The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: psouza4 on June 20, 2006, 10:01:48 AM
-
I stumbled across this website recently and, being a RE'er, decided to pose some questions that I hope to have answered. I originally started just jotting down notes, but had to stop myself once the list grew as large as it did. I decided to stop adding to it and just post it, posting more questions as follow-up depending on the kind of response and welcome I get.
Here they are, and thank you in advance for your consideration:
--------------------------------------
Physics:
(1) The F.A.Q. proposes a sunspot of "cold light" emanating from the moon. Considering physics effects that this would be impossible, what factual evidence supports this kind of energy being radiated? (even asking the question alone contradicts proven laws by radiating a lack of energy)
(2) Lighthouse and ship-hull examples indicating a RE go largely unchallenged. Why is this so?
(3) Proven laws of physics on a RE support the idea of an atmosphere with cloud coverage. On a FE, wouldn't the clouds eventually wind up disappearing off the edges, taking with it much of the world's precipitation? (especially considering the constant movement of the world)
(4) What manner of force exists that would cause sunlight (and heat/radiation) to appear and warm a FE in such a manner as to produce a warm inside track but frozen center and edges? Does a model exist that supports this behavior? Further, wouldn't the sun always be visible regardless of the hour, with no curvature of a RE to hide such sunlight? (the spotlight theory posted in the F.A.Q. vaguely describes an optical illusion -- I'm looking for a more concrete answer than that kind of shrug-off)
(5) How does the notion of satellites and other orbiting bodies function without the constant gravitational attraction that a RE provides? This includes natural bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, stars, etc. as well as artificial (commercial satellites, etc.).
(6) What makes the creation of a FE more likely (to a FE'er) than a RE?
(7) The F.A.Q. indicates that global warming both does and does not exist. Please explain the contradiction.
(8) How does continental and/or tectonic plate movement theories function on a FE? It is without question that earthquakes occur (and are the cause of oceanic tides and so forth), but without a shifting, living RE that explains the nature of tectonic plates, the movement of continental bodies on a FE seems unimaginable. While some FE'ers will argue that continents and land masses do not move (and never have), all evidence would indicate otherwise. Is there evidence, or even a working model, supporting the FE'ers on this point?
(9) If the sun and moon merely direct light (like a flashlight) down on the world and the stars, heavens, and so forth are a tangible distance away, then wouldn't they all have to be moving in (a) the same exact direction and (b) same exact velocity to continue to be the same distance from us at all times? Orbiting globes propose an easily-understood answer, but this remains a mystery if the world is flat. In the same vein, wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that if a FE Earth was hurling through space (instead of orbiting in a relatively static location), then it would stand the good chance of colliding with other material? Additionally, wouldn't the gravitational pull these bodies have (both FE'ers and RE'ers acknowledge this, see F.A.Q. sticky) alter their trajectories?
Conspiracy:
(10) What benefit do government bodies have in perpetuating a conspiracy regarding the geometric properties of the world? (i.e.: motive theories as is unanswered in the F.A.Q.)
(11) Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that if such conspiracy existed and was the design and implementation of a large government body (or collaboration thereof), that there would be some tangible proof towards many, if not all of the F.E. theories, given that governments are operated by people (and/or sentient beings) which are fallible?
(12) Assuming that conspiring government bodies have a motive that involves financial gain (or the control of such value), wouldn't it be far more economical to not cover up such a wide array of evidences that would support FE theories? Or even just one? Such as space travel, globe-vs.-disc travel, etc?
-
(1) The F.A.Q. proposes a sunspot of "cold light" emanating from the moon. Considering physics effects that this would be impossible, what factual evidence supports this kind of energy being radiated? (even asking the question alone contradicts proven laws by radiating a lack of energy)
Well how do round-earthers possibly know that the light from the moon is "reflected" from the sun? Neither really makes more sense than the other.
(2) Lighthouse and ship-hull examples indicating a RE go largely unchallenged. Why is this so?
Really?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
(3) Proven laws of physics on a RE support the idea of an atmosphere with cloud coverage. On a FE, wouldn't the clouds eventually wind up disappearing off the edges, taking with it much of the world's precipitation? (especially considering the constant movement of the world)
Flat Earth Theory posits that 150ft ice walls encircle the Earth, holding the atmosphere (and clouds) in.
(4) What manner of force exists that would cause sunlight (and heat/radiation) to appear and warm a FE in such a manner as to produce a warm inside track but frozen center and edges? Does a model exist that supports this behavior? Further, wouldn't the sun always be visible regardless of the hour, with no curvature of a RE to hide such sunlight? (the spotlight theory posted in the F.A.Q. vaguely describes an optical illusion -- I'm looking for a more concrete answer than that kind of shrug-off)
Think of the sun as a flashlight, not a lamp. The light emitted from the sun is only visible in a relatively small area underneath it. Thus, much less sunlight is available for the ice wall and the North Pole, keeping the cold. Also this is why it is not always daytime everywhere.
(5) How does the notion of satellites and other orbiting bodies function without the constant gravitational attraction that a RE provides? This includes natural bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, stars, etc. as well as artificial (commercial satellites, etc.).
Many FE'ers hold that satellites and the space program are an elaborate hoax. There is some controversy as to the nature of the other planets and of asteroids among the FE community. My personal hypothesis is that every planet is flat and acted upon by the same force pushing the Earth upwards. It is likely that other planets have their own light emitters cycling via the power of magnetism emitted from the center of each "disc" of a planet.
(6) What makes the creation of a FE more likely (to a FE'er) than a RE?
What makes an RE more likely?
(7) The F.A.Q. indicates that global warming both does and does not exist. Please explain the contradiction.
I believe that carbon dioxide is emitted and does degrade the layer of O3 (Ozone layer) which is held in by the ice walls. If the atmosphere above the planet gets too hot, two problems will occur - firstly the North Pole will begin to melt, raising sea-level and possibly pushing water over the edge. Secondarily, and far more importantly, the ice wall may melt, running all the water in the world off into space.
(8) How does continental and/or tectonic plate movement theories function on a FE? It is without question that earthquakes occur (and are the cause of oceanic tides and so forth), but without a shifting, living RE that explains the nature of tectonic plates, the movement of continental bodies on a FE seems unimaginable. While some FE'ers will argue that continents and land masses do not move (and never have), all evidence would indicate otherwise. Is there evidence, or even a working model, supporting the FE'ers on this point?
Plate techtonics (or the lack of) was discussed in the thread "antarctica". Refer there for an in-depth discussion of just why it is possible that continents have never shifted position.
(9) If the sun and moon merely direct light (like a flashlight) down on the world and the stars, heavens, and so forth are a tangible distance away, then wouldn't they all have to be moving in (a) the same exact direction and (b) same exact velocity to continue to be the same distance from us at all times? Orbiting globes propose an easily-understood answer, but this remains a mystery if the world is flat. In the same vein, wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that if a FE Earth was hurling through space (instead of orbiting in a relatively static location), then it would stand the good chance of colliding with other material? Additionally, wouldn't the gravitational pull these bodies have (both FE'ers and RE'ers acknowledge this, see F.A.Q. sticky) alter their trajectories?
As an FE'er, I do not acknowledge the existence of gravity. The forces holding things to the Earth are the direct result of the constant upthrust beneath all matter in the universe which propels the Earth through space. According to this model, the Earth will not collide with other material because all material is indeed moving in the same direction at the same speed.
(10) What benefit do government bodies have in perpetuating a conspiracy regarding the geometric properties of the world? (i.e.: motive theories as is unanswered in the F.A.Q.)
The effects of global warming are understood to be fairly bad under RE-model, but under FE model they are catostrophic and will literally destroy the Earth and all the life on it. The Trilateral Commission (an international conglomeration representing the interests of big business) is in cahoots with the government, keeping quiet the true nature of the Earth so they can continue to pollute without incredible public outcry and revolution.
(11) Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that if such conspiracy existed and was the design and implementation of a large government body (or collaboration thereof), that there would be some tangible proof towards many, if not all of the F.E. theories, given that governments are operated by people (and/or sentient beings) which are fallible?
The conspiracy is so all-encompassing (world governments, big business, the media, most of the world's religious institutions, established facets of science) that it is quite capable of erasing nearly all concrete evidence of the Earth's shape.
(12) Assuming that conspiring government bodies have a motive that involves financial gain (or the control of such value), wouldn't it be far more economical to not cover up such a wide array of evidences that would support FE theories? Or even just one? Such as space travel, globe-vs.-disc travel, etc?
No, because if the Flat Earth Theory gains any credibility whatsoever the conspiracy's entire livelyhood and existence will be thwarted.[/url]
-
(1) The F.A.Q. proposes a sunspot of "cold light" emanating from the moon. Considering physics effects that this would be impossible, what factual evidence supports this kind of energy being radiated? (even asking the question alone contradicts proven laws by radiating a lack of energy)
Well how do round-earthers possibly know that the light from the moon is "reflected" from the sun? Neither really makes more sense than the other.
Laws of physics tell us that light and heat are properties of energy and that something that is absolutely frozen (absolute zero) has no kinetic energy. It doesn’t radiate cold, it simply has an absence of heat/energy. Since it is understood and accepted that something can not produce or radiate negative amounts of kinetic energy, it makes no sense that the moon emanates “cold light”. My first question focuses on that physics law.
Also, I will politely refuse arguments that support an idea because it’s “possible” or can only be faced with “how do you know it’s not?”. I’m not asking why it’s not, I’m asking why it is (in the eyes of a FE’er).
(2) Lighthouse and ship-hull examples indicating a RE go largely unchallenged. Why is this so?
Really?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
I have read this (even prior to my post) and disregarded it almost immediately considering the method of science used to measure distance and that the short distance (6 miles, nautical, at that) would not produce a distance noticeable, especially with such imprecise instruments. The publication produces numbers that are baseless (I’ll spare a break-down consisting of the actual dimensions of the RE’s globe, which is what a RE-disprover should be using) and largely inaccurate.
I also have to point out that the credibility of the author is also somewhat in question. I can publish a website saying whatever I like as well for the sake of supporting whatever theory I like, but does not make it factual. Finally, the diagrams in many figures (a good one on experiment #8) are just blatantly wrong and are so because a curve is what is seen, though not as exaggerated (likely for the point of illustration), and sometimes unnoticeable by the human eye.
(3) Proven laws of physics on a RE support the idea of an atmosphere with cloud coverage. On a FE, wouldn't the clouds eventually wind up disappearing off the edges, taking with it much of the world's precipitation? (especially considering the constant movement of the world)
Flat Earth Theory posits that 150ft ice walls encircle the Earth, holding the atmosphere (and clouds) in.
So I read, but wouldn’t precipitation in the clouds freeze to those walls (since the clouds and ice walls would meet) and thus make rainfall very scarce? The walls would build in size (making a problem for any government facilities situated at the walls), changing the geometric size of the FE (for the purposes of causing instabilities/wobbles in the rotation, this may work towards the FE’ers favor), causing all kinds of issues that we should be seeing with the climate and physical properties of the Earth that we aren’t seeing.
(4) What manner of force exists that would cause sunlight (and heat/radiation) to appear and warm a FE in such a manner as to produce a warm inside track but frozen center and edges? Does a model exist that supports this behavior? Further, wouldn't the sun always be visible regardless of the hour, with no curvature of a RE to hide such sunlight? (the spotlight theory posted in the F.A.Q. vaguely describes an optical illusion -- I'm looking for a more concrete answer than that kind of shrug-off)
Think of the sun as a flashlight, not a lamp. The light emitted from the sun is only visible in a relatively small area underneath it. Thus, much less sunlight is available for the ice wall and the North Pole, keeping the cold. Also this is why it is not always daytime everywhere.
Except for light amplification (such as lasers), a source of light (even a flashlight) can be visible from an angle that it’s not directed at. While your response did not give me an answer to my question, it did pose another that’s been bothering me: what kind of celestial object focuses light in one (and only one) direction, such as the sunbeams we have, and how amazingly coincidental that it faces our direction and in a perfect circle on a FE and even more coincidental that it, the moon, us, and all the stars, are all moving in the exact same direction at the exact same velocity. Where a high number of improbably coincidences help support your theory, they are not necessary under a planetary solar system / globular model at all, such as commonly-accepted RE theories. (this is in partial response to your reply to #1 above).
(5) How does the notion of satellites and other orbiting bodies function without the constant gravitational attraction that a RE provides? This includes natural bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, stars, etc. as well as artificial (commercial satellites, etc.).
Many FE'ers hold that satellites and the space program are an elaborate hoax. There is some controversy as to the nature of the other planets and of asteroids among the FE community. My personal hypothesis is that every planet is flat and acted upon by the same force pushing the Earth upwards. It is likely that other planets have their own light emitters cycling via the power of magnetism emitted from the center of each "disc" of a planet.
Fair enough: FE’s believe satellites are essentially nonexistent (man-made ones, of course).
Any model, simulation, sketch, etc. that can help me picture this cycling so that we can have a better understanding of how this cycling magnetism of light-emitters-to-disc-planets works?
(6) What makes the creation of a FE more likely (to a FE'er) than a RE?
What makes an RE more likely?
As per my follow-up to question #1, telling me “why not” or “because it’s possible” will not compel anyone. I’m genuinely interested in a rational, logical, and scientifically-proven demonstration for why the creation of a FE is more likely to occur than a RE.
But to be fair answer your question without going into too many details: given volumes of data supporting solar-system functionality, globular celestial objects, orbits, mass/energy/gravity, and other such forces, it makes more sense to live on a planet where the fewest number of exceptions and coincidences occur.
(7) The F.A.Q. indicates that global warming both does and does not exist. Please explain the contradiction.
I believe that carbon dioxide is emitted and does degrade the layer of O3 (Ozone layer) which is held in by the ice walls. If the atmosphere above the planet gets too hot, two problems will occur - firstly the North Pole will begin to melt, raising sea-level and possibly pushing water over the edge. Secondarily, and far more importantly, the ice wall may melt, running all the water in the world off into space.
Interesting and I will take that into consideration.
(8) How does continental and/or tectonic plate movement theories function on a FE? It is without question that earthquakes occur (and are the cause of oceanic tides and so forth), but without a shifting, living RE that explains the nature of tectonic plates, the movement of continental bodies on a FE seems unimaginable. While some FE'ers will argue that continents and land masses do not move (and never have), all evidence would indicate otherwise. Is there evidence, or even a working model, supporting the FE'ers on this point?
Plate techtonics (or the lack of) was discussed in the thread "antarctica". Refer there for an in-depth discussion of just why it is possible that continents have never shifted position.
I read that thread (first one I read on this website, actually) and found it inconclusive. It also doesn’t answer my question – there is actual hands-on, eye-witness evidence (both old and new) of continents mutating, moving, cracking, etc. along what we RE’s call faultlines. How does FE theology debunk that knowledge?
(9) If the sun and moon merely direct light (like a flashlight) down on the world and the stars, heavens, and so forth are a tangible distance away, then wouldn't they all have to be moving in (a) the same exact direction and (b) same exact velocity to continue to be the same distance from us at all times? Orbiting globes propose an easily-understood answer, but this remains a mystery if the world is flat. In the same vein, wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that if a FE Earth was hurling through space (instead of orbiting in a relatively static location), then it would stand the good chance of colliding with other material? Additionally, wouldn't the gravitational pull these bodies have (both FE'ers and RE'ers acknowledge this, see F.A.Q. sticky) alter their trajectories?
As an FE'er, I do not acknowledge the existence of gravity. The forces holding things to the Earth are the direct result of the constant upthrust beneath all matter in the universe which propels the Earth through space. According to this model, the Earth will not collide with other material because all material is indeed moving in the same direction at the same speed.
Just to make sure I understand – you believe that not all of Newton’s laws of physics are accurate, believable, or correct?
(10) What benefit do government bodies have in perpetuating a conspiracy regarding the geometric properties of the world? (i.e.: motive theories as is unanswered in the F.A.Q.)
The effects of global warming are understood to be fairly bad under RE-model, but under FE model they are catostrophic and will literally destroy the Earth and all the life on it. The Trilateral Commission (an international conglomeration representing the interests of big business) is in cahoots with the government, keeping quiet the true nature of the Earth so they can continue to pollute without incredible public outcry and revolution.
I’ll let this question rest for a while and revisit it again after I’ve had some thought on the matter. Thank you for your response.
(11) Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that if such conspiracy existed and was the design and implementation of a large government body (or collaboration thereof), that there would be some tangible proof towards many, if not all of the F.E. theories, given that governments are operated by people (and/or sentient beings) which are fallible?
The conspiracy is so all-encompassing (world governments, big business, the media, most of the world's religious institutions, established facets of science) that it is quite capable of erasing nearly all concrete evidence of the Earth's shape.
Okay -- that avoided the question, though. The governments are operated by humans, which are subject to error and a slew of sins, which make secrets impossible to maintain. I’m having a hard time accepting “conspiracy” and “brainwashing” without far more detail. Any links handy?
(12) Assuming that conspiring government bodies have a motive that involves financial gain (or the control of such value), wouldn't it be far more economical to not cover up such a wide array of evidences that would support FE theories? Or even just one? Such as space travel, globe-vs.-disc travel, etc?
No, because if the Flat Earth Theory gains any credibility whatsoever the conspiracy's entire livelyhood and existence will be thwarted.
You misunderstood my question. It’s not profitable to maintain such secrets unless there’s something huge you’re not mentioning. Can you elaborate why you think that conspirators would profit from a cover-up on this scale?
-
(1) The F.A.Q. proposes a sunspot of "cold light" emanating from the moon. Considering physics effects that this would be impossible, what factual evidence supports this kind of energy being radiated? (even asking the question alone contradicts proven laws by radiating a lack of energy)
I think the "cold light" phrase just refers to a very small amount of light and heat being emitted in comparison with the Sun. My understanding is that the moon emits a small amount of standard light and heat energy.
Laws of physics tell us that light and heat are properties of energy and that something that is absolutely frozen (absolute zero) has no kinetic energy. It doesn’t radiate cold, it simply has an absence of heat/energy. Since it is understood and accepted that something can not produce or radiate negative amounts of kinetic energy, it makes no sense that the moon emanates “cold light”. My first question focuses on that physics law.
Yeah, as I said, "cold light" just means a low level of normal light/heat.
I have read this (even prior to my post) and disregarded it almost immediately considering the method of science used to measure distance and that the short distance (6 miles, nautical, at that) would not produce a distance noticeable, especially with such imprecise instruments. The publication produces numbers that are baseless (I’ll spare a break-down consisting of the actual dimensions of the RE’s globe, which is what a RE-disprover should be using) and largely inaccurate.
I also have to point out that the credibility of the author is also somewhat in question. I can publish a website saying whatever I like as well for the sake of supporting whatever theory I like, but does not make it factual. Finally, the diagrams in many figures (a good one on experiment #8) are just blatantly wrong and are so because a curve is what is seen, though not as exaggerated (likely for the point of illustration), and sometimes unnoticeable by the human eye.
Well, at least it shows that lighthouse and ship experiments aren't entirely unchallenged.
So I read, but wouldn’t precipitation in the clouds freeze to those walls (since the clouds and ice walls would meet) and thus make rainfall very scarce? The walls would build in size (making a problem for any government facilities situated at the walls), changing the geometric size of the FE (for the purposes of causing instabilities/wobbles in the rotation, this may work towards the FE’ers favor), causing all kinds of issues that we should be seeing with the climate and physical properties of the Earth that we aren’t seeing.
Rainfall is very scare around the Antarctic, both in RE and FE theory. I daresay that some precipitation does freeze atop the walls, but as the peaks of the walls move nearer the sun (get higher), they would melt and turn back into part of the sea and eventually part of the water cycle again.
Thus the ice walls remain roughly at a stable size and shape.
Except for light amplification (such as lasers), a source of light (even a flashlight) can be visible from an angle that it’s not directed at. While your response did not give me an answer to my question, it did pose another that’s been bothering me: what kind of celestial object focuses light in one (and only one) direction, such as the sunbeams we have, and how amazingly coincidental that it faces our direction and in a perfect circle on a FE and even more coincidental that it, the moon, us, and all the stars, are all moving in the exact same direction at the exact same velocity. Where a high number of improbably coincidences help support your theory, they are not necessary under a planetary solar system / globular model at all, such as commonly-accepted RE theories. (this is in partial response to your reply to #1 above).
The sun in FE theory can be seen from an angle not directly underneath it. However, the locus on which it shines is a lot more limited than if it were a sphere shining in all directions. As for what kind of celestial body the sun is - my hypothesis is that it is roughy a disk in which nuclear fusion takes place, causing huge release of light and heat. However, I believe that the edges of the sun disc are too cool to allow fusion, making them opaque and stable. These edges produce the "spotlight" effect by preventing the light reaching a point too horizontally far from the sun's "beam".
Fair enough: FE’s believe satellites are essentially nonexistent (man-made ones, of course).
Any model, simulation, sketch, etc. that can help me picture this cycling so that we can have a better understanding of how this cycling magnetism of light-emitters-to-disc-planets works?
There's a picture floating around on General which shows the sun and moon rotating around the flat equator. I don't have time to dig it up because I'm leaving as soon as I've addressed the rest of the issues in your post, but I'm sure you can find it. If it's not satisfactory I may draw up a diagram myself at a later date and post it in this thread.
As per my follow-up to question #1, telling me “why not” or “because it’s possible” will not compel anyone. I’m genuinely interested in a rational, logical, and scientifically-proven demonstration for why the creation of a FE is more likely to occur than a RE.
But to be fair answer your question without going into too many details: given volumes of data supporting solar-system functionality, globular celestial objects, orbits, mass/energy/gravity, and other such forces, it makes more sense to live on a planet where the fewest number of exceptions and coincidences occur.
Ok, I'm sorry. Nothing really makes it more likely, but I feel that it has at least equal merit as Round Earth theory, though this is highly a subjective opinion obviously.
Interesting and I will take that into consideration.
Thanks :)
I read that thread (first one I read on this website, actually) and found it inconclusive. It also doesn’t answer my question – there is actual hands-on, eye-witness evidence (both old and new) of continents mutating, moving, cracking, etc. along what we RE’s call faultlines. How does FE theology debunk that knowledge?
Mutating and cracking a bit sure (I believe in Earthquakes etc), but that's leaps and bounds from suggesting that the geology and geography of the Earth radically shifted to such a degree that there was once a super-continent which actually split up and drifted thousands of miles to form several smaller ones.
Just to make sure I understand – you believe that not all of Newton’s laws of physics are accurate, believable, or correct?
That's right. Gravity isn't the attraction between two masses, it's the byproduct of universal acceleration.
I’ll let this question rest for a while and revisit it again after I’ve had some thought on the matter. Thank you for your response.
Glad I was able to provide such an engaging response on this one :)
Okay -- that avoided the question, though. The governments are operated by humans, which are subject to error and a slew of sins, which make secrets impossible to maintain. I’m having a hard time accepting “conspiracy” and “brainwashing” without far more detail. Any links handy?
Well, there's plenty of conspiracy-related material on the internet, but most of it is easily dismissable as lunacy and paranoia. The government is operated by humans yeah, and of course they are capable of slip ups. However, the counter-government flat-earth element of society is also run by humans - way fewer humans. The human error of the government is too slight to be picked up coherently or comprehensively by the human efforts of the F.E.S.
You misunderstood my question. It’s not profitable to maintain such secrets unless there’s something huge you’re not mentioning. Can you elaborate why you think that conspirators would profit from a cover-up on this scale?
The "global" warming industries I described earlier. It's profitable alright - the conspiracy's main source of revenue revolves around manufacturing processes which pollute the atmosphere, which will eventually melt the ice walls.
-
(3) Proven laws of physics on a RE support the idea of an atmosphere with cloud coverage. On a FE, wouldn't the clouds eventually wind up disappearing off the edges, taking with it much of the world's precipitation? (especially considering the constant movement of the world)
Flat Earth Theory posits that 150ft ice walls encircle the Earth, holding the atmosphere (and clouds) in.
(7) The F.A.Q. indicates that global warming both does and does not exist. Please explain the contradiction.
I believe that carbon dioxide is emitted and does degrade the layer of O3 (Ozone layer) which is held in by the ice walls. If the atmosphere above the planet gets too hot, two problems will occur - firstly the North Pole will begin to melt, raising sea-level and possibly pushing water over the edge. Secondarily, and far more importantly, the ice wall may melt, running all the water in the world off into space.
Ok ive picked my "favorites" here because they made me laugh.to 3
150fts worth of ice isnt going to hold in clouds and atmosphere at 10s of thousands of feet.
To 7 The greenhouse effect and depletion of the Ozone layer are COMPLETELY different things. This is a common mistake made by people. The north pole melting is not what yhgou want to worry about its the south pole. Ice takes up a larger surface area so when it melts the sea levels will actually go down. Its the rise in temperature that makes the water expand and then makes the sea levels going up.
-
If you're gonna talk about physics, then why is "gravity" explained as a result of the flat Earth accelerating "up", yet the stars and sun can exert a gravitational "pull" on us, as stated in the FAQ. This is a direct contradiction.
-
150fts worth of ice isnt going to hold in clouds and atmosphere at 10s of thousands of feet.
Perhaps the atmosphere isn't 10s of thousands of feet high. By the way, I personally believe that the atmosphere sort of heaps a bit in the middle, and also that 150 feet is a conservative estimate regarding the height of the ice walls.
To 7 The greenhouse effect and depletion of the Ozone layer are COMPLETELY different things. This is a common mistake made by people. The north pole melting is not what yhgou want to worry about its the south pole. Ice takes up a larger surface area so when it melts the sea levels will actually go down. Its the rise in temperature that makes the water expand and then makes the sea levels going up.
Yeah, what you missed was the fact that I referred to the melting of the South Pole as the major problem in my post. In FE lingo, "Ice Wall" is synonymous with "South Pole" because that's what we believe it really is. The North Pole's reduction was just a minor problem in comparison to this. And yeah, sea levels would go way down, because water would bleed off into space without the ice walls of the Antarctic.
-
If you're gonna talk about physics, then why is "gravity" explained as a result of the flat Earth accelerating "up", yet the stars and sun can exert a gravitational "pull" on us, as stated in the FAQ. This is a direct contradiction.
In my opinion, the FAQ is wrong about stars exerting gravitational pull.
-
150fts worth of ice isnt going to hold in clouds and atmosphere at 10s of thousands of feet.
Perhaps the atmosphere isn't 10s of thousands of feet high. By the way, I personally believe that the atmosphere sort of heaps a bit in the middle, and also that 150 feet is a conservative estimate regarding the height of the ice walls.
To 7 The greenhouse effect and depletion of the Ozone layer are COMPLETELY different things. This is a common mistake made by people. The north pole melting is not what yhgou want to worry about its the south pole. Ice takes up a larger surface area so when it melts the sea levels will actually go down. Its the rise in temperature that makes the water expand and then makes the sea levels going up.
Yeah, what you missed was the fact that I referred to the melting of the South Pole as the major problem in my post. In FE lingo, "Ice Wall" is synonymous with "South Pole" because that's what we believe it really is. The North Pole's reduction was just a minor problem in comparison to this. And yeah, sea levels would go way down, because water would bleed off into space without the ice walls of the Antarctic.
Well how come people can go up thouseands of feet in baloons etc? Or climb a mountain higher than 150 ft?
-
Well how come people can go up thouseands of feet in baloons etc? Or climb a mountain higher than 150 ft?
Like I said 150ft is a pretty conservative estimate. Also, if my atmosphere heaping theory is correct, people fairly near the North pole, or at least in the Northern hemisphere, would be able to fly balloons way over 150 feet and survive. Try flying a balloon much higher than 150-200 feet right near the edge of the world (aka: "South Pole"), and I posit that you'll have trouble breathing.
-
Well how come people can go up thouseands of feet in baloons etc? Or climb a mountain higher than 150 ft?
Like I said 150ft is a pretty conservative estimate. Also, if my atmosphere heaping theory is correct, people fairly near the North pole, or at least in the Northern hemisphere, would be able to fly balloons way over 150 feet and survive. Try flying a balloon much higher than 150-200 feet right near the edge of the world (aka: "South Pole"), and I posit that you'll have trouble breathing.
The entire city of Denver, CO 1 mile up. Mountains (in various locations) are far more than 150 tall (hell, I've been on roller-coasters taller). Why can't we see the end of the world, the ice walls, far-off geographical locations, with telescopular technologies?
-
The entire city of Denver, CO 1 mile up. Mountains (in various locations) are far more than 150 tall (hell, I've been on roller-coasters taller). Why can't we see the end of the world, the ice walls, far-off geographical locations, with telescopular technologies?
it's a conspiracy
-
The entire city of Denver, CO 1 mile up. Mountains (in various locations) are far more than 150 tall (hell, I've been on roller-coasters taller). Why can't we see the end of the world, the ice walls, far-off geographical locations, with telescopular technologies?
it's a conspiracy
This is not a valid argument that supports... well, anything. Someone else toss an answer at this, please?
-
The entire city of Denver, CO 1 mile up. Mountains (in various locations) are far more than 150 tall (hell, I've been on roller-coasters taller). Why can't we see the end of the world, the ice walls, far-off geographical locations, with telescopular technologies?
it's a conspiracy
This is not a valid argument that supports... well, anything. Someone else toss an answer at this, please?
i know...that was the point.....see my other posts.....you and i play for the same team.....it's called team "sane"