30 N, Lon 90 W) and watching the Sun as it moves across the sky on a summer afternoon until it sets to his west. You suggest what he sees as "the Sun" is actually a reflection of a big bright thing fixed at the center of a disk-like earth that doesn't move. The reflection is coming from a fixed dome that covers the entire earth-disk and holds in the "atmosphere". A similar observer in Jacksonville, Florida (approx. 30 N, 82 W) will have seen the Sun move similarly and set about a half-hour earlier.  If nothing is moving, how and why does the reflection move from east to west? How and why does it "set"? When it's setting in Jacksonville, how and why is it still higher in the sky in New Orleans?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #59 on: October 07, 2014, 06:27:27 AM »
Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.


Your latter assumption is the correct one.  Despite his totally unevidenced claim that he'd been to Antarctica on a secret research mission, and gathering samples of an unidentified nature, the whole thing was nothing more than a fabrication stemming from some kind of weird self-delusion on seceptimatic's part—or, as some would rightly say—a fabric of lies.

Unfortunately for sceptimatic, he's got a lousy memory, and his earlier lies often catch him out later on.  To be a competent liar, one has to have an excellent memory, and that's one thing—amongst many other mental attributes—that he lacks.

In previous threads, he's repeatedly told us that—as a continent—Antarctica doesn't exist (it's simply our misinterpretation of the flat earth "ice wall" and that it's unapproachable).  Now he's admitting that Antarctica does exist, and he's actually been there physically.  Although, surprisingly, he must've forgotten to take his camera, as he's unable to post any of the photos of the sort that any normal person would take during such an epic journey.

I'll be interested in seeing how sceptimatic responds to these claims—if he does, that is—but I'm also guessing he'll simply post a couple of lines of totally meaningless "excuses" or personal invective in an attempt to avoid providing any confirmatory evidence of his alleged visit to Antarctica.
 
—We'll see.   :P
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica. Your problem is, you make things up to suit your own needs.
You need to learn to absorb what people are saying before you pipe in with a foot in your mouth. 8)