Are There Extra Lands

We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?

Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?

I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?

Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.

Considering navigation and celestial observation points to this…



And not this..





The earth is demonstrably spherical with no extra lands to discover…

 why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded

?

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 03, 2024, 10:17:57 PM

M

On tours to Antarctica they only take you to the edges,

What’s this tour?

Quote

THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE
Embark on an expedition that will test your strength, endurance, and resolve and join an elite group who have arrived at the Geographic South Pole under their own power. Ski South Pole is the ultimate challenge, a journey that spans an entire Antarctic season and traverses 702 mi (1130 km) from Hercules Inlet, on the edge of the frozen Antarctic continent, to the Geographic South Pole.

https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/ski-south-pole-hercules-inlet/

Or this?

Quote

Fly to the South Pole 2023/2024
Fly to the South Pole, where all 360 lines of longitude meet and in a few steps you can walk around the world. History comes alive as you stand at 90° South, the ultimate goal of polar explorers Amundsen and Scott. Imagine how it felt to head out across the frozen continent and into the unknown over 100 years ago. Feel the spirit of determination and discovery that has inspired a century of Antarctic exploration and scientific research. Now can you be one of the selected few that have set foot on the Geographic South Pole.

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-20232024

Anyone staying over night with a camera could figure out if they were at the South Pole.

Quote

Star trails seen during the Antarctic winter over the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM CRIMMIN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy

More FE goal post moving?


Anyway.  FYI.  Star trails at the equator.

Quote

https://vivekphoto.com/2018/12/08/celestial-equator/amp/

We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?

No. FEers claim that, but there is no evidence of such a thing.
Antarctica appeasers to be a small continent, not a solid ring of ice around the world.

why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?

It isn't.
This is just a bold lie FEers make to try to prop up their failed fantasy.

Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.

Actually, prior to the Antarctic treaty, going to Antarctica was met with questionable issues.
The lands of Antarctica where claimed by various nations, so going there could be considered invading their country or unlawful entry into it, and you could face serious punishment.
But with the treaty, it was declared open for all, so you couldn't. The treaty made sure Antarctica stayed open, as long as you weren't trying to establish a military base, or destroy the natural resources.

So it is pretty much the exact opposite of your claim.

Prior to the treaty, if you went to explore you could be severely punished for invading/illegally entering a country.
After the treaty it is open so anyone can go explore Antarctica.

But of course, that doesn't fit with the FE fantasy, so they lie about it.

We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?

Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?

I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?

Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.

The earth could be an infinite plane with infinite lands.

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 07, 2024, 04:20:09 AM

We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?

Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?

I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?

Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.

The earth could be an infinite plane with infinite lands.

I'm convinced there are extra lands or like you say, the earth maybe infinite which I'm inclined to go with after reading the book 'World Beyond The Poles'.

I find it hard to get very far thinking about this, or at least i haven't, but possiblly cause it has little to do with my ambitions in the world  personally. To me i think what we all have around us - i myself am in canada -  is more than most realize, but i suspect there are definitely some secret islands that are pretty large, maybe not australia size, but just speculating. Northern parts of the world cumulatively have millions of square km of boreal forest from what i understand, mostly north of most civilization. Though a lot of that maybe scrubby and sparse as far as trees go...

I haven't looked into it though. But i think they are hiding all types of stuff.

I haven't looked into it though. But i think they are hiding all types of stuff.

Most definitely.

Episode 2   

 • The world of Beyond the Ice walls: 2 ... 
Episode 3   

 • The world BEYOND THE ICE WALLS   3 Th... 
Episode 4   

 • The world of BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 4: ... 
Episode 5

We all know about the ice walls that circumferences the earth, but what lies beyond them ?

Could it be the edge of the Dome ?
Could there be extra lands ?

I believe in the latter, why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded letting no one through to explore it ?

Well this has only happened since the Antarctic Treaty was signed by nearly every country on earth in 1959,
so before this date anyone could go an explore Antarctica & beyond & I reckon there were people who did just that & found these other extra-terrestrial lands.

Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator. Are there extra lands? Probably so. But unlike the round Earth model, you fly outside domes rather than through "space."

Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator.

Which in no way explains why people south of the equator, when they look south at night see the same stars and constellations like this…



Where in a flat earth, celestial south would be pretty meaningless.

Are there extra lands? Probably so.

There is no Ice wall.  Just Antarctica at the geographical South Pole.

Sorry.  Flat earth is debunked.  No new major land masses to discover. Unless you travel space and find new planets. 

Episode 2   

 • The world of Beyond the Ice walls: 2 ... 
Episode 3   

 • The world BEYOND THE ICE WALLS   3 Th... 
Episode 4   

 • The world of BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 4: ... 
Episode 5

Oh.  This BS thread is just to generate foot traffic to fantasy pieces like Alice in Wonderland. 

It’s just an advertisement. 

The earth could be an infinite plane with infinite lands.

And there could be what we call space that is literally close to infinite as possible, and holds new lanes we call planets around distance stars. 

As far as earth, exploration and celestial navigation have debunked flat earth.  But you keep living out your best life fantasy champ. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 07, 2024, 11:19:42 PM

Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator.

Which in no way explains why people south of the equator, when they look south at night see the same stars and constellations like this…



Where in a flat earth, celestial south would be pretty meaningless.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 07, 2024, 11:19:42 PM

Are there extra lands? Probably so.

There is no Ice wall.  Just Antarctica at the geographical South Pole.
 

And you know this because ?

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 07, 2024, 07:27:40 PM

Episode 2   

 • The world of Beyond the Ice walls: 2 ... 
Episode 3   

 • The world BEYOND THE ICE WALLS   3 Th... 
Episode 4   

 • The world of BEYOND THE ICE WALLS 4: ... 
Episode 5

Oh.  This BS thread is just to generate foot traffic to fantasy pieces like Alice in Wonderland. 
 

There's a lot of truth in fairy tales, take the 'Wizard of Oz' for instance.

Let's put it this way. There's different stars in the north of the equator and the south of the Equator.

Yes, quite like you would expect if Earth was a sphere.
There is no reason for there to be different stars for a flat Earth, instead they would just be in a different position.

But the real killing point is the south celestial pole, which stars in the south appear to circle.

And you know this because ?

Which part?
The existence of the south celestial pole which is observable to everyone in the south?
Or that Earth is round?

And you know this because ?

Was in the navy, been south of the equator.

Now.

How can people in Africa, South America, and Australia look south and see the same celestial South Pole constellations. As illustrated and attested to.


Where shown on a FE, celestial South Pole would be meaningless. 

And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator.  Spherical earth explains how as you travel south across the equator the North Star Polaris doesn’t change in magnitude of brightness but when one travels far enough south its becomes physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

Traveling relative east from a north south line out of South America leads to Africa, not to Antarctica




Flat earth is debunked.  There is no ice wall.  There are no major land masses on earth to discover.

And isn’t it a little “naive American” to think other lands wouldn’t be populated with their own people exploring, have the capability of flight, and have the technology for satellites? 

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 02:51:28 AM

And you know this because ?

 

And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator. 

I don't but this guy does.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 08, 2024, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 02:51:28 AM

And you know this because ?

 

And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator. 

I don't but this guy does.

Ok?

If it isn’t because the earth is spherical, then it’s not a probable explanation.

Show using a triangle and trigonometry why the North Star would be blocked from view south of the equator. 

The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California.  And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America



All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model.  The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 08, 2024, 03:22:09 AM

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 02:51:28 AM

And you know this because ?

 

And you have no explanation why the North Star shouldn’t be seen south of the equator. 

I don't but this guy does.

Oh.  The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.



How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?

Hint.  As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor.  The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
 

Note. Added. Or.  More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky?  Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?

Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

I’ve done my own homework.  Have you? 

The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California.  And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America



All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model.  The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids.

So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show & not through perspective ? lol'z

This so called curve, prove it.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 08, 2024, 04:13:03 AM

The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California.  And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America



All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model.  The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids.

So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show & not through perspective ? lol'z

This so called curve, prove it.

?

To stick with the angle of navigation to not derail this thread too much…

If the sun should help lead one straight west without turning north from say California to China. 

Which wouldn’t be the case on a FE

This is what the orbit of the sun would look like on a FE.  See the gif in the quote. 

I miss good old Stash that has the common sense to not waste time on bulmabriefs144.

Anyway..
 

Quote from: Stash on September 08, 2022, 12:03:28 PM

The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.

If you followed the sun on a flat earth, you would have to continually turn right in the shown perspective. 


See below.  A sun molded for FE shows the sun wouldn’t set below the horizon for all of earth.

Quote

This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.

https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html

No Sunset on a Flat Earth - Debunking the AE Map with a Drone.

So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show

First.  It is physically blocked by the curvature of the earth..  Why once far enough south below the equator you can’t bring it back into view with a telescope. 

Second, I did.  You ignored it, and haven’t addressed what was actually posted.

Oh.  The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.



How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?

Hint.  As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor.  The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
 

Note. Added. Or.  More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky?  Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?

Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

I’ve done my own homework.  Have you?

In other words. In the context of navigation from the meaning of south, why people below the equator see the same stars when they look south, the sun, and the northern star.  It all shows that Antarctica is a continent at a geographic South Pole on a spherical planet. With no proof Antarctica is an ice wall encircling the known continents.

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 05:39:06 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 08, 2024, 04:13:03 AM

The other problem you have is the sun would have to turn visibly north after passing California.  And travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America






All these natural navigation aids and how they act works and is explained seamlessly in the heliocentric model.  The FE model, they are explained by ad hoc magic that is contradictory between different natural navigation aids.

So you think it is via the curve that Polaris doesn't show & not through perspective ? lol'z

This so called curve, prove it.

?

To stick with the angle of navigation to not derail this thread too much…

If the sun should help lead one straight west without turning north from say California to China. 

Which wouldn’t be the case on a FE

This is what the orbit of the sun would look like on a FE.  See the gif in the quote. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 25, 2023, 09:25:45 AM

I miss good old Stash that has the common sense to not waste time on bulmabriefs144.

Anyway..
 

Quote from: Stash on September 08, 2022, 12:03:28 PM

The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.

If you followed the sun on a flat earth, you would have to continually turn right in the shown perspective. 


See below.  A sun molded for FE shows the sun wouldn’t set below the horizon for all of earth.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on December 01, 2023, 08:30:51 AM

Quote

This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.

https://www.space.com/41915-flat-earth-explanation-for-the-equinox.html

No Sunset on a Flat Earth - Debunking the AE Map with a Drone.

Once again sunset is due to perspective.

Once again sunset is due to perspective.

Again.  It is not.  As shown in the provided models.   

There would be an apparent change in the sun’s size.  There is not.

That is covered here…
Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92080.0

If you want to post in that thread to stop derailing your own thread.


On a flat earth, passing over California for example.  The sun would appear to turn north. The sun’s apparent speed would seem fast as it passed overhead, and then would seem to increasingly slow down as it travel out to sea. It’s apparent size would seem huge overhead, and keep getting smaller and smaller as it traveled out to sea.




“Prospective” doesn’t cover how radiation of the sun becomes physically blocked and undetectable on the surface of the earth after sunset.  Specially where radio astronomy equipment cannot pinpoint the sun’s location from the dark side of the earth.

“Prospective” doesn’t cover how light of the sun becomes physically blocked where the sun can’t be brought back into view with a telescope that changes “perspective”.

It’s because the sun’s light and radiation are  physically blocked or shielded by the earth.

An object emitting light above a flat plane can’t be physically blocked from view (prevent the light getting to the viewer) when the viewer is above the same plane.

If you think it’s mathematically possible, then illustrate using right angles. 

And you haven’t addressed “prospective” at all.  And its failure to block anything from view as outlined in the quote below..

Oh.  The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.



How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?

Hint.  As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor.  The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
 

Note. Added. Or.  More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky?  Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?

Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

I’ve done my own homework.  Have you?

FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation there is an ice wall encircling the known world, with these forms of navigation pointing to Antarctica being a continent at the geographical South Pole of a spherical planet.