Plate tectonics.

The "ice wall" is the outer edge of all the oceans. A solid wall that extends from the ocean floor to heights of something like a hundred a fifty feet above the surface. Would plate tectonics not be enough to shatter portions of the "ice wall," or at least break some part of it?

This is under the assumption that the "ice wall" is connected to the ocean floor, which would be correct, considering how it was theorized to have formed.

Even if the wall was broken, the water exposed to space will immediately freeze.

How? The wall formed gradually as the ocean levels grew. It didn't freeze instantly. What makes you think that if a chunk of the "ice wall" broke off and fell into space, that the massive amount of water rushing out would instantly freeze in its place?

How? The wall formed gradually as the ocean levels grew. It didn't freeze instantly. What makes you think that if a chunk of the "ice wall" broke off and fell into space, that the massive amount of water rushing out would instantly freeze in its place?

It's called thermodynamics!  Read up on it! There is essentialy no temperature in space.  As the water went through the ice wall, there would be  a massive energy difference between the water and the vacuum of space.  The water would give up it's energy and try to heat space.  It would freeze almost instantly.

it wouldn't freeze instantly when it broke free of the wall, think of your freezer, does the water freeze instantly when you put it in.


However if you think of throwing boiling water in antarctica... well then that is fun, gets you a nice explosion.


but it wouldn't happen instantaneously.

Even if the wall was broken, the water exposed to space will immediately freeze.

actually it would boil away because their is nothing in space to carrie the heat away fast enough for a flash freeze

it wouldn't freeze instantly when it broke free of the wall, think of your freezer, does the water freeze instantly when you put it in.


However if you think of throwing boiling water in antarctica... well then that is fun, gets you a nice explosion.


but it wouldn't happen instantaneously.

What is the temperature difference between my freezer and the glass of water?  50 degrees?  What is the temperature difference between the ocean and the cold of space?

space is a vacuum. a vacuum is a good insulator ie the vacuum in a thermos bottle.

space is a vacuum. a vacuum is a good insulator ie the vacuum in a thermos bottle.

You don't have to heat a medium in order to lose energy.  An object in space will radiate energy as electromagnetic radiation.  Since the water on the far side of the earth would be shielded from the sun, it would reach equilibrium with the background radiation of the universe.

Quote from: "geekcorerob"

space is a vacuum. a vacuum is a good insulator ie the vacuum in a thermos bottle.

You don't have to heat a medium in order to lose energy.  An object in space will radiate energy as electromagnetic radiation.  Since the water on the far side of the earth would be shielded from the sun, it would reach equilibrium with the background radiation of the universe.

well if thats the case the earth is round point proving end of discussion because if the earth was flat sunlight would be distributed evenly. the earth is round till some one has some reliable proof other then argument not to mentioning the fact that much like diving the water would absorb some of the air given to the constant pressure of the atmosphere. just think of a soda that has be shaken up then opened.high always goes to low positive always goes to negative . so as you like to cram down every ones throat read a sciences book or take a physics class or just pull your head out of your ass. 2 sticks a mile or so a part on a sunny day will tell you that.

well if thats the case the earth is round point proving end of discussion because if the earth was flat sunlight would be distributed evenly.

No, it wouldn't.  If the Earth were a spherical bowl with a sun at the center, then it would be distributed evenly.  But, much as the words are sour in my mouth, a point source at a finite distance from a flat surface does not irradiate the surface uniformly.

So yeah, remainder of paragraph -- including childing inflammatory trash -- rendered meaningless.

Quote from: "geekcorerob"

well if thats the case the earth is round point proving end of discussion because if the earth was flat sunlight would be distributed evenly.

No, it wouldn't.  If the Earth were a spherical bowl with a sun at the center, then it would be distributed evenly.  But, much as the words are sour in my mouth, a point source at a finite distance from a flat surface does not irradiate the surface uniformly.

So yeah, remainder of paragraph -- including childing inflammatory trash -- rendered meaningless.

 ow big a stick would you need to measure the planet? A thousand miles long? A million? How about three feet? That ought to be enough to do it, as an ancient Alexandrian man named Eratosthenes figured out.  
 Eratosthenes was a multi-talented man who lived in the third century B.C. He was puzzled one day to read that at noon on the 21st of June, pillars in the Egyptian town of Syrene cast no shadows. There is nothing so odd about this--anything sticking vertically out of the ground will cast no shadow when the sun is standing straight overhead. What was odd, he thought, was that when he tried the experiment in Alexandria at the same time of day, a stick held vertically did cast a shadow.  

How is this possible? If the earth is flat, all shadows should be the same. There would be no difference between noon in Syrene and noon in Alexandria. It's only if the earth is curved, Eratosthenes correctly guessed, that the shadows change lengths depending on how far north or south you are.  

To visualize this, you can imagine a sheet of paper with two toothpicks stuck in it, several inches apart, and a lamp shining down from overhead. Neither toothpick casts a shadow. Bend the paper at one end, though, and the tilted toothpick begins to have one. The more you bend it, the longer the shadow. In fact, once he had this insight into the shape of the earth, Eratosthenes was also able to correctly calculate its circumference by applying a little geometry.  

He imagined his two sticks--one in the northern town of Syrene, one in the southern town of Alexandria--as lines extending downward until they meet at the center of the earth. Drawing more lines coming straight down to represent sunlight, Eratosthenes moved one stick along the outside of the circle until the shadow it would be casting matched the shadow his stick actually made. Now he knew how much of the circle extended between Syrene and Alexandria--about seven degrees.  

There's no fancy way to get around the next step: Eratosthenes needed to know the actual distance from Alexandria to Syrene. So he paid some camel caravan drivers to go from one town to the other and tell him how far it was. A few achy-footed camels later the answer came back: 530 miles. So, if 530 miles equals 7 degrees of the circle, the whole circle must be 25,000 miles.  

Eratosthenes' answer, deduced with nothing but two sticks, some tired camels and a brain, is within a few percent of being correct.  


A Moment of Science®
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/stick.html

ow big a stick would you need to measure the planet?

First I thought I would try to figure out how this was relevant response to the illumination issue, but then I decided it would be easier to just ignore it.

high always goes to low positive always goes to negative . so as you like to cram down every ones throat read a sciences book or take a physics class or just pull your head out of your ass. 2 sticks a mile or so a part on a sunny day will tell you that.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove with this statement. The water has more energy than the background radiation of space, so it would radiate the energy away.  High to low, like you said.

and it would boil away

As Erasmus pointed out:

You mean the way comets boil? Or the way chunks of ice in Saturn's rings boil? Or the way ice on Europa boils?

Which kind of boiling?

i has been proved that water evaporates no mater the temperature it happens very day in freezers  around the world  ie freezer burn but we are not talking about things that has been frozen for billions of years we are talking about water suddenly being introduced to a vacuum

What is the temperature difference between my freezer and the glass of water?  50 degrees?  What is the temperature difference between the ocean and the cold of space?

That's a good question - What is the temperature difference between the ocean and the cold of space? It's assumed there's an "ice wall" around the flat Earth based on the theory that space is extremely cold. But the theory that space must be extremely cold is based off of the theory that there's an "ice wall" around the planet. A theory branching from another theory. I'm not saying space isn't cold, but how can you know for sure? Please explain without mentioning what you've learned in school or read in books.

That's a good question - What is the temperature difference between the ocean and the cold of space? It's assumed there's an "ice wall" around the flat Earth based on the theory that space is extremely cold. But the theory that space must be extremely cold is based off of the theory that there's an "ice wall" around the planet. A theory branching from another theory. I'm not saying space isn't cold, but how can you know for sure? Please explain without mentioning what you've learned in school or read in books.

Temperature is average heat.  Assuming that space is a vacuum, depending on the amount of radiant heat you are exposed to in space the actual molecules may have alot or a little heat. The sparceness of molecules to carry heat make the temperature of space a moot point.  In vacuum, radiant heat travels well, When it is dark, it is "cold"

In the theoretical Apollo missions, you will find that they rotated the capsule to keep the heat under control.

Liquid Water exposed to the vacuum of space would vaporize, as there is no pressure to hold it, much like the expansion chamber of a refrigerator this would remove the water's heat.
So at one point you have water, at another steam.  But between, you would have liquid water with enough air pressure to not vaporize, exposed to a region of cold steam, which could transport the heat away from the water and allow it to freeze.  The ice might even begin to sublimate, cooling the water behind it.

im not gona pretend to understand everything that has been said but if the water boiled or evaoparated or w/e it still wouldnt fill up the hole created by the break and even if it did that is assuming that there is a vaccum right out side the wall of ice which brings me to the question, what then is holding the wall of ice together?

im not gona pretend to understand everything that has been said but if the water boiled or evaoparated or w/e it still wouldnt fill up the hole created by the break and even if it did that is assuming that there is a vaccum right out side the wall of ice which brings me to the question, what then is holding the wall of ice together?

The same thing that holds all solids together.

The Ice wall would have had to form slowly over a large amount of time.  
at a theoretical 10 miles thick, it can hlod back a lot of pressure.  I tried to describe above that in the begining the evaporation of the water due to low pressure, would have absorbed heat from the water near by helping it to freeze, as more water was pulled over the frozen water more water would freeze (kind of like the ice dams on a roof).  A lot of water woudl be lost, but over time the ice build up would dam the water back.  Since there's only a limited amount of heat from the sun reaching the rim, water would also freeze in the more conventional way, which would replace the ice the evaporates into space.