ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH

  • 141 Replies
  • 15397 Views
*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #120 on: September 27, 2015, 08:53:14 AM »
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.

Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.

My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?

The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.

None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.

You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.

You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I beleve I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #121 on: September 27, 2015, 09:21:16 AM »
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.

Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.

My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?

The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.

None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.

You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.

You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.

It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.

If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.

And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?

Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #122 on: September 27, 2015, 09:55:38 AM »
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.

Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.

My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?

The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.

None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.

You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.

You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.

It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.

If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.

And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?

Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.

So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.

Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #123 on: September 27, 2015, 11:19:41 AM »
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.

Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.

My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?

The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.

None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.

You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.

You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.

It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.

If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.

And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?

Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.

So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.

Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.

I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.

Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.

And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #124 on: September 27, 2015, 11:25:41 AM »
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.

Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.

My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?

The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.

None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.

You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.

You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.

It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.

If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.

And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?

Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.

So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.

Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.

I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.

Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.

And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.

It is different: the heat it imparts at a pole are far less. You were told this, and now you pretend you were not.

Ice rarely melts in winter. Winter is not universal. If Antarctica melted it would not exist. The hottest temperature in Antarctica remains abysmally low.

Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #125 on: September 27, 2015, 11:45:38 AM »
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.

Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.

My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?

The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.

None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.

You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.

You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.

It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.

If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.

And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?

Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.

So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.

Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.

I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.

Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.

And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.

It is different: the heat it imparts at a pole are far less. You were told this, and now you pretend you were not.

Ice rarely melts in winter. Winter is not universal. If Antarctica melted it would not exist. The hottest temperature in Antarctica remains abysmally low.

Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Antarctica is a continent with rock ground you know?

Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #126 on: September 27, 2015, 02:08:39 PM »
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.

Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.

My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?

The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.

None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.

You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.

You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.

It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.

If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.

And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?

Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.

So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.

Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.

I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.

Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.

And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.

It is different: the heat it imparts at a pole are far less. You were told this, and now you pretend you were not.

Ice rarely melts in winter. Winter is not universal. If Antarctica melted it would not exist. The hottest temperature in Antarctica remains abysmally low.

Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Antarctica is a continent with rock ground you know?

Yes. Your point? It is primarily ice.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #127 on: September 27, 2015, 02:26:59 PM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #128 on: September 27, 2015, 02:41:12 PM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.

Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #129 on: September 27, 2015, 02:48:59 PM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.

Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #130 on: September 27, 2015, 03:30:19 PM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.

Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.

I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.

'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.

Two falsehoods.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #131 on: September 27, 2015, 08:00:36 PM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.

Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.

I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.

'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.

Two falsehoods.

The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #132 on: September 27, 2015, 10:42:31 PM »
Testify doesn't actually believe anything he's saying. Lol. He's a troll. This whole site, even the society ate just trolls. None of them thinks the earth is actually flat. They just wanna be edgy an claim to believe on something so far off the map so they can wallow in the controversy of it all. Its not a debate. He'll never say that here, though. To his dying breath he'll swear he thinks all this crap. He doesnt. He's just a guy. This is like the internet forum version of being goth. Its all makeup and black clothes with a dork inside. Lol.
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #133 on: September 28, 2015, 04:01:56 AM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.

Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.

I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.

'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.

Two falsehoods.

The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.

If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #134 on: September 28, 2015, 04:23:07 AM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.


Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.

I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.

'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.

Two falsehoods.

The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.

If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

What lie?

I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.

And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #135 on: September 28, 2015, 07:01:48 AM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.


Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.

I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.

'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.

Two falsehoods.

The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.

If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

What lie?

I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.

And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.

Hosea 4:6 because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee

Your questions have been answered.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #136 on: September 28, 2015, 07:11:41 AM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.


Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.

I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.

'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.

Two falsehoods.

The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.

If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

What lie?

I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.

And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.

Hosea 4:6 because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee

Your questions have been answered.

I am asking for evidence. You have not provided any evidence, only guesses and opinions.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Testify

  • 420
  • In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #137 on: September 28, 2015, 07:18:55 AM »
Nope, it's prinarily rock.

My point is that it wont melt away.

Also, ice melts there in the summer.


Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.

Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?

Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.

If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.

I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.

'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.

Two falsehoods.

The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.

If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

What lie?

I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.

And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.

Hosea 4:6 because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee

Your questions have been answered.

I am asking for evidence. You have not provided any evidence, only guesses and opinions.

Matthew 13:14-15 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #138 on: September 28, 2015, 11:58:21 AM »
Enough of that! Reported for religious preaching.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #139 on: September 30, 2015, 04:37:45 AM »
Guys, the topic is about "the Flatness of the Earth".  Measuring the temperatures of the Earth doesn't prove it is flat or a sphere.

Two DIRECT PROOFS the Earth is NOT Flat are:

A:
-----------------------------------------
1) Motion is Relative.  Like if a stationary person is watching a car go by at 60 mph vs being inside the car watching the person go by at 60 mph. The motion is relative to your reference point that can be swapped or changed.

2) If you spin a basketball (sphere) on your finger, your finger defines the S. Pole. If you look from above the ball, you will see the N. Pole. The N. and S. Poles define the axis of spin of the ball. This is what it looks like to a stationary person with the ball spinning.  If the ball is stationary (swapping/changing the reference point), the person and world appear to be rotating around the ball. Both views are absolutely correct. The person and world appear to spin around the N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) that are extensions in the sky of the N. and S. Poles on the sphere. The NCP and SCP are the 2 points in the sky that everything appears to spin around (the center of the star trails).

3) A disk is a sphere that has been squished a lot. Everything in (2) totally applies to a disk but... You can ONLY see the SCP from the edge or bottom of the disk.  You CAN NOT see it from the top of the disk!!  A picture of star trails around the SCP taken from the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia in the S. Atlantic (lat -54.3667, long -36.5333) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/) would be impossible from a disk. Furthermore, the SCP in the S. Georgia Island image is 54 degrees up, which corresponds EXACTLY where it should be on a sphere earth.  This in essence disproves a Flat Earth model - irrefutably.

4) ANY arguments of what you can/can't, will/won't see from any place on the Earth (sphere or flat) can be demonstrated easily and directly.  All you need is a globe (sphere), a bicycle wheel (disk), cell phone and like Silly Putty.  Simply set the cell phone on Movie mode to take like 10 sec movies. Then, using the Silly Putty, put the cell phone anywhere you want on the globe or disk (e.g. N. Pole (+90 deg), Arctic circle (+66.6 deg), equator, South Georgia Island (-54 deg), S. Pole (-90 deg)) and at any angle you want (vertical, horizontal, whatever).  Then, start the movie and simply spin the globe/wheel back and forth.  You will see what will appear in the sky to a person standing at that place on the sphere/disk looking up at that angle. No guessing. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".

B:
-----------------------------------------
Basically, although a sphere and a disk are round, they have totally different attributes. There is a boat trip on 12/18/2015 from the southern most point of S. America to South Georgia Island via the Falkland Islands (1380 mi) that takes 3 days at approx 19.2 mph. Directly to South Georgia Island would be 1257 mi and 2.7 days. Per the Flat Earth model, the distance would be like 4423 mi (68.3 mph). Cruise ships don't go that fast.

Check out my "Traveling around 60 degrees south" thread for the details.

Both of these DIRECTLY prove the Earth is NOT flat.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #140 on: September 30, 2015, 05:17:52 AM »
Guys, the topic is about "the Flatness of the Earth".  Measuring the temperatures of the Earth doesn't prove it is flat or a sphere.

Two DIRECT PROOFS the Earth is NOT Flat are:

A:
-----------------------------------------
1) Motion is Relative.  Like if a stationary person is watching a car go by at 60 mph vs being inside the car watching the person go by at 60 mph. The motion is relative to your reference point that can be swapped or changed.

2) If you spin a basketball (sphere) on your finger, your finger defines the S. Pole. If you look from above the ball, you will see the N. Pole. The N. and S. Poles define the axis of spin of the ball. This is what it looks like to a stationary person with the ball spinning.  If the ball is stationary (swapping/changing the reference point), the person and world appear to be rotating around the ball. Both views are absolutely correct. The person and world appear to spin around the N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) that are extensions in the sky of the N. and S. Poles on the sphere. The NCP and SCP are the 2 points in the sky that everything appears to spin around (the center of the star trails).

3) A disk is a sphere that has been squished a lot. Everything in (2) totally applies to a disk but... You can ONLY see the SCP from the edge or bottom of the disk.  You CAN NOT see it from the top of the disk!!  A picture of star trails around the SCP taken from the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia in the S. Atlantic (lat -54.3667, long -36.5333) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/) would be impossible from a disk. Furthermore, the SCP in the S. Georgia Island image is 54 degrees up, which corresponds EXACTLY where it should be on a sphere earth.  This in essence disproves a Flat Earth model - irrefutably.

4) ANY arguments of what you can/can't, will/won't see from any place on the Earth (sphere or flat) can be demonstrated easily and directly.  All you need is a globe (sphere), a bicycle wheel (disk), cell phone and like Silly Putty.  Simply set the cell phone on Movie mode to take like 10 sec movies. Then, using the Silly Putty, put the cell phone anywhere you want on the globe or disk (e.g. N. Pole (+90 deg), Arctic circle (+66.6 deg), equator, South Georgia Island (-54 deg), S. Pole (-90 deg)) and at any angle you want (vertical, horizontal, whatever).  Then, start the movie and simply spin the globe/wheel back and forth.  You will see what will appear in the sky to a person standing at that place on the sphere/disk looking up at that angle. No guessing. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".

B:
-----------------------------------------
Basically, although a sphere and a disk are round, they have totally different attributes. There is a boat trip on 12/18/2015 from the southern most point of S. America to South Georgia Island via the Falkland Islands (1380 mi) that takes 3 days at approx 19.2 mph. Directly to South Georgia Island would be 1257 mi and 2.7 days. Per the Flat Earth model, the distance would be like 4423 mi (68.3 mph). Cruise ships don't go that fast.

Check out my "Traveling around 60 degrees south" thread for the details.

Both of these DIRECTLY prove the Earth is NOT flat.

The topic is, in fact, if you've read the OP, where is the edge if the earth was flat? Which is what we were discussing. Of course, temperature has nothing to do with the edge as well.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH
« Reply #141 on: September 30, 2015, 06:28:41 AM »
As far as I know, there are two theories of where the edge of the Earth is on a Flat Earth model:
  • At 90 deg south - based on a sphere model.
  • Unknown - can extend "endlessly". Some people suppose there are lands and "aliens" living beyond the Antarctica "wall".
But, as per my proof in "B:" above, you can totally and directly PROVE the Flat Earth model doesn't work (i.e. there is no edge to even look for).
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."