Trying to be open-minded, a few questions

Hi folks,

I try to be open-minded about most things in life and since first reading about the Flat Earth Society last year (or possibly the year before) the notion that the Earth might be flat has been a source of intrigue.

I've spent a while reading through a wealth of posts and information on this forum and while much of it comes close to what I'm wondering it's difficult to feel satisfied about your own queries simply by reading something someone else has asked. Sorry in advance for a long post, I hope some of you will take the time to read it and if possible reply to some extent.

So... I'd like to ask a few bits that I have been wondering about "this whole idea". For the record I am a layperson who has an interest in a variety of subjects but I don't have a doctorate to go waving around.

The so-called "Vomit Comet" is a modified airliner that is used to simulate a zero-gravity environment within the constraints of our atmosphere. If, during one of the steep descents, you were to release a small amount of water in front of you the mass of it combined with the relative lack of gravity would force the water in to a spherical shape. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information floating around in some of the posts I've been reading so my question here is If you could simulate this natural-spherical behaviour of a mass in a zero-gravity environment and Earth exists as a mass in space without gravity why hasn't (or wouldn't) it form/ed in to a sphere? Why is the mass of an object in a repeatable experiment different to the mass of the Earth?

As a basic idea saying "the Earth appears flat to the naked eye, not round" makes a surprising amount of sense. However, there are instances when the Earth does not infact appear to be particularly flat. One such instance that stands out in my mind was a couple of years ago; I was in a car travelling along a straight road alongside the North Sea. It is a busy area for medium-size ships and to my concern I saw what appeared to be a ship sinking a fair number of miles away. The sea in this area is calm and it was a bright, clear day; on that logic I wanted to get closer to the ship before raising a false alarm. After driving some way up the road it became apparent that the ship's lightweight load was causing it's bow to sit quite proud and this combined with the vessel's distance from me resulted in the illusion that it was sinking. When alongside the ship it was clear it was perfectly fine. So my question here is The curvature of the Earth combined with the load-balance of the ship resulted in the illusion that it was sinking. On closer inspection it was apparent that the load of the ship was not causing the illusion but the distance involved was. The nature of the illusion strongly points to the Earth being curved; if the Earth is infact not round why did the illusion disappear when I was closer to the ship but reappear while driving away again? If the Earth was flat and with the weather being clear the illusion should not have changed over distance and there should have been no reason for the ship to appear to be sinking, surely?

There are so many "things" that are confusing about the Ice Wall that I couldn't possibly type them all up without repeating points raised by other people. Having said that, I cannot fathom some of the logic behind the ideas behind the notion that the Ice Wall exists and is guarded. As I've read so many bits and pieces of late I can't quote names easily but there was a detailed post explaining how plausible it would be to guard the entire perimiter of the wall. So, my questions here are:

Why would the wall need to be guarded?

If the wall is so treacherous and so impenetrable how can men on snowmobiles actively - and effectively - patrol it? Even if they could if the region is so inhospitable as to prevent any "proper" access how could a single man cover 15-20 miles? Again if it's such a dangerous place how is it safe for individual men to patrol such an expanse for security yet be totally perilous for someone to try and explore the boundaries of it?

If the wall is "150ft high" and man can conquer Everest at nearly 30,000ft (as well as other smaller but more dangerous mountains) how could any natural geological formation be impassable?

If the wall is "infinitely high" so that nothing can pass over it why can't we see it from where we live on a good, clear day?

Another post I read dealt with the problem of explaining volcanic behaviour, citing the belief that the Earth is thick enough to sustain a molten layer. The rational explanation for the existence of a molten core inside a round-Earth is that the constant pushing and pulling of gravity causes so much friction and movement that extraordinary temperatures are maintained, thus keeping huge portions of the Earth's mass molten. If gravity is not at play in a flat-Earth what is keeping this molten-layer liquid? Some posts suggest our feeling of "gravity" is caused by constant acceleration upon us but acceleration alone wouldn't cause the rock to stay molten, we'd have to accelerate and decelerate a sufficiently large amount. If this drastic movement existed and kept the molten layer active wouldn't our feeling of gravity fluctuate enormously?

Typing this up has taken longer than I anticipated and I really feel the need to sleep. I look forward to hearing some input on these points, possibly even from people on both sides of the debate.

Thanks for reading

The so-called "Vomit Comet" is a modified airliner that is used to simulate a zero-gravity environment within the constraints of our atmosphere. If, during one of the steep descents, you were to release a small amount of water in front of you the mass of it combined with the relative lack of gravity would force the water in to a spherical shape. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information floating around in some of the posts I've been reading so my question here is If you could simulate this natural-spherical behaviour of a mass in a zero-gravity environment and Earth exists as a mass in space without gravity why hasn't (or wouldn't) it form/ed in to a sphere? Why is the mass of an object in a repeatable experiment different to the mass of the Earth?

Until we fully understand the mechanics and reasons behind gravitation,we will never know why the earth is "special". (The earth being flat is not the only way it is "special".)

As a basic idea saying "the Earth appears flat to the naked eye, not round" makes a surprising amount of sense. However, there are instances when the Earth does not infact appear to be particularly flat. One such instance that stands out in my mind was a couple of years ago; I was in a car travelling along a straight road alongside the North Sea. It is a busy area for medium-size ships and to my concern I saw what appeared to be a ship sinking a fair number of miles away. The sea in this area is calm and it was a bright, clear day; on that logic I wanted to get closer to the ship before raising a false alarm. After driving some way up the road it became apparent that the ship's lightweight load was causing it's bow to sit quite proud and this combined with the vessel's distance from me resulted in the illusion that it was sinking. When alongside the ship it was clear it was perfectly fine. So my question here is The curvature of the Earth combined with the load-balance of the ship resulted in the illusion that it was sinking. On closer inspection it was apparent that the load of the ship was not causing the illusion but the distance involved was. The nature of the illusion strongly points to the Earth being curved; if the Earth is infact not round why did the illusion disappear when I was closer to the ship but reappear while driving away again? If the Earth was flat and with the weather being clear the illusion should not have changed over distance and there should have been no reason for the ship to appear to be sinking, surely?

There are two theories behind this. One is the "bendy light" effect,and the other is that it is all a perspective effect. (I believe that ENaG explains this)

There are so many "things" that are confusing about the Ice Wall that I couldn't possibly type them all up without repeating points raised by other people. Having said that, I cannot fathom some of the logic behind the ideas behind the notion that the Ice Wall exists and is guarded. As I've read so many bits and pieces of late I can't quote names easily but there was a detailed post explaining how plausible it would be to guard the entire perimiter of the wall. So, my questions here are:

Why would the wall need to be guarded?

If the wall is so treacherous and so impenetrable how can men on snowmobiles actively - and effectively - patrol it? Even if they could if the region is so inhospitable as to prevent any "proper" access how could a single man cover 15-20 miles? Again if it's such a dangerous place how is it safe for individual men to patrol such an expanse for security yet be totally perilous for someone to try and explore the boundaries of it?

If the wall is "150ft high" and man can conquer Everest at nearly 30,000ft (as well as other smaller but more dangerous mountains) how could any natural geological formation be impassable?

If the wall is "infinitely high" so that nothing can pass over it why can't we see it from where we live on a good, clear day?

I personally believe the ice wall is guarded by a few planes and some radar technology. I am curious as to where you got this "infinitely high" notion.

Typing this up has taken longer than I anticipated and I really feel the need to sleep. I look forward to hearing some input on these points, possibly even from people on both sides of the debate.

Thanks for reading

Thank you for a well written post.

Until we fully understand the mechanics and reasons behind gravitation,we will never know why the earth is "special". (The earth being flat is not the only way it is "special".)

Gravity doesn't make the earth special.

There are two theories behind this. One is the "bendy light" effect,and the other is that it is all a perspective effect. (I believe that ENaG explains this)

Both of which are bullshit.

I personally believe the ice wall is guarded by a few planes and some radar technology.

Have you even the remotest idea how huge the ice wall is supposed to be? A few planes and some radar couldnt guard the coastline of england, nevermind the "ice wall".

Good post.

Too tired to do proper quotes, but you'll know which Qs I'm referring to.

1.  The analogy of a water drop to a spherical earth as the "natural" shape does not hold.  Water droplets, or any liquid, has a natural shape of a sphere because of surface tension.  Surface tension ensures that the lowest energy form is a sphere.  Gravity would indeed assure a lowest energy state of a sphere, but FEers tend to not believe in gravity.  If gravity does indeed exist, then a spherical earth is almost necessitated.  Unfortunately, the tendency of FEers to have a combination of disbelief in both gravity and the basic laws of physics (or at least a denial of what the outcome would be) ensures that they don't realize that they can't believe in both gravity and a flat earth.
(and in response to Waste of Mind:  What ways are the Earth special?  I don't see the Earth as special at all.  The earth is made of matter, just like the rest of the universe.  The Earth has no special properties except that we are on it, and that in itself cannot be used as evidence that the Earth is special, because ANY race would conclude that the body they were on was special.)

2.  You're absolutely right.  The only way that FEers can explain away the "horizon" effects observed on large bodies of water is by inventing the utterly ridiculous theories like "bendy light" (the product of some overactive imaginations reading about general relativity), or "perspective" illusions.  I have yet to have a perspective illusion demonstrated to me that tricks my eyes into observing the results of curvature on a flat surface.

3.  The Ice Wall, along with the Shadow Object, is one of the most ridiculous parts of the FET.  It is obvious that the Ice Wall could not possibly be effectively guarded by men, nor by realistic application of modern technology.  But of course, the Conspiracy has endless technology hidden away that they can use to guard the Wall.  And FEers have never developed a well-rounded theory regarding the height of the wall, or the ways that the Wall could be concealed from normal observation.

From my time on the forum so far, it is clear to me that in order for FET to be plausible, you must accept:
- existence of a Conspiracy (an absolute necessity)
- total rejection of gravity, including both Newtonian and Einsteinian (again, absolute necessity)
- rejection of theories of electromagnetic propagation (light) (not as important, but eliminates most counter-arguments)

If you don't keep these in mind, you'll run into trouble trying to make sense of most of FET.

Both of which are bullshit.

Yeah, you're open minded. 

Gravity doesn't make the earth special.
No,but the lack of gravitation does.
Both of which are bullshit.
Could you please present why both of these are not valid claims?
Have you even the remotest idea how huge the ice wall is supposed to be? A few planes and some radar couldnt guard the coastline of england, nevermind the "ice wall".
You noobs are really getting annoying with this one. The ice wall is not being assaulted with an army. At most it is nothing more then a stray boat. They don't have a need for 100000000 guards.

Gravity doesn't make the earth special.
No,but the lack of gravitation does.
Both of which are bullshit.
Could you please present why both of these are not valid claims?
Have you even the remotest idea how huge the ice wall is supposed to be? A few planes and some radar couldnt guard the coastline of england, nevermind the "ice wall".
You noobs are really getting annoying with this one. The ice wall is not being assaulted with an army. At most it is nothing more then a stray boat. They don't have a need for 100000000 guards.

Actually, yes they do need for 10000000 guards for that. Do you not realise how fucking huge such an ice wall would be? In order to detect and defend against "a small stray boat", they would have to have guards posted AROUND THE WHOLE WALL. That means, a guard every 500-1000 metres. It would be far more easy to defend against an incoming army, because atleast they would know where they came from. But a stray boat could come from ANYWHERE. Even a radar wouldn't be able to detect a stray boat. America can't even defend from incoming aliens from Mexico.
It wouldn't even be "just a stray boat". It would be 100000 of ships and planes EVERY FUCKING WEEK

Just follow me on this one: it is year 2000. Africa have not been discovered. Do you really think such a huge land-mass as Africa would stay undetected? Do you not think people would question why NOONE have ever flewn or sailed that way?
You have to be fucking stupid to think that. Now, look at the icewall. It is 100x times the size of Africa. Do you really think it would go undetected for 10.000 years? You have to be god-damned stupid.

First of all,stray boats use emergency signals and advertise where they are. They WANT to be found. Even if they weren't using emergency signals,radar and planes would be able to detect them easily. Also,why would it be 1000000 planes and boats? There is almost NOTHING by the ice wall.

The difference between Africa and the ice wall is this. Africa is next to Asia and Europe and has valuable natural resources. There is no reason to visit the ice wall.

First of all,stray boats use emergency signals and advertise where they are. They WANT to be found. Even if they weren't using emergency signals,radar and planes would be able to detect them easily. Also,why would it be 1000000 planes and boats? There is almost NOTHING by the ice wall.

The difference between Africa and the ice wall is this. Africa is next to Asia and Europe and has valuable natural resources. There is no reason to visit the ice wall.

It would be 10000 planes and boats every week, because people fly directly across the pacific, people sail around the cap of Africa, people makes expeditions, people fly and sail -just for fun- etc etc. Do I really need to continue? How do you explain fraighters sailing (or planes) directly across the Pacific from Japan to America fx? You now the distance between those continents, you know how fast they sail/fly, you know how long the trip takes. You KNOW they fly directly across the Pacific Ocean then, because circumnavigating would take 3-4 times longer.

How would you know Africa is filled with valuable natural resources, when no-one even KNOW there is a land right next to Asia and Europe? How do you even know there is a giant ice wall? You have never seen it, NOONE have - there is no proof what so ever of an ice wall, or even a conspiracy. Then why do you believe it to be such? Isn't Flat Earthing about believeing only what you see with your own eyes?

You have to be goddamned stupid to think a continent 100 times the size of Africa would not be found.

Gravity doesn't make the earth special.
No,but the lack of gravitation does.

Except that the earth does not lack gravity.

Both of which are bullshit.
Could you please present why both of these are not valid claims?

Perspective is merely the apparent reduction in size of an object as it moves away from the observer. Objects beyond the horizon are still visible, and do not reduce in size but "fall" over the edge.

Therefore the observation of objects over the horizon cannot be explained by perspective alone. While perspective might explain the size of the object it will nto explain its position.

Bendy light defies many simple principles of physics. Check the FAQ for details, that's where it's refuted.

Have you even the remotest idea how huge the ice wall is supposed to be? A few planes and some radar couldnt guard the coastline of england, nevermind the "ice wall".
You noobs are really getting annoying with this one. The ice wall is not being assaulted with an army. At most it is nothing more then a stray boat. They don't have a need for 100000000 guards.

So you stop one stray boat with another stray boat. You're not aware of the principles of terrorism are you?

The people that fly/sail near the ice wall are doing just that, flying BY IT. They see ice and they think, "Hey, it's Antarctica". They have no reason to go in further, so the conspiracy has no reason to stop them.

Also,what does terrorism have to do with anything?

Also,what does terrorism have to do with anything?

Because there's only a few terrorists trying to do something bad, and it takes a whole "army" to stop them (I'm talking about border control, and internal surveillance here, not battlefield stuff)

A terrorist (or in this case a journalist / media crew etc) only needs to "win" once. Homeland security (or in this case your a few planes and some radar) need to "win" every hour of every day.

Now look at the size of the ice wall. Think how you'll defend that with a few planes.

The people that fly/sail near the ice wall are doing just that, flying BY IT. They see ice and they think, "Hey, it's Antarctica". They have no reason to go in further, so the conspiracy has no reason to stop them.

Also,what does terrorism have to do with anything?

No they won't. If you fly over the Pacific Ocean and see an ice wall that is 100000000000000000 kilometers long with COMPLETE BLACKNESS behind it (it's just empty space behind it, according to FET's - and if it isn't pure blackness thats behind the wall, then its land (can't be more water outside the wall) and then you will see a HUGE landmass), you won't just think "oh it's Antarctica". Do you not realise how far you are able to see in a plane? Or even in a boat on a clear day?

Do you think, when the mongols found the Chinese wall, they just thought "Oh look, just some bricks. Nothing to see here."

If you were to see the ice wall you would just think you would see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would not see "pure blackness"

Your analogy is flawed because terrorists are actively assaulting a country,the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall.

If you were to see the ice wall you would just think you would see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would not see "pure blackness"

Your analogy is flawed because terrorists are actively assaulting a country,the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall.

"the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall."
 - because it isn't there

You would not just see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would see a VERY VERY LONG ice wall, and directly behind that ice wall would you see either: 1) a HUGE landmass, 2) the empty space.
You would be fcking stupid to think it would look like some pieces of ice shattered around, if it was actually supposed to keep all the earths water inside.
Have you ever tried to flew over China? You can see the Chinese wall from 10000 feet above. And you can see it is VERY VERY VERY long, even from far away. The ice wall would have to be 10000x larger than the ice wall...... do the math

Quote from: Waste of Mind on May 09, 2009, 09:52:49 AM

If you were to see the ice wall you would just think you would see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would not see "pure blackness"

Your analogy is flawed because terrorists are actively assaulting a country,the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall.

"the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall."
 - because it isn't there

You would not just see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would see a VERY VERY LONG ice wall, and directly behind that ice wall would you see either: 1) a HUGE landmass, 2) the empty space.
You would be fcking stupid to think it would look like some pieces of ice shattered around, if it was actually supposed to keep all the earths water inside.
Have you ever tried to flew over China? You can see the Chinese wall from 10000 feet above. And you can see it is VERY VERY VERY long, even from far away. The ice wall would have to be 10000x larger than the ice wall...... do the math

They aren't "assaulting the ice wall because they don't know it's there.

No,they would just see an "ice shelf" and some atmosphere.

I believe in the Ice Wall that "walls in" the Earth's oceans.  This Ice Wall is easy to believe in because lots of people have seen it.

I neither believe in the gigantic "Greater Ice Wall" nor that the Ice Wall is guarded.

I believe in the Ice Wall that "walls in" the Earth's oceans.  This Ice Wall is easy to believe in because lots of people have seen it.

I neither believe in the gigantic "Greater Ice Wall" nor that the Ice Wall is guarded.

Sure. Lots of people have seen an ice wall, that covers the entire earth and is 150 feet high. Sure they have, its just strange how there have been ZERO documentation about it. Pretty much everything discovered is documentated by someone, especially huge things like this.

Quote from: MisterHamper on May 09, 2009, 09:57:52 AM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on May 09, 2009, 09:52:49 AM

If you were to see the ice wall you would just think you would see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would not see "pure blackness"

Your analogy is flawed because terrorists are actively assaulting a country,the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall.

"the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall."
 - because it isn't there

You would not just see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would see a VERY VERY LONG ice wall, and directly behind that ice wall would you see either: 1) a HUGE landmass, 2) the empty space.
You would be fcking stupid to think it would look like some pieces of ice shattered around, if it was actually supposed to keep all the earths water inside.
Have you ever tried to flew over China? You can see the Chinese wall from 10000 feet above. And you can see it is VERY VERY VERY long, even from far away. The ice wall would have to be 10000x larger than the ice wall...... do the math

They aren't "assaulting the ice wall because they don't know it's there.

No,they would just see an "ice shelf" and some atmosphere.

You like repeating yourself instead of answering my questions? Maybe its because you cant answer them.

"the media isn't actively "assaulting" the ice wall."
 - because it isn't there

You would not just see an ice shelf and above it some atmosphere. You would see a VERY VERY LONG ice wall, and directly behind that ice wall would you see either: 1) a HUGE landmass, 2) the empty space.
You would be fcking stupid to think it would look like some pieces of ice shattered around, if it was actually supposed to keep all the earths water inside.
Have you ever tried to flew over China? You can see the Chinese wall from 10000 feet above. And you can see it is VERY VERY VERY long, even from far away. The ice wall would have to be 10000x larger than the ice wall...... do the math

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 09, 2009, 10:05:40 AM

I believe in the Ice Wall that "walls in" the Earth's oceans.  This Ice Wall is easy to believe in because lots of people have seen it.

I neither believe in the gigantic "Greater Ice Wall" nor that the Ice Wall is guarded.

Sure. Lots of people have seen an ice wall, that covers the entire earth and is 150 feet high. Sure they have, its just strange how there have been ZERO documentation about it. Pretty much everything discovered is documentated by someone, especially huge things like this.

150 feet is an estimate that I believe is based on the height of the Ross Ice Shelf, which forms part of the Ice Wall.  I have no idea what the actual or average height actually is.  There's been no documentation of it because nobody who's been there recognized that that's what it was.  They thought the Earth was round, not flat, so they thought it was a large island at the bottom of the Earth, rather than a large landmass encircling the Earth.  But the existence of the landmass itself is well-documented.

Quote from: MisterHamper on May 09, 2009, 10:14:25 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 09, 2009, 10:05:40 AM

I believe in the Ice Wall that "walls in" the Earth's oceans.  This Ice Wall is easy to believe in because lots of people have seen it.

I neither believe in the gigantic "Greater Ice Wall" nor that the Ice Wall is guarded.

Sure. Lots of people have seen an ice wall, that covers the entire earth and is 150 feet high. Sure they have, its just strange how there have been ZERO documentation about it. Pretty much everything discovered is documentated by someone, especially huge things like this.

150 feet is an estimate that I believe is based on the height of the Ross Ice Shelf, which forms part of the Ice Wall.  I have no idea what the actual or average height actually is.  There's been no documentation of it because nobody who's been there recognized that that's what it was.  They thought the Earth was round, not flat, so they thought it was a large island at the bottom of the Earth, rather than a large landmass encircling the Earth.  But the existence of the landmass itself is well-documented.

Oh yeah, its well-documented? Do you mean Antarctica? Or the South Pole? Or some other bullshit?
You do realise that seen from above, you can easily tell the difference between a land and a wall/mountain-range?

Oh yeah, by the way, take a look at the post here
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28738.0
The second-last post.
Me proving your logic is hugely flawed