Southern (so called) hemisphere.

Yes - well small typo - it's a 32/68 split. 

And you forgot Antarctica.  It's also roughly a third of Africa, not just a small part.

No, I deliberately left out Antarctica.
Now leaving out Antarctica, is the split still 32/68?
If not, what would it be without Antarctica?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 17, 2015, 11:29:23 AM

Yes - well small typo - it's a 32/68 split. 

And you forgot Antarctica.  It's also roughly a third of Africa, not just a small part.

No, I deliberately left out Antarctica.
Now leaving out Antarctica, is the split still 32/68?
If not, what would it be without Antarctica?

Work it out for yourself - I provided the map.

Stop delaying: you still haven't said why the landmasses shouldn't be unevenly distributed on a round earth. 

Can somebody fill me in as to why ratio of land mass matters?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 17, 2015, 11:29:23 AM

Yes - well small typo - it's a 32/68 split. 

And you forgot Antarctica.  It's also roughly a third of Africa, not just a small part.

No, I deliberately left out Antarctica.
Now leaving out Antarctica, is the split still 32/68?
If not, what would it be without Antarctica?

You cant leave out Antarctica. That would be like saying - I didn't fancy having Australia in the southern hemisphere, so I left it out.....

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 11:45:40 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 17, 2015, 11:29:23 AM

Yes - well small typo - it's a 32/68 split. 

And you forgot Antarctica.  It's also roughly a third of Africa, not just a small part.

No, I deliberately left out Antarctica.
Now leaving out Antarctica, is the split still 32/68?
If not, what would it be without Antarctica?

You cant leave out Antarctica. That would be like saying - I didn't fancy having Australia in the southern hemisphere, so I left it out.....

Well, it is common knowledge that Australia doesn't exist.

Quote from: Mainframes on February 17, 2015, 12:33:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 11:45:40 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 17, 2015, 11:29:23 AM

Yes - well small typo - it's a 32/68 split. 

And you forgot Antarctica.  It's also roughly a third of Africa, not just a small part.

No, I deliberately left out Antarctica.
Now leaving out Antarctica, is the split still 32/68?
If not, what would it be without Antarctica?

You cant leave out Antarctica. That would be like saying - I didn't fancy having Australia in the southern hemisphere, so I left it out.....

Well, it is common knowledge that Australia doesn't exist.

Since its hanging upside down its mass doesn't need to be added to the world. obv.

Of course it is. I'm questioning it. Just because you believe it to be  correct means nothing, crabby. You should understand this.

Many people rely on continents being where we are told in order to get places.  I happen to know a thing or two about how airplanes navigate and if the shapes of continents are actually different then what the maps show then a lot of people would notice that they are not where the map says they should be and stuff.  Questioning the shape of the continents is like questioning weather computers actually work.

That map is still under construction. It's a huge one using real rocks as mountains and stuff. I'm trying to make it look as real as possible.
When it's all finished and looking good I'll post a nice video of it all in action. It may take some time so be patient and stop being pushy.

Is there any particular reason that you choose to answer all/any legitimate questions as though you're 3 or 4 years old sceptimatic?

In this case—and in response to my question about your finished FE map that you promised to post 12 months ago—it's to hide the obvious fact that you have no such map, and even more laughably that you're unable to even construct one.

Once again, you've again inadvertently made a fool of yourself by promising evidence that will "soon" be forthcoming, but..... "soon" never arrives LOL.  I've obviously struck another raw nerve with you by reminding everybody of yet another failed promise of yours in support of your FE notions.  You now resort to the good ol' tried and trusted passive-aggressive approach by accusing me of being "pushy", and apparently lacking "patience".  So suddenly it's my fault you can't produce your map?  You obviously know very little about psychological transparency sceptimatic—along with most other things any high-schooler knows LOL.

So... what's the new ETA for your FE map?  Can we expect it this month or this year?  Or does "infinity" enter the equation here?   

Can we get a picture of how the map is so far? Keep us peasants updated!

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2015, 10:48:06 AM

That map is still under construction. It's a huge one using real rocks as mountains and stuff. I'm trying to make it look as real as possible.
When it's all finished and looking good I'll post a nice video of it all in action. It may take some time so be patient and stop being pushy.

Is there any particular reason that you choose to answer all/any legitimate questions as though you're 3 or 4 years old sceptimatic?

In this case—and in response to my question about your finished FE map that you promised to post 12 months ago—it's to hide the obvious fact that you have no such map, and even more laughably that you're unable to even construct one.

Once again, you've again inadvertently made a fool of yourself by promising evidence that will "soon" be forthcoming, but..... "soon" never arrives LOL.  I've obviously struck another raw nerve with you by reminding everybody of yet another failed promise of yours in support of your FE notions.  You now resort to the good ol' tried and trusted passive-aggressive approach by accusing me of being "pushy", and apparently lacking "patience".  So suddenly it's my fault you can't produce your map?  You obviously know very little about psychological transparency sceptimatic—along with most other things any high-schooler knows LOL.

So... what's the new ETA for your FE map?  Can we expect it this month or this year?  Or does "infinity" enter the equation here?   

You're going to have to stop being so pushy, Geoffrey. Have a bit of patience. These things on this huge scale with attention to detail, take time, effort and money.

I'm still some way off. I've had to almost set this thing us a bit like Kubrick done with his moonlanding set, except this is the flat Earth model I'm creating under a dome.
Have some patience and stop try to best guess my state of mind. You failed last time - and you will continue failing, if you allow yourself to become frustrated over me.

As they say in the navy: PIPE DOWN.

You're going to have to stop being so pushy, Geoffrey. Have a bit of patience. These things on this huge scale with attention to detail, take time, effort and money.

Uh... waiting 12 months to remind you is being "pushy"?  Seriously?  If you consider that's the case, can you please give us an ETA for your map's disclosure?

...except this is the flat Earth model I'm creating under a dome.

No it's not.  This time last year, you posted a rough sketch of your flat earth map, and claimed that you'd soon be posting a better detailed and more accurate map that you were working on.  At that time you never mentioned constructing a model. 

So... how far have you progressed with your map?  And why has it taken you 12 months to produce?

Have some patience and stop try to best guess my state of mind. You failed last time - and you will continue failing, if you allow yourself to become frustrated over me.

I don't need to "guess" your state of mind sceptimatic;  I've already determined it from the plethora of unsupported and absurd claims you've made in every one of these forums.  And the repeated lies you've told whenever you've been backed into a corner—as I've just done questioning the existence of your purported "map".

You've made all these wonderful claims about producing maps and models of your flat earth repeatedly during the past 12 months, but not one version of either has ever been disclosed here by you.

It's really time that you put your money where your mouth is sceptimatic;  you're starting to look just a little foolish in most peoples' eyes.

Scepti does have a point because I noticed something similar. Climatic differences and distances simply do not match if the earth was a true globe. As you travel south, it stays warm for a very great distance, till you  basically reach the coast of Antarctica. For example the southern part of Argentina is a lot warmer then Northern Canada. However the distance to the poles are virtually the same. As you travel north it gets colder relatively quick way before you reach the Arctic. For example its roughly 3,000 miles from Chicago to North Pole. Chicago has rough winters and short mild summers. From Cape Town South Africa to south pole is also roughly 3,000 miles, yet Cape Town enjoys semi tropical weather, there is never any snow and the climate is very pleasant and warm. If the earth was a sphere, there would be pretty much more or less equal weather experiences based on distances from either north and south poles

If the earth was a sphere, there would be pretty much more or less equal weather experiences based on distances from either north and south poles.

Firstly—and it goes without saying—there is zero evidence even suggesting that the earth is any shape other than an oblate spheroid.  There is no "if" about it.

Second, the variations of climate across different continents is governed by many more factors than just their locations on the planet.  Wind and ocean currents play a major part, as do elevation and terrain, and proximity to large bodies of water.  The 23.5º tilt of the earth's axis also affects the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere climates in different ways. To equate climatic effects solely on a country's distance from the poles is erroneous.