Why is an icewall necessary

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.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:01:34 PM

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.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 17, 2011, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:46:14 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 17, 2011, 09:41:19 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:36:35 PM

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.

Quote from: Skeleton on August 18, 2011, 04:00:54 PM

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

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 18, 2011, 11:29:04 PM

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.

Quote from: berny_74 on August 19, 2011, 05:44:56 AM

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. 

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.

Quote from: James on September 13, 2011, 09:22:44 AM

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 

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.








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.