Flat Earth Experiments

Or to find the edge of the Antarctic Circle. So, for me, I came up with well people are saying, ‘You know, you should go on the ice and see if you can cross Antarctica and all this stuff.’ I go, no, there is a way easier way to prove this thing out. And that is you just take two boats. Put ‘em within range of the Antarctic coastline. And have one facing clockwise and the other facing counterclockwise. And have them just start taking off. Or you could do it with one boat and one plane, but two boats seems fairly easy. And if Antarctica is what they say it is, then it should be only slightly bigger around, than say Australia. So those two boats should meet each other within say a week, give or take. But if the Antarctic coastline is what the E. map or the azimuthal map says it is, then those boats wouldn’t meet each other for a very, very long time. You know, more like a month. And so you could probably quit after two weeks, and then at that point say ‘yah, absolutely.’ And keeping; the reason you would want to keep within binocular range of the shoreline is because that way you could bypass the GPS system and you could just go visually.” (57:00).

You wouldn’t need two boats to measure as one will do. Sargent’s above experiment has already been done. It was performed by James Clark Ross in 1840 from July to August when he sailed due east (i.e. clockwise around Antarctica) for sixteen straight days. He was north of the ice at around 47 to 48 degrees south latitude. And he bypassed the GPS system by navigating ‘visually’ via the stars alone! As I showed in a previous post, he didn’t get the great distances required of the flat-earth disk model. Thus Sargent’s own method disproves his theory!!

Here was how I changed my mind from being a flat-earther to concave. This was what I wrote to a friend about a year ago...

Wow! Did I have my head blown apart yesterday! The Bible is right. Seek, and ye shall find. After several years of being on this path of questioning commonly held views of cosmology, from heliocentrism, geocentrism, hollow earth, flat earth, and now the concave earth non-Euclidean space geometry. By George, I think we finally have figured it out! Thanks to your questions and interaction!

Let me document how I came to my current understanding. I have to tell someone. No one else would believe it! Your question on the Tamarack Mines experiment as it turns out is crucial to the correct understanding. I have read over 200 pages of the first volume of James Clark Ross’s voyage. My intent on reading it was to prove that the earth is a flat disk shape. If I could show that James Clark Ross’s measured distances were more representative of a flat disk shaped earth as opposed to a spherical shaped earth – the proof would be in the bag. All along I have been searching for some means of an accurate distance across the face of the earth to prove or disprove the sphere/disk shape. I thought that after I had read the whole book, both volumes, and recorded every latitude and longitude reading he took, and then calculate the distances for both a FE and a RE and compare them that this would be the method. Well, as it turns out, I don’t have to read any further. I have the proof necessary – NOT to prove a flat disk shape, but rather to DISPROVE it!

Here it is. See the attached chart which is his Appendix III. It records his sailing from Kerguelen Island (French Southern & Antarctic Lands) on his way to Van Diemen Land. I don’t think this is the same as Tasmania as the latitude is too far west – however, all the Google references refer to it as Tasmania. It is the perfect comparison because on a flat disk earth in the southern hemisphere the lines of longitude continue to diverge, and thus the distances will be much longer than they would be on a spherical earth. And since during these sixteen days Ross tried to maintain the same degree of latitude (47-48 degrees South) and sail due east, it is the perfect distance to compare.

You will notice in the attached chart that between each two places where he takes a latitude & longitude reading that he also records the “Distance run” in miles – presumably nautical miles (which equals 1.852 km). I developed a calculator which calculates distances on a flat disk shaped earth and compares it to distances on a spherical shaped earth (using spherical trigonometry). Note the two columns penciled in on the right of the chart. On a flat disk the distance Ross would have travelled is 8006 n.m. whereas on a spherical earth it is only 2260 n.m. Note that Ross’s estimate of 2251 n.m is only 0.4% off my calculated distances (with rounding). Over the sixteen days of straight sailing, assuming they sailed at night as well as during the day, they either sailed 500 miles per day (FE) or 141 miles per day (RE). This amounts to a speed of 20.8 knots FE (nautical miles per hour) or 5.9 knots RE.

What can we deduce from this? Here was my line of thought, and the possibilities:
1) That James Clark Ross was lying and he made up these numbers or fudged them afterwards.
I checked to see if I could find any record of Ross being a freemason. I know that both south pole explorers, Roald Amundsen and Robert F. Scott, were freemasons and thus could have been involved in a plot to fake a ‘south pole.’ www.mastermason.com/wilmettepark/wellknownmasons.html Even explorers Ernest Shackelton, and Admiral Richard E. Byrd who were both involved in Antarctic expeditions were freemasons, but no obvious record for Ross.

2) That these numbers are correct. I then checked the average speed of sailing ships. Check out this article “Are Modern Ships Slower Than Sailing Ships? Probably Not.”
www.oldsaltblog.com/2012/09/are-modern-ships-slower-than-sailing-ships-probably-not/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sailing_vessels
www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/antarctic_ships/erebus_terror_antarctica.htm
Even though some fast speeds of the clipper ships were 16 and 17 knots, the average speed even of these ships was more like 5 to 8 knots. Thus it would seem that the distances which Ross recorded are indeed correct.

3) If the earth then is not a flat disk, and not a sphere why does it have distances that appear to be spherical? I then looked at possible explanations for alternate shapes. The lambert azimuthal equal-area projection would explain the distances found in the southern hemisphere, but it does not fit the pacific ocean.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection
I then stumbled across this thread on the Flat Earth forum, “Impossible geometric requirements for a flat earth.”
theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58160.0#.U5CD5_ldVx0

...

So the universe is self contained within the confines of a concave spherical non-Euclidean geometry which is flat, just not a disk, and like a mobius strip curves back into itself !! Who’d of thought? No wonder there has been confusion down through the ages. This explains how eclipses work. Why there is a seeming dark body in the sky which has been called Nibiru. It explains the sometimes retrograde motion of the planets. And it also is a killer explanation on why there are no extra-terrestrials! ! I can finally rest on knowing the truth. Now I just have to translate Ernest Barthel’s works...