The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Ubuntu on July 15, 2006, 09:34:20 AM
-
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/antarctica_travel_home.htm
For about $4000 you can have a full tour of Antarctica. What was that you said about ice wall security?
You say this ice wall is 150 feet high. This 150 foot high wall of ice holds in 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of ocean water, which is 1.4 × 10[to the 21st power] kilograms. Can you imagine the pressure being put on this wall?
150 ft x 413 028 000 ft (78225 miles) = 61 954 200 000 sqr ft
61 954 200 000 sqr ft x 929.0304 = 57 557 335 207 680 sqr cm
1 350 000 000 000 000 000 tonnes / 57 557 335 207 680 = 23 454.87321692173 per sqr cm [rounded decimal]
23 454.87321692173 tonnes x 1000 = 23 454 873.21692173 kg per sqr cm
Now I don't know how thick this wall is exactly, but it's going to need to be pretty wide to withstand over 23 MILLION KILOGRAMS OF PRESSURE PER SQUARE CENTIMETRE!
Sources and Background Equations:
[10(to the 18th power) = 1 000 000 000 000 000 000]
[1.35 x 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 1 350 000 000 000 000 000 tonnes]
[1 mile = 5 280 foot]
[1 square feet = 929.0304 square centimeter]
[1 tonne = 1000 kilograms]
"Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
A: Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south."
-FAQ http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1324
"The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35 × 10[to the 18th power] tonnes, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosphere
"The volume of water in the oceans is enormous: 1.37 billion cubic kilometers (1.37 × 109 km3, or 0.328 × 109 mi.3)"
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceans#Physical_properties
-Duxbury, Alyn. An Introduction to the World's Oceans - Sixth Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2000: 39.
"The area of the World Ocean is 361 million square kilometers (139 million sq mi), its volume is 1,340 million cubic kilometers (319 million cu mi), and its average depth is 3,711 meters (12,175 ft). Nearly half of the world's marine waters are over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceans#Physical_properties
"The world ocean covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface, or about 361 million sq km (140 million sq mi). Its average depth is 5,000 m (16,000 ft), and its total volume is about 1,347,000,000 cu km (322,300,000 cu mi)."
-http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574766/Ocean_and_Oceanography.html
-
Duxbury, Alyn. An Introduction to the World's Oceans - Sixth Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2000: 39.
You're kidding, right? Actually using a McGraw-Hill book as a source?
-
Duxbury, Alyn. An Introduction to the World's Oceans - Sixth Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2000: 39.
You're kidding, right? Actually using a McGraw-Hill book as a source?
What's wrong with a book published by the McGraw-Hill company? The facts agreed with everyone else's. Besides, I didn't use volume in my equations anyways, I used mass.
Way to ignore the rest of the post.
-
What's wrong with McGraw-Hill?
Farewell, thread.
-
You totally ignored the irrefutable evidence. You didn't even attempt to debate this proof that the ice wall doesn't exists. Sounds like a surrender to me. I have proved that it is impossible that there is ice security and that no such ice wall could exist.
-
You didn't even attempt to debate this proof that the ice wall doesn't exists.
Of course I didn't. This debate is old, boring, and frankly its pretty unoriginal.
Sounds like a surrender to me.
Sounds like someone wants to win something. Oh yeah, and a little FYI: I never claimed anything of either theory, so really I can't surrender seeing as how there is nothing to surrender in the first place.
I have proved that it is impossible that there is ice security and that no such ice wall could exist.
Not really.
-
I have mathematically proven that this ice wall could not exist due to the extreme pressure from the oceans.
-
No, you've proven (if that, tl;dr) that it has to be really thick, but nothing else.
-
Ubuntu, water pressure on the walls of a chamber depends only on the depth of the water, not the width. Otherwise, swimming underwater in the ocean would hurt your ears more than swimming underwater in a swimming pool.
As usual, this was discussed to death in another thread. Maybe it needs to go in the FAQ. We devised all sorts of poking-holes-in-jugs experiments and everybody was eventually convinced.
I have mathematically proven that this ice wall could not exist due to the extreme pressure from the oceans.
Ah, the hubris!
-
I have disproven this before. Here is the link for the thread. My analysis is on the second page.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2641
-
Ubuntu, water pressure on the walls of a chamber depends only on the depth of the water, not the width. Otherwise, swimming underwater in the ocean would hurt your ears more than swimming underwater in a swimming pool.
It is impossible that any ice wall could hold back the ocean water. At the lower parts, the pressure would be so great that no ice could withstand it.
I would like someone to address the $4000 tours of Antarctica.
-
It is impossible that any ice wall could hold back the ocean water. At the lower parts, the pressure would be so great that no ice could withstand it.
Read my previous post. Here, I'll help you:
The pressure on a wall or dam is called hydrostatic pressure. It is defined as P = pgd where P is the pressure, p is the mass density, g is gravity, and d is depth (or height of water column). An important fact of fluid pressure is that at any point in a liquid, the pressure is the same in all directions.
Think about a diver in the ocean. He will feel the same pressure on his nose as he will on both of his ears.
Thus, the prssure in any direction at a depth d in a fluid with density p is P=pgd
Take the pressure on the ice wall at a certain depth (say 100 ft). I have made certain assumpions, mainly for simplicity, namely that pg (weight density) for water is 62.5lb/ft^3 (this is for fresh water and salt water is slightly heavier). So using the weight density: P = (62.5lb/ft^3)(100ft). P = 6 250 lb/ft^2 or 43.4 psi or 298.7kPa.
Now if you really want me to, I can do the calculus to find the force applied over the entire area of the wall. However, as we can see, the pressure applied is rather small, so the force won't be anywhere near the force calculated by DrQuak.
Think about it. Dams are built relatively thin at the top and very wide at the bottom. If the force was constant, the walls would have to be uniform. Since the force is greater near the bottom, the walls have to be thicker to resist the force.
It is impossible that any ice wall could hold back the ocean water. At the lower parts, the pressure would be so great that no ice could withstand it.
Even at 100ft, the pressure is just a bit more than what is in a car tire. So, no, the force is not so immense that it would shatter the ice.
-
It is impossible that any ice wall could hold back the ocean water. At the lower parts, the pressure would be so great that no ice could withstand it.
Read my previous post. Here, I'll help you:
The pressure on a wall or dam is called hydrostatic pressure. It is defined as P = pgd where P is the pressure, p is the mass density, g is gravity, and d is depth (or height of water column). An important fact of fluid pressure is that at any point in a liquid, the pressure is the same in all directions.
Think about a diver in the ocean. He will feel the same pressure on his nose as he will on both of his ears.
Thus, the prssure in any direction at a depth d in a fluid with density p is P=pgd
Take the pressure on the ice wall at a certain depth (say 100 ft). I have made certain assumpions, mainly for simplicity, namely that pg (weight density) for water is 62.5lb/ft^3 (this is for fresh water and salt water is slightly heavier). So using the weight density: P = (62.5lb/ft^3)(100ft). P = 6 250 lb/ft^2 or 43.4 psi or 298.7kPa.
Now if you really want me to, I can do the calculus to find the force applied over the entire area of the wall. However, as we can see, the pressure applied is rather small, so the force won't be anywhere near the force calculated by DrQuak.
Think about it. Dams are built relatively thin at the top and very wide at the bottom. If the force was constant, the walls would have to be uniform. Since the force is greater near the bottom, the walls have to be thicker to resist the force.
It is impossible that any ice wall could hold back the ocean water. At the lower parts, the pressure would be so great that no ice could withstand it.
Even at 100ft, the pressure is just a bit more than what is in a car tire. So, no, the force is not so immense that it would shatter the ice.
I was talking about the parts of the ocean that are thousands of feet deep.
I would like someone to address the $4000 tours of Antarctica.
-
You say this ice wall is 150 feet high. This 150 foot high wall of ice holds in 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of ocean water, which is 1.4 × 10[to the 21st power] kilograms. Can you imagine the pressure being put on this wall?
150 ft x 413 028 000 ft (78225 miles) = 61 954 200 000 sqr ft
In your original calculations you took the ice wall to be 150 ft. high (or deep, in your case).
I was talking about the parts of the ocean that are thousands of feet deep.
No you were not.
I would like someone to address the $4000 tours of Antarctica.
Obviously the conspiracy would set aside a section of the Antarctica for research and tours. People are just not allowed to be outside a certain zone.
-
Obviously the conspiracy would set aside a section of the Antarctica for research and tours. People are just not allowed to be outside a certain zone.
It seems strange then that you can tour the entire continent and cruise around the entire coast.
Even at 100ft, the pressure is just a bit more than what is in a car tire. So, no, the force is not so immense that it would shatter the ice.
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
-
Even at 100ft, the pressure is just a bit more than what is in a car tire. So, no, the force is not so immense that it would shatter the ice.
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
So, besides the fact that your calculations were grossly inaccurate, you are now changing the inital conditions of the equations?
-
Even at 100ft, the pressure is just a bit more than what is in a car tire. So, no, the force is not so immense that it would shatter the ice.
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
So, besides the fact that your calculations were grossly inaccurate, you are now changing the inital conditions of the equations?
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
-
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
The ice wall is only 150 ft in height.
-
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
The ice wall is only 150 ft in height.
If the ice wall is 150 feet high, then what prevents the oceans from spilling out, considering that they are thousands of feet deep?
Also, why wouldn't the ice wall periodically crack like ice normally does?
-
The ice wall is only 150 ft in height.
I thought that was above the surface. Anyway, if the depth of the ocean is only 150 feet at the edge, then why all the worries about global warming being fatal on a flat earth? The sea level would drop by 150 feet, but this would actually be better compared to global warming on RE because there would be more land to live upon, and of course everybody would notice that the earth is actually flat (which everybody already does because it would take insane amounts of people in the conspiracy to make it work) and you will be proven right, so actually you should be happy with global warming, because the wall melting would be the only way people are going to believe you FEers. Ever.
-
If the ice wall is 150 feet high, then what prevents the oceans from spilling out, considering that they are thousands of feet deep?
From the notion of the ice wall being 150 ft high, that means that either the depth of the ocean at the ice wall is less than 150 ft, or that the ice wall sits on a land mass and serves to only keep tidal surges and such in. I don't believe that there is a FE concensus on this issue. So that means that the ice is not thousands of feet deep, and the '150ft ice wall' implies.
-
If the ice wall is 150 feet high, then what prevents the oceans from spilling out, considering that they are thousands of feet deep?
From the notion of the ice wall being 150 ft high, that means that either the depth of the ocean at the ice wall is less than 150 ft, or that the ice wall sits on a land mass and serves to only keep tidal surges and such in. I don't believe that there is a FE concensus on this issue. So that means that the ice is not thousands of feet deep, and the '150ft ice wall' implies.
If the ocean were only 150 feet high, there would be no need for an ice wall. ^_^ It's only a small bit of ocean.
-
The only conclusion can be that the ice wall is not 150 feet tall. It's thousands tall.
-
If the ocean were only 150 feet high, there would be no need for an ice wall. ^_^ It's only a small bit of ocean.
What? The ocean is 150 ft high? Do you mean deep? Who said the ocean is 150ft deep?
-
you, indirectly. If the ice wall is 150 ft deep (which you said, and it isn't about the height above the surface because it was a reaction to Ubuntu's
'The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.'
the oceans must be 150 ft deep at the ice wall.
-
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
Proofs please, with maths.
I'll save you the time. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your initial calculations, as TheEngineer has said, were all red herrings. That simply isn't how pressure works. The water pressure, say, 1000 m below the surface is 101 atmospheres (+1 atm / 10 meters), or 1414 lbs per square inch. That's 3280 feet down, which I think counts as "thousands of feet". Do you really think a wall of ice several miles thick is going to crack under that sort of pressure? Several miles thick, mind you.
REers need to stop making up laws of physics whenever it suits them.
-
The ice could not withstand the water pressure thousands of feet down.
Proofs please, with maths.
I'll save you the time. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your initial calculations, as TheEngineer has said, were all red herrings. That simply isn't how pressure works. The water pressure, say, 1000 m below the surface is 101 atmospheres (+1 atm / 10 meters), or 1414 lbs per square inch. That's 3280 feet down, which I think counts as "thousands of feet". Do you really think a wall of ice several miles thick is going to crack under that sort of pressure? Several miles thick, mind you.
REers need to stop making up laws of physics whenever it suits them.
"Well, you can imagine how incredible the pressure must be in the Challenger Deep with almost seven miles of water overhead - it's 16,000 pounds per square inch!"
-http://www.extremescience.com/DeepestOcean.htm
-
"Well, you can imagine how incredible the pressure must be in the Challenger Deep with almost seven miles of water overhead - it's 16,000 pounds per square inch!"
It turns out that
a) Challenger Deep withstood the pressure
b) Challenger Deep is not made of ice
c) That value of the pressure agrees quite nicely with my depth-dependent pressure formula (7 mi * 5280 ft/mi / (1 atm / 33 ft) * (14 psi / atm) = 15,680 psi) and not at all with your volume-of-the-oceans-based formula.
So basically, this rather exciting fact about Challenger Deep is nevertheless a complete non sequitur -- except in that it talks about water pressure, it has nothing at all in common with the issue at hand and it in no way disagrees with any claim I've made. Thanks for the link though!
-
I think that is exactly what Erasmus is talking about with the red herring.
Pressure is a function of depth more than volume. So assuming that all the oceans are interconnected, it would be more like filling a basin, with an ice wall on the outside, so an incredible amount of pressure would not be applied directly to the icewall. Including the tide, dynamic water pressure is difficult to calculate, and frankly, I'm much too lazy.
The challenger has 7 miles of depth above it, which is determinate of the pressure
-
Obviously the conspiracy would set aside a section of the Antarctica for research and tours. People are just not allowed to be outside a certain zone.
Ummmm....yeah. I always find it amusing how people bend the unimaginable to fit the conspiracy. I tend to favor Occam's Razor.
-
Occams razor definatly does not fit, there is many places in which Occams razor actually favors FE.
Like gravity, continual linear acceleration is much simpler than RE's definition, where noone can even say why gravity occurs
-
I think much of it depends on what one would consider believable. Saying the disc is moving through space and continually accelerating seems to be beyond belief.
Noone can say why Gravity exists? Well we can say why it exists, as well as the fact how it exists. The actual gravity waves are a mystery just like light waves (or particles), yet we know that light exists as we can see it.
Also, I believe Occam's Razor would be traumatized with the Moon and Sun being small discs rotating in unison above the disc while constantly accelerating. You have your beliefs, and I have mine, but I think the simplest explanation is the Earth is round. Everything fits, or almost fits anyway, certainly more 'fittable' than the FE theory.
The biggest difference between FE theory and RE theory is FE relies on the conspiracy for many of it's arguments.
-
I think much of it depends on what one would consider believable. Saying the disc is moving through space and continually accelerating seems to be beyond belief.
At one time the notion that Jupiter has moons was beyond belief. What's beyond belief for some might be perfectly mundane for others.
Noone can say why Gravity exists? Well we can say why it exists, as well as the fact how it exists.
Please, enlighten us.
The actual gravity waves are a mystery just like light waves (or particles),
As a matter of fact, gravity waves are in no way mysterious. They are a direct corollary of the field equations of general realtivity.
The thing that's a mystery is: how does mass generate the gravitational field? (in Newtonian theory) or how do matter and energy cause spacetime to be curved? (in GR)
You have your beliefs, and I have mine, but I think the simplest explanation is the Earth is round.
Ah, the classic abuse of Occam's Razor: both parties to the debate claim that Occam's Razor supports there side.
-
At one time the notion that Jupiter has moons was beyond belief. What's beyond belief for some might be perfectly mundane for others.
At one time it was theorized that men could sail off the edge, although this couldn't happen for either FE or RE. In FE they would come up against the ice wall. In either case, we know we can't sail off the world now. Our technology has evolved to allow us to realize we are safe in that regard. We have explored the planet. Sure Jupiter has moons, although Jupiter spins on it's axis as does it's moons as they orbit, to me that is mundane.
Please, enlighten us.
First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?
Mountains exert gravitational force. If one were to hang a weight on a string it would not be perpendicular to the ground and would in fact hang off center in favor of the mountain.
Ah, the classic abuse of Occam's Razor: both parties to the debate claim that Occam's Razor supports there side.
Ah the classic response to the conspiracy theory: When yours cannot be proven, cast doubt on everything we know and believe, including the thousands of scientists, politicians {well I suppose anyone could create uncertainty with that group :) } historians and their families.
When solid answers, not just proof, can be provided to many of the outstanding questions my previous statement stands. "The biggest difference between FE theory and RE theory is FE relies on the conspiracy for many of it's arguments."
What I am really interested in knowing, do you actually believe the FE theory? Or do you just debate this for pure argument's sake? I believe in free-flowing thought and discussion as there is no other way for the human race to progress with out it.
I also have to believe that things we understand today can be disproven tomorrow. I may not like it, but it has to be accepted if it can be proven. How often have we heard doctors say one thing is bad for you and then a few years later change their stance?
Earth's history is full of misconceptions which are then corrected later. But I still believe the Earth is round, til proven otherwise.
-
Please, enlighten us.
First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?
Mountains exert gravitational force. If one were to hang a weight on a string it would not be perpendicular to the ground and would in fact hang off center in favor of the mountain.
He didn't mean tell us how gravity causes matter to interact.
Specifically:
Noone can say why Gravity exists? Well we can say why it exists, as well as the fact how it exists.
His response:
The thing that's a mystery is: how does mass generate the gravitational field? (in Newtonian theory) or how do matter and energy cause spacetime to be curved? (in GR)
Which you said can be explained. I am very interested!
-
In either case, we know we can't sail off the world now.
Irrelevant. The point is that what seems beyond belief to you is of no consequence for what is actually true.
First of all Gravity is not a constant. ...
Irrelevant. You have merely explained the mechanics of what gravity does, not why it exists in the first place.
-
Which you said can be explained. I am very interested!
No you misunderstand, I cannot explain that. How about someone answer my questions/comments rather than debate a miscommunication. Or does this site focus on disinformation rather than tackle the real argument?
-
The Antarctic Ocean is 14 500 feet deep. That is an extrodinary amount of pressure if applied to ice.
As a matter of fact, gravity waves are in no way mysterious.
I think they are very mysterious, like everything else in the Universe...
Soon we will find out how deep the ice is anyways: http://www.spacemart.com/reports/European_Satellite_Cryosat_To_Measure_Ice_Depth_In_Antarctic.html
-
As a matter of fact, gravity waves are in no way mysterious.
I think they are very mysterious, like everything else in the Universe...
Gravity waves are not mysterious in the same way that Phoenix believes gravity itself is not mysterious: their dynamics and causes are well-known.
-
At 13 000 - 16 000 feet below the surface, the ice wall would crack, no matter how thick. The cracks would start at the edge and eventually would be able to crack open the entire wall.
-
At 13 000 - 16 000 feet below the surface, the ice wall would crack, no matter how thick. The cracks would start at the edge and eventually would be able to crack open the entire wall.
Stop going in cricles. We already reached an impasse on this issue, in which we said, "Your method of computing pressures is wrong, and doesn't even agree with your 'Challenger Deep' evidence, whereas ours does." and you ... don't seem to have gotten back to us on that. Now, again, you're merely throwing out claims about whatice would and would not do under conditions that we know you misunderstand, with no justification whatsoever.
-
and you ... don't seem to have gotten back to us on that.....
Yeah, I can say the same after my long winded posting.....
-
At 13 000 - 16 000 feet below the surface, the ice wall would crack, no matter how thick. The cracks would start at the edge and eventually would be able to crack open the entire wall.
Stop going in cricles. We already reached an impasse on this issue, in which we said, "Your method of computing pressures is wrong, and doesn't even agree with your 'Challenger Deep' evidence, whereas ours does." and you ... don't seem to have gotten back to us on that. Now, again, you're merely throwing out claims about whatice would and would not do under conditions that we know you misunderstand, with no justification whatsoever.
I've remade my argument just as the flat Earth argument has been remade.
"The Southern Ocean is located in the Southern Hemisphere at 4,000 to 5,000 meters (13,000 to 16,000 ft) deep."
-http://Wikipedia.org (Antarctic Ocean)
Calculate the pressure of the water 14 500 feet down. How can you say that the ice would remain solid down that far? In fact, I've found an argument so delicious I had to make a new thread for it... See you at http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=31841.
-
Calculate the pressure of the water 14 500 feet down.
14,500 ft. is 4,419.6 meters, which is about 442 atmospheres or 44.2 MPa or 6188 psi.
How can you say that the ice would remain solid down that far?
I don't know. According to this triple-point phase diagram for water (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html), at 44 MPa water is solid below -10°C.
If water that deep is not cold enough, I guess it must be that far enough down there is rock instead of ice. I don't see, however, how this is particularly damning to the theory, despite what your fans in your "delicious" new thread think.
-
I see the problem here, FE theorists argue what is arguable, but when it's not arguable they seem to ignore it. I've gone through a few threads and they seem to focus entirely on how something was worded rather than actually debating the issue.
I originally came here to intellectually discuss the possibilities, but I can see that won't happen. There just isn't enough proof for FE, so instead of any of the FE's arguing a valid point, they sidestep the issue and concentrate on something irrelevent. This is not scientific process.
-
I don't know. According to this triple-point phase diagram for water (http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html), at 44 MPa water is solid below -10°C.
strange. you will use a phase diagram but presumably you think gravity does not exist. how do you know that phase diagrams are not part of the Conspiracy?
-
In that case, How do we know that you are not part of the conspiracy and that you should not be banned for spying huh?
Mostly those kind of things i woud say are of no help to the conspiracy and therefore would not need to be faked
-
I've gone through a few threads and they seem to focus entirely on how something was worded rather than actually debating the issue.
Slander.
Science requires a great deal of clarity in writing. In order to determine exactly what is being asked, the question must be clear.
As long as the question is clear, I will attempt to address the content, and not the wording.
-
Slander you claim, well I had posted the question and it was ignored. I have read a few other posts and you chose to ignore the question or sidestep it rather than answer it. Yes clarity is required, however both sides should work on clarification. If you don't understand something, ASK.
From my previous post: "First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?"
Or shall the argument about how I worded something continue?
-
I believe that mountains and valleys are already formed, its not like a little push from anything can topple them too easily.
but then again, I cannot claim to understand the forces you are talking about too well
-
you will use a phase diagram but presumably you think gravity does not exist. how do you know that phase diagrams are not part of the Conspiracy?
See, and I thought I was being generous.
If you want to suggest that phase diagrams are part of the conspiracy, go right ahead. If they're invalid, then Ubuntu's claims are totally without merit, since there'd be no reason to believe that ice would melt under the pressures he's describing.
All I was saying is that if phase diagrams for water are accurate then water of a sufficently low temperature will be solid, even at 14,500 ft. below the surface of the ocean.
-
From my previous post: "First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?"
I'll just assume you meant "9.8 m/s^s".
And no, this would not be so. You are referring to tidal effects which in some places (neutron stars and black holes) are strong enough to reshape terrain. On the (round) Earth, however, they are far too miniscule to raise mountains. Furthermore, the Flat Earth experiences no tidal effects, so there's no reason to believe that any bits of the Earth would be pulled more than others.
-
Furthermore, the Flat Earth experiences no tidal effects.
Could you please explain what you mean by that?
-
OK, so you do believe in gravity for other objects? I find this interesting, as you dismiss the possibility of gravity for Earth.
I am using this argument against FE, not for RE. Because according to RE, gravity is caused by mass, the closer you are to it, the greater the pull. Hence why Mt Everest has a lower gravity, but that's not what is at debate here.
Miniscule or not, the variance in force is measured. If the disc is accelerating at a constant velocity, yet we can measure the difference, then the section of earth that is being measured has to be travelling slower or faster than the surrounding region. If it is indeed doing so, then it would be moving.
-
Could you please explain what you mean by that?
As Phoenix mentioned, the intensity of Earth's gravitational field varies as the inverse square of the distance from the Earth's centre (as long as you're outside the Earth itself, of course). If you place an object in this field, which object has extent in the direction parallel to the Earth's radius, it will experience different gravitational pulls at either end of this extent.
For example, if you place a very small metal sphere (like a ball bearing) someplace in the Earth's gravitational field, then to a very good approximation the entire sphere feels the same gravitational pull. However, if you place a hundred-mile-long tower in the field, perpendicular to the ground, the "lower" end will experience much stronger gravity than the "upper" end.
For another example, consider the moon's gravitational field. Now imagine putting a very large rock, covered in water, in a stable orbit in that field (imagine the rock somehow attracts the water to it). The water on the side closest to the moon will be pulled with the greatest force. The water on the far side will be pulled with the least force. The rock itself will be pulled with a force somewhere in between. The resulting effect will look something like this:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/high-tide.png)
The thickness of the dashed lines indicates the strength of the gravitational pull between the endpoints of the lines; the arrows point to regions of high tide. If the Green thing is the Earth and the gray thing the moon, the effect you see is called "tides", and so any similar effect due to experiencing a gradient in a force field is called a "tidal effect".
-
Furthermore, the Flat Earth experiences no tidal effects.
You said there are no tides!
-
You said there are no tides!
No gravitational tidal effects. No effects caused by experiencing the gradient of a gravitational force field.
-
No effects caused by experiencing the gradient of a gravitational force field? True according to RE, but my previous question of deviations in measurable force across the "disc" still remains unanswered. If one spot records a higher or lower force then the surface must in fact be raising or lowering to account for the deviation in velocity.
-
If one spot records a higher or lower force then the surface must in fact be raising or lowering to account for the deviation in velocity.
Indeed. However, you have not demonstrated your antecedent, and so your conclusion is not enforced.
-
You strive to frustrate others who attempt to make an argument. You say clarity is required, yet you try your best to sidestep or avoid the issue. Say what you will, but slander it is not!
I have a great deal of patience myself, however I find you to be particularly troublesome. I came here to debate, but it seems there's very little of that. Whatever proof is provided to you, is immediately dismissed as conspiracy. Do you really think NASA faked those photos from the '60's? I do not, I live in the real world, the round one!
Any moderator with permissions please remove my account, I won't be needing it anymore. I'm going to try to find another board where scientific reasoning is used, not abused.
-
Whatever proof is provided to you, is immediately dismissed as conspiracy. Do you really think NASA faked those photos from the '60's?
Rarely do I do this thing you claim. Thus, you are lying in a way to hurt my reputation, which is, by definition, slander.
I usually dismiss your claims as being merely unjustified -- not intentionally falsified.
-
Whatever proof is provided to you, is immediately dismissed as conspiracy. Do you really think NASA faked those photos from the '60's?
Rarely do I do this thing you claim. Thus, you are lying in a way to hurt my reputation, which is, by definition, slander.
I usually dismiss your claims as being merely unjustified -- not intentionally falsified.
Answer his question, do not avoid it.
-
Do you really think NASA faked those photos from the '60's?
Answer his question, do not avoid it.
Again, people don't usually ask my personal opinion -- I don't see what it's worth, anyhow. Peronsally, no, I don't think NASA faked the photos.
-
Do you really think NASA faked those photos from the '60's?
Answer his question, do not avoid it.
Again, people don't usually ask my personal opinion -- I don't see what it's worth, anyhow. Peronsally, no, I don't think NASA faked the photos.
Then why do you say NASA faked the photos in your faqs???
-
Then why do you say NASA faked the photos in your faqs???
I didn't say anything in the FAQ. The FAQ, we hope, represents the answers provided by the canonical FE theory to a variety of common challenges that REers pose. If I included my personal opinions, it wouldn't be a fair representation of the FE theory.
-
Then why do you say NASA faked the photos in your faqs???
I didn't say anything in the FAQ. The FAQ, we hope, represents the answers provided by the canonical FE theory to a variety of common challenges that REers pose. If I included my personal opinions, it wouldn't be a fair representation of the FE theory.
This whole thing is an opinion, I know RE is fact. Yes yes...you don't think it is. You will say it's my opinion. Isn't that what matters though?
So if you don't belive they are fake, are you saying they are real?
Make up your mind.
-
This whole thing is an opinion, I know RE is fact.
REism is a hypothesis which, in your opinion, is true. It may or may not be true. Your belief in it is opinion.
Yes yes...you don't think it is.
Now you are referring to an opinion of mine; in particular, one about which you have no information.
You will say it's my opinion. Isn't that what matters though?
I thought that what's true is what matters.
So if you don't belive they are fake, are you saying they are real? Make up your mind.
Why do you care what I think? Will it change your mind? No. Will it make them fake or real, depending on what I decide? No. Really, my opinion has no effect on the rest of the world.
-
I just want your opinion. Are you afraid to express it?
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
-
REism is a hypothesis which, in your opinion, is true. It may or may not be true. Your belief in it is opinion.
It was a hypothesis around the time of Columbus, however it has pretty much been proven especially with the technology we have nowadays.
how can the Earth be flat, when space shuttles have to make an elliptical approach to leave and land on earth?If the earth doesn't have gravity then how are we able to keep the moon in orbit around us? if the earth was flat the moon would've effetively been sling shotted away from the earth and off into some other planet's orbit.
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
what makes you an elitist fuck?(sorry for the language but this requires the use of it)
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Forums, hell...this particular part of the forum was created for expressing opinions. Open to debate. I wanted to hear his side of the debate.
Now let me ask you this, why were you not aborted at birth?
-
what makes you an elitist fuck?(sorry for the language but this requires the use of it)
I hardly think his question was indicative of elitism.
-
Well, I never claimed my worthiness, you just seem pretty presumptuous, thats all
Oh and using foul language doesnt add anything to your posts, in fact, it makes you seem a lot less mature, and makes me sad for the state of the world.
-
He said it in this thread himself.
It stands.
-
what makes you an elitist fuck?(sorry for the language but this requires the use of it)
I hardly think his question was indicative of elitism.
The fact that he questioned someone's worth, implying him being of lesser standing, indicates elitism.
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Forums, hell...this particular part of the forum was created for expressing opinions. Open to debate. I wanted to hear his side of the debate.
Now let me ask you this, why were you not aborted at birth?
Wow so I'm ignorant, you do realize you cannot abort at birth, and just the thought of killing a newborn baby is incredibly horrid and gruesome.
Erasmus's opinion is his own, if he doesnt give it willingly, it is rude to ask.
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Forums, hell...this particular part of the forum was created for expressing opinions. Open to debate. I wanted to hear his side of the debate.
Now let me ask you this, why were you not aborted at birth?
Wow so I'm ignorant, you do realize you cannot abort at birth, and just the thought of killing a newborn baby is incredibly horrid and gruesome.
Erasmus's opinion is his own, if he doesnt give it willingly, it is rude to ask.
1.Don't be a smartass.
2.I asked him politely, how is it rude?
3.Why don't you give some intelligent opinion in my other thread?
4. Is 3 rude to ask?
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Forums, hell...this particular part of the forum was created for expressing opinions. Open to debate. I wanted to hear his side of the debate.
Now let me ask you this, why were you not aborted at birth?
Wow so I'm ignorant, you do realize you cannot abort at birth, and just the thought of killing a newborn baby is incredibly horrid and gruesome.
Erasmus's opinion is his own, if he doesnt give it willingly, it is rude to ask.
It's also rude to condescend to people.
-
The fact that he questioned someone's worth, implying him being of lesser standing, indicates elitism.
I can't find where he did this.
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Forums, hell...this particular part of the forum was created for expressing opinions. Open to debate. I wanted to hear his side of the debate.
Now let me ask you this, why were you not aborted at birth?
Wow so I'm ignorant, you do realize you cannot abort at birth, and just the thought of killing a newborn baby is incredibly horrid and gruesome.
Erasmus's opinion is his own, if he doesnt give it willingly, it is rude to ask.
1.Don't be a smartass.
2.I asked him politely, how is it rude?
3.Why don't you give some intelligent opinion in my other thread?
4. Is 3 rude to ask?
1. I dont want your opinion
2. If he doesnt tell you willingly than dont push him, that seems like common sense.
3. Frankly, I far perfer to just argue like this, as opposed to having to actually research things, its a pain in the ass, but worth it when I need to.
4. Well, specifically, I think it is a bit annoying, but not rude, unless I show that I do not want to do it. In that case I think it would be.
-
The fact that he questioned someone's worth, implying him being of lesser standing, indicates elitism.
I can't find where he did this.
A blind person normally wouldnt.
-
The fact that he questioned someone's worth, implying him being of lesser standing, indicates elitism.
I can't find where he did this.
Seriosuly, are you blind?
"What makes you worthy..."
That right there implies that he is "not worthy", meaning he is of lower standing.
-
3. Frankly, I far perfer to just argue like this, as opposed to having to actually research things, its a pain in the ass, but worth it when I need to.
Anyone else see the irony in this??? :lol:
The fact that he questioned someone's worth, implying him being of lesser standing, indicates elitism.
I can't find where he did this.
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Here you go.
-
3. Frankly, I far perfer to just argue like this, as opposed to having to actually research things, its a pain in the ass, but worth it when I need to.
Anyone else see the irony in this??? :lol:
The fact that he questioned someone's worth, implying him being of lesser standing, indicates elitism.
I can't find where he did this.
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Here you go.
I really cant wait to see the reply to this.
-
Well, I never claimed my worthiness, you just seem pretty presumptuous, thats all
Remember this?
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Here you go.
Elitism requires a comparison. Nowhere does CrimsonKing say, for example, "I am worthy to hear how Erasmus truly feels, whereas you, sir, are not."
-
Well, I never claimed my worthiness, you just seem pretty presumptuous, thats all
Remember this?
So in order to have physical value one must first preclaim it?
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Here you go.
Elitism requires a comparison. Nowhere does CrimsonKing say, for example, "I am worthy to hear how Erasmus truly feels, whereas you, sir, are not."
Talking down to one implies a comparison in value.
-
Well, I never claimed my worthiness, you just seem pretty presumptuous, thats all
Remember this?
So in order to have physical value one must first preclaim it?
well to claim elitism, wouldnt a concrete "physical value" be needed
-
What makes you worthy to hear how he truly feels in life?
Here you go.
Elitism requires a comparison. Nowhere does CrimsonKing say, for example, "I am worthy to hear how Erasmus truly feels, whereas you, sir, are not."
I can say a certain musical group is better then everyone else. Without actually comparing them to anyone specific.
That is elitism.
-
Well, I never claimed my worthiness, you just seem pretty presumptuous, thats all
Remember this?
So in order to have physical value one must first preclaim it?
well to claim elitism, wouldnt a concrete "physical value" be needed
Fuck no. Dont drag the elitism claim into this.
Tell me now, in order to have physical value, does one have to first preclaim it?
-
I think you might need to define physical value a bit better, as I havent the slightest idea what you are talking about.
-
doesn't need to be said, it can be implied.
-
I think you might need to define physical value a bit better, as I havent the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Not very smart now are you? Maybe you're going blind?
-
I think you might need to define physical value a bit better, as I havent the slightest idea what you are talking about.
So tell me, do you ALL play dumb when you cant give a proper answer?
At first you staked a defense for me, and now I pinpointed the question, so you tell me NOW that you dont know what it means.
-
Wow, that was blatantly insulting and essentialy pointless
but anyway... I was just asking for clarification on a concept that I did not understand, how would that make me blind. That seemed to be a nice inferiority complex you have going
-
Wow, that was blatantly insulting and essentialy pointless
but anyway... I was just asking for clarification on a concept that I did not understand, how would that make me blind. That seemed to be a nice inferiority complex you have going
Nice assumption.
-
Wow, that was blatantly insulting and essentialy pointless
but anyway... I was just asking for clarification on a concept that I did not understand, how would that make me blind. That seemed to be a nice inferiority complex you have going
Yes, I do think you are inferior to me due to your blatantly fucking-dumb opinions.
Whats your point?
-
To adaytripper: thank you, I just am following the evidence presented to me
to Teh:
Understand what you are talking about, or ask for clarification before you say anything, please.
-
To adaytripper: thank you, I just am following the evidence presented to me
to Teh:
Understand what you are talking about, or ask for clarification before you say anything, please.
Ok, clarify why you're so fucking stupid.
GO!
-
Well you see, I would have to disagree with the with the hypothesis so I will not present evidence, sorrry
-
To adaytripper: thank you, I just am following the evidence presented to me.
Just like how we accused you of elitism? Well we were just following the evidence presented to us.
-
ahem... that was kind of the point
-
Well you see, I would have to disagree with the with the hypothesis so I will not present evidence, sorrry
Evidence disprooving my ''hypothesis''..
GO!
-
IQ=142
-
Well you see, I would have to disagree with the with the hypothesis so I will not present evidence, sorrry
We disagree with the world being flat, we present evidence.
You disagree with us, how come you're not showing us evidence except the half-assed answers in the "faqs"??
-
IQ=142
Documented papers of said IQ test, signed by atleast one certified professional in the field of the mind
GO!
-
That was in reference to something else first of all.
And the FAQ is a great resource, another great resource is the SEARCH function of the forum, it will help everyone, and make posts less likely to be considered spam
-
That was in reference to something else first of all.
And the FAQ is a great resource, another great resource is the SEARCH function of the forum, it will help everyone, and make posts less likely to be considered spam
Not really, since nothing posted on these forums matters.
So, tell me who you were posting your IQ for?
Looks like another way crimson is trying to sneak out.
-
IQ doesn't mean shit. It only tests your capacity for knowledge, you can still be a dumbass.
-
And the FAQ is a great resource
:lol: No it isn't like I said, they are half-assed answers to questions.
-
I can say a certain musical group is better then everyone else. Without actually comparing them to anyone specific.
Sounds to me like saying that X is better than everything else in some set is comparing X to each of those other things.
That is elitism.
No, elitism is establishing a certain group (of which you are a member) where membership requires the consent of the existing members.
-
It was his reference to my stupidity... Why in God's name would I post papers with my name and important information on the internet.
Since nothing really matters, why even argue, It seems a bit pointless.
-
IQ doesn't mean shit. It only tests your capacity for knowledge, you can still be a dumbass.
Forsooth.
-
It was his reference to my stupidity... Why in God's name would I post papers with my name and important information on the internet.
Since nothing really matters, why even argue, It seems a bit pointless.
Why on earth would anyone post that the earth is flat on the internet?
So you give up now?
Good game, bitch.
-
It was his reference to my stupidity... Why in God's name would I post papers with my name and important information on the internet.
Since nothing really matters, why even argue, It seems a bit pointless.
Well then my IQ=114,857
However I can't prove this beause i must protect my identity which can easily be censored.
-
I can say a certain musical group is better then everyone else. Without actually comparing them to anyone specific.
Sounds to me like saying that X is better than everything else in some set is comparing X to each of those other things.
That is elitism.
No, elitism is establishing a certain group (of which you are a member) where membership requires the consent of the existing members.
Wrong, it is a belief or attitude of placing a certain group higher than others, or any field.
-
^ although his definition is PART of the whole definition of elitism.
-
Wrong, it is a belief or attitude of placing a certain group higher than others, or any field.
Yes, it would seem that that falls nicely within my description of elitism (I don't know why you used the word "wrong" here, since it's pretty obvious that all examples of elitism are what I described them to be) -- as opposed to CrimsonKing's behavior, which in no way establishes a group that is seen as superior to any other.
-
People post their opinions on the internet, if you do not like these ideas and opinions, than I think you should leave.
By the way, having an IQ that is too high makes you fuctionally retarded, and is heavily recorded in Austism studies.
I said it in the other popular thread but why not here too... I'm going to sleep, please dont slander too much
-
Wrong, it is a belief or attitude of placing a certain group higher than others, or any field.
Yes, it would seem that that falls nicely within my description of elitism (I don't know why you used the word "wrong" here, since it's pretty obvious that all examples of elitism are what I described them to be) -- as opposed to CrimsonKing's behavior, which in no way establishes a group that is seen as superior to any other.
Uhh, again are you blind? By him questioning if he was worthy enough, that would imply there is a group that is. Hence elitism.
-
Wrong, it is a belief or attitude of placing a certain group higher than others, or any field.
Yes, it would seem that that falls nicely within my description of elitism (I don't know why you used the word "wrong" here, since it's pretty obvious that all examples of elitism are what I described them to be) -- as opposed to CrimsonKing's behavior, which in no way establishes a group that is seen as superior to any other.
What the hell man??? :lol: He said I was not worthy, ELITISM!! :roll:
-
Uhh, again are you blind? By him questioning if he was worthy enough, that would imply there is a group that is. Hence elitism.
Not necessarily. He could be asserting that no group is worthy to demand my thoughts of me -- a sentiment with which I wholly agree.
-
Uhh, again are you blind? By him questioning if he was worthy enough, that would imply there is a group that is. Hence elitism.
Not necessarily. He could be asserting that no group is worthy to demand my thoughts of me -- a sentiment with which I wholly agree.
There would still be a group(however no one is in it, but it is still a group none the less) that woudl be able to demand answers of you.
-
There would still be a group(however no one is in it, but it is still a group none the less) that woudl be able to demand answers of you.
Incredible. You must be a mathematician -- but wait, no. A group cannot be empty: it must contain an identity element.
-
There would still be a group(however no one is in it, but it is still a group none the less) that woudl be able to demand answers of you.
Incredible. You must be a mathematician -- but wait, no. A group cannot be empty: it must contain an identity element.
Give further description of this ''identity element''
-
Give further description of this ''identity element''
A group is a set G, along with an operation * under which G is closed. Every group contains a unique identity element e such that for every element x in G, e*x = x*e = x.
That is the defining property of a group's identity element... more description cannot be made unless a specific group is being discussed.
-
Well it's simple. The group is nothing but an idea right now. However it is still able to be entered or exiled from. but that's besides the point. He still implied the existence of a group of people that are able to demand your answers, which shows the elitism.
-
He still implied the existence of a group of people that are able to demand your answers, which shows the elitism.
This is a sufficiently ridiculous claim that I am terminating my participation in this line of discussion.
-
He still implied the existence of a group of people that are able to demand your answers, which shows the elitism.
This is a sufficiently ridiculous claim that I am terminating my participation in this line of discussion.
Translation :
I give up
-
Translation :
I give up
If you are happy with your utterly idiotic translation skills, then I am too.
-
Translation :
I give up
If you are happy with your utterly idiotic translation skills, then I am too.
I thought you gave up?
-
You strive to frustrate others who attempt to make an argument. You say clarity is required, yet you try your best to sidestep or avoid the issue. Say what you will, but slander it is not!
I have a great deal of patience myself, however I find you to be particularly troublesome. I came here to debate, but it seems there's very little of that. Whatever proof is provided to you, is immediately dismissed as conspiracy. Do you really think NASA faked those photos from the '60's? I do not, I live in the real world, the round one!
Any moderator with permissions please remove my account, I won't be needing it anymore. I'm going to try to find another board where scientific reasoning is used, not abused.
The whole point of the argument is seeing if you can prove without anyone telling you that the Earth is round. It is obvious you can: lunar eclipses, travel the world, climb a mountain, look at the ocean from a plane (if no clouds obscure your view).
-
OK. I disbelievd the whole icewall thing until I took a trip to Antarctica. I saw an icewall about 110 feet high. We followed it for 5 miles and it was still going off into the distance. We climbed it and it was 1 mile or so thick. We walked to the edge and there was a sheer drop on the other side of about 1/2 a mile down. I belive this is where the "edge of the world" theory came from.