Are There Extra Lands

FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation

I never said there was proof of navigating through Antarctica's iced walls, I were just putting it out there, you know food for thought, thinking outside the box.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 08, 2024, 07:27:21 AM

FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation

I never said there was proof of navigating through Antarctica's iced walls, I were just putting it out there, you know food for thought, thinking outside the box.

And there might be dinosaurs in my basement, and a magical land where numbers end up once they are erased from a blackboard.

Life has moved on.  Outside the box to discover new lands is now outer space or jumping / phase shifting dimensions. 

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 09:06:47 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 08, 2024, 07:27:21 AM

FE derailing their own thread to try to distract from there is no proof through various forms of navigation

I never said there was proof of navigating through Antarctica's iced walls, I were just putting it out there, you know food for thought, thinking outside the box.

Life has moved on.  Outside the box to discover new lands is now outer space or jumping / phase shifting dimensions.

There's no such thing as outer space, how ever there is such a thing as the firmament/Dome with water above it.

I don't but this guy does.

No, they don't.
This is shown by the fact that all you can do is link the video rather than even attempting an explanation.
If that person really did have an explanation you would be able to understand it and provide it here.

The video just appeals to the standard BS FE "Law of perspective", which is just a fancy way of saying that FE has no explanation, so we will take reality, which is a round Earth and just pretend that is flat to pretend it produces the same result.

The actual law of perspective is quite simple.
For an object a height h above a theoretical straight line passing level through the observers eye (or whatever observation device is being used), located a distance of d along that theoretical line, the angle of elevation will be given by:
a=atan(h/d).

For the commonly stated 5000 km altitude of Polaris, this correctly gives an angle of elevation of 90 degrees for 90 degrees north, and 45 degrees for 45 degrees north.
But at the equator it gives 26.5 degrees. And even at 90 degrees south this is still positive at 14 degrees.

Perspective does NOT explain why Polaris is not visible below the equator.

You can even try this with a scaled down model.
Go find a hallway with a light.
Note the point on the floor directly below the light.
From an observation on the floor, find the point where it appears at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees.
See what that distance is. Now go double that distance from the light.
If these FE lies were true, the light should now have an angle of elevation of 0 degrees.
But we observe it having a positive angle of elevation.
As we move further away, now corresponding to the region south of the equator, the light is still visible with a positive angle of elevation.
It would take an infinite distance for it to drop to 0.

Here is a simple image comparing reality to what would be expected on a FE:

Directly below Polaris, they align well, being 90 degrees.
At 45 degrees north, they align well, being 45 degrees.
At the equator, there is a massive mismatch.
Reality (and by extension the RE) has it at 0 degrees, but FE demands it is 26.5 degrees.
At 45 degrees south, reality has it below 0 degrees. If you extrapolate it would be -45 degrees. But FE demands it is at 14.0 degrees.

You can also try this with a large sphere, and an object very far away and observe how that does match reality.

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

Yes, because that is what actually explains it.

As for proof, again, refer to Polaris.
Observations of Polaris clearly demonstrate the distance is not changing significantly (as the brightness remains roughly the same, and the constellations don't change and so on), meaning the reference point (Earth) changing orientation is what is causing the angle of elevation to change.

Observations of Polaris and other celestial objects show there is a curve.

Once again sunset is due to perspective.

Once again, that is a blatant lie which completely misrepresents how perspective works to pretend Earth is flat.

Is that going to be your answer to everything?
Entirely ignore the argument and just assert Earth is flat?

Try explaining how perspective magically blocks the view.

There's no such thing as outer space, how ever there is such a thing as the firmament/Dome with water above it.

Pure BS.
All the available evidence clearly points to outer space.
This includes the simple evidence of a pressure gradient in all fluids, which when applied to the atmosphere will result in the pressure dropping to virtually nothing after enough altitude.

There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.

And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 04:00:23 AM

I don't but this guy does.

There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.

And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.

So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.

And as for your rocket launches, take a look at this;



Not exactly going up straight is it ?

There's no such thing as outer space, how ever there is such a thing as the firmament/Dome with water above it.

Everything from pressure in the atmosphere would equalize like a pressure bottle, no indication by radar, millennia of dust / dirt buildup, no reflections by the sun and moon, meteorites and cosmic dust, to charged particles and the van Allen belts.  There is no indication of a dome structure above the earth

With meteorites to comets, the number of satellites that have added to the night time lights in the sky over the past 100 years, to radio broadcasts from objects put in space, to radar tracking. Every indication of space, and mankind putting objects in space. 

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2024, 01:26:54 PM

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 04:00:23 AM

I don't but this guy does.

There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.

And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.

So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.

And as for your rocket launches, take a look at this;



Not exactly going up straight is it ?

What?  Something debated and explained by several people?

One.  The rocket didn’t hit any physical object.

Two.  The arc to place something or itself into orbit in space around the earth.  Care to provide the launch date and the mission?  What is the vehicle and context of the image?

Three.  This was provided by stash for a poster that wanted a rocket that went straight up into space.  This fulfills that requirement

UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Four.  Why is the firmament being brought up in this thread.  I can demonstrate spherical earth and space.  But why can’t there be a spherical earth with a “dome”?  If you want to think outside the “box”?  A dome doesn’t prove FE. 

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 02:16:53 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2024, 01:26:54 PM

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 04:00:23 AM

I don't but this guy does.

There is absolutely no evidence of any dome, nor any water above it.

And rockets have been able to launch just fine into space without hitting any dome.

So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.

And as for your rocket launches, take a look at this;



Not exactly going up straight is it ?

What?  Something debated and explained by several people?

One.  The rocket didn’t hit any physical object.

Two.  The arc to place something or itself into orbit in space around the earth.  Care to provide the launch date and the mission?  What is the vehicle and context of the image?

Three.  This was provided by stash for a poster that wanted a rocket that went straight up into space.  This fulfills that requirement

Quote

UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Four.  Why is the firmament being brought up in this thread.  I can demonstrate spherical earth and space.  But why can’t there be a spherical earth with a “dome”?  If you want to think outside the “box”?  A dome doesn’t prove FE.

Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.

GoFast - Rocket hits the sky firmament

Not exactly going up straight is it ?

Don't bother. Instead of admitting that either (a) the entire nature of space travel is fraud and they actually just camp out for a few months like in Capricorn One

(b) or that other worlds move horizontally rather than vertically (scientists have even admitted as much by claiming "the universe is flat"),
they instead take the absurd position that the Earth is round, and because of this, an object that should clearly be going straight up (or up at an angle) instead curves downward. Maybe an object going straight across might appear to climb the sky, but this is a far cry from how an object that actually ascends behaves.



In other words, despite the behavior of angles being at odds with this theory, that's the lame explanation you'll get.  Ascending objects do not fall except when there are shenanigans.

Reality (and by extension the RE) has it at 0 degrees, but FE demands it is 26.5 degrees.

I feel like everyone gunning for RE secretly wants to abbreviate it as R(eal) E(arth). Well, I'm sorry but it's more like R(idiculous) E(xpectations). Polaris can't be at 0 degrees. That would make it ahead of you, not above you. If something is above you, it should be at 90 degrees. Your Ridiculous Expectations have put it at a weird and arbitrary angle.

I notice you ignore the vast majority of my post and instead choose to focus on 2 tiny points.

Why do you entirely ignore the fact that perspective doesn't match the FE claims at all?

So there's no evidence of a dome/firmament ? Well in God's world there's plenty.

If your religion contradicts reality, your religion is wrong.
Claims from a fairy tale is not evidence.

Not exactly going up straight is it ?

No, why would it?
The vast majority of rockets launched are to put things in orbit.
If you launch it straight up, it falls back down.
If you want it in orbit you need a lot of tangential velocity.

Also, do you notice the dishonest double standard you imply?
The sun appears to go down, yet you claim that is magic doing it.
You appeal to a rocket, which is clearly getting further away, and pretend it must be going down.

Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.

GoFast - Rocket hits the sky firmament

Yay, I was hoping you would provide that.
You are right about one thing, that video certainly proves a lot.
Firstly, the label, including what YOU have referred to it as, demonstrates the dishonesty of FEers.
It did not hit a dome.
There is NOTHING to indicate that.
Do you know what something travelling at a very high rate of speed hitting a solid well built object looks like?
This:


Notice how the plane basically just disintegrates?
Yet what do we see for this rocket?
It deploys its despin mechanism to stop the rapid rotation; and continues moving upwards.
Even reaching "space" where we can see darkness above.

So this rocket demonstrates that if there is a dome, it is beyond space.
So great job refuting yourself, and showing your dishonesty in the process.

scientists have even admitted as much by claiming "the universe is flat"

How many times are you planning on repeating this lie?
Again, it means nothing like what you pretend.

they instead take the absurd position that the Earth is round

No. We take the entirely rational position that Earth is round, as that is what all the evidence demonstrates.

an object that should clearly be going straight up (or up at an angle) instead curves downward.

Why should it be going straight up or up at an angle?

In other words, despite the behavior of angles being at odds with this theory, that's the lame explanation you'll get.  Ascending objects do not fall except when there are shenanigans.

You seem to be describing FEers here.
Where we observe things like the sun and moon, appear to go down; yet FEers claim it is magic and it actually goes up.

I feel like everyone gunning for RE secretly wants to abbreviate it as R(eal) E(arth).

Real Earth, Rational Earth, Repeatable Earth, Replicable Earth, Right Earth.
As opposed to Fantasy Earth, Fictional Earth, Fabricated Earth, and so on.

But I know you hate that.
So I leave it as Round Earth and Flat Earth.

There is nothing ridiculous about expecting a model, which is allegedly a model of reality, to match reality.

Polaris can't be at 0 degrees. That would make it ahead of you, not above you. If something is above you, it should be at 90 degrees. Your Ridiculous Expectations have put it at a weird and arbitrary angle.

No, reality puts it at that angle.
The FE fails to explain it.
You have just pointed out the problem with a FE.

For the FE fantasy, Polaris is always above you, and should always appear with a positive angle of elevation.
For the RE, it is NOT always above you.
Instead, the angle varies depending upon where you are on Earth.
At the north pole, it is basically straight up.
At the equator, looking north, it is in front of you, with an angle of elevation of basically 0.
At the south pole, if you could see through Earth it would be straight down.

So the RE matches observations, the FE does not.

Thanks for pointing out that the FE cannot explain Polaris, and observations of Polaris refute the FE.

Don't bother.

That man has added objects to space that has increased the night time lights in the sky?  And that it can be traced to specific space missions? 

Little legal recourse for astronomers concerned about Starlink


https://spacenews.com/little-legal-recourse-for-astronomers-concerned-about-starlink/




An image released by the IAU June 3 shows trails made by dozens of Starlink satellites as they passed through the field of view of a telescope during an observation shortly after launch. The IAU noted in its statement that the density and brightness of the satellites in this image is not representative of their appearance in their final orbital configuration. Credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory
[/img]

Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.

Your wrong.

But what the hell does that have to do with “Are There Extra Lands”


And this reply…

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.

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 08, 2024, 08:43:19 PM

Sorry - But your video proves nothing but this does.

Your wrong.

But what the hell does that have to do with “Are There Extra Lands”


And this reply…

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.

Okay then I'll stay on topic.

The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.

The story of navigator William Morris who, after the Independence War in the United States, decides to investigate with his new vessel the waters surrounding the Antarctic Circle, finding an unknown passage to an open sea. Other lands await him behind, along with another civilization, the story will begin to reveal to the entire group another reality based on the true past and future of the human being. It will finally lead him to the discovery of other worlds behind the Antarctica and most importantly to know himself, a unique journey from which nothing will ever be the same again.

He does go on to find all kinds of lands such as the land of Mars, land of Annunaki, Asgard etc.

The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.

Ok?  Go on expedition and see if you can verify.

But, first.  How would you navigate there when celestial navigation proves the world is spherical with Antarctica a continent at the geographical South Pole of the globe.

The story of navigator William Morris who, after the Independence War in the United States, decides to investigate with his new vessel

So,  why wasn’t he a captain of his own boat?  What was his boat?  And where are his charts? 

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 09, 2024, 02:37:45 AM

The story of navigator William Morris who, after the Independence War in the United States, decides to investigate with his new vessel

So,  why wasn’t he a captain of his own boat?  What was his boat?  And where are his charts?

Read the book.

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 09, 2024, 02:37:45 AM

The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.

But, first.  How would you navigate there when celestial navigation proves the world is spherical with Antarctica a continent at the geographical South Pole of the globe.

Firstly Celestial navigation doesn't prove that the earth is a sphere & secondly Antarctica is not a continent, it circumferences the earth.

Read the book.

A work of fiction like Alice in Wonderland vs actually navigating the globe? 

Firstly Celestial navigation doesn't prove that the earth is a sphere

Yeap.  It does.  As already proven.

https://www.newsweek.com/dianne-feinstein-daughter-power-attorney-1817511

 & secondly Antarctica is not a continent, it circumferences the earth.

From my time in the Navy and dealing with other Sailors.  To how celestial navigation works. 

There is no proof of your ice wall.

There is proof of a continent at the south geological pole of the sphere we call earth. 

And if you have enough money, you can take a trip there…

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

 why else is Antarctica so heavily guarded

?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 05, 2024, 11:42:25 AM

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/

So.. When’s your expedition.  I’ve been on mine through the Navy. 

So.. When’s your expedition.  I’ve been on mine through the Navy.

Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.

I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.

Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.

I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.

?

Again…

Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….

Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 09, 2024, 06:45:31 AM

Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.

I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.

?

Again…

Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….

Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.

Are you derailing again ? I thought we were discussing Antarctic & the ice walls.

Okay then I'll stay on topic.
The Book 'The Navigator who crossed the iced walls'.

So to stay on topic, you appeal to a fictional story?
What will you do next, appeal to Harry Potter to claim there is a platform 9&3/4?
Appeal to Allice in Wonderland to claim that by going down the rabbit hole you end up in the world of wonderland?

If you want to stay on topic, then a reminder of your OP.
You asked if there are extra lands beyond Antarctica, and why is it so heavily guarded, appealing to the Antarctic treaty.

The fact is that it is not heavily guarded and the Antarctic treaty, which you can read for yourself) ensures access rather than prevents it.

And we know there isn't land beyond it, because it is a pole, as shown by the existence of the south celestial pole, due south for everyone.

Why should we believe your work of fiction over observations of the south celestial pole?

Firstly Celestial navigation doesn't prove that the earth is a sphere & secondly Antarctica is not a continent, it circumferences the earth.

Wrong on both counts.

The fact that celestial navigation works by finding your latitude with reference to the celestial pole, and using angles is entirely based upon a round Earth, shows that Earth is a sphere.

This includes the diagram you ignored above:

If Earth was flat, we would get the angles shown in red for the equator and 45 degrees south.
But as Earth is round, we get the angles shown in green.

Celestial navigation demonstrates Earth is round.


All the evidence, including the south celestial pole, shows that Antarctica is a continent, and that it does not circle the Earth.
This also includes circumnavigations, like by Captain Cook, which completed far too quickly for it to be a wide ring around a flat Earth.

I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.

And more dishonest BS.
They were just off the coast of Melbourne. No where near Antarctica.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 09, 2024, 10:11:22 AM

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 09, 2024, 06:45:31 AM

Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.

I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.

?

Again…

Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….

Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.

Are you derailing again ? I thought we were discussing Antarctic & the ice walls.

Are you feeling well?

There is no ice wall surrounding the known continents. The earth is spherical as backed by celestial navigation that proves Antarctica is a land mass / continent at the geographic South Pole.  You can travel to the geographic South Pole and confirm you are there at night by the stars and southern constellations and how they spin about the celestial south pole. 

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 09, 2024, 10:57:14 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 09, 2024, 10:11:22 AM

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 09, 2024, 06:45:31 AM

Lol'z I wouldn't waste my time or my money, it's all a con, they only take you to the islands.

I wouldn't mind flying over the iced walls but I'd only get shot down.

?

Again…

Easy by the night sky to know and verify where you are….

Everything from how the stars circle the closest celestial pole, to what visible constellations rise and set, to the times constellations rise and set.

Are you derailing again ? I thought we were discussing Antarctic & the ice walls.

Are you feeling well?

There is no ice wall surrounding the known continents. The earth is spherical as backed by celestial navigation that proves Antarctica is a land mass / continent at the geographic South Pole.  You can travel to the geographic South Pole and confirm you are there at night by the stars and southern constellations and how they spin about the celestial south pole.

Your deluded.

Your deluded.

Why?
Because they don't believe a work of fiction?

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 09, 2024, 10:19:28 PM

Your deluded.

Why?
Because they don't believe a work of fiction?

Because they don't believe in the truth which is staring them right in the face.

Because they don't believe in the truth which is staring them right in the face.

You seem to be describing yourself.

You are appealing to a work of fiction to pretend Earth is flat and there are lands beyond Antarctica.
You entirely ignore celestial navigation and how perspective works to further pretend Earth is flat.

Quote from: Apple Scruff on February 10, 2024, 07:22:58 AM

Because they don't believe in the truth which is staring them right in the face.

You seem to be describing yourself.

You are appealing to a work of fiction to pretend Earth is flat and there are lands beyond Antarctica.
You entirely ignore celestial navigation and how perspective works to further pretend Earth is flat.

You mean to tell me that a spinning ball hurtling through space isn't a work of fiction ?  Lol'z