Why is an icewall necessary

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

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 05:44:30 PM

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.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 05:58:34 PM

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.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 05:58:34 PM

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

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

you can't refute that there's

spacecraft and satellites up there.

Quote from: thefireproofmatch on July 20, 2011, 07:53:11 PM

Wait... So sustained spaceflight is possible?

Of course.

You are preaching to the converted, Theo.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 05:58:34 PM

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

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

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.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 06:10:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 05:58:34 PM

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

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

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.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:14:57 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 06:10:07 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 02, 2011, 05:58:34 PM

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

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 02, 2011, 06:03:27 PM

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.