NASA filming in a "hollywood studio"?

Quote

OD
When we look at NASA's figures of pressure in outer space it is assumed that it is 100000000000000 times more of a vacuum (less pressure) than anything that has been created in any vacuum chamber on Earth. This means that the greatest vacuum created in a vacuum chamber is no where near that of what, supposedly, exists in outer space. If anything enters the vacuum of outer space it would disintegrate immediately into almost nothingness, molecular bonding forces would not be sufficient to maintain structure under such circumstance.

Can't people realise that "100000000000000 times more of a vacuum (less pressure) than anything that has been created in any vacuum chamber on Earth" is just closer to zero pressure?

It also is factually wrong.

Like a 5-year old who wants a really big number ("a hundred!" "a million!" "a bazillion!") the poster just adds arbitrary zeroes.

LEO, the moon's atmosphere, and achievable lab vacuums are all about the same level - give or take one or two orders of magnitude.

And yeah, the poster just doesn't have a clue.

Yes, also known as religion.
But you seem fine with that with your preaching of a creator.

The best you have to question their credibility is them reading a book full of garbage.

Except you clearly haven't as you still foolishly believe in a creator.
Meanwhile I discarded it and accepted reality.

You mean and you rejected all scientific progress, going back before the dark age and starting with the same religious nonsense?

What happened to you , did some priest caressed your private parts when you were a kid ?
So much frustration..... but i understand you like most of us were a victim of religion one way or the other...... but trying to find peace in the church of scientism isn't such a good idea Jack.

Yes, such as when looking to religious nonsense rather than science/reality. i.e. what you did.

Not quite Jacky,......i tried to wrap my head around modern cosmology and the M- theory specifically.
I know what your (underlying dogma's of the church of scientism) ultimate worldview will look like in the near future when the scientific community rewards the nobel prize !
An infinite number of universes, tiimelines, galaxies and variables based on accident and randomness only .....all wired into 11 dimensions of the multiverse.
The opposite of a creation with a specific goal in mind with specific chosen laws underneath all there is.
The acknowledged limitations of the current hypothetical universe and numbers that are erronious by a huge factor will only be solved by implementing the above.
You are a spag in modern cosmology, but that is about to chance with a huge factor of insignificance......

That is your reality Jack.......  enjoy it while it lasts, because nothing doesn't care about something.

Reality isn't indoctrinated info.

Even our observations influences 'reality' the moment we observe...... call your observation a mild form of indoctrination.
Your assumption that there is some 100% neutral way of establishing reality shows how much the church of scientism has got you by the balls.
Reality is partly hidden for every human being.

You are yet to provide any reason for why we should go back.
It is an extremely expensive process to send people to the moon.
There is no justification to go.
There isn't even the justification of making an achievement because it has already been done.

As such, your argument amounts to nothing

Simply because we CAN (so they claim)
That's human nature.... we primarely do things not because they are in the best interrests of humanity, but simply because we CAN.
Mass consumerism is the sole foundation for this characterisation.
We mass consume because we can, despite the fact that earth is dearly suffering because of it and the majority suffers from severe overweight and other health issues both physically and mentally.....
Russia, China, India etc. have every reason to go to the moon to show the world America is not the only nation capable of that and to boast their own charismatic politics of internal surpression.
America has every reason to go back to use the moon as a stepping stone to other cosmic journeys.

The money would be raised within '24 hours' by rich oligarchs, Chinese businessmen and Arabian oil billioners if they could safely go to the moon.
That would be some status among their criminal friends...... wouldn't it ?

Again i give you accurate proof, but your indoctrinated brain will not allow you to download it into your fixed memory storage.
.....it will take me pages to defy all your absolute nonsical arguments.... so for now i won't botherwith most of your reply.


Rock solid evidence is that no one can go to the moon in 2018 and even if the whole world prioritizes intergallactic travel, we would not be able to go to the moon for a very, very long time.....  if ever.
This is not only proof that we cannot go to the moon now (manned mission).... but also the claim that one single unique and special nation 'under god's grace'  50 years ago was able to pull it off somehow where other, much lesser nations failed and still fail 50 years later.

You're such a good patriot Jack,.... aren't you ?

Mere short sighted fantasies......

The “rock solid evidence” is that at its peak about 400 000 people were working on the Apollo program.

What do you think they were all doing?

An infinite number of universes

In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon

The “rock solid evidence” is that at its peak about 400 000 people were working on the Apollo program.

What do you think they were all doing?

Trying to design functional 'moon' equipment ?

But as you may have quessed...., only few 'new' what functional meant in relation to the final product on the moon in action...... 99% was assembling, designing bits and bytes from a much, much bigger jigsaw that showed  'moon mission accomplished'  the moment the thousends of pieces would be fit togerher in all respective stages.
But that however was total science fiction for the 400.000 working bees (minus a couple of hundred in the know...) only staring at one piece of the total puzzle during the entire Apollo epos.

Does that adequately answer your question ?

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 05:51:32 AM

An infinite number of universes

In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon

See ? I knew it !!!

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 17, 2018, 06:03:07 AM

The “rock solid evidence” is that at its peak about 400 000 people were working on the Apollo program.

What do you think they were all doing?

Trying to design functional 'moon' equipment ?

But as you may have quessed...., only few 'new' what functional meant in relation to the final product on the moon in action...... 99% was assembling, designing bits and bytes from a much, much bigger jigsaw that showed  'moon mission accomplished'  the moment the thousends of pieces would be fit togerher in all respective stages.
But that however was total science fiction for the 400.000 working bees (minus a couple of hundred in the know...) only staring at one piece of the total puzzle during the entire Apollo epos.

Does that adequately answer your question ?

Not really.

Because NASA didn’t order a few million individual components from suppliers and then claim to build a rocket out of it.

They ordered modules from the big contractors who then ordered subsystems from their suppliers, who ordered components from theirs, etc. (I don’t know the exact hierarchy).

However, every part needed to be designed and tested for a specific task to make a functional subsystem.  The subsystems needed to be designed and tested for a specific task in the larger assemblies.

So a surface mounted component needed to work on the right integrated circuit board, which needed to work to be built into the flight computer, which needed to work to make the command module.  (Incidentally, integrated circuits were first developed for the space race and went on to revolutionize electronics).

Failure at any level would have caused a major ruckus at the company working on it, the level above who needed it to complete their system and depending on how long it was delayed would have been noticed further up the chain.

To design a system to fake it while keeping most of the people involved fooled would probably be more difficult and just as expensive as doing it for real.  And that’s before faking the landing itself.

In all this time have any engineers  come forward to claim the thing they designed and built couldn’t have done the job?

Quote from: Lamaface on August 17, 2018, 08:40:33 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 05:51:32 AM

An infinite number of universes

In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon

See ? I knew it !!!

But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Lamaface on August 17, 2018, 08:40:33 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 05:51:32 AM

An infinite number of universes

C
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon

See ? I knew it !!!

But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.

I allready dislike this dutchy with a vegeance  ..... this universe is the only true cosmic highway all others are mere side roads.

Quote from: markjo on August 17, 2018, 10:23:00 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Lamaface on August 17, 2018, 08:40:33 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 05:51:32 AM

An infinite number of universes

C
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon

See ? I knew it !!!

But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.

I allready dislike this dutchy with a vegeance  ..... this universe is the only true cosmic highway all others are mere side roads.

That’s exactly what anti-Dutchy would say about his universe. 

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 10:48:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 17, 2018, 10:23:00 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Lamaface on August 17, 2018, 08:40:33 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 05:51:32 AM

An infinite number of universes

C
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon

See ? I knew it !!!

But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.

I allready dislike this dutchy with a vegeance  ..... this universe is the only true cosmic highway all others are mere side roads.

That’s exactly what anti-Dutchy would say about his universe.

Grrrrr ....i would like to start an interdimensional spacerace...... look who is first to discover the other person's universe.
I choose to go to the boundaries of our universe not because they are easily found, but because they are hard to find and even harder to cross ; that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our esoteric energies and surpressed Tesla technologies, because that challenge is one that all anti Einsteinian YouTuber's are willing to accept,  one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and anti dutchy and his Apollo bandwagon too.

i understand you like most of us were a victim of religion one way or the other

And you clearly still are, unlike me who has discarded religion and moved to rational thought to find out the truth.
Unfortunately, your religious indoctrination prevents you from realising that so you discard reason and think of reason as a religion.

The opposite of a creation with a specific goal in mind with specific chosen laws underneath all there is.

And that is why you don't like it?
You don't like the idea of not needing a creator?

You have no rational objection to it.

call your observation a mild form of indoctrination.

Good job showing you don't care about reality or truth, dismissing observations as indoctrination.

Just what would you accept as not being indoctrination? Just accepting your delusional nonsense?

Simply because we CAN (so they claim)

NASA could also get a load of rocket fuel and blow every facility they have. Should they? NO!
Because we can is not a reason to waste loads of money.
Do you have an actual reason to do it?

At best, "because we can" works the first time. Not for repeats.

Mass consumerism is the sole foundation for this characterisation.

Then you clearly don't understand.
We consume thing because of loads of advertising trying to convince us to. Not simply because we can but because it makes us want to.
They provide these ads because they want to make money.
They will provide cheap crap because they want to make money.
People will buy the cheap crap because they are lazy and it either tastes good (for food) or is cheap or because they want to because of the ads.

It has nothing at all to do with "because we can".
People don't just stop at every Maccas they go past to buy food because they can.
People don't just go and buy a new phone every day because they can.

Russia, China, India etc. have every reason to go to the moon to show the world America is not the only nation capable of that

Going to the moon is no longer a significant achievement.
I'm pretty sure most people accept Russia could send people to the moon if they wanted to.

America has every reason to go back to use the moon as a stepping stone to other cosmic journeys.

In just what way do you imagine the moon to be a stepping stone?
It is more like a stepping ditch because you would be going into a gravity well that you would then need to escape.
The moon as a stepping stone only works as a flyby, i.e. going past it without stopping.

The money would be raised within '24 hours' by rich oligarchs, Chinese businessmen and Arabian oil billioners if they could safely go to the moon.
That would be some status among their criminal friends...... wouldn't it ?

The Arabians would be hesitant of trying to one up Mo and what impact that would have on their lives back home.
But notice a key word you used? SAFELY.
How much shit would NASA or SpaceX be in if something went wrong? How safe would it need to be for these people to fund it?
Are they willing to accept the radiation that they would experience in space?
Are they willing to accept that they could be stranded on the moon?

Regardless, that would be on them to get the money together and approach someone. It would be on NASA to try to convince them.

Again i give you accurate proof

No, you bitch and moan that they don't do what you want.
That is not proof that they didn't go to the moon.
You are yet to provide a single rational reason for why they should go to the moon.
And even if you managed to do so, that doesn't make it proof that they didn't go.

it will take me pages to defy all your absolute nonsical arguments

You mean it will take you pages to try and BS your way out of my sound arguments.

Rock solid evidence is that no one can go to the moon in 2018

That doesn't show that we couldn't have gone to the moon in the past or the future.
The best your "rock solid" evidence is is that we do not currently have all the things required just sitting there to go to the moon and would need to construct it and assemble it, which would take considerable time.

and even if the whole world prioritizes intergallactic travel, we would not be able to go to the moon for a very, very long time

Because they would be prioritising intergalactic travel which would make the moon irrelevant.
Meanwhile if they prioritised going to the moon, people would be able to go very quickly.

This is not only proof that we cannot go to the moon now

No. That is all it is proof of. It is proof that we can't go right now.
It is not proof that it is impossible with current technology. It is not proof that it was impossible in the past.
It merely means that we can't go right now.

You're such a good patriot Jack

Nope. I'm not even American.

Mere short sighted fantasies......

Well at least you are finally admitting your problem.

Grrrrr ....i would like to start an interdimensional spacerace...... look who is first to discover the other person's universe.

That's hardly fair.
To make it a fair race you will need to let them know first.

I choose to go to the boundaries of our universe not because they are easily found, but because they are hard to find and even harder to cross ; that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our esoteric energies and surpressed Tesla technologies.

Why don't you try to reach the boundaries of Tesla's Universe? Tesla was no small Universe flat earther!
I cannot understand how you can think that you are so much smarter than Martin Luther, John Calvin and Nikola Tesla when it comes to the shape of the earth. They all knew it to be a Globe.

Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 10:58:39 PM

Tesla was right.

What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers.  He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary! See this address by him:
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla
also at — How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915  in which he states:

Quote from: Nicola Tesla

NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.

I have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that  Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.

Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

Quote from: dutchy on August 17, 2018, 11:19:26 AM

I choose to go to the boundaries of our universe not because they are easily found, but because they are hard to find and even harder to cross ; that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our esoteric energies and surpressed Tesla technologies.

Why don't you try to reach the boundaries of Tesla's Universe? Tesla was no small Universe flat earther!
I cannot understand how you can think that you are so much smarter than Martin Luther, John Calvin and Nikola Tesla when it comes to the shape of the earth. They all knew it to be a Globe.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 23, 2017, 01:14:19 AM

Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 10:58:39 PM

Tesla was right.

What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers.  He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary! See this address by him:
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla
also at — How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915  in which he states:

Quote from: Nicola Tesla

NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.

I have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that  Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.

Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

Ermmm i was joking around ..... nothing serious.

But since you mention the name of Calvin a lot as if the name ‘Calvin’ should impress me as a co- founder of protestantism and globe earth believer.

Calvin was also in favour of burning ‘witches’ and ‘one should not show pity towards such evil doers’ ...... he Calvin admitted he would be first in line to execute if needed.
If one studies his invented dogma’s , than one realises he is nothing more than a dark and disturbed ‘wanna be’ church leader , deeply hanging onto wordily influence.
Most of his writings have enslaved ordinary people in a very self destructive way without feeling joy or freedom without feeling guilty to the bone.

I shouldn’t mention Calvin as much as you do as an authority on ‘globe earth’.
Because i personally don’t trust one single thing that man had to say or proclaim , observing the fruits of his works.

I shouldn’t mention Calvin as much as you do as an authority on ‘globe earth’.

Really, and why not?
Dutchy, what was the Old Testament penalty for witchcraft and heresy - if "offering sacrifices to any god except me" might be interpreted as heresy?

18 Death is the punishment for witchcraft.
20 Death is the punishment for offering sacrifices to any god except me.

Now, I do not believe that applies in the New Testament era but it was the teaching of "The Church" up to that time.
John Calvin was no more nor less than a man of his time and while we don't agree some allowance needs to be made for that.
One could possibly say that he had not left all the baggage of "The Roman Church" behind while Martin Luther did to a much greater extent.

Because i personally don’t trust one single thing that man had to say or proclaim, observing the fruits of his works.

So, I would still claim that John Cavin's writings do accurately reflect the belief in the shape of the earth at that time.

And Martin Luther, the leader of the reformation - would you agree that he accurately reflected the belief in the shape of the earth at that time?

And if I were you I wouldn’t mention Telstra as much as flat earthers do as an authority on ‘flat earth’ - he was very much a heliocentrist.

But one my first attempt at finding an "authority on the flat earth", I gave up.
Of course there were the ancient Babylonians but they had only very primitive ideas and applied much of their knowledge of the stars to astrology.

Then we could skip to the mid-1800s and a quack medico called Rowbotham.
Even though apparently never setting foot outside the UK, he claimed the earth looked like:This is despite the fact that reasonably accurate maps of the Globe were available. Not only that, but he made outrageously false claims about distances in the southern hemisphere, even though there had been a great deal or exploration.

Note that Rowbotham's ridiculous map has no South Pole - preposterous!

So step forward to Albert Smith (who wrote under the name Zetetes), an author and Flat Earth advocate during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
Zetetes recognised the reality of Antarctica as an island continent and proposed a flat earth layout like:A number of modern flat-earthers claim that the layout of the flat earth is something like that.

But, I'll leave it here and ask you, "Where are there any authorities on the flat-earth?"
It looks to me as though all flat-earthers have different ideas as they scrabble for ideas to patch over the impossibility of a flat earth.

Note that Rowbotham's ridiculous map has no South Pole - preposterous!

The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.

The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.

I would more say it was discovered in the early 1800s, around 1820, with more extensive exploration later on in mid 1800s.
Meanwhile, Row Boat was only born in 1816.
And his first pile of nonsense was published after Antarctica was discovered.
So that is hardly an excuse.

Another massive problem is Australia and NZ which look nothing at all like they do on that map and are in the wrong location.

Quote

Note that Rowbotham's ridiculous map has no South Pole - preposterous!

The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.

But the existence of Antarctica as an island continent was known so that excuse for Rowbotham's appalling ignorance simply will not wash.
The first to circumnavigate Antarctica was Captain James Cook. Have you ever heard of him?

The first explorer to circumnavigate Antarctica was James Cook, who made three voyages from 1772 to 1775. He crossed the Antarctic Circle four times, making his first official crossing in January, 1773.

So Captain Cook certainly knew that the circumference of the Antarctic Circle was not the almost 110,000 km (almost 68,000 miles) that the Antarctic Circle would be on Rowbotham's ridiculous map!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2018, 08:45:23 AM

The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.

I would more say it was discovered in the early 1800s, around 1820, with more extensive exploration later on in mid 1800s.
Meanwhile, Row Boat was only born in 1816.
And his first pile of nonsense was published after Antarctica was discovered.
So that is hardly an excuse.

Another massive problem is Australia and NZ which look nothing at all like they do on that map and are in the wrong location.

Discovery of Antarctica is not the same as discovery of the South Pole.

So Captain Cook certainly knew that the circumference of the Antarctic Circle was not the almost 110,000 km (almost 68,000 miles) that the Antarctic Circle would be on Rowbotham's ridiculous map!

Those types of voyages lasted for years at a time. Not exactly a car's odometer. That fact was often used in the Flat Earth discussions around Rowbotham's time.

Discovery of Antarctica is not the same as discovery of the South Pole.

Who is pretending that it is?

Quote from: rabinoz on August 18, 2018, 03:59:31 PM

So Captain Cook certainly knew that the circumference of the Antarctic Circle was not the almost 110,000 km (almost 68,000 miles) that the Antarctic Circle would be on Rowbotham's ridiculous map!

Those types of voyages lasted for years at a time. Not exactly a car's odometer. That fact was often used in the Flat Earth discussions around Rowbotham's time.

Nobody is suggesting the accuracy of "a car's odometer".
We are looking at 68,000 miles compared to 10,000 miles (actually 10,975 mi) around the Antarctic Circle.

Sure, Captain James Cook during his 1772-1775 voyage circumnavigated Antarctica, but and the whole voyage covered about 70,000 miles if I remember rightly.
Now, his whole route covered only about 70,000 miles and look at his route! He spent the winter in warmer regions and not travelling around Antarctica.

Now, I fully realise that ships' logs are subject to considerable errors but a seaman like Captain Cook could never confuse the 10,975 mi around the Antarctic Circle on the Globe with the 68,000 miles it would be on the Ice-Wall map of Rowbotham.

Shall we look into the further obvious errors in Rowbotham's claims, especially about the Southern Hemisphere? That really opens a can-of-worms!

How do you think that Captain Cook measured distance? He used the stars and the Round Earth concept of latitude lines being evenly spaces to gauge position and the distance between points. Lat/Lon is a spherical coordinate system.

Captain Cook didn't run a little water wheel across the sea. In fact, since ships and airplanes are typically operating in fluids that are in motion within other fluids, such devices have proven to be rather useless for navigation. Airspeed instruments on a plane, for example, are only used to let the pilot know how much wind is passing over the wing at any given time for banking maneuvers and such. The existence of odometers for ships and planes is a false notion. Navigation is achieved through other external means.

Captain Cook could easily have assumed that he is traveling against the flow of the sea to explain his slow journey, as he is entirely dependent on the stars.

Then again, all of this is moot. The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

How do you think that Captain Cook measured distance? He used the stars and the Round Earth concept of latitude lines being evenly spaces to gauge position and the distance between points. Lat/Lon is a spherical coordinate system.

Captain Cook didn't run a little water wheel across the sea. In fact, since ships and airplanes are typically operating in fluids that are in motion within other fluids, such devices have proven to be rather useless for navigation. Airspeed instruments on a plane, for example, are only used to let the pilot know how much wind is passing over the wing at any given time for banking maneuvers and such. The existence of odometers for ships and planes is a false notion. Navigation is achieved through other external means.

Captain Cook could easily have assumed that he is traveling against the flow of the sea to explain his slow journey, as he is entirely dependent on the stars.

Then again, all of this is moot. The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

Which "The Flat Earth Society"? Please show some credible of this "official switching over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole".

And look a the Home Page header of The Flat Earth Society at TFES.org:That Home Page header makes this claim look totally ridiculous!
"The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.".

This site and the numerous posters of videos on YouTube seem to be hardly aware of it.
And there are many many times more flat earthers making flat earth videos than on both Flat Earth Society sites combined.

Who might be one of the most prominent Flat Earther outside these sites? Possibly Mark Sargent? So just look at this video of his from 2:30 onwards:
No, almost all flat earthers except you and a couple of others, all argue vehemently that Antarctica is a ring around the flat earth and is guarded by UN or NASA storm troopers or something like that.

Surely, if the earth is really flat then you can get together and work out its rough continental layout - in the meantime the Globe goes rotating gracefully on.

Discovery of Antarctica is not the same as discovery of the South Pole.

Well if you wanted to go that way, people already knew that existed long before the 1800s, so I really don't see what point you are trying to make.

Those types of voyages lasted for years at a time. Not exactly a car's odometer. That fact was often used in the Flat Earth discussions around Rowbotham's time.

And weren't a simple case of just circling once.

If it was going to go around the FE south ring, it would have taken much longer, unless you want to suggest some magical water flow helping him out wherever he went?

The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole

There are numerous FE societies/groups, with none being more official than the other.
Regardless, the bi-polar model fixes nothing. It merely pushes the problems around.

The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

i.e. people ignoring reality and instead clinging to outdated nonsense, i.e. FE.
The existence of any FE model is purely a result of people reading some ignorant nonsense, rejecting reality and not reading research (or doing it themselves) which shows Earth to be round beyond any sane doubt.

So I wouldn't recommend trying to apply that standard to attack the monopolar model.

Meanwhile, the monopolar model has significantly less issues for the northern hemisphere, including a very simplistic explanation of explaining the sun's motion and position, without any prefered NS connector and doesn't make the existing flights between the US and Asia complete nonsense and just requires people to ignore issues with the southern hemisphere and the issues common to all FE models.

Quote

Note that Rowbotham's ridiculous map has no South Pole - preposterous!

The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.

The fact that the round earth has a south pole was known for a very long time before the mid 1800s.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2018, 11:37:49 PM

The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

It was theorized to exist.

Which "The Flat Earth Society"? Please show some credible of this "official switching over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole".

After Rowbotham's death the Zetetic Society was passed to the leadership of Lady Blount, who ran a monthly scientific journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed Earth. The journal published continuing studies of the earth, discusses how the 32 mile figure for the sun's diameter was determined, and chronicles the switching over to a two-pole model of the earth around the time of the discovery of the South Pole.

Lady Blount also discusses the two pole model in the book Zetetic Astronomy. Like the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, which was published in the same era, Lady Blount and Albert Smith discuss newfound evidence for the South Pole, and updates the Flat Earth model with the Bi-Polar Model.

This is just as well, since the original Flat Earth model before Rowbotham had three poles, as discussed in the early 1800's Flat Earth book, The Anti-Newtonian. This is the model Rowbotham based the Earth Not a Globe concept on, except that he simplified it down to one pole due to lack of evidence.

And look a the Home Page header of The Flat Earth Society at TFES.org:

Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did did not consider any other works. This is because we didn't even know about them. The other works did not become available online until later.

This site and the numerous posters of videos on YouTube seem to be hardly aware of it.
And there are many many times more flat earthers making flat earth videos than on both Flat Earth Society sites combined.

Those youtubers took their model from us. They did not make and research their own original Flat Earth model.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on August 18, 2018, 11:58:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2018, 11:37:49 PM

The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

It was theorized to exist.

Indeed, and the explorers validated the theory. What was the basis for that theory, do you suppose?

Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did did not consider any other works.

At the time you did this, did you not think the existence of the South Pole problematical?

It was theorized to exist.

No, it was known.
You can't have a rotating round Earth (which was KNOWN) without a south pole.
It is the same axis as the north pole, it is simply where it passes through south of the equator.

After Rowbotham's death the Zetetic Society was passed to the leadership of Lady Blount, who ran a monthly scientific journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed Earth. The journal published continuing studies of the earth, discusses how the 32 mile figure for the sun's diameter was determined, and chronicles the switching over to a two-pole model of the earth around the time of the discovery of the South Pole.

So not "The FE society"
Instead it was a Zetetic Society which didn't even practice Zeteticism.

he simplified it down to one pole due to lack of evidence.

If he wanted to simply due to lack of evidence, how about simplifying it down to nothing as there is no evidence of a FE existing at all?

They did not make and research their own original Flat Earth model.

Of course.
FE only propagates by nonsense like this.
If they were to do research they would realise Earth is round.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 19, 2018, 01:51:51 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on August 18, 2018, 11:58:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2018, 11:37:49 PM

The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

It was theorized to exist.

Indeed, and the explorers validated the theory. What was the basis for that theory, do you suppose?

Its based on the theory of magnets. Magnets have two poles. The Earth has two poles. If the Earth is Flat, it has two poles. Makes sense to me.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 19, 2018, 01:51:51 PM

Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did did not consider any other works.

At the time you did this, did you not think the existence of the South Pole problematical?

At the time of this forum's creation the concept of a Flat Earth was rather vague. It was more of a free for all where the Flat Earth could be whatever you wanted it to be. There were no graphics on the website. It was just a forum.

The goal of the project was only to explain and figure out the nature of the Flat Earth model as historically depicted to get away from the vague free-for-all theme of the forums. Only Earth Not a Globe and perhaps a couple of other works were available, and so that is what was used.

Quote

Which "The Flat Earth Society"? Please show some credible of this "official switching over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole".

After Rowbotham's death the Zetetic Society was passed to the leadership of Lady Blount, who ran a monthly scientific journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed Earth. The journal published continuing studies of the earth, discusses how the 32 mile figure for the sun's diameter was determined, and chronicles the switching over to a two-pole model of the earth around the time of the discovery of the South Pole.

Lady Blount also discusses the two pole model in the book Zetetic Astronomy. Like the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, which was published in the same era, Lady Blount and Albert Smith discuss newfound evidence for the South Pole, and updates the Flat Earth model with the Bi-Polar Model.

That seems totally at odds with your claim in the following post:

Then again, all of this is moot. The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back. The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

There you clearly stated "The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's".
From what you have written and what I have read there was no "Flat Earth Society" in "in the early 1900's".
There was the "Zetetic Society" and apparently that virtually died out in the UK by the time of Lady Blount's death in December 1935.
Samuel Shenton founded the Flat Earth Society in 1956, after renaming it from the Universal Zetetic Society so the reigns sort of passed to a society called "The Flat Earth Society".
But Shenton's model of the flat earth was:

that the earth was a flat disk centred on the North Pole with the zetetic notion of the South Pole being an impenetrable wall of ice, that marked the edge of the pit that is the earth in the endless flat plane forming the universe. The sun cast a narrow beam like a flashlight moving over a table as it traced flat circles that varied over the 365-day cycles. The sun was 32 miles (51 km) in diameter 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above the earth and the moon also 32 miles in diameter but only 2,550 miles (4,100 km) above the earth.

In other words, more or less the current Ice-Wall flat earth.

And Samuel Shenton developed his Ice-Wall model long after the South Pole had been visited many time and Antarctica quite well explored.

So I fail to see how you can claim that "The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's".

This is just as well, since the original Flat Earth model before Rowbotham had three poles, as discussed in the early 1800's Flat Earth book, The Anti-Newtonian. This is the model Rowbotham based the Earth Not a Globe concept on, except that he simplified it down to one pole due to lack of evidence.

Quote

And look at the Home Page header of The Flat Earth Society at TFES.org:

Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did not consider any other works. This is because we didn't even know about them. The other works did not become available online until later.

Look, if the "Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's" why on earth didn't you uses this "official model"?
The answer is simply that the Bi-polar model was not Samuel Shenton's model and never has been the official model of "The Flat Earth Society".

Quote

This site and the numerous posters of videos on YouTube seem to be hardly aware of it.
And there are many many times more flat earthers making flat earth videos than on both Flat Earth Society sites combined.

Those youtubers took their model from us. They did not make and research their own original Flat Earth model.

Yes, the took the Ice-Wall model from your society and that is my whole point! . Whatever you claim the Ice-Wall model seems to be the accepted flat-earth.

Now you may wonder why I labour this so much!
The point is that neither Samuel Rowbotham nor Samuel Shenton had any right to construct a cosmology and a layout for the earth when they were provably so ignorant of geography and the most elementary astronomy!