Flat Earth

[GandalfTheGreen]

Would any Flat Earthers care to explain how Pole Shifts work if there's only "one" pole? The rest of us in the Cellular Earth/Inverse Earth/Concave Earth camp are highly interested in this, because apparently every time a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms?

So how do pole shifts work on a mono-pole based reality?

 

[fega72]

The main stream scientist telling us, when a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms. So the pole shift never happened.
I hope this is an easy explanation

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

The main stream scientist telling us, when a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms. So the pole shift never happened.
I hope this is an easy explanation

Well, I've been told that the Tropic of Capricorn is larger than the Tropic of Cancer, but it's not. There has never been any evidence provided from any member of the flat earth community to demonstrate such a thing.

However, navigators world wide discuss, and demonstrate magnetic declination all the time; as it is a continuous problem.

So, as with the Tropics issue, the best answer from the FE camp, is "Mainstream said it, so it's obviously a lie."

Magnetic pole shift, is an actual navigation issue. (As is the Tropic of Capricorn in the "Flat" earth.)

 

[Akanah]

Would any Flat Earthers care to explain how Pole Shifts work if there's only "one" pole? The rest of us in the Cellular Earth/Inverse Earth/Concave Earth camp are highly interested in this, because apparently every time a pole shift happens, there are massive cataclysms?

So how do pole shifts work on a mono-pole based reality?

Perhaps a pole was simply set arbitrarily. And since I believe that the earth can grow, the pole could shift each time due to a growth spurt.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

Perhaps a pole was simply set arbitrarily. And since I believe that the earth can grow, the pole could shift each time due to a growth spurt.

I've only seen a "virtual" monopole magnet. One that is created using magnetic shielding. Has there ever been a naturally occurring monopole magnet in history?

If not, than how does a paradigm of reality that assumes only one magnetic pole gain any credence if it's not demonstrable in nature?

 

[inthefade]

I've only seen a "virtual" monopole magnet. One that is created using magnetic shielding. Has there ever been a naturally occurring monopole magnet in history?

If not, than how does a paradigm of reality that assumes only one magnetic pole gain any credence if it's not demonstrable in nature?

Why can't this realm be flat and also have 2 poles?

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

Why can't this realm be flat and also have 2 poles?

Please refer to my above statements about the tropics. If you can demonstrate that there are two poles, I would very much enjoy such an explanation. Especially if you can demonstrate how that would work in a physical, navigable reality.

 

[fega72]

Well, I've been told that the Tropic of Capricorn is larger than the Tropic of Cancer, but it's not. There has never been any evidence provided from any member of the flat earth community to demonstrate such a thing.

However, navigators world wide discuss, and demonstrate magnetic declination all the time; as it is a continuous problem.

So, as with the Tropics issue, the best answer from the FE camp, is "Mainstream said it, so it's obviously a lie."

Magnetic pole shift, is an actual navigation issue. (As is the Tropic of Capricorn in the "Flat" earth.)

There is no pole shifting. Navigation will be impossible if the North and South Pole just changing back and forth.
Also there is no evidence the two Tropics are the same.
Nasa's computer generated images are not accepted as proof of anything.

 

[otl2021]

Pole shifts are fake news. Coriolis is fake news. The tropics of cancer and capricorn being the same size is fake news.

Living inside an egg makes no sense in any way as it explains absolutely no real life observations. That whole thing is a freemason troll job.

?

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

Let me explain this to as clearly as I possibly can.

The term "tropics" is a term used to accept and understand that certain regions of Earth have more direct sunlight, being the sun being in that region more directly at certain times of year. A "Sub-solar point" meaning that the sun is directly over head. At it's strongest. These tropical zones have the same amount of sunlight both above, and below the equator.

These tropical zones have the same amount of sunlight BOTH ABOVE, and BELOW the equator. This is literally impossible on any form of planar earth geometry no matter what way you try to spin it. On any shape other than a globe, or an inverted globe, this is not possible.


I welcome the Flat Earth explanation for this phenomena:

Lahaina Noon - Wikipedia

Pole shifts are fake news. Coriolis is fake news. The tropics of cancer and capricorn being the same size is fake news.

Living inside an egg makes no sense in any way as it explains absolutely no real life observations. That whole thing is a freemason troll job.

I just want to inform you, that if your only basis for reality is observation; and observation is merely a tool of the eye, and the eye is merely the tool of an illusion....

You can lead people to knowledge, but you can't make them think. The tropics are navigated every day, daily by every class of sea faring vessel, and the only defense you have when they display their logs, and their data is "IT'S FAKE, IT'S FRAUDULENT"

Shipmap.org

As if every single sailor or merchant who ever sailed the southern hemisphere was writing fraudulent logs, and continue to due so today.


To deny them; is nothing more than utter cope; because you have a fractured understanding of a beautiful reality that you willingly choose to deny.

 

[Quiahuitl]

The Atom is a theory, with a shape the same as the ludicrous solar system.
The arom bomb is therefore a hoax, Nagasaki and Hiroshima being fire-bombed with conventional weapons.

There is an alternative theory of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs which may interest you.

In order to create those bombs they had to destroy entire mountains to obtain thousands of tons of uranium ore, then transport that ore long distances.

Then they had to pulverise the ore and heat it to 2000C 3600F to extract the uranium. Most of the uranium is so-called 238, which is not fissile. So they had to again heat it to nearly 4000F and spin it in centrifuges at tens of thousands of RPM in order to extract the less than 1% of uranium 235. Eventually they obtained a few pounds of this material.

When they set off the nuclear bombs in Japan, the total energy released was more or less the same as the total amount of energy they had put into the process.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Let me explain this to as clearly as I possibly can.

The term "tropics" is a term used to accept and understand that certain regions of Earth have more direct sunlight, being the sun being in that region more directly at certain times of year. A "Sub-solar point" meaning that the sun is directly over head. At it's strongest. These tropical zones have the same amount of sunlight both above, and below the equator.

These tropical zones have the same amount of sunlight BOTH ABOVE, and BELOW the equator. This is literally impossible on any form of planar earth geometry no matter what way you try to spin it. On any shape other than a globe, or an inverted globe, this is not possible.


I welcome the Flat Earth explanation for this phenomena:

Lahaina Noon - Wikipedia

I just want to inform you, that if your only basis for reality is observation; and observation is merely a tool of the eye, and the eye is merely the tool of an illusion....

You can lead people to knowledge, but you can't make them think. The tropics are navigated every day, daily by every class of sea faring vessel, and the only defense you have when they display their logs, and their data is "IT'S FAKE, IT'S FRAUDULENT"

Shipmap.org

As if every single sailor or merchant who ever sailed the southern hemisphere was writing fraudulent logs, and continue to due so today.


To deny them; is nothing more than utter cope; because you have a fractured understanding of a beautiful reality that you willingly choose to deny.

You are mistaken regarding the tropics .

The hot dry deserts are centred around the Northern tropic .

The equatorial ran forests are centred around the .......equator

The cool dry deserts are centred around the Southern tropic.

Progressivley cooler the farther away from the North Pole as each increases in length and thus the suns energy is dissipated accordingley over the greater distances southward. So the tropics receive the same amount of energy from the sun but asits spread over a greater area as it moves South.


Entirely consistent with a flat earth and local sun travelling at constant angular velocity. No-one has measured the tropics with a tape measure.

Compasses. Not saying the video was not OK but if you have no access to a map then the way to set your compass up is by visual alignment to the North star when visible and adjustment of the ring bezel accordingley for magnetic North .

 

[Quiahuitl]

Antarctica is much colder at comparable latitudes compared to the North Pole. This doesn't necessarily prove Flat Earth, but it does demonstrate there is something very wrong with our current understanding.

The current idea is that the Sun heats the Earth, which is a ball spinning on a wobbly axis so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are pointed towards the Sun every other six months. The current idea also says that the Earth is a lifeless ball of rock and its only energy is provided by the Sun.

Let's put that into context. The most powerful electrical devices available to normal humans are 15kW = electric kettles, bar fires etc. The energy of the Sun is said to be equivalent to one of those every metre. So if you laid out a grid of one metre squares, there would be a kettle boiling in every one of those squares. That's how much energy the Sun provides us.

You could argue that the energy is created right here on Earth. The Sun may be more of a catalyst in the process than a source. The conventional narrative says the Sun is creating billions of times more energy than that, and pissing it away into the vacuum of empty space, with only a tiny fraction of it reaching us here on Earth.

Is the Sun stupid?

You can lead people to knowledge, but you can't make them think. The tropics are navigated every day, daily by every class of sea faring vessel, and the only defense you have when they display their logs, and their data is "IT'S FAKE, IT'S FRAUDULENT"

Shipmap.org

This is a wonderful animated presentation of little points of light representing ships moving about on a map of the Earth.

However it does not look right to me. I was under the impression there is such a thing as the North Atlantic Gyre. There are ocean currents moving at up to 8MPH from West to East in the North of the Atlantic. Every sailor knows to travel from England to America you first sail South along the coast of Africa until you have gone far enough to catch the Westerly prevailing winds and ocean currents of the Southern part of the North Atlantic Gyre (the screaming 60s). When you go back from the US to England, you go straight across.

I don't see anything like that in this representation. There are spots of light moving equally rapidly left to right as right to left in the North Atlantic. Given the prevailing winds and currents, I can't believe this representation is accurate. Ships sailing right to left should be going much slower than ships going left to right (in the North Atlantic US/UK route).

 

[inthefade]

Please refer to my above statements about the tropics. If you can demonstrate that there are two poles, I would very much enjoy such an explanation. Especially if you can demonstrate how that would work in a physical, navigable reality.

I never said there are or are not 2 poles. I said why couldn't it have 2 poles and be flat.

I do know with 100% certainty, from my own eyes, that there is no observable curve.

 

[grav]

Direct flights in the southern hemi"sphere" don't happen; they take circuitious stops in northern latitudes.
On flat earth maps they make much better sense.

 

[Apollonius]

Pole shifts are fake news. Coriolis is fake news. The tropics of cancer and capricorn being the same size is fake news.

Living inside an egg makes no sense in any way as it explains absolutely no real life observations. That whole thing is a freemason troll job.

It's our fault we expect Flat Earthers to understand this.

View attachment 22097​

Direct flights in the southern hemi"sphere" don't happen; they take circuitious stops in northern latitudes.
On flat earth maps they make much better sense.

You Flat Earthers still haven't realized that the Azimuthal Equidistant projection is a spherical Earth projection, because Flat Earthers don't want to accept the truth.

Can any Flat Earther show me how the shadow of Mount Rainier is formed in the Flat Earth model at sunset without denying Mount Rainier?

 

[otl2021]

Three horizons... the one on top is around 20 miles.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

View attachment 22111​

Three horizons... the one on top is around 20 miles.

Wow, Thank you for this. Three Horizons? Each one with entirely different elevations? Truly amazing. Very interesting how that the Horizon itself, is only an apparition? A border between land and sky and nothing more. It is not a geometric horizon by any means. Very interesting, how in every single photo, the horizon RISES?

You could say, it "Rises to eye level" ? How in the world do flat things rise?

I never said there are or are not 2 poles. I said why couldn't it have 2 poles and be flat.

I do know with 100% certainty, from my own eyes, that there is no observable curve.

You could use my eyes, and not "observe" the curve. The whole point of the FE experience, is to humble thyself, and learn more about where you live. Ironically enough, if you get "FLAT AND LEVEL" with the SURFACE of the Earth, you can literally UNDERSTAND, why you don't "see" a curve.

It's called "intelligent design" for a reason. There is none in FE. There is mechanical, physical measurement of Earths Curvature.

Antarctica is much colder at comparable latitudes compared to the North Pole. This doesn't necessarily prove Flat Earth, but it does demonstrate there is something very wrong with our current understanding.

The current idea is that the Sun heats the Earth, which is a ball spinning on a wobbly axis so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are pointed towards the Sun every other six months. The current idea also says that the Earth is a lifeless ball of rock and its only energy is provided by the Sun.

Let's put that into context. The most powerful electrical devices available to normal humans are 15kW = electric kettles, bar fires etc. The energy of the Sun is said to be equivalent to one of those every metre. So if you laid out a grid of one metre squares, there would be a kettle boiling in every one of those squares. That's how much energy the Sun provides us.

You could argue that the energy is created right here on Earth. The Sun may be more of a catalyst in the process than a source. The conventional narrative says the Sun is creating billions of times more energy than that, and pissing it away into the vacuum of empty space, with only a tiny fraction of it reaching us here on Earth.

Is the Sun stupid?





This is a wonderful animated presentation of little points of light representing ships moving about on a map of the Earth.

However it does not look right to me. I was under the impression there is such a thing as the North Atlantic Gyre. There are ocean currents moving at up to 8MPH from West to East in the North of the Atlantic. Every sailor knows to travel from England to America you first sail South along the coast of Africa until you have gone far enough to catch the Westerly prevailing winds and ocean currents of the Southern part of the North Atlantic Gyre (the screaming 60s). When you go back from the US to England, you go straight across.

I don't see anything like that in this representation. There are spots of light moving equally rapidly left to right as right to left in the North Atlantic. Given the prevailing winds and currents, I can't believe this representation is accurate. Ships sailing right to left should be going much slower than ships going left to right (in the North Atlantic US/UK route).

Very interesting claim about Antarctica's climate. I'm surprised this information is even released due to how enigmatic Antarctica is from the understandings of Flat Earthers. Where was this information sourced from? Surely not form a government agency you'd just as soon deny?

In addition to Antarctica being colder, Has anyone bothered to take into consideration the STARK differences in elevation between the two points? You'll find that the higher you go, the colder it gets; Antarctica happens to be the highest elevated continent on the face of the earth. So it doesn't require much guesswork as to why the Arctic isn't as cold as the Antarctic.

If I was going to argue that that the energy that produces the heat from earth, comes from earth, I'd have to substantiate that claim with something more than "may be". Actual evidences for an earth that produces it's own heat would be nice. (Not that I believe the heliocentric hullabaloo, because I don''t)

Excellent point about the Gyre's! Nice to see some flat earthers who are aware of the ancient methods used to navigate Earth. The North Atlantic Gyre is only 1 of 5 however; so after I go through and discuss this one, I'd love to hear from a flat earthers perspective how the other 5 work, and how they are physically generated by the environment of Earth.

When I began to review the data from the animated presentation; I realized this wasn't a map, but rather a compilation of routes that had been taken over the course of a few years. Regardless, There's a couple things that need to be pointed out. Firstly, it being 2022, we don't rely on wind power anymore for sailing, so it's no longer necessary to run down the coast of Africa to catch the screaming 60's before making the jump across the pond. This is why you don't see modern vessels trailing down the coast of africa to catch wind they don't need for their diesel propelled vessels.

However; they DO use the North Atlantic Gyre for travel, as you had previously suggested.

I did my best to match the below image, with the above image, that way you can visualize that we still used the E->W route across the top of the Northern Gyre. (Something I've personally done on deployment while standing watch at the helm)

The "Red Ring" That I drew is to designate the area of the North Atlantic Gyre. As you can clearly see, there still is a deadzone as depicted in the image that I posted above this one.

Now that we've established that Cargo Ships, and Container vessels, as well as other warships do not require the Gyre on their way BACK, because they aren't propelled by wind; it's still obvious that they use the N.A.G. to go FROM North America to the Iberian Peninsula.


All of that being said, if there's no such thing as the "coriolis effect" on the "flat" earth, how are gyres formed to begin with? And can you please demonstrate navigation in the southern hemisphere using the Gyre's on ANY .... ANY flat earth projection?

The entire concept of the gyre's and physical navigation of the sea warrants a globe.


Live, Active map of vessels sailing, note that none of their routes would be applicable on a FE map. Feel free to take your time and match them to a AE map to prove me wrong.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

The AE map is not an FE map - it is a flat distorted representation of the imaginary globe so its farkin obvious you wont be able to match anything up . Gobal longitudes and latitudes have to be distorted to map them on to a plane .

The AE uses the imaginary concept of latitudes below 64 degrees South .

Earths magnetic southern pole 64 S is almost at the limits of our plane.

The Antractic climate is far colder than the Arctic since it receives less of the suns energy - reasons given in the explanation for your misunderstanding of the tropics in my previous post.

 

[fega72]

Wow, Thank you for this. Three Horizons? Each one with entirely different elevations? Truly amazing. Very interesting how that the Horizon itself, is only an apparition? A border between land and sky and nothing more. It is not a geometric horizon by any means. Very interesting, how in every single photo, the horizon RISES?

View attachment 22122​

You could say, it "Rises to eye level" ? How in the world do flat things rise?

View attachment 22113​

View attachment 22114​

You could use my eyes, and not "observe" the curve. The whole point of the FE experience, is to humble thyself, and learn more about where you live. Ironically enough, if you get "FLAT AND LEVEL" with the SURFACE of the Earth, you can literally UNDERSTAND, why you don't "see" a curve.

It's called "intelligent design" for a reason. There is none in FE. There is mechanical, physical measurement of Earths Curvature.

View attachment 22116​

Very interesting claim about Antarctica's climate. I'm surprised this information is even released due to how enigmatic Antarctica is from the understandings of Flat Earthers. Where was this information sourced from? Surely not form a government agency you'd just as soon deny?

In addition to Antarctica being colder, Has anyone bothered to take into consideration the STARK differences in elevation between the two points? You'll find that the higher you go, the colder it gets; Antarctica happens to be the highest elevated continent on the face of the earth. So it doesn't require much guesswork as to why the Arctic isn't as cold as the Antarctic.

If I was going to argue that that the energy that produces the heat from earth, comes from earth, I'd have to substantiate that claim with something more than "may be". Actual evidences for an earth that produces it's own heat would be nice. (Not that I believe the heliocentric hullabaloo, because I don''t)

Excellent point about the Gyre's! Nice to see some flat earthers who are aware of the ancient methods used to navigate Earth. The North Atlantic Gyre is only 1 of 5 however; so after I go through and discuss this one, I'd love to hear from a flat earthers perspective how the other 5 work, and how they are physically generated by the environment of Earth.

When I began to review the data from the animated presentation; I realized this wasn't a map, but rather a compilation of routes that had been taken over the course of a few years. Regardless, There's a couple things that need to be pointed out. Firstly, it being 2022, we don't rely on wind power anymore for sailing, so it's no longer necessary to run down the coast of Africa to catch the screaming 60's before making the jump across the pond. This is why you don't see modern vessels trailing down the coast of africa to catch wind they don't need for their diesel propelled vessels.

However; they DO use the North Atlantic Gyre for travel, as you had previously suggested.

View attachment 22120​

I did my best to match the below image, with the above image, that way you can visualize that we still used the E->W route across the top of the Northern Gyre. (Something I've personally done on deployment while standing watch at the helm)

View attachment 22121​

The "Red Ring" That I drew is to designate the area of the North Atlantic Gyre. As you can clearly see, there still is a deadzone as depicted in the image that I posted above this one.

Now that we've established that Cargo Ships, and Container vessels, as well as other warships do not require the Gyre on their way BACK, because they aren't propelled by wind; it's still obvious that they use the N.A.G. to go FROM North America to the Iberian Peninsula.


All of that being said, if there's no such thing as the "coriolis effect" on the "flat" earth, how are gyres formed to begin with? And can you please demonstrate navigation in the southern hemisphere using the Gyre's on ANY .... ANY flat earth projection?

The entire concept of the gyre's and physical navigation of the sea warrants a globe.


Live, Active map of vessels sailing, note that none of their routes would be applicable on a FE map. Feel free to take your time and match them to a AE map to prove me wrong.

1, we are living on a globe, where the border between land and sky is an infinite straight line...
2, if the camera is 3.78 miles away at 6" high you only can see the shore line above the boats on a globe where the curvature is 8" / miles (30.24" in this case)...