Stalvern wrote:I'm struggling to understand this too. He apparently has faith in Antarctica's existence based on the accounts of people who have been there, but he refuses to accept their descriptions of its size and shape, only that it's cold and far away. Why even believe in Antarctica at that point?
(Not to mention that the part of the world south of the equator would be three times larger than the area north of it in this scenario, which again clearly can't be true given how people travel on it.)
Antarctica and the conspiracy theory involving the military stopping people from going to the end of the world is one of the hard ones to defend - the concept that suggests a ring of 30000 odd miles is surrounded by an army of millions stopping would be travelers from reaching the edge of the world.
Flat Earth map is topological. The flight from London to New York are a straight line on a Flat Earth Map, the distance is a good approximation to the geodesic circle they use in navigation on a globe between these two points. The model is very good at least from perspective of distances between places (ignoring where things are such as Antarctica). It crashes when the Sun and Southern/Northern constellations get involved.
According to the model, the Sun is 3000 miles above the flat disc, 30 miles in diameter, and moves around a circular path (24 hours) that slowly drifts between the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn to simulate the position of sun in the sky at certain times of the year. Issue is this: The angular size of the Sun in this model is indeed accurate at first glance, but given they hover a mere 3000 miles above the flat Earth, with the flat Earth diameter at least 10000 miles across, then the angular size of the Sun and Moon should drastically alter while they move. What we observe is not this - the Sun/Moon do not alter size irrespective of where in the sky they are. Furthermore, high school level Trigonometry can be applied to calculate the position of the Sun/Moon. At no point in the sky are they anywhere near the horizon (the closest they get is around 22 degrees by my calculation). Yet we observe the Sun and Moon setting. Just a couple of easily tested examples. Add to that the Sun never theoretically setting (perpetual daylight). Flat Earth proponents argue about "perspective", the concept that something vanishes in plain sight given a distant observation where both the sky and ground will move to eye level from your perspective (perspective is readily applied to the long corridor - the top bottom and walls converge at eye level if the corridor is long enough. The Sky and ground can be thought of as a very large corridor). In theory, it could be a fair observation provided the object size is diminutive enough to not be resolved by the human eye. As we established, the Sun/Moon do not change angular diameter and thus never reach the point of non-resolvability. Furthermore, you cannot stop propagation of light - light does not care about angular size - it is either bright enough to be resolved or not bright enough. A counterargument is "the sun and moon are spotlights, the light just moves out of view". This of course superimposes onto a previous issue established - that being the Sun and Moon therefore setting even higher than they already theoretically do.
Astronomer's would be correct to question why they cannot see the Big Dipper or Northern Cross in the Southern Hemisphere.