Flat Earth

[franky1]

i see you ignore answering the question..
where the camera man is swimming or in a boat. if the edge of the planet is the ice ledge. then what is holding up the water.. shouldnt he be floating in space

here is another on for you

earths shadow on the moon is spherical not a knife edge

have a nice day

[1714052566]

1714052566

[1714052566]

1714052566

[1714052566]

1714052566

[1714052566]

1714052566

[1714052566]

1714052566

[notbatman]

^^^ There is no outer space it's a hoax, there's a dome (firmament) covering the earth. The shore of Antarctica (the edge) is a wall of ice and yes you can fall back into the ocean.

The entire heliocentric Copernican model goes in the trash, we are not a disc in space. The sun, moon and stars are small close objects inside the dome and are made of electrical plasma, they circle above the earth.

[Ucy]

Outright rejection of flat earth model or flat earth fact without proofs is not science. Real science is about being open to the possibility of a flat earth being true. Both sides should be openly "debating" the  two models with transparent experimentation and not censoring it or considering the other side as heretic.
No need for complicated maths and big words in the public debate. Both sides should use simple and understandable proofs for the sake of the public.

[ðºÞæ]

^^^ Your attempt to debunk that encyclopedia entry with .gov propaganda and tar me as a fool is a bad joke, let me explain:

   The encyclopedia article says the dome is 13,000 feet high "at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E.", and you claim I'm a fool because there's a mountain at "80°22′ S 77°22′ E" with dome in its name.

"this lack of knowledge and skill in math".

80°S 77°E is the Chinese Antarctic Station Kunlun the southern most station in Antarctica build on "land" and one of the  driest locations (Dome Argus)  on Earth.
(Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station is build on ice.) Beyond ~84° north or south is no land, only ice above sea level.

[OnaThibault]

This topic has been discussed for over 3 years now lol

[BADecker]

This topic has been discussed for over 3 years now lol

You said it right. Flat earth = global mirth. Hence the LOL.

 

[odolvlobo]

^^^ Your attempt to debunk that encyclopedia entry with .gov propaganda and tar me as a fool is a bad joke, let me explain:

   The encyclopedia article says the dome is 13,000 feet high "at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E.", and you claim I'm a fool because there's a mountain at "80°22′ S 77°22′ E" with dome in its name.

I'm not "debunking" anything. I'm just telling you that the encyclopedia is referring to Dome Argus, which is at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E and has an elevation of 13000 feet. Do you really think that an encyclopedia would mention the dome covering the earth? It's a mainstream publication written by mainstream scientists.

[notbatman]

^^^ I'll admit it's possible I'm wrong about the encyclopedia entry, like you say it is a mainstream publication however, [80°22′S 77°22′E] is located 150 miles away from [80°S 90°E] so you're an idiot for claiming the entry refers to Dome Argus.

[OnaThibault]

This topic has been discussed for over 3 years now lol

You said it right. Flat earth = global mirth. Hence the LOL.

 

I have read more than 5 pages on this topic and I did not understand the problem, you are very funny.

[ðºÞæ]

^^^ Your attempt to debunk that encyclopedia entry with .gov propaganda and tar me as a fool is a bad joke, let me explain:

   The encyclopedia article says the dome is 13,000 feet high "at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E.", and you claim I'm a fool because there's a mountain at "80°22′ S 77°22′ E" with dome in its name.

I'm not "debunking" anything. I'm just telling you that the encyclopedia is referring to Dome Argus, which is at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E and has an elevation of 13000 feet. Do you really think that an encyclopedia would mention the dome covering the earth? It's a mainstream publication written by mainstream scientists.

Dome A or Dome Argus is at 77°21′ E unless encyclopedia is wrong.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg53272199#msg53272199

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/other-locations/dome-a

[notbatman]

A globalists conception of Antarctic circumnavigation:

What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

Shave his belly with a rusty razor
Shave his belly with a rusty razor
Shave his belly with a rusty razor
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

Put him in the back of the paddy wagon
Put him in the back of the paddy wagon
Put him in the back of the paddy wagon
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning

Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning!

[BADecker]

^^^ Joker never heard of tacking.     

[notbatman]

@odolvlobo, you're correct about the encyclopedia entry. The highlighted sentence is describing the features of the land. As you point out nearby mountains are referred to as "domes" due, most likely to their featureless nature.


edit:
In regards to the setting sun, the refractive effect of looming is not taken into account by "modern science"; the heliocentric model is assumed thus a refractive effect causing magnification due to an atmospheric plane is excluded from consideration. However when the scientific method is applied the refractive effect of looming can be experimentally observed to occur over relatively long distances and must apply to the sun.

You need to realize that "modern scientists" wander off through mathematical models based on assumptions and presuppositions and end up on a mad carnival ride spinning in their mind.

I can admit when I've made a mistake, can you?

[ðºÞæ]

Skipping 5 min and go straight to the relevant point of this thread in this top class clip.
https://youtu.be/QXiM5PMHwfQ?t=304


The flight "beyond" south pole
https://youtu.be/H0bX93Snk0M?t=1130
Would it make sense to have a major US Antarctic station next to a warm fresh water lake, the closest station are Russian Vostok and Chinese Kunlun.

Edit:
Shackleton Ice Shelf 100° 0′ 0″ E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackleton_Ice_Shelf
Lake Vostok 106° 0′ 0″ E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vostok
Russian Antarctic Station Vostok 106° 50′ 15.25″ E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station
Geomagnetic South Pole 80.5°S 107.2°E

[notbatman]

@ðºÞæ I don't like that first video, his excessively liberal use of the word proof just muddies the waters; it adds nothing to the discussion.

When the globe theory is tested experimentally it fails horrifically on multiple levels. The earth is flat for as far as modern optics can see and no motion can be measured.

The real argument here is about the firmament and intelligent design. I can go on about rainbows, meteorites and the fact a pressure gradient can't exist without a container next to a vacuum but, access to Antarctica could settle this question directly.

[Paashaas]

Flat Earthers Are Planning A Cruise In 2020 To Get To ‘The Edge Of The World' 

And now, the Flat Earthers are finally going out on a mission to prove their point. They are planning a cruise to reach the edge of the Earth and finally get to those ‘secret’ ice walls surrounding the edge of the Earth. Their adventure is scheduled for 2020 as per their website. This might be their ultimate shot at proving that the Earth is flat. While many of the details about the date and other aspects of this event are still pending, the Flat Earth Society claims that it would be one of the bravest adventures to date. However, there is an irony attached to this great scheme.


All the nautical maps and navigation tools currently present in this world are based on the concept of the globe-like earth. That’s how modern navigation technologies like GPS (Global Positioning System) has been developed too. They can even be considered as proof for the round shape of the earth. But then again, ironies come as part and parcel when we are talking about flat earthers.

[BADecker]

Flat Earthers Are Planning A Cruise In 2020 To Get To ‘The Edge Of The World' 

And now, the Flat Earthers are finally going out on a mission to prove their point. They are planning a cruise to reach the edge of the Earth and finally get to those ‘secret’ ice walls surrounding the edge of the Earth. Their adventure is scheduled for 2020 as per their website. This might be their ultimate shot at proving that the Earth is flat. While many of the details about the date and other aspects of this event are still pending, the Flat Earth Society claims that it would be one of the bravest adventures to date. However, there is an irony attached to this great scheme.


All the nautical maps and navigation tools currently present in this world are based on the concept of the globe-like earth. That’s how modern navigation technologies like GPS (Global Positioning System) has been developed too. They can even be considered as proof for the round shape of the earth. But then again, ironies come as part and parcel when we are talking about flat earthers.

That's only a denominational distinction. Some of them believe that the ice ring (their version of Antarctica) goes on indefinitely. Others of them want to mount a dog-sled expedition to see if they can reach the dome touch-down area on the ice. It's all based on the particular denomination they believe in.

[ðºÞæ]

Thats a rather interesting topographic map especially in regards to Greenland, Antarctic and also how big Himalaya plateau is compared to Andes.

The brown area straight down from India, dome Argus, Queen Alexandra Range and Queen Elizabeth Range at far right.
https://imgur.com/AnqGMbN
If Antarctica is the outer boundary it looks a bit "leaky", doesn't it?

[BADecker]

Thats a rather interesting topographic map especially in regards to Greenland, Antarctic and also how big Himalaya plateau is compared to Andes.

The brown area straight down from India, dome Argus, Queen Alexandra Range far right and Queen Elizabeth Range far left.
https://imgur.com/AnqGMbN
If Antarctica is the outer boundary it looks a bit "leaky", doesn't it?

Leaky because there are two holes that go to hollow Earth. One is at the top. The other is at the bottom. I think they are trying to make a transportation tunnel out of it. A faster way past the flatness.

[odolvlobo]

In regards to the setting sun, the refractive effect of looming is not taken into account by "modern science"; the heliocentric model is assumed thus a refractive effect causing magnification due to an atmospheric plane is excluded from consideration. However when the scientific method is applied the refractive effect of looming can be experimentally observed to occur over relatively long distances and must apply to the sun.

First, looming is taken into account with the setting sun. It is what causes the sun to appear to flatten out as it sets.

I assume that you are using looming/refraction here to explain why the sun does not shrink as it gets farther away, but I think that your explanation raises more questions than it answers.

Can the effect be enough to account for the 3x magnification that would be necessary for the sun to be the same size when it is overhead and at dawn and dusk at the equator, and the 6x magnification necessary at the southern edge?

Why aren't other objects magnified like this? As other objects get farther away, their sizes should also be magnified in the same way.

The looming effect raises the apparent elevation of an object, and globe believers use this to explain how we can see the tops of objects that should be below the horizon. How can the flat earth model reject looming in this case but accept it as the reason that the size of the sun doesn't change? Actually, I don't understand how looming is associated with magnification in the first place.

How does the flat earth model explain the setting sun? It can't be looming or even refraction in general because those have the opposite effect.

You need to realize that "modern scientists" wander off through mathematical models based on assumptions and presuppositions and end up on a mad carnival ride spinning in their mind.

Accurate predictions by a mathematical or physical model affirms the validity of the model. That is science. On the other hand, I agree with you that some physicists can wander into fantasy land with their mathematical models. Some will create a mathematical model in order to generate hypotheses and then end up just presupposing that the model is valid.

I can admit when I've made a mistake, can you?

I certainly can if you can point it out.