Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall

What do you mean? "not necessary..."? It is irrelevant whether or not it is 'neccessary - it's going to happen regardless, you fool!

And I'm quite sure you'll notice that we are a bit more dense and our intermolecular bonds a quite a bit stronger than ice. AND also, that we don't melt a room temperature.

And as far as the thread dying? Well, I hate to resort to the immature retort of most FE'ers here, but...

I'm not going away till you prove me wrong.

I WANT to be proven wrong here. However, when you find that that is pretty damn hard in this scenario, and that FE becomes disproven, I expect you to completely ignore that you've been properly debunked, and remain in the state of defeated arrogance - like pretty much every damn FE'er and RE'er here.

Dammit.

Anyway -

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)

You cannot have 0 degrees Kelvin where matter as life is involved.
Even IF the Ice could be cooled to 0 Kelvin ('Space' is only considered as 0K because if there is no matter, there is no temperature - so it is convenient to have space at '0K') it would make such a resounding effect on the rest of the earth that it's safe to say this place would be a frigid wasteland. I'm not saying that life can't exists in freezing temperatures (look in the current speculation about Titan), but our current, unfrozen carbon based life could not exist in such a situation. However, this is not the case, because anything reasonably close to the sun will just not be that cold. For example - Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars...

And in the FE case, as I said before, an object bright enough to light an entire continent, would be more than visible ~3000 miles above the earth.

I'm gonna leave this for the moment, 'cause I've gotta study. You know, to learn stuff. And not be smoeone misinformed.

What do you mean? "not necessary..."? It is irrelevant whether or not it is 'neccessary - it's going to happen regardless, you fool!

ORLY? I meant it wasn't necessary to consider, because of what I've previously said.

And I'm quite sure you'll notice that we are a bit more dense and our intermolecular bonds a quite a bit stronger than ice. AND also, that we don't melt a room temperature.

True, but the sun is so far away from the Ice Wall that the fact that we can sit directly underneath the sun and be completely fine, and the fact that the Ice Wall is so far from that point, I doubt there would be a whole lot of effect.

And as far as the thread dying? Well, I hate to resort to the immature retort of most FE'ers here, but...

I'm not going away till you prove me wrong.

Hate to say it, but that's not going to happen. Considering the fact that I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong (no matter how much you think you have), this is just a debate that we continue for fun and excercise.

I WANT to be proven wrong here. However, when you find that that is pretty damn hard in this scenario, and that FE becomes disproven, I expect you to completely ignore that you've been properly debunked, and remain in the state of defeated arrogance - like pretty much every damn FE'er and RE'er here.

I hate to say this, too, but even if you win at one side of the debate, it doesn't mean the Flat Earth model is just going to crumble altogether. It just means that you've proven what's quite obvious common sense.

You cannot have 0 degrees Kelvin where matter as life is involved.
Even IF the Ice could be cooled to 0 Kelvin ('Space' is only considered as 0K because if there is no matter, there is no temperature - so it is convenient to have space at '0K') it would make such a resounding effect on the rest of the earth that it's safe to say this place would be a frigid wasteland. I'm not saying that life can't exists in freezing temperatures (look in the current speculation about Titan), but our current, unfrozen carbon based life could not exist in such a situation. However, this is not the case, because anything reasonably close to the sun will just not be that cold. For example - Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars...

Uhh...Don't think you got what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the Ice Wall itself will nbe at absolute zero. I was just saying that OUTSIDE of the Ice Wall, it WOULD be absolute zero. Therefore, since the ice is intermingling with that extreme amount of cold, it's still going to be pretty. The latter bits, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I wasn't suggesting that we survive anywhere near absolute zero...

And in the FE case, as I said before, an object bright enough to light an entire continent, would be more than visible ~3000 miles above the earth.

Did this relate to anything or were you just shifting to some random other point of yours that you felt like bringing up?

I'm gonna leave this for the moment, 'cause I've gotta study. You know, to learn stuff. And not be smoeone misinformed.

I'm glad you're making such a valuble use of your time... :?


~D-Draw

Hey, debating is way more fun that studying (although, given I'm studying Heart of Darkness, I'll take that back...)

Ok, but it is important to consider, because the sun, or spotlight, and extra-solar radiation WOULD have such an effect on the ice.

True, but the sun is so far away from the Ice Wall that the fact that we can sit directly underneath the sun and be completely fine, and the fact that the Ice Wall is so far from that point, I doubt there would be a whole lot of effect.

Can you re-word that please? (Too much coffee makes me more enthusiastic to write, but it has 'averse' effects on my comprehension of whats written (I mean, who doesn't babble on in exams hehe)).
As far as I see, it you're saying that the 'spotlight' is too far away for have a melting effect on the Ice Wall. However, while ~3000 mi. (by the way, until you get into huge measurements such as AU's, the metric system is used..Km's and such...) is greater than the "Atmosphere is ~80km up" used in the RE model, 3000mi. isn't that far. I've travelled further than that in a few days by car.

I mention the sun/spotlight because it would be a key element in the melting of the Ice Wall.

Uhh...Don't think you got what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the Ice Wall itself will nbe at absolute zero. I was just saying that OUTSIDE of the Ice Wall, it WOULD be absolute zero. Therefore, since the ice is intermingling with that extreme amount of cold, it's still going to be pretty. The latter bits, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I wasn't suggesting that we survive anywhere near absolute zero...

Yes, I see what you're saying now. However, when matter interacts with with 0K, yes it gets bloody cold, but even ice at -50 celcius will warm up something above 0K. Not only this, but, as mentioned plenty of times previous, radiation from various bodies will melt this big 'ole collection of ice up good. Additionally, The weight of not only alot of this ice will be under quite a lot of pressure. Being pushed upwards, and also, how much this whole thing weighs, even when spread in a ring, will create a nice amount of pressure to help heat up this ice even more (noteably that it won't be much, but every thing helps).

The latter part of my statement, while valid (our type of lifeform cannot life for a prolonged period of time in a freezing scenario), it was created more as a result of the misunderstanding of what you said previously - (implying that the ice is 0Kelvn).

the sun is so far away from the Ice Wall that the fact that we can sit directly underneath the sun and be completely fine, and the fact that the Ice Wall is so far from that point, I doubt there would be a whole lot of effect.

put an ice cube on a plate in the sun, and then stand next to it. The ice cube melts before you even break a sweat. Totally illogical point.


Also, its physically impossible to have something thats "non-photographic", unless the ice wall absorbs 100% light. Which if it did, the flat earth would be in perpetual darkness. Even ectoplasm will appear in a photograph, and by all scientific means it 'doesnt exist' (while theres been thousands of years worth of physical evidence of this. If you dont know what Ecto is, google it. Just dont call me loopy because of what it is, but if you have any sort of a skeptical mind you'll find it very interesting.)

Enraged, you make some good points, and as far as you FE guys go, just because he seems to have some very valid points that you cant rebut doesnt mean you have to start bringing out the whole "oh noes we are only doing this to be intellectually stimulated, its not a serious debate". Carry on the fasage and present some conflicting evidence.

I'm  posting a comparative  img file, here's the basic geometry;

C = pi d      FE     A= pi rsq   RE    A=  4 pi rsq     or pi dsq

RE Model   r =3,963.20016    d =7,926.40033  mi.;  c = 24,901.50000 mi.;   a=   197,379,257.91835 sq mi.
    1/2 c =12450.75 mi = distance N Pole to S Pole along any meridian; 1 Deg Long = 69.170833 mi. @ 0 (Equator).  1 Deg Lat =69.170833 mi.; 1 Deg Long = 0 @ 90 N & S
   

FE Model    r =12450.75   d = 24,901.50 mi ; c = 78,230.30339 mi ;   a= 487,012,974.93539 sq mi.
   1 deg Lat = 138.34166 mi.;  1 deg Long = 0 @ 0 N and 1 deg Long  = 217.306398305 mi. @ 90 S    ( Diskedge)
   The Sun (d = 32 mi) describes a circular path centered @0 deg N following the Equator @ 45 deg S w/ c =  39,115. 15169 mi.;  d = 12,450.75 m. @ +/-12.5 deg seasonal deflection of Light Cone w/ d = 10,732.5 mi.
   

   So, the surface area of FE is greater than that of RE by a factor of almost 2.5 Longitudinal lines are convergent @  0 degrees N and  diverge by 217.306398305 mi @ the Edge of the disk. Hence travel distance between points @ 0 degrees E and 90 W at 60 S/ 60 N (RE ) Lat  ( 6,519.191634591 mi. as c = 26076.766538364 mi.  ) is much further than between 0E and 90 W at 30 S/ 60 N (RE) Lat  (3259.595817295 mi. as c = 13038.383269182 mi.)  on RE that distance is 1629.797979333 mi. as RE c = 6,519.191917334 mi. @ both 60 N &60 S
    The furthest continental point S is Tierra del Fuego  located @ approx. 56 deg S ( RE ) = 73,5 deg S ( FE ); this is 10,168.11201 mi. from the N pole and 2,282.63739 mi. from the Diskedge @ 90 Deg S.
    The N most point of land ID’d as contiguous  S Mass is @ approx. 61 deg S /76.5 deg S FE  w/ an avg. of 70 deg S / 80 deg S FE as a continuous shoreline. Less than 899.22079 mi. separate this SLM from TdF.  
   So, on avg. the frozen shore is 1,383.4166 mi. from the Diskedge, with an avg. shoreline ( c ) = or >9,960.599590 mi. and an avg. area = 58,441,556.9922468 sq. mi. making it the largest contiguous land mass on FE.
   Since total  Land mass is est. @ 30% = 146,103,892.480617 sq mi. This leaves 87,662,335.4883702 sq.  mi. for continents on FE  comp. to only 53,201,271.570056 sq. mi. on RE.

These are clearly different worlds.

Anyone can do a simple drawing with basic tools to see this personally.

"its physically impossible to have something thats "non-photographic"?

In storyboard sketching; a "non-photo-reproducing blue" pencil is used. The drawing is then inked and when reproduced, the blue undersketch does not appear on the copy. I'm sure I must have hallucinated the existance of such an Impossibility.

As far as I know,no one has said the Ice Wall is transparent.

the proof is in my avatar

Dude,

Those are Jamaican Penguins you've been smoking; so how can you be sure that they're not wearing tuxedos?

that non-photographic blue will appear on digital medium.
Hence my point stands.



Im involved in a lot of animation, I use the stuff.

Uhh...Don't think you got what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the Ice Wall itself will nbe at absolute zero. I was just saying that OUTSIDE of the Ice Wall, it WOULD be absolute zero. Therefore, since the ice is intermingling with that extreme amount of cold, it's still going to be pretty. The latter bits, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I wasn't suggesting that we survive anywhere near absolute zero...

He understood what you were saying. His point was that if there is an absolute 0 temperature area that's close enough to your earth to affect the ice wall on it's edge, then that earth would be frozen to the point where even bacteria could not exist. A planet cannot be surrounded by an area in absolute 0 and support life at the same time. So if FE'S beleive the ice wall is kept frozen due to absolute 0 around the edges of the world, then their theory denies it's own existence.

In storyboard sketching; a "non-photo-reproducing blue" pencil is used. The drawing is then inked and when reproduced, the blue undersketch does not appear on the copy. I'm sure I must have hallucinated the existance of such an Impossibility

While I have no way to know what you do or do not hallucinate, I can confirm that the blue undersketch will appear in the picture if you take a picture of it. In order to be unphotographable, an object would have to be unable to reflect light, which water is not known for.

But you don't need to take my word for it ( after all, I could be lying to you because I'm part of the conspiracy) Take the picture yourself and you'll see.

Sooooooo....

Any challenges to this yet?
Come on, I've had a few attempts, they've been pretty good. Keep going.

Sooooooo....

Any challenges to this yet?
Come on, I've had a few attempts, they've been pretty good. Keep going.

Several people have replied, but you've ignored them so far.

Quote from: "Enraged Youth"

Sooooooo....

Any challenges to this yet?
Come on, I've had a few attempts, they've been pretty good. Keep going.

Several people have replied, but you've ignored them so far.

As far as I can see, the replies supporting the ice wall theory has been answered. But none of the demonstrated how it can logically stay frozen or support it's own weight.

His point was that if there is an absolute 0 temperature area that's close enough to your earth to affect the ice wall on it's edge, then that earth would be frozen to the point where even bacteria could not exist. A planet cannot be surrounded by an area in absolute 0 and support life at the same time. So if FE'S beleive the ice wall is kept frozen due to absolute 0 around the edges of the world, then their theory denies it's own existence.

You're right, but not for the reasons you guessed.

Outer space could be - and is - very near absolute zero. The reason why it would not behave as you explained is that heat transfer requires mass, and the void of space doesn't have any. If you have a vacuum at absolute zero - though I'm not sure how you would measure that, but whatever - and you shot water into it, the water won't freeze, because there is no mass to transfer the heat in the water to.

Of course, like I said, for the same reason you can't say that is what is keeping the ice wall frozen. You can, however, say that one entire side of the ice wall is immune to heat loss, which would help substantially.

But yeah, the void of space being absolute zero wouldn't freeze the earth.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

His point was that if there is an absolute 0 temperature area that's close enough to your earth to affect the ice wall on it's edge, then that earth would be frozen to the point where even bacteria could not exist. A planet cannot be surrounded by an area in absolute 0 and support life at the same time. So if FE'S beleive the ice wall is kept frozen due to absolute 0 around the edges of the world, then their theory denies it's own existence.

You're right, but not for the reasons you guessed.

Outer space could be - and is - very near absolute zero. The reason why it would not behave as you explained is that heat transfer requires mass, and the void of space doesn't have any. If you have a vacuum at absolute zero - though I'm not sure how you would measure that, but whatever - and you shot water into it, the water won't freeze, because there is no mass to transfer the heat in the water to.

Of course, like I said, for the same reason you can't say that is what is keeping the ice wall frozen. You can, however, say that one entire side of the ice wall is immune to heat loss, which would help substantially.

But yeah, the void of space being absolute zero wouldn't freeze the earth.

Ok,there is no heat transfer in space, so how does the heat from the sun manage to reach us?

And if water does not turn into ice at absolute 0 in space, then how do you explain comets?

How could ice be immune to heat loss? In a heated environement at that?

Ok,there is no heat transfer in space, so how does the heat from the sun manage to reach us?

That would be radiation, and a source of energy. Some of that energy becomes heat once it hits our atmosphere.

And if water does not turn into ice at absolute 0 in space, then how do you explain comets?

How could ice be immune to heat loss? In a heated environement at that?

Comets are heated? By what? Certainly not friction...

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?

Looks that way.

Doo dee doom.

They're still thinking...

Doo dee doom.

They're still thinking...

I replied to you in the other thread you started (why you started two I don't know). I guess you missed it.

I'll post it again here:

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.

It doesn't matter how much insolation is blocked by cloud cover, the sun's rays will never be at a large enough angle to provide the heat required to melt the ice wall.
The ice wall is also highly reflective, so most of the insolation it recieves will be reflected back into space. With no cloud cover there to stop it, it won't be able to heat the air enough to melt the ice wall.

Since the Flat Earth theory extends out past the earth, we can therefore assume that much of the rest of the surrounding universe is flat as well.

What? Why?

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.

It quite possibly is.

This "thicker at the middle" disc is the only way I can conceive that a flat earth is possible.

Um, why?

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.

You're going to need to explain this a little better. Why would Earth start rotating, and why would that cause it to form into a ball?

I replied to you in the other thread you started (why you started two I don't know). I guess you missed it.

I'm persisting because I want to be proved wrong here. If you can completely disprove everything I say (sometimes somewhat confusing - at not always technically correct, but bah!) then I will seriously take onboard Flat Earth as a possible model.

The ice wall is also highly reflective, so most of the insolation it recieves will be reflected back into space. With no cloud cover there to stop it, it won't be able to heat the air enough to melt the ice wall.

There will still be a LOT of incoming radiation due to Very thin atmosphere and no heliosphere (this is very important). -EDIT- I've also gone over how the Ice Wall cannot be 'highly reflective'.

It doesn't matter how much insolation is blocked by cloud cover, the sun's rays will never be at a large enough angle to provide the heat required to melt the ice wall.

Umm...not really. I mean, sure, cloud cover only plays a minor role, but there's still plenty of heat to go around. Remove the atmospheric conditions and the insolation will make a large effect.

Quote:
Since the Flat Earth theory extends out past the earth, we can therefore assume that much of the rest of the surrounding universe is flat as well.


What? Why?

Well, we have found the earth is round. Pretty much everything in our known universe that has existed for a moderate amount of time (say, oh I don't know - 2 billion years?) - and we've discovered that a lot of our universe is also, funnily enough, round.

Therefore we can assume that much of the surrounding universe in FE theory has flat "bodies" as well. I mean, be serious. The earth flat, but everything else spheroidal?

Quote:
This "thicker at the middle" disc is the only way I can conceive that a flat earth is possible.


Um, why?

Because it is spinning. Spinning will do this to objects with huge gravitational pulls, but not enough mass to sustain their current shape. A sphere is the equillibrium of the two (still) uneven forces.

You're going to need to explain this a little better. Why would Earth start rotating, and why would that cause it to form into a ball?

Seems pretty simple to me. The diagrams help a bit I guess. I should also mention I'm no good at the formulae, (or explaining it I guess), but I know the fundamental, and also a bit beyond that, mechanics.

However...
FET(heory) claims that a FE tilts. Even in just a way that it is not 'noticable'. The tilting is fine, and even predicted. But not being 'noticable' (at least by the forces of nature) is not. There is a force, and taking into consideration that that force is great enough to propell this FE along at great speeds, this force must indeed be, great. Very great. Insanely great...ad infinitum...

The thing that gradually causes it to spin is the Upwards force and the slight tilting.

If there were no 'upwards' force, it would just spin in circles on an 'X' axis
(Here we go for another sweet diagram...)



You see, the forces that are pushing it up also want it to to be in the position that requires the least amount of energy to keep it moving. In a perfect world, this position would be completely flat (ie - ((end to end of FE) =( Y = 0))
Also, that gives a good idea. -2nd EDIT(I'M TIRED OK! )- I know I need to ellaborate more, but honestly, I'm just too tired at the moment.

However, even the slightest of tilts makes this imperfect. It will gradually (and hey, what better example to use the world 'gradual' when the universe has kept on truckin' for billions of years...) make:
Here i use, for simplicities sake, 'East' as "end A" and 'West' as "end B"

The tilts make the ends at different values for Y, right? Eg, a tiny, tiny earthquake makes end A (Y = 0.00000...1) and end B (Y = -0.000...1).
However, the forces pushing the FE upwards will exagurate this increment to a great extent. To return to a practical, in-da-house experiment - get yourself a spinning top, then spin it.

Imagine for a second here (FE'ers need a good imagination anyway) that the top isn't actually 'spinning' - just watch it.

You'll notice how the edges gradually begin to wobble uncontrollably.
This is pretty much very similar to what would happen to a FE (Gravity pulling down = FE's force pushing up).

Why would Earth start rotating, and why would that cause it to form into a ball?

Well, I've explained why it will rotate, but the latter part of the statement was more of a lapse back into my universe. You see, when you debunk things, you have to debunk the theory in that theory's universe.

Don'tcha'know?

Enraged Youth states
"when you debunk things, you have to debunk the theory in that theory's universe."

Exactly....You are clearly not doing that consistently: Your positions borrow freely from either Model.

To successfully argue against a Flat Earth here you must do so from a workable Fe model of your own comprehension.
 
The  statement "This "thicker at the middle" disc is the only way I can conceive that a flat earth is possible." is a good start as it  matches the given dimensions of FE In FAQ as has been shown.
 If you refer to the previous post of comparative models:

The Cone of Light emitted by the Sun(sol) and exhibiting on FE surface is  such dimension that it barely reaches the Northern(inward) edge of the IceWall and that for only half the year. How is "solar" radiation affecting the Southern (outer space ward)edge?

Granted;  sunlight obviously extends into far southen latitudes onto the coastal packice and frozen wastes of the ringlike continent Terra Australis (mis ID'd as Antarctica). So, the effects of climatic warming are the same on FE.

I assume that; since the atmosphere is clearly not leaking and/or leeching away from the Diskedge at a noticable rate, that there is some mechanism that maintains its integrity at current measure.

Yes, your drawing sucks and the explanation is not clear, but, as you say, "tired at the moment".
 
Also, your "Top" analogy blows; The top topples due to slowing of rotation in an atmosphere( friction) below it's stabiliy threshold relative to the Earths apparent motion.

Spin It in the vacuum of space at the proposed directional accelleration and the apparent rotation including observable wobble could continue in a state of self-balanced dis-equilibrium ad infinitum.

There appears to be both a micro wobble for tidal production within a macro wobble for seasonal variation. These seem very consistent over time and last I looked we're still at relative stability in this cycling.

I've also gone over how the Ice Wall cannot be 'highly reflective'.

I was always under the impression that Antarctica, being primarilly white like it is, would be pretty darn reflective.

Umm...not really. I mean, sure, cloud cover only plays a minor role, but there's still plenty of heat to go around. Remove the atmospheric conditions and the insolation will make a large effect.

The insolation would have a large effect, if there were enough of it hitting the poles.
As the angle of the suns rays gets lower, the energy from them gets spread out over a larger area and thus provide less heating. All the way out there by the rim, the angle of the rays is very small.

I mean, be serious. The earth flat, but everything else spheroidal?

Strange but not impossible.

Because it is spinning. Spinning will do this to objects with huge gravitational pulls, but not enough mass to sustain their current shape.

We've already determined that Earth cannot have gravity.

The thing that gradually causes it to spin is the Upwards force and the slight tilting.

I'm sorry, it maybe just that I'm a dummy, but I still don't understand what you're saying.
I assume the tilt you're talking about is the supposed wobble that creates tides, but wobbling means it tilts one direction, then tilts back the other direction, so that wouldn't cause it to start rotating.

Also, you might want to read Erasmus' theory about tides being caused by Earth vibrating, which gets rid of the need for a tilt entirely. Here's the link.

Quote

I mean, be serious. The earth flat, but everything else spheroidal?

Strange but not impossible.

Hmm... I have to agree with penguin here.  Although everything else being spherical except the earth might seem highly improbable, it certainly would not be impossible.

The Cone of Light emitted by the Sun(sol) and exhibiting on FE surface is such dimension that it barely reaches the Northern(inward) edge of the IceWall and that for only half the year. How is "solar" radiation affecting the Southern (outer space ward)edge?

I'm not just implying the sun is the only source of heat (and other forces that break ice). Without a heliosphere (it may look like I'm being pedantic about the heliosphere but it is really important) and also a good, thick atmosphere, solar AND extra solar radiation would degrade this Ice Wall quick-smart.

'm sorry, it maybe just that I'm a dummy, but I still don't understand what you're saying.
I assume the tilt you're talking about is the supposed wobble that creates tides, but wobbling means it tilts one direction, then tilts back the other direction, so that wouldn't cause it to start rotating.

Yeh, I wasn't all that certain about the whole spinning thing in the first place, but there's no point in not trying it out. Even though I still think it would spin, and have ramifications, it isn't the most destructive point to the Ice Wall I have addressed.

I was always under the impression that Antarctica, being primarilly white like it is, would be pretty darn reflective.

Think of how easily you get sun burnt (yes, you would get sunburnt in Antarctica (provided you have, foolishly, removed your protective gear)).
Logically enough, I don't think the government would go to the length of covering the Ice Wall with protective clothing.


-EDIT-  In regard to the earth being flat  -/EDIT-   Also, I guess I can agree - I am a strong supporter of a Quantum Universe. However, it states that different laws apply in different universes. Not different laws apply in the same universe. Possible? Yes.

The case in question? No. There would not be a 'force' pushing just a FE along and not anything else. And likewise, there would not be a flat earth, designed to stay flat, and everything else be spherical, and designed to stay spherical. To have that kind of precise effects in such an inconceivabley minute area, is just out of the question.

-FROM ABOVE EDIT-    FFS, I need to stop arguing at 11:00 o clock at night. Man, homework sucks.

Sun "burn" is caused by UV not IR.

Quote

Quote

I mean, be serious. The earth flat, but everything else spheroidal?

Strange but not impossible.

Hmm... I have to agree with penguin here.  Although everything else being spherical except the earth might seem highly improbable, it certainly would not be impossible.

Yeah but why go with the least plausible of 2 choices?

Quote

Quote

Quote

I mean, be serious. The earth flat, but everything else spheroidal?

Strange but not impossible.

Hmm... I have to agree with penguin here. Although everything else being spherical except the earth might seem highly improbable, it certainly would not be impossible.

Yeah but why go with the least plausible of 2 choices?

Why not?  All I'm saying is that being the least plausible doesn't necessarily make it the wrong one, it only makes it the less obvious choice.

Think of how easily you get sun burnt (yes, you would get sunburnt in Antarctica (provided you have, foolishly, removed your protective gear)).

You get sunburnt so easily because it is highly reflective there.

You get sunburnt so easily because it is highly reflective there.

.........

Sun "burn" is caused by UV not IR.

Indeed...an example of the intense amount of radiation that breaks through even a thick atmosphere...

You get sunburnt so easily because it is highly reflective there.

Ow...my head...
Yes, you can get sunburnt through reflection of light onto your skin. It has to be very concentrated and focused though. The UV is what ruins your skin.
Also, god damnit, I've said how many times that the Ice Wall ISN't reflective! Stop ignoring that!

You can say that snow is not reflective all you want, but you are still wrong.