The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
-
Simple question. Why is it necessary for a flat earth to have an ice wall? (This will lead to debate)
-
Nobody has seen this ice wall, right? Wouldn't someone at the South Pole have... oh wait, they don't talk about the South Pole, do they?
-
Is it necessary that the Earth have an ice wall? I don't think it's something that's necessary, so much as something that's observed.
-
Why is it necessary for a flat earth to have an ice wall?
I'm not sure it is at all necessary.
-
Is it necessary that the Earth have an ice wall? I don't think it's something that's necessary, so much as something that's observed.
Please explain, who has observed it (who has confirmed it?). There is a lot of discussion about an icewall serving a purpose in flat earth theory
-
Is it necessary that the Earth have an ice wall? I don't think it's something that's necessary, so much as something that's observed.
Please explain, who has observed it (who has confirmed it?).
Well, many people have spoken of going south, from many points on the Earth, and eventually reaching a barrier of ice. It doesn't seem to have been refuted yet. Do you have a refutation?
There is a lot of discussion about an icewall serving a purpose in flat earth theory
Rather silly to speak of a natural formation as "serving a purpose", imo.
-
So some people have gone south at some locations, and seen some ice? So there is no actual sighting of an icewall?
-
So some people have gone south at some locations, and seen some ice? So there is no actual sighting of an icewall?
Ice extending outwards, in all directions, yes. Sounds like a barrier to me. Anybody who's sighted Antarctica has sighted the Ice Wall.
-
Looks like a wall to me:
http://www.exmaroffshore.com/images/RossIceShelf1999corp2528NOAA.jpg
-
Those replies are both VERY unzetetic. The picture looks like a glacier. Seeing ice in 1 location does not provide any information about seeing ice in another location
-
But is seen all around the rimland. I simply showed you a picture to demonstrate this.
-
But is seen all around the rimland. I simply showed you a picture to demonstrate this.
Rimland, dont you mean the continent of antarctica?
-
Those replies are both VERY unzetetic. The picture looks like a glacier. Seeing ice in 1 location does not provide any information about seeing ice in another location
Not so. It is very zetetic to base a theory on what is observed. Unless you know of someone going due south at that latitude at some time in history and not reaching a barrier of ice, you can't refute that there's a barrier of ice there.
-
Those replies are both VERY unzetetic. The picture looks like a glacier. Seeing ice in 1 location does not provide any information about seeing ice in another location
Not so. It is very zetetic to base a theory on what is observed. Unless you know of someone going due south at that latitude at some time in history and not reaching a barrier of ice, you can't refute that there's a barrier of ice there.
Lets apply that same logic to spaceflight. Many people state that they have satellites in space. Many people from many countries and private businesses have been involved in spaceflight. Unless you know someone who has travelled into space, and was not able to maintain a stable orbit you can't refute that there's
spacecraft and satellites up there.
-
Those replies are both VERY unzetetic. The picture looks like a glacier. Seeing ice in 1 location does not provide any information about seeing ice in another location
Not so. It is very zetetic to base a theory on what is observed. Unless you know of someone going due south at that latitude at some time in history and not reaching a barrier of ice, you can't refute that there's a barrier of ice there.
Lets apply that same logic to spaceflight. Many people state that they have satellites in space. Many people from many countries and private businesses have been involved in spaceflight. Unless you know someone who has travelled into space, and was not able to maintain a stable orbit you can't refute that there's
spacecraft and satellites up there.
Wait... So sustained spaceflight is possible?
Of course.
You are preaching to the converted, Theo.
-
Those replies are both VERY unzetetic. The picture looks like a glacier. Seeing ice in 1 location does not provide any information about seeing ice in another location
Not so. It is very zetetic to base a theory on what is observed. Unless you know of someone going due south at that latitude at some time in history and not reaching a barrier of ice, you can't refute that there's a barrier of ice there.
Lets apply that same logic to spaceflight. Many people state that they have satellites in space. Many people from many countries and private businesses have been involved in spaceflight. Unless you know someone who has travelled into space, and was not able to maintain a stable orbit you can't refute that there's
spacecraft and satellites up there.
Yes, I fully agree.
Although I suspect a lot less people have seen space first-hand than have seen the Ice Wall first-hand.
-
Those replies are both VERY unzetetic. The picture looks like a glacier. Seeing ice in 1 location does not provide any information about seeing ice in another location
Not so. It is very zetetic to base a theory on what is observed. Unless you know of someone going due south at that latitude at some time in history and not reaching a barrier of ice, you can't refute that there's a barrier of ice there.
Lets apply that same logic to spaceflight. Many people state that they have satellites in space. Many people from many countries and private businesses have been involved in spaceflight. Unless you know someone who has travelled into space, and was not able to maintain a stable orbit you can't refute that there's
spacecraft and satellites up there.
Yes, I fully agree.
Although I suspect a lot less people have seen space first-hand than have seen the Ice Wall first-hand.
I personally experience proof of spaceflight on a daily basis, when I process gps data. (Failing to understand how specific the data is, does not mean that it is inconclusive)
As for an icewall, many many people travel by ship in the southern sea, close to Antarctica. The typical report is of the continent being exactly where it is supposed to be, and being navigable in the appropriate amount of time, based on the globe.
-
GPS does not require satellites. I'm not sure why you persist in spreading this myth.
-
Those replies are both VERY unzetetic. The picture looks like a glacier. Seeing ice in 1 location does not provide any information about seeing ice in another location
Not so. It is very zetetic to base a theory on what is observed. Unless you know of someone going due south at that latitude at some time in history and not reaching a barrier of ice, you can't refute that there's a barrier of ice there.
Lets apply that same logic to spaceflight. Many people state that they have satellites in space. Many people from many countries and private businesses have been involved in spaceflight. Unless you know someone who has travelled into space, and was not able to maintain a stable orbit you can't refute that there's
spacecraft and satellites up there.
Yes, I fully agree.
Although I suspect a lot less people have seen space first-hand than have seen the Ice Wall first-hand.
I personally experience proof of spaceflight on a daily basis, when I process gps data. (Failing to understand how specific the data is, does not mean that it is inconclusive)
Good for you. :)
As for an icewall, many many people travel by ship in the southern sea, close to Antarctica. The typical report is of the continent being exactly where it is supposed to be, and being navigable in the appropriate amount of time, based on the globe.
Well, obviously it's where it's supposed to be (due south, duh). As for being navigable in the appropriate amount of time, could you elaborate please? It's been a while since I've seen the data myself, but as you're brand new here I'm sure the research will be fresher in your mind.
-
GPS does not require satellites. I'm not sure why you persist in spreading this myth.
There is no way to emulate the signals sent by gps satellites. The frequencies 1.023 MHz and 10.23 MHz are strictly line of sight.
As I said, your failure to understand how complex the system actually is, is not material to its being effective.
I log the information sent by satellites from multiple locations simultaneously. The satellites enter and exit the field of view exactly as predicted by their flightpaths and speeds.
Setting up receivers at 2 locations, which have a large mountain between them, will have the correct signal masking as satellites travel behind the mountain (even a parked truck can block signal, something I have personally observed.
The x,y location of the satellites, as well as its altitude, are all used in the calculations to determine location.
-
Lets move this along, obviously flatists are scared of bait.
Lets pretend one of you said "the icewall keeps all of the water from falling of the edge"
is this true?
-
Since ice floats in water, I doubt it.
-
I have threads where this topic is discussed, and people theorize that there must be land under the ice. Is this a commonly held belief? Do flat earthers believe that a mechanism is necessary to prevent the ocean from pouring off of the flat earth?
-
Hey sorry to burst FET bubble but GPS do use satelites.....and there is no known pictures that 100% prove the ice wall or any wall in this flat earth diagram.
-
What a hilarious question appears to have started this debate. Why would any mundane geological or geographical feature be necessary? Why is Brazil necessary? Why is the sea necessary? Why is the great barrier reef necessary? ... Why is the Ice Wall necessary? What a funny sort of question - what sort of answer could possibly be given to that question?
-
What a hilarious question appears to have started this debate. Why would any mundane geological or geographical feature be necessary? Why is Brazil necessary? Why is the sea necessary? Why is the great barrier reef necessary? ... Why is the Ice Wall necessary? What a funny sort of question - what sort of answer could possibly be given to that question?
Thank you for your contribution. Return to your porch rocker and resume whittling.
Deliberate pretending to misunderstand the point of the OP doesnt make you look clever, Jim.
-
I understand the thread perfectly: asking why the Ice Wall is necessary is a ridiculous question. It is literally the equivalent of asking why Brazil is necessary. The Ice Wall is a large, donut shape continent which came into existence through a set of complex geological processes. It does not have necessity, it just exists as a matter of contingent fact.
-
Why is Brazil necessary?
Coffee.
-
I understand the thread perfectly: asking why the Ice Wall is necessary is a ridiculous question. It is literally the equivalent of asking why Brazil is necessary. The Ice Wall is a large, donut shape continent which came into existence through a set of complex geological processes. It does not have necessity, it just exists as a matter of contingent fact.
Since it isnt necessary, lets not have it. There is no need for the northern rim of a flat earth to have a doughnut shaped continent after all, hurrah.
-
What do you mean "let's not have it"? What a silly notion; are you suggesting that we demolish an entire continent? Quite clearly not.
-
What do you mean "let's not have it"? What a silly notion; are you suggesting that we demolish an entire continent? Quite clearly not.
Nobody has ever seen it, so it makes things a lot easier.
-
Nobody has ever seen it, so it makes things a lot easier.
Nobody has ever seen the Earth's curvature, either.
-
Nobody has ever seen it, so it makes things a lot easier.
Nobody that any FE'er would believe has ever seen the Earth's curvature, either.
Fixed. Just because you don't believe them, that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
-
Nobody has ever seen it, so it makes things a lot easier.
Nobody has ever seen the Earth's curvature, either.
You already renewed your membership of the Reality Denial Club a few days ago, but Im sorry, our policy is not to refund the fee to those who do it again too soon.
-
Brazil is to the icewall as Donald Trump is to the Tooth Fairy.
-
Brazil is to the icewall as Donald Trump is to the Tooth Fairy.
Please refrain from low content posting in the discussion forums.
-
Brazil is to the icewall as Donald Trump is to the Tooth Fairy.
Please refrain from low content posting in the discussion forums.
I found it to be a cogent analogy that will be helpful to people like James who cant tell the difference between evidence supporting real places and evidence supporting the ice wall. That he (James) compared the two indicates he is in need of clarification, which Theodolite provides here.
-
Brazil is to the icewall as Donald Trump is to the Tooth Fairy.
Please refrain from low content posting in the discussion forums.
You will have to excuse me, but I aim for high content, high concept, low word count posts.
Back to my original question, there is no evidence of an ice wall. Usually it is offered as an explanation of why the ocean doesnt fall off the side of a flat earth. That is the topic I am hoping to discuss, in this bumper car derailing forum
-
the "ice wall" is a metaphor, and not an actual object.
Its is just where the light from our spherical sun shining a circle of light upon us ends.
-
the "ice wall" is a metaphor, and not an actual object.
Its is just where the light from our spherical sun shining a circle of light upon us ends.
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast "ice wall" that keeps the water where it is. This explains why you can find a vast plane of ice as you travel southward. The wall is roughly 150ft high. In the McIntyre model, however, the height of the wall increases further as one moves toward the edge of the world.
So basically what you're saying is,
There is a vast "ice wall" darkness that keeps the water where it is. This explains why you can find a vast plane of ice darkness as you travel southward. The wall darkness is roughly 150ft high. In the McIntyre model, however, the height of the wall darkness increases further as one moves toward the edge of the world.
-
Yes, that is what I am getting at. Does anyone confirm that they believe an icewall keeps the ocean in, if not please state your alternate theory
-
The concepts are being turned on their heads in what I must suppose is an act of wilful ignorance on the part of RE believers. The ice barrier is not a wall for containing the ocean, like an absurd bathtub. No. Our great oceans are but a droplet lost in an immeasurable expanse of ice and rock.
-
The concepts are being turned on their heads in what I must suppose is an act of wilful ignorance on the part of RE believers. The ice barrier is not a wall for containing the ocean, like an absurd bathtub. No. Our great oceans are but a droplet lost in an immeasurable expanse of ice and rock.
Can you please rephrase your last statement so that it is more clear. Are you referring to the edge of the flat earth, or another theory?
-
The concepts are being turned on their heads in what I must suppose is an act of wilful ignorance on the part of RE believers. The ice barrier is not a wall for containing the ocean, like an absurd bathtub. No. Our great oceans are but a droplet lost in an immeasurable expanse of ice and rock.
Can you please rephrase your last statement so that it is more clear. Are you referring to the edge of the flat earth, or another theory?
I am referring to the infinite FE theory.
-
The concepts are being turned on their heads in what I must suppose is an act of wilful ignorance on the part of RE believers. The ice barrier is not a wall for containing the ocean, like an absurd bathtub. No. Our great oceans are but a droplet lost in an immeasurable expanse of ice and rock.
Can you please rephrase your last statement so that it is more clear. Are you referring to the edge of the flat earth, or another theory?
I am referring to the infinite FE theory.
You should really refer to that as the infinite FE hypothethis. Using the term theory in that manner implies a published, reviewed, scientific theory.
For example, The theory of gravity.
If the FE is infinite, then the implication must be that no aircraft are capable of flying past the edges? This is strictly in your imagination I assume.
Back to the regular flat earth, what keeps the water from falling off of the edge?
-
You should really refer to that as the infinite FE hypothethis. Using the term theory in that manner implies a published, reviewed, scientific theory.
You should really refer to that as the infinite FE hypothesis. Using the term hypothethis in that manner implies a published, reviewed, scientific hypothethis.
If the FE is infinite, then the implication must be that no aircraft are capable of flying past the edges?
Yes. You've worked out the meaning of 'infinite'. Now what?
-
I meant, you are implying that there is an infinite earth, but beyond the parts we know about, what? You cant fly there?
-
I meant, you are implying that there is an infinite earth, but beyond the parts we know about, what? You cant fly there?
With an infinite amount of time and fuel, you could fly anywhere beyond the known world.
-
I meant, you are implying that there is an infinite earth, but beyond the parts we know about, what? You cant fly there?
With an infinite amount of time and fuel, you could fly anywhere beyond the known world.
I have an analogy for your theory.
There is a large continent the size of africa halfway between New York and England.
Both theories have the same amount of evidence confirming them.
-
I meant, you are implying that there is an infinite earth, but beyond the parts we know about, what? You cant fly there?
With an infinite amount of time and fuel, you could fly anywhere beyond the known world.
I have an analogy for your theory.
There is a large continent the size of africa halfway between New York and England.
Both theories have the same amount of evidence confirming them.
The infinite earth plane leads to the question "why can nobody travel further than 90 degrees south (or north if you adhere to the SCM)?" Which they do not ever answer, (apart from one guy syaing "theres a wall in the way".) :P
-
I meant, you are implying that there is an infinite earth, but beyond the parts we know about, what? You cant fly there?
With an infinite amount of time and fuel, you could fly anywhere beyond the known world.
I have an analogy for your theory.
There is a large continent the size of africa halfway between New York and England.
Both theories have the same amount of evidence confirming them.
I have actually flown from England to New York. Unless this continent is disguised to look like ocean, I can confirm it doesn't exist.
The infinite earth plane leads to the question "why can nobody travel further than 90 degrees south (or north if you adhere to the SCM)?" Which they do not ever answer, (apart from one guy syaing "theres a wall in the way".) :P
What do you mean by '90 degrees south'? I stand by what I said: with sufficient resources you or I could travel beyond the ice wall indefinitely.
-
I have actually flown from England to New York. Unless this continent is disguised to look like ocean, I can confirm it doesn't exist.
Are you sure that the pilot didn't fly around the continent? There may be some strict overflight prohibitions that you might not be aware of.
-
I have actually flown from England to New York. Unless this continent is disguised to look like ocean, I can confirm it doesn't exist.
Are you sure that the pilot didn't fly around the continent? There may be some strict overflight prohibitions that you might not be aware of.
Travelling around the second largest continent in the world would take days, not hours.
-
There´s an invisible Hiperspace Tunnel through that continent. That explains all that turbulencies. oh, wait ,CONSPIRACY!!!!!
Edited
-
I have actually flown from England to New York. Unless this continent is disguised to look like ocean, I can confirm it doesn't exist.
Are you sure that the pilot didn't fly around the continent? There may be some strict overflight prohibitions that you might not be aware of.
Travelling around the second largest continent in the world would take days, not hours.
You know that is the exact same argument that the Globularists argue about with distances and discrepancies in the Southern Hemisphere. Your own resident Flatularist pilot explains that Pilots can be find themselves in randomly long holding patters while using their conspiracy built flight computers which guide them on paths they have no clue.
Berny
Is permanoob better or worse than a permatroll?
-
I have actually flown from England to New York. Unless this continent is disguised to look like ocean, I can confirm it doesn't exist.
Are you sure that the pilot didn't fly around the continent? There may be some strict overflight prohibitions that you might not be aware of.
Travelling around the second largest continent in the world would take days, not hours.
You know that is the exact same argument that the Globularists argue about with distances and discrepancies in the Southern Hemisphere. Your own resident Flatularist pilot explains that Pilots can be find themselves in randomly long holding patters while using their conspiracy built flight computers which guide them on paths they have no clue.
Berny
Is permanoob better or worse than a permatroll?
Except in this case the argument is valid.
-
It is true, there is a large icy continent between North America and Europe, over which many transatlantic flights travel. I believe that the pilots prefer to crash land in the icy wastes than in the freezing ocean, as it increases the chances of survival. And there are human settlements on the coasts of this continent.
-
It is true, there is a large icy continent between North America and Europe, over which many transatlantic flights travel. I believe that the pilots prefer to crash land in the icy wastes than in the freezing ocean, as it increases the chances of survival. And there are human settlements on the coasts of this continent.
You might want to check your definition of "continent".
-
Just because you don't believe them, that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
Correct, and yet entirely irrelevant.
-
Well, on to phase 2 of this thread. All of you alleged FE believers are too cautious to take such obvious bait, so I will advance the debate to the actual intended topic.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A FLAT EARTH TO HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE
Intended debate:
why is icewall necessary
to hold in the ocean
the ocean is a fluid, so is the atmosphere, what holds the atmosphere in?
-
Just because you don't believe them, that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
Correct, and yet entirely irrelevant.
The personal experiences of eye witnesses are not relevant? ???
-
The infinite earth plane leads to the question "why can nobody travel further than 90 degrees south (or north if you adhere to the SCM)?" Which they do not ever answer, (apart from one guy syaing "theres a wall in the way".) :P
What do you mean by '90 degrees south'? I stand by what I said: with sufficient resources you or I could travel beyond the ice wall indefinitely.
Sentence in red verifies my view that they will rather toss in chaff than address the problem. Sentence in green is something that would already have happened if the icewall existed.
Let me put it this way: if the earth is flat, and if the icewall exists, it is either at the 90 degree south position, or it is not.
If it IS at that latitude, why is it not at the south pole?
If it is NOT at that latitude it is either nearer the equator or further from it. If it is nearer the equator, then people must be able to pass over it easily to reach the south pole, which leads to the question why can nobody go even further south than that?
If it is further from the equator then it does not require humans to have traversed over it, but will still lead to the question why can nobody still go further south than the south pole if the wall is even further south?
Wherever you want to put the wall, it leads to conflict with observed human activity.
-
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A FLAT EARTH TO HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE
Incorrect.
the ocean is a fluid, so is the atmosphere, what holds the atmosphere in?
Please read the FAQ.
The personal experiences of eye witnesses are not relevant? ???
If they're fictitious, they're absolutely not relevant. Whether or not I believe in fiction is also not relevant.
-
The personal experiences of eye witnesses are not relevant? ???
If they're fictitious, they're absolutely not relevant. Whether or not I believe in fiction is also not relevant.
What if the experiences are not fictitious? Would they be relevant and would you still choose to deny them?
-
Pizzaplanet. It is impossible to thrust a flat object into a fluid without dispersing the fluid around the flat object.
-
Pizzaplanet. It is impossible to thrust a flat object into a fluid without dispersing the fluid around the flat object.
Of course it's possible. All you need is enough resistance to significantly slow the flat object down before it hits the fluid object and/or a dense enough fluid.
What if the experiences are not fictitious? Would they be relevant and would you still choose to deny them?
They would be relevant. I cannot know for sure whether or not I'd believe in their authenticity, but assuming that they would be better documented than the fictitious claims we face these days, I probably would not deny them.
-
Pizzaplanet. It is impossible to thrust a flat object into a fluid without dispersing the fluid around the flat object.
Of course it's possible. All you need is enough resistance to significantly slow the fluid down before it hits the flat object.
There is nothing between the fluid and the object, they are in direct contact. Get a plate with a 1" rim. Put 30" of water on it, lift.
You will have an exact model of the flat earth and its atmosphere
-
You will have an exact model of the flat earth and its atmosphere
Incorrect.
-
You will have an exact model of the flat earth and its atmosphere
Incorrect.
I will judge the strength of your argument by the technical details it contains.
-
I will judge the strength of your argument by the technical details it contains.
Okay.
-
As there is no mechanism to keep the atmosphere in position, it is impossible for a flat earth to have an atmosphere, therefore the earth is round.
Please provide a detailed sceintific hypothesis if you do not agree, or provide a post that does not contain one (or dont reply) if you do agree.
-
As there is no mechanism to keep the atmosphere in position, it is impossible for a flat earth to have an atmosphere, therefore the earth is round.
An invalid premise leads you to an invalid conclusion.
Here, I can do it as well:
As there is no mechanism to make the moon glow in RE, it clearly can't glow in RE, but it does, therefore the Earth is flat.
Please provide a detailed sceintific hypothesis if you do not agree, or provide a post that does not contain one (or dont reply) if you do agree.
Or, alternatively, I may not listen to you, since you don't quite own the place yet and you don't get to decide what I will or will not post.
Infinite Earth models, Rowbotham's model, and fractal models are all atmosphere-issue-free. You are more than welcome to stop being an angry noob and research them.
Also: The FAQ provides these answers (and an extra surprise answer I did not include. Consider it a teaser). You said you had read it. Why did you lie?
-
I read it, I understand what you guys are imagining, and I do not agree that your arguments hold water
-
I read it, I understand what you guys are imagining, and I do not agree that your arguments hold water
Take a cup with a 35" rim. Put 30" of water in it. Accelerate upwards.
Unless you have a shitty cup, it should, quite literally, hold water.
Take an infinitely large plate. Put 30" of water in it. Accelerate upwards.
You are now accelerating an infinite amount of water. Where do you expect it to go? It will not disperse.
Also, what is the "surprise answer" I didn't elaborate on? Why doesn't it hold water?
-
An infinite earth, with infinite mass, consuming infinite force, and going at an infinite speed, could have an atmosphere.
A regular flat earth could not
-
An infinite earth, with infinite mass, consuming infinite force, and going at an infinite speed, could have an atmosphere.
Yes.
A regular flat earth could not
Define "regular".
Also, what is the "surprise answer" I didn't elaborate on? Why doesn't it hold water?
-
You will find that I ask and answer direct questions, please provide complete details for your cryptic question.
Define "regular".
A flat earth with finite boundaries
-
A flat earth with finite boundaries
This is not a sufficient answer. Which model are we talking about? If you don't know the name, that's fine! (Also, lurk moar) You can just provide the specifications. The most important one would be the characteristics of the rim and the "gravitational" model.
Also, what is the "surprise answer" I didn't elaborate on? Why doesn't it hold water?
-
A flat earth with finite boundaries
This is not a sufficient answer. Which model are we talking about? If you don't know the name, that's fine! (Also, lurk moar) You can just provide the specifications. The most important one would be the characteristics of the rim and the "gravitational" model.
Gravity is not compatible with a flat earth, so any "model" that does not contain gravity. A flat earth with edges can not have an atmosphere
-
Gravity is not compatible with a flat earth
Hello, Sammy McSemantics. Do note how "gravitational" was in quotation marks. Contrary to what you may have thought, this was not unintentional.
Also, incorrect. The Davis model is perfectly compatible with gravity.
so any "model" that does not contain gravity.
This is not a sufficient answer. Which model are we talking about? If you don't know the name, that's fine! (Also, lurk moar) You can just provide the specifications. The most important one would be the characteristics of the rim.
A flat earth with edges can not have an atmosphere
Incorrect. (See also: The cup experiment posted not so long ago)
-
I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.
-
I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.
I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?
-
I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.
I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?
I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere. I understand that you can use your imagination to create explanations for different problems, in the same spirit as a "Can superman beat the flash" conversation.
However, there is no science to describe these imaginings.
-
I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere.
That's interesting. You have already conceded about part of my statement. Namely, the infinite Earth one (which also implies fractal Earth).
I'm not sure why you think cups do not work. Could you elaborate? I use a cup at least once a day and I can confirm that they do their job.
Of course, answering my question and specifying which model(s) we're talking about would be very helpful.
-
I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.
I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?
I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere. I understand that you can use your imagination to create explanations for different problems, in the same spirit as a "Can superman beat the flash" conversation.
However, there is no science to describe these imaginings.
I love those "Superman vs Flash" stories. And it's refreshing to see a REer admit he has no rebuttal to what a FEer is saying, even if that REer does seem to think that this somehow constitutes part of a winning argument (I guess you can't expect too much humility).
-
I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere.
That's interesting. You have already conceded about part of my statement. Namely, the infinite Earth one (which also implies fractal Earth).
I'm not sure why you think cups do not work. Could you elaborate? I use a cup at least once a day and I can confirm that they do their job.
You need to be more clear. Cups hold water. Please describe your imagined flat earth in detail, and speed up this debate, unless dragging out debates with meaningless babble is your MO
-
Cups hold water.
Excellent! That and infinite/fractal Earth covers all popular models. We can now conclude that an atmosphere on FE is absolutely possible.
Please describe your imagined flat earth in detail
Rowbotham model and/or McIntyre model.
-
I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.
I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?
I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere. I understand that you can use your imagination to create explanations for different problems, in the same spirit as a "Can superman beat the flash" conversation.
However, there is no science to describe these imaginings.
I love those "Superman vs Flash" stories. And it's refreshing to see a REer admit he has no rebuttal to what a FEer is saying, even if that REer does seem to think that this somehow constitutes part of a winning argument (I guess you can't expect too much humility).
I agree that the existence of an atmosphere is not a problem with an infinite earth, as there would be infinite atmosphere.
Having said that, I do not believe that I exist on an infinite plane. Please refer to my countless posts on satellites for irrefutable proof that the earth is neither infinite nor a plane.
-
Cups hold water.
Excellent! That and infinite/fractal Earth covers all popular models. We can now conclude that an atmosphere on FE is absolutely possible.
Please describe your imagined flat earth in detail
Rowbotham model and/or McIntyre model.
Rowbatham is the name of a lunatic, and contains no details
-
countless posts
I am so sorry. I didn't know you can't count to 800.
irrefutable proof that the earth is neither infinite nor a plane.
lol
Rowbatham is the name of a lunatic, and contains no details
I don't know about Rowbatham, but the Rowbotham model is well-defined in Earth Not a Globe. I encourage you to read it! It's available at no charge in our very own Flat Earth Library (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=62)!
You could also read the FAQ (about having read which you so persistently lie) for a very similar explanation pertaining to the McIntyre model.
-
Back to the regular flat earth, what keeps the water from falling off of the edge?
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast "ice wall" that keeps the water where it is.
Quoting the archaic FAQ this is the case.
I'm also fairly curious about the OP, if people would stop beating around the bush. All things in nature exist for a reason, nothing just happens. The ocean is necessary in order to hydrate the earth, the ocean is kept clean by the creatures that live in the oceanic ecosystem, hence the coral reeves etc. is also necessary.
Plants are necessary in order to sustain life and purify air, Brazil is necessary to sustain tired humans with coffee in the morning.
The ice-wall has its purpose of containing water on the earth, or so the FAQ says.
What I'm more curious about is, why would the governments want to hide the existence of such a wall? Sure enough I know that being able to forge information equals control of the general populace, however, what control can possibly be attained by hiding from people that the earth is flat?
-
I don't know about Rowbatham, but the Rowbotham model is well-defined in Earth Not a Globe. I encourage you to read it!
Again the person who hasn't read the ENaG is talking. There is no model defined in ENaG just some speculations on some aspects of FE. And I don't know what you mean about "well defined" but there is no such thing as "working flat earth model" anywhere.
-
Pizzaplanet. It is impossible to thrust a flat object into a fluid without dispersing the fluid around the flat object.
But space is a vacuum. So there's no resistance.
-
And it's refreshing to see a REer admit he has no rebuttal to what a FEer is saying...
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
-
I read it, I understand what you guys are imagining, and I do not agree that your arguments hold water
Take a cup with a 35" rim. Put 30" of water in it. Accelerate upwards.
Unless you have a shitty cup, it should, quite literally, hold water.
Take an infinitely large plate. Put 30" of water in it. Accelerate upwards.
You are now accelerating an infinite amount of water. Where do you expect it to go? It will not disperse.
Also, what is the "surprise answer" I didn't elaborate on? Why doesn't it hold water?
Why are you accelerating it upwards? Gravity alone will hold the water in.
-
I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.
I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?
I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere. I understand that you can use your imagination to create explanations for different problems, in the same spirit as a "Can superman beat the flash" conversation.
However, there is no science to describe these imaginings.
I love those "Superman vs Flash" stories. And it's refreshing to see a REer admit he has no rebuttal to what a FEer is saying, even if that REer does seem to think that this somehow constitutes part of a winning argument (I guess you can't expect too much humility).
I agree that the existence of an atmosphere is not a problem with an infinite earth, as there would be infinite atmosphere.
Having said that, I do not believe that I exist on an infinite plane. Please refer to my countless posts on satellites for irrefutable proof that the earth is neither infinite nor a plane.
This is a typical debating strategy used in this forum like it had some validity. A flat Earth now becomes "almost flat, with 100000 meter high walls". When asked why nobody has seen a wall 11 times higher than the Everest from sea level, or about 20 times higher than the Everest from the surrounding mountain plateaus, it becomes the 150 ft wall that Tom Bishop borrowed (incorrectly) from James Clarke Ross' journal. When asked why the 150 ft wall idiocy is presented as a theory even though it is debunked in that same journal, the wall takes another shape.
-
And dont forget it doesnt seem to have a location either.
-
And dont forget it doesnt seem to have a location either.
Exactly. It is wherever you cannot go and see it for yourself. The lack of success locating it should by now have created a lot of skepticism among the ranks of FES.
-
And dont forget it doesnt seem to have a location either.
Exactly. It is wherever you cannot go and see it for yourself. The lack of success locating it should by now have created a lot of skepticism among the ranks of FES.
FE depends on things that cannot be seen, tested, or examined. You merely have to believe, and not question it.
Which returns to my original statement a month or so back. Flat earth belief is a religion
-
RE depends on curvature which cannot be observed, tested, nor verified. The lack thereof, on the other hand, can be easily spotted from a commercial plane.
-
RE depends on curvature which cannot be observed, tested, nor verified. The lack thereof, on the other hand, can be easily spotted from a commercial plane.
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
Also Celestial Navigation would only work on a Round Earth
Berny
Thanks Zork
-
An interesting bunch claims. Where's the evidence? By Theodolite's standard, it has to be observable, tested, and examinable.
-
An interesting bunch claims. Where's the evidence? By Theodolite's standard, it has to be observable, tested, and examinable.
Actually it shows observations, is can be examined and further more it is testable. Your lack of willingness is of no concern to me as has been shown in previous posts.
Berny
Although you have access
-
RE depends on curvature which cannot be observed, tested, nor verified. The lack thereof, on the other hand, can be easily spotted from a commercial plane.
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
Also Celestial Navigation would only work on a Round Earth
Berny
Thanks Zork
There is more science contained in these small articles than in the whole of Earth Not a Globe. Flattists should read them, then they can make themselves look foolish by denying they exist.
-
Actually it shows observations, is can be examined and further more it is testable.
Incorrect.
-
Actually it shows observations, is can be examined and further more it is testable.
Incorrect.
Elaborate.
-
Elaborate.
It doesn't show any observations - one of the documents itself points out how much would depend on the lens's positioning. The author claims some of the "observations" have been made from a commercial jet plane, which, according to RE'ers, makes it impossible for him to detect curvature - and yet he does.
The self-contradictions and inaccuracies make me quite certain that these are not observations but, in fact, figments of one's imagination.
Can they be examined? Sure they can. After careful examination I notice that I can distort a picture of myself in many more funny ways than the author did using the software that came with my webcam. It can even turn my face into a swirly.
Is it testable? No. Results will vary with lens, every minute of angle, time, location, weather, and likely other things that don't come to mind right now. The experiment is not satisfactorily reproducible.
-
i remember reading somewhere it is to keep all the stuff in, but idk
it could be debated among FE though
-
I would wonder if the world is flat, how did it get that way?
And also if the world is flat, wouldn't that make it more susceptible to Meteors?
-
Why would it have ever been any other way?
-
Why would it have ever been any other way?
It could have been round before the trolls got to it and made a forum about it being flat. :P
-
Why would it have ever been any other way?
It could've turned out as the same shape that all the other objects in the sky are.
Oh but wait... we are speshal!!! [/religious rant]
-
The Sun is flat, the Moon is flat, and the Antimoon is flat. So far I count three flat objects in the sky. The Earth is not special in this regard.
-
The Sun is flat, the Moon is flat, and the Antimoon is flat. So far I count three flat objects in the sky. The Earth is not special in this regard.
1. Give evidence that the sun and moon is flat.
2. Give evidence that the antimoon is not just a shadow.
-
The Sun is flat, the Moon is flat, and the Antimoon is flat. So far I count three flat objects in the sky. The Earth is not special in this regard.
1. Give evidence that the sun and moon is flat.
2. Give evidence that the antimoon is not just a shadow.
We don't need evidence for the sun and moon being flat, we already have logical reasoning as to why it cannot be flat.
Just because one crackpot says something, doesn't mean you should listen :P
-
This forum has to be a joke.
Nobody can seriously wake up and say, everything in the Universe is flat.
I am sorry for the future.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k531/Silberc/3cd8a33a.png)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k531/Silberc/080630-earth-core_big.jpg)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k531/Silberc/eitprom_soho_c2.jpg)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k531/Silberc/SunDiagramNASA.jpg)
How do they explain the metallen core of the Earth, and the magnetic field it creates to protect Earth from the cosmic raidation that other planets are showered with?
-
How do they explain the metallen core of the Earth, and the magnetic field it creates to protect Earth from the cosmic raidation that other planets are showered with?
I'm sure you could just say that there is a liquid metallic core on an FE too. Not really much to go with there.
There are much easier means of proving the Earth is not flat.
-
This forum has to be a joke.
Of course it's a joke! Isn't it obvious? Look at posts by people like James and Thork, they don't even manage to sound slightly serious.
-
Why is it hard to say that everything in the Universe is flat? Look around you, tables are flat, leaves are flat, boiled eggs are flat, even the very atoms you are made of are flat. It is not outrageous to suspect that the Earth is the same way.
-
Why is it hard to say that everything in the Universe is flat? Look around you, tables are flat, leaves are flat, boiled eggs are flat, even the very atoms you are made of are flat. It is not outrageous to suspect that the Earth is the same way.
Boiled eggs are round. Fried eggs are flat. But everything else is correct.
-
If you pour out the egg from its shell before boiling, you can make it flat.
-
Out of interest, why would you do that?
-
If you pour out the egg from its shell before boiling, you can make it flat.
If you did that, you would just end up with a poached egg, which is more a round, blobby shape. Not flat.
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
(http://whatscookingamerica.net/Eggs/PoachEgg2.jpg)
Now, can we get back on topic?
-
Why is it hard to say that everything in the Universe is flat? Look around you, tables are flat, leaves are flat, boiled eggs are flat, even the very atoms you are made of are flat. It is not outrageous to suspect that the Earth is the same way.
Who told you that atoms are flat? It seems that nobody cared to explain some quantum physics to you, so I will give you a hint: when your sixth grade teacher painted electrons as little balls, he/she was not being literal.
Google Heisenberg, just for fun.
You were really thinking about the conspiracist idea of solar system when you came up with the notion of flat atoms. But the solar system is also mostly like your poached egg: a huge round ball in the middle and an almost negligible flat area of tiny rubble around it. You could say that the solar system is 99% one big ball of incandescent gas.
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
Do you mean flat in the 2-dimensional sense, or flat like your flat Earth such that it's a cylinder?
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
I'm not a globularist, but I am bored, so sure. Atoms are made of protons neutrons, and electrons, but the electrons are what make the shape, because they are on the outside. Electron orbitals, when put together, look like a sphere. Ergo facto, atoms are shaped much like how RE'ers think our beautiful disk is.
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
I'm not a globularist, but I am bored, so sure. Atoms are made of protons neutrons, and electrons, but the electrons are what make the shape, because they are on the outside. Electron orbitals, when put together, look like a sphere. Ergo facto, atoms are shaped much like how RE'ers think our beautiful disk is.
But no one can prove this. There has yet to be a microscope invented that can see an electron, let alone the orbit it travels around the nucleus. We see the affects of the electron and therefore infer what it is doing, but can not see it. Even an electron microscope can not see an electron.
Wait, who's side am I arguing for?
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
I'm not a globularist, but I am bored, so sure. Atoms are made of protons neutrons, and electrons, but the electrons are what make the shape, because they are on the outside. Electron orbitals, when put together, look like a sphere. Ergo facto, atoms are shaped much like how RE'ers think our beautiful disk is.
But no one can prove this. There has yet to be a microscope invented that can see an electron, let alone the orbit it travels around the nucleus. We see the affects of the electron and therefore infer what it is doing, but can not see it. Even an electron microscope can not see an electron.
Wait, who's side am I arguing for?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-shape-of-atoms
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
I'm not a globularist, but I am bored, so sure. Atoms are made of protons neutrons, and electrons, but the electrons are what make the shape, because they are on the outside. Electron orbitals, when put together, look like a sphere. Ergo facto, atoms are shaped much like how RE'ers think our beautiful disk is.
But no one can prove this. There has yet to be a microscope invented that can see an electron, let alone the orbit it travels around the nucleus. We see the affects of the electron and therefore infer what it is doing, but can not see it. Even an electron microscope can not see an electron.
Wait, who's side am I arguing for?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-shape-of-atoms
And you believe those lying, conspiracy monger scientists? They are only in it for the money, and the more nonsense they put into your heads, the more money NASA makes. Why would they tell you the truth about the shape of an atom? It is really flat. They are just pumping your head full of obsolete information, in the name of science, and you just follow along like a sheep being led to pasture.
Oh, wait, which side am I arguing against again?
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
I'm not a globularist, but I am bored, so sure. Atoms are made of protons neutrons, and electrons, but the electrons are what make the shape, because they are on the outside. Electron orbitals, when put together, look like a sphere. Ergo facto, atoms are shaped much like how RE'ers think our beautiful disk is.
But no one can prove this. There has yet to be a microscope invented that can see an electron, let alone the orbit it travels around the nucleus. We see the affects of the electron and therefore infer what it is doing, but can not see it. Even an electron microscope can not see an electron.
Wait, who's side am I arguing for?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-shape-of-atoms
And you believe those lying, conspiracy monger scientists? They are only in it for the money, and the more nonsense they put into your heads, the more money NASA makes. Why would they tell you the truth about the shape of an atom? It is really flat. They are just pumping your head full of obsolete information, in the name of science, and you just follow along like a sheep being led to pasture.
Oh, wait, which side am I arguing against again?
Atoms have nothing to do with the flatitude of our Earth, unless you subscribe to the idea that the Earth is a giant crystal, but even that it would be the molecular structure that mattered.
-
I think you fail to see the satire in my last post. A round earther arguing in favor of a flat atom using flat earther arguments. I thought it was clear.
-
I think you fail to see the satire in my last post. A round earther arguing in favor of a flat atom using flat earther arguments. I thought it was clear.
It was. I was playing along.
-
Atoms, like the Earth itself, are flat. I challenge any globularist to provide reasons for me to suspect otherwise.
So, you were too lazy to google Heisenberg and his Principle of Uncertainty. You were met, anyway, in your challenge by Tausami, who found this very interesting article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-shape-of-atoms (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-shape-of-atoms). Like always, you have an impressively bold claim supported just by your superiority complex.
For those who do not know, Heisenberg showed that we cannot, among other things, locate the electrons of an atom precisely. If we find out where they are at one given moment, we cannot know their energy. So even if we had the equipment to find the electron precisely, we would not know what orbit (if any) it makes around the atom. Or we can know the energy precisely, but all information on its position is lost.