The South Pole

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

You get called a bot and they change the subject.

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

Well, here's a different one for you. It's called the bipolar flat-earth map.

Just for the sake of saving John some time searching it out, here's the common flat bipolar map.



Any discrepancies with navigation are passed off as an inaccuracy of the map, and generally flat Earthers will agree that the current maps are not perfectly representative of how the world is actually laid out.

[Image display shrunk for more convenient viewing]

It's the same projection as the typical "UN map" flat earth, but centered on the equator and 0° longitude instead of the north pole. Selecting the Greenwich meridian as the center conveniently puts the "edge" out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, where there aren't many people. You can pick whatever meridian you want as the center (or any latitude, for that matter), but this is probably as good a choice as any since you wouldn't want the "edge" to be anywhere near a populated place - that would produce too many embarrassing questions.

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

If you take a route that doesn't go off the edge, you won't fall off the edge.

Please provide any evidence or information about this ludicrous hypothetical. No one has ever "walked across Antarctica."

(Somebody has gotta teach these "whatabouters" how to create a decent premise.)

Quote from: Cosmical on February 13, 2018, 04:05:42 AM

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

If you take a route that doesn't go off the edge, you won't fall off the edge.

Please provide any evidence or information about this ludicrous hypothetical. No one has ever "walked across Antarctica."

(Somebody has gotta teach these "whatabouters" how to create a decent premise.)

Depends on what you consider footware.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilie_Skog

http://www.espn.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/7492378/british-adventurer-felicity-aston-caps-first-ski-crossing-antarctica-woman

Norway does not exist. So she is a fake person, and fake people cannot cross the Antarctic.

Done.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on February 13, 2018, 07:19:51 AM

Quote from: Cosmical on February 13, 2018, 04:05:42 AM

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

If you take a route that doesn't go off the edge, you won't fall off the edge.

Please provide any evidence or information about this ludicrous hypothetical. No one has ever "walked across Antarctica."

(Somebody has gotta teach these "whatabouters" how to create a decent premise.)

Depends on what you consider footware.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilie_Skog

http://www.espn.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/7492378/british-adventurer-felicity-aston-caps-first-ski-crossing-antarctica-woman

Does anyone believe that skiing is the same as walking?

I choose my words carefully. Details matter. Pay attention.

No one has ever "walked across Antarctica."

Does anyone believe that skiing is the same as walking?

Otherwise I plan to be in PyeongChang next week to watch the walking competition.

Quote from: NAZA on February 13, 2018, 07:35:44 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on February 13, 2018, 07:19:51 AM

Quote from: Cosmical on February 13, 2018, 04:05:42 AM

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

If you take a route that doesn't go off the edge, you won't fall off the edge.

Please provide any evidence or information about this ludicrous hypothetical. No one has ever "walked across Antarctica."

(Somebody has gotta teach these "whatabouters" how to create a decent premise.)

Depends on what you consider footware.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilie_Skog

http://www.espn.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/7492378/british-adventurer-felicity-aston-caps-first-ski-crossing-antarctica-woman

Does anyone believe that skiing is the same as walking?

I choose my words carefully. Details matter. Pay attention.

No one has ever "walked across Antarctica."

In other words you were just being a pedantic prick because a newbie's post didn't meet your standards.

Care to address the substance of the post that man trekking across Anartica is evidence against an ice wall or are you here just to stroke your ego and display your superiority?

Quote from: Cosmical on February 13, 2018, 04:05:42 AM

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

You get called a bot and they change the subject.

Or a shill.

Norway does not exist. So she is a fake person, and fake people cannot cross the Antarctic.

Done.

Neither do Denmark or Australia.

In other words you were just being a pedantic prick because a newbie's post didn't meet your standards.

Care to address the substance of the post that man trekking across Anartica is evidence against an ice wall

I didn't realize you considered yourself a newbie. You're the one who brought up skiing.

Sure. I would love to bring up the substance of the post about the TWO WOMEN trekking across Anartica [sic] being evidence against an ice wall.

I never said anything about an ice wall. You must be thinking about someone else.

... or are you here just to stroke your ego and display your superiority?

Not just. But it's so easy when you throw softballs like this.

Also, what about the other side of the disc? If we dig down enough, we should technically fall into oblivion, unless gravity holds us upside-down. But if this is true, then the farther away from he center of the world we get, the more slanted we would walk. This has holes in I know, please don’t point them out. Just answer the question.

"Try to change my mind!"

But please don't point out the holes in the strawman I've created. Just answer the question.

[/pedantic_prick_mode]

Quote from: Cosmical on February 13, 2018, 04:05:42 AM

In every FE picture I've seen, the earth is a disc with the north pole in the center, and Antarctica in a ring around the edge of the disc. So what happens if you walk across Antarctica? According to the pictures, you should fall of - but you don't.

If you take a route that doesn't go off the edge, you won't fall off the edge.

Please provide any evidence or information about this ludicrous hypothetical. No one has ever "walked across Antarctica."

(Somebody has gotta teach these "whatabouters" how to create a decent premise.)

No, I certainly won't "point out the holes in the strawman I've created":

"Try to change my mind!"

But please don't point out the holes in the strawman I've created. Just answer the question.

[/pedantic_prick_mode]

I'll set it on fire!

What route would you consider "walking across Antarctica" - is this close enough?More in:
This Man Will Spend 80 Days Walking Antarctica Alone
British explorer Henry Worsley dies crossing Antarctic, 30 miles short of goal, By Sheena McKenzie, CNN

The expeditions reported in the following post were not walking, but they certainly crossed Antarctica: Re: Space Cowgirls most compelling evidence and why she believes the earth is flat. « Reply #133 on: November 06, 2017, 07:51:40 AM »

Here are the route maps:Those expeditions were certainly "across Antarctica".

What route would you consider "walking across Antarctica" - is this close enough?

It's not like I didn't look things up before posting. As I said, I choose my words carefully.

30 miles shy is still 30 miles shy. Especially when you die in the attempt.

Seems like a Pyrrhic victory, don't it?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 13, 2018, 01:44:24 PM

What route would you consider "walking across Antarctica" - is this close enough?

It's not like I didn't look things up before posting. As I said, I choose my words carefully.

30 miles shy is still 30 miles shy. Especially when you die in the attempt.

Seems like a Pyrrhic victory, don't it?

Sad, but Henry Worsley the only part he did not cross seems to be a little of the Ross Ice Shelf. He seems to have crossed all the land.

And even though they did not walk, the 1955-58 Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition and the The International Trans-Antarctica Expedition, 1989-1990.
The latter by close to the longest land route. Certainly these expeditions alone are enough evidence to scotch and idea of Antarctica being an "Ice-Wall" around the outside of a circular flat earth.

On the reality of the Geographic South Pole, you might be interested in:

There are some members here who strongly support a Flat Earth who believe that a single South Pole is real and can be visited.
These include the very prominent "Flat Earth Scientist", Tom Bishop, who now mainly posts at the TFES.org site.  See this post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2010, 10:08:54 PM

While I support the UN map as far as explaining basic travel and circumnavigation, I believe that, in truth, the earth may be laid out in a manner similar to a dual Azimuthal Projection, this map:

On this model Antarctica exists as a continent. While there is still an Ice Wall, it is not Antarctica.

There are two celestial poles. One set of stars is rotating above the North Pole, and another set of stars is rotating above the South Pole.

That map used to be in the Wiki of this site and Tom Bishop referred to it in:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2010, 01:02:37 PM

There are several possible configurations of a Flat Earth: Layout of the Continents, Antarctica as a distinct continent

Another quote from Tom Bishop:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2016, 09:58:52 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2016, 02:39:37 AM

Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The South Pole was not yet discovered when Rowbotham wrote Earth Not a Globe. It is understandable why he might depict the earth without it.

The Bi-Polar model is first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918). However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data. The layout and dimensions of the continents in our picture may be different as well. Someone apparently just found a map projection of a globe that looked similar for illustrative purposes.

This is the book referred to: Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, The by Albert Smith (Zetetes), 1905-04-01.

It's the same projection as the typical "UN map" flat earth, but centered on the equator and 0° longitude instead of the north pole. Selecting the Greenwich meridian as the center conveniently puts the "edge" out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, where there aren't many people. You can pick whatever meridian you want as the center (or any latitude, for that matter), but this is probably as good a choice as any since you wouldn't want the "edge" to be anywhere near a populated place - that would produce too many embarrassing questions.

Doesn't help much. I've flown from Sydney to Los Angeles in 15 hours, and Hawaii to Auckland in much less. Just how inaccurate would it have to be for that to work

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 13, 2018, 07:11:37 AM

It's the same projection as the typical "UN map" flat earth, but centered on the equator and 0° longitude instead of the north pole. Selecting the Greenwich meridian as the center conveniently puts the "edge" out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, where there aren't many people. You can pick whatever meridian you want as the center (or any latitude, for that matter), but this is probably as good a choice as any since you wouldn't want the "edge" to be anywhere near a populated place - that would produce too many embarrassing questions.

Doesn't help much. I've flown from Sydney to Los Angeles in 15 hours, and Hawaii to Auckland in much less. Just how inaccurate would it have to be for that to work

That representation will work perfectly for great circle routes that start at, end at, or pass through the center, fairly well for routes that pass near the center, but gets progressively worse as they get further away. The ones you mention would be particularly bad for the projection shown. Centering it in the Tasman Sea between Sydney and Auckland would work pretty well; unfortunately, Europe would be a complete mess if you did that.

The ones you mention would be particularly bad for the projection shown.

I'm moderately surprised that there have been no suggestions of a massive conspiracy amongst aircraft manufacturers and airlines to conceal the fact that the aircraft can fly much faster and over longer ranges, so as to allow the problematic flights to take the advertised time despite the much larger distances.

That bi-polar flat earth map to me is the dumbest representation of a flat earth. What holds the waters in? Why doesn't one fall off the earth?

That bi-polar flat earth map to me is the dumbest representation of a flat earth. What holds the waters in? Why doesn't one fall off the earth?

Slight upward curvature of the bowl. Force field. Scrith. Pan-flat-earth-circumferential-current. Neutrino bombardment. Near the edge water interlaces with aether to form a rigid matrix. Pick your favorite.

One doesn't fall off the edge because one has never been there. If one had, one might.

Quote from: SpaceCadet on February 16, 2018, 04:45:52 AM

That bi-polar flat earth map to me is the dumbest representation of a flat earth. What holds the waters in? Why doesn't one fall off the earth?

Slight upward curvature of the bowl. Force field. Scrith. Pan-flat-earth-circumferential-current. Neutrino bombardment. Near the edge water interlaces with aether to form a rigid matrix. Pick your favorite.

You flat earth  supporters really do have to dig deep to find Curiouser and Curiouser hypotheses to prop up that poor dying horse of the flat earth idea.

• Slight upward curvature of the bowl. And the air does escape over this "Slight upward curvature of the bowl"?
• Force field. You've been watching too much Star Trek and have lost the ability to distinguish reality from science fiction.
• Scrith Really and we flew through it with no trouble? Your magic ccrith can block 40% of neutrinos, yet allow ships and aitcraft free passage?
• Pan-flat-earth-circumferential-current. That would fling the water outwards and not keep it in, nect please!
• Neutrino bombardment. Really? Even your  scrith lets 60% of neutinos through, so what  effect is neutrino bombardment gpimg to have on water? Zilch.
• Near the edge water interlaces with aether to form a rigid matrix.  I'd never thought of that! 

Any more conjectures? Maybe a Globe really is a lot simpler and doesn't need all these crazy hypotheses.
Then we could travel in any direction without all these impediments getting in the way! I think I'd better start a Round Earth Society!

One doesn't fall off the edge because one has never been there. If one had, one might.

One (many actually) have "been to the edge" in travelling by air and sea from Eastern Asia and Oceania to the Americas across the Pacific Ocean.

Here is that map:

While I support the UN map as far as explaining basic travel and circumnavigation, I believe that, in truth, the earth may be laid out in a manner similar to a dual Azimuthal Projection, this map:

On this model Antarctica exists as a continent. While there is still an Ice Wall, it is not Antarctica.

There are two celestial poles. One set of stars is rotating above the North Pole, and another set of stars is rotating above the South Pole.

And I didn't fall off the edge flying from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles, USA.
Travelmath, Planning a trip? Let us do the math. tells us that:
          The flight distance from Sydney, Australia to Honolulu, Hawaii is: 8150 km and the flight time is 10 hours, 38 minutes and
          The flight distance from Los Angeles, California to Honolulu, Hawaii is 4125 km and the flight time is 4 hours, 55 minutes.
These times certainly seems to fit with our experience. Of course, we could not verify the directions of distances, but the 747s of the time we definitely not supersonic.

Now, we certainly did not fall off the edge and that total distance of 12,275 km seems quite impossible via any route on that map when we consider that its diameter must be close to 40,000 km.

Errors and Omissions Expected

If we dig down enough, . . . This has holes in I know,

    sorry, carry on.