Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall

  • 80 Replies
  • 20008 Views
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« on: October 12, 2006, 11:03:23 PM »
My apologies for the angry rant introduction - that was my initial response. I hope that you can accept me for a regular round-earther, not an asshat.

Anyway, on to my main point - The Ice Wall.
It is, as i see it, impossible for this wall of ice to remain in a frozen state. Where does the lack of heat come from (Hah, I know that sentence is stupid, but you get my drift). In a world that is lit by a spotlight strong enough to light entire continents to the point of > 40 degress celcius, how does it remain frozen?

I know that in the round earth scheme of things, exactly the same thing happens - a giant body of ice remains frozen (despite that it is melting...like what happens naturally) at the north and south poles. However, the atmosphere plays a big part in this. Number 1, it's pretty much overcast all the time. In a flat earth theory, clouds, and indeed anything, would have a great amount of trouble in staying at high altitudes right above the edge. Assuming the earth is flat, and is accelerating 'upwards', then this would force all matter to 'spread out' because the air beneath the air on top cannot support the weight of the air on top. You can demostrate this easily at home. Thanks to the wonderful forces of surface tension, you can just use water. Get a plate (or an even flatter object, which would be better) and try and put as much water on it without it pouring off the sides (because, like what has been said before, you'll get  wet in the laps...what an odd phrase...anyway - ). Here, the earth's gravitational pull will account for the flat earth's 'falling upwards'. Now, here's the fun bit. Pour more water on the plate, in fact, pour a greater amount on each second, in accordance with 9.8 ms/s. You will notice that the water pours off. The adding of water is effectively 'the air on top' while the water you put on there is 'the air on the bottom'. The both, 'bottom air' first, begin to run off the disc.

Back to the atmosphere...
As demonstrated, clouds, and indeed probably a goodly amount of air, would be falling off the disc (and there's a little bit of the answer to "whats on the bottom?" This, therefore , removes most of the atmosphere covering the Ice Wall - add leaves it open to not only immense radiation from the sun, but also anything else coming from surrounding heavenly bodies.

Since the Flat Earth theory extends out past the earth, we can therefore assume that much of the rest of the surrounding universe (because of Quantum, other universes potentially exist, and therefore may have different mechanics) is flat as well. This also eliminates the possibilty of a Heliosphere and similar spherical bodies enveloping our solar system. As most of you well educated people should know - The Heliosphere is the first, and an important line of defense against the constant bombarding of extra-solar radiation. Without this, a flat earth would take a significant pounding - probably to the extent to where earth - flat or round - coulnd not have life existing on it. It could, resource-wise, support life - but the radation from extra-solar bodies (hell, even our own sun) would snuff out life as it tried to evolve.

Anyway, this radiation would contribute to the melting of of the Ice Wall.

Another thing - climate shifts. If it were possible to have an Ice Wall so thick that it was able to hold back the oceans, then it would gradually melt due to global warming.

What's that, you say? Global cooling? Ah! Possibly a very valid point indeed! However, Global warming and cooling - two opposing mediums. To prevent the earth from freezing over, you need global warming. To prevent the "Ice Wall" from melting you need global cooling. This suggests that there is a balance between the two. However, as you can notice in everyday life - nature cannot remain balanced - change is inevitable.
We would, over the process of many aeons, shift from bloody cold to bloody hot. The 'bloody hot' would melt the Ice Wall. There is no challenging this - ICE MELTS - as it is doing so now at our earth's polar extremeties.

Another point - flat earth claims the ring of ice around it's circumferance. This is impossible. Here is a diagram of the only possible way I can see the earth as being flat - (excuse the crudeness - I'm not that great with drawing on the computer). Not only would the earth being pushed upwards force the Ice outwards from the earth - eventually falling off the edge, but friction would break it apart as well. I'll get to that soon.





This "thicker at the middle" disc is the only way I can conceive that a flat earth is possible. You mention that the flat earth can tilt (and assuming it never falls on it's side, due to the fact the upwards force would eventually do this to it). If it tilts, and there is force pushing it, this would cause it to rotate - eventually on an axis. As you might have thought already, this will eventually form into a ball. The centrifugal/pedal (whichever you want to go with) will do this. But for now, lets say its at the state where is is going to be a disc for a rather long time. The previously mentioned forces will make this disk expand, gradually cracking it, and the additional weight of the ground and air pushing out sideways will help this.

I mentioned friction before. As you will all doubt know, ice is Slippery When Wet. There is a great amount of water pushing against this ice, and this would cause at least the sides and the ground underneath the ice to become very slippery for a good few hundred kilometres undernearth.  Remember that this flat earth is still spinning. The ice over the slippery (my apologies for the use of the word 'slippery'. I need to think of a better term) land should have no trouble in keeping up with the spinning earth - centrifugal force will keep it moving at the same pace (as well as flying right off it..). However, the ice that is not in direct contact with the water will be trying to move at a different pace to the 'slippery' ice - because they interact with different physical properties with the spinning disc. This would gradually crack the Ice Wall also...and then water will invade futher, and so on and so forth. The warmth I mentioned before should help prevent ice reforming.

As a conlcuding point, for the Ice Wall, that is, I must add how the idea that the Ice Wall is completely transparent is completely ludicrous. For aeons, we have collected junk from outerspace - and this Ice Wall would be a prime target for space debris. Not only this, but junk from our own planet would be formed in the ice as well - It fact, it would be about as see-through as your own eyelids - possible, but only up VERY close and with a lot of light on one side.




In final conclusion - I suggest you find a new logo for the site, because not only does the theory contradict it'self, but so does your logo. As soon as I looked at it, I immediately saw this:



And so, in summation - The Ice Wall, and very much therefor, the Flat Earth is impossible - In pretty much any way you look at it.
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2006, 11:20:35 PM »
for those of you who dont get the logo thing, it's a sphere, which add's irony to the whole thing.
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

?

tom1111

  • 16
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2006, 11:21:29 PM »
i think my avatar speaks for its self dude

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2006, 11:25:37 PM »
i think it would speak for it's self if it were a clear image. and dont try and tell me that that's the Ice wall.
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

?

Mad_Aussie

  • 56
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2006, 11:27:23 PM »
your picture of a glacier there doesnt exactly encompass the earth, nor does it go much higher than a hundred metres.
Google "Glacier" and you'll find thousands of images just like it.
f you seriously believe that the Earth is flat, go get a CAT scan and book yourself in for some good ol' immediate Endoscopic Brain Tumor Surgery.

otherwise, its a great joke you have going

?

tom1111

  • 16
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2006, 11:27:55 PM »
Quote from: "Enraged Youth"
i think it would speak for it's self if it were a clear image. and dont try and tell me that that's the Ice wall.

yep its the ice wall
took the photo myself 8-)
while i was in jamaica smoking cones with the gnomes

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2006, 12:33:23 AM »
hah. now i see.
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

?

tom1111

  • 16
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2006, 12:40:42 AM »
Quote from: "Enraged Youth"
hah. now i see.

yes wise one
 :D

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2006, 05:49:29 AM »
hah. I wonder if the Fe'ers have bothered to read something this lengthy.

"oh shit, a lengthy speech - shit lads, we've been rumbled!"
*charley chaplain walk offskies*
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

?

woopedazz

  • 421
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2006, 07:05:42 AM »
i certainly culdnt be fked reading the damn thing...but heres proof the icewall exist: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5788

?

woopedazz

  • 421
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2006, 07:11:43 AM »
Quote from: "woopedazz"
i certainly culdnt be fked reading the damn thing...but heres proof the icewall exist: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5788


if you can be bothered reading my horrible grammar it is quite an interesting read  :)

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2006, 08:52:27 AM »
If you say global warming and global cooling are mutually exclusive, then you obviously don't know very much about either theory.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2006, 05:22:39 PM »
I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive. I'm saying that they will be two factors that constantly change our surroundings - and they will vary in great extremities.

Also, that section is mostly challenging the instant reply of "but there is global cooling to counter point global warming"

Still havn't seen any challenges to this...
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

?

Mythix Profit

  • 407
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2006, 06:31:14 PM »
Obviously, none of the photos presented shows the actual Ice Wall. Rather they show attempts at the outer ice ciffs along the rough coast of the southern ring continent.

The actual Ice Wall is on avg. 1,383.4166 mi. from this  frozen shore at the far edge of the World Disk. It is comprised of non-photo-reproducing blue ice; appearing as other glacial ice to the naked eye but undocumentable by even digital photographic means.

...also it's eternal twilight at the very edge and there are dire things lurking in the starry void beyond.
 believe that; the Earth is flat until such time as I stand within the Space Station and personally see that it is a Globe.
or that the Earth is a sphere until such time as I stand upon the Icewall and personally see that it is a Flat Disk.

?

No

  • 26
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2006, 07:32:29 PM »
Quote from: "Mythix Profit"
Obviously, none of the photos presented shows the actual Ice Wall. Rather they show attempts at the outer ice ciffs along the rough coast of the southern ring continent.

The actual Ice Wall is on avg. 1,383.4166 mi. from this  frozen shore at the far edge of the World Disk. It is comprised of non-photo-reproducing blue ice; appearing as other glacial ice to the naked eye but undocumentable by even digital photographic means.

...also it's eternal twilight at the very edge and there are dire things lurking in the starry void beyond.
What about the atmosphere? How does that stay attatched to the Earth when the only thing holding fluids in is a 250 foot ice wall?

Let me guess, another conspiracy?

?

phaseshifter

  • 841
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2006, 08:22:42 PM »
Quote from: "No"
Quote from: "Mythix Profit"
Obviously, none of the photos presented shows the actual Ice Wall. Rather they show attempts at the outer ice ciffs along the rough coast of the southern ring continent.

The actual Ice Wall is on avg. 1,383.4166 mi. from this  frozen shore at the far edge of the World Disk. It is comprised of non-photo-reproducing blue ice; appearing as other glacial ice to the naked eye but undocumentable by even digital photographic means.

...also it's eternal twilight at the very edge and there are dire things lurking in the starry void beyond.
What about the atmosphere? How does that stay attatched to the Earth when the only thing holding fluids in is a 250 foot ice wall?

Let me guess, another conspiracy?


Actually, if the world was flat as they describe it, an ice wall would not prevent the earth from constantly loosing matter and have the atmosphere leak at the edges. In fact, we would have lost most of our matter long ago, as the world would not benefeit from the closed system we have on a spherical world. Remeber, that flat disc is supposed to be speeding upwards (wherever the hell upwards is in space) so it would be loosing matter at the bottom and at the edges like crasy and if it ever had an atmosphere, it would be long gone.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2006, 12:33:51 AM »
Quote
1,383.4166 mi.
??

That's a pretty damn acurate measurement for someone who has managed to survive murderous gaurds.

And as I mentioned before, the Ice Wall WILL NOT BE TRANSPARENT. Even if it IS made of this unphotographable 'blue ice' it will have been 'corrupted' over the millinea and will be, very, undoubtedly, unmistakeably...dark.


EDIT:
Still unchallenged.
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2006, 12:36:32 AM »
Don't take the word of trolls as FE cannon.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2006, 12:38:12 AM »
Hehe I don't. I still disprove it anyway :P
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2006, 06:12:26 AM »
Tick tick tick...still waiting.
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2006, 07:31:40 AM »
Nope, nearly 200 page views, and not a single valid challenge.

You know, I'm really beginning to think that FE cannot bring up something that supports them. (Gee, I wonder why?)
 tried to be nice. I tried to not get angry at insultingly rediculous notions.

I TRIED DAMMIT

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2006, 09:05:34 AM »
Well...I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that nothing has a pretty damn strong lack of heat (aka Coldness). Think about space. Space is incredibly cold. The space in the FE model is even colder. As a matter of fact, we'll assume that since there's literally NOTHING there, that the temperature would, in all necessity, be at a perpetual absolute zero (0 degree Kelvin), seeing as there's no energy out there to provide heat.
So, now that we got that down, you can see how the outside of the wall stays frozen, obviously. Now, think about glaciers. If they do melt, they melt extremely slowly, because it's a large mass and it's hard to cool. Now add in the fact that one side is cooled perpetually by a level of chill that's incomprehensible to humans, I'm pretty sure that things going to stay really freaking cold.

Now, I don't know all that much about solar radiation, but I'm pretty sure that's not entirely necessary on an FE model. Considering we are on a completely different model, it's pretty easy to assume that the radiation you were talking about doesn't exist.

As for global warming, it can easily be written off as part of the conspiracy. Have you run scientific tests for global warming? Hell, when you read some of the stuff on global warming, it's not that great. They give you averages like the AVERAGE temperature rising .6 degrees per year or whatever, but they completely FAIL to mention that that only means that some years the average temperature went up ten degrees while other years the average temperature cools down about six degrees. I've yet to see solid evidence on Global Warming.

Moving onto your point about the forces pushing the ice wall off of the Earth. Consider this: Billions of people step on the Earth everyday. Hell, billions of them could even jump on the Earth everyday if they feel so inclined. This doesn't make the Earth move or be degraded. We're moving down at the same rate the rest of the forces are. Now, give it time and yes, the Earth will eventually be pushed down a bit, but, in reality, it's not going incredibly fast upwards. Also, that's not even to mention the main flaw in your theory: all tests that conceive the concept that pushing on an object like that would make it curve...they've all been done ON EARTH. Meaning, that's basically completely void, even if you choose to disbelieve my former point.

Now, as for your slippery-when-wet description: This could be valid...maybe. But I think you're exaggerating the spin on the Earth. If we are spinning AT ALL, it'd be a minor rotation. I doubt this could be enough to throw the outer ice from the wall in a fit of icely rage.

Now, you're basing the fact that there is a lot of space-debris on the Round Earth Model. Also, the Ice Wall isn't 'transparent,' it's supposedly made of a blue ice that is nonphotographable (I'm not saying I endorse that theory or anything, but it's the main theory).

As for the logo, I neither chose it nor support it, but that's not my decision to make either.

By the way, just because nobody responds doesn't mean that you officially blew the theory open, it just means that people who are willing to respond have their hands tied for a while. Stop being an ass.


~D-Draw

?

phaseshifter

  • 841
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2006, 06:13:21 PM »
Quote
Now, I don't know all that much about solar radiation, but I'm pretty sure that's not entirely necessary on an FE model. Considering we are on a completely different model, it's pretty easy to assume that the radiation you were talking about doesn't exist.


Solar radiation doesn't exist?......... You do know what heat is?

The great ball of fire that is the sun doesn't stay aflame for billions of years because it's on fire (that would die out instantly in space). The sun still shines because of nuklear reactions at it's core, the intense pressure of it's own mass crushes the atoms in the middle, which causes the electron shell to be smashed, s othat electrons move unconstrained by the shell. 90% of the sun's atoms are hydrogen atoms. At the enourmous temperature of the sun's core, the hydrogen nuclei move at a speed far greater than would be possible on earth for example. The combination of closeness and speed means that the nuclei smash into each other with enormous force fusing into a larger nucleus. This forms helium nuclei. Four protons combine to form a helium nucleus, made up of four nucleons- two protons and two neutrons. THIS causes large amounts of energy in form of heat and radiation

that is where the pretty light and the nice heat comes from.

So what you are essentially saying, is that nucklear reactions do not cause radiation, which is as illogical as something could get.

Please verify what exactly a phenomenon is before saying it does not exist.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

holybrain

  • 89
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2006, 06:15:23 PM »
1. The sun as you describe is in the RE model.

2. Use spell check.
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

?

phaseshifter

  • 841
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2006, 06:23:55 PM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
1. The sun as you describe is in the RE model.

2. Use spell check.


I'm not sure what # 2 has to do with the topic.

The sun has been burning for all of recorded history, if you can find another means by which to supply a massive object like the sun with enough kinetic energy to sustain that level of radiation, then please enlighten us.

Also, please explain in what way that description is flawed.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

holybrain

  • 89
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2006, 06:36:12 PM »
The FE sun is like a spotlight, and I don't have an explanation for it.

"Nuklear" has a c, not a k in it.
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

?

phaseshifter

  • 841
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2006, 07:05:03 PM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
The FE sun is like a spotlight, and I don't have an explanation for it.

"Nuklear" has a c, not a k in it.


How can you not have an explanation for it and present it as being true?

Please explain in what way that description was flawed.  Spotlight or no spotlight, the sun emits heat and light, how has it been doing so for so man billions years?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

holybrain

  • 89
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2006, 07:09:25 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "holybrain"
The FE sun is like a spotlight, and I don't have an explanation for it.

"Nuklear" has a c, not a k in it.


How can you not have an explanation for it and present it as being true?

Please explain in what way that description was flawed.  Spotlight or no spotlight, the sun emits heat and light, how has it been doing so for so man billions years?


I don't present it as true, FE'ers on this forum take care of that. Anyway, how do you know that a spotlight sun is powered by nuclear energy?
 believe the Earth is round.
That doesn't mean the Earth is round.

"If you're going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" --Homer Simpson

?

phaseshifter

  • 841
  • +0/-0
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2006, 07:21:26 PM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "holybrain"
The FE sun is like a spotlight, and I don't have an explanation for it.

"Nuklear" has a c, not a k in it.


How can you not have an explanation for it and present it as being true?

Please explain in what way that description was flawed.  Spotlight or no spotlight, the sun emits heat and light, how has it been doing so for so man billions years?


I don't present it as true, FE'ers on this forum take care of that. Anyway, how do you know that a spotlight sun is powered by nuclear energy?


Tell me how it is flawed, then I will answer your question.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2006, 07:30:40 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Solar radiation doesn't exist?......... You do know what heat is?


Apologies, I misworded that. I meant it's not entirely necessary for the radiation to have averse effects on the ice wall on the FE Model, seeing as it's obviously not strong enough to kill anyone of us or anything (we can sit right underneath the sun, as a matter of fact, and be fine).

Quote

Please verify what exactly a phenomenon is before saying it does not exist.

Aww...You must know how much I appreciate people calling me out on one misphrasing and completely ignoring the rest of the post. :oops:


So, I'm pretty sure this thread should die (and the exactly identical thread, too).

~D-Draw