Questions regarding a Flat Earth

Hello all! I have been reading a couple of the topics here in the forum and I have a couple of questions:

1. If the Earth is indeed flat, what is on the bottom of the Earth, assuming that all of the countries are on the top?

2. If there are glaciers surrounding the earth, why don't the glaciers melt?

#1 is unknown since there has never been any recorded travel off the face of the Earth, but theoretically there is a gigantic mass which is what accounts for our grvity.

#2 is because it's cold. It's like asking why isn't the South Pole melting.

but the south pole is melting due to global warming. and considering that the sun is directly above the earth and presumably closer to the earth (in flat earth logic) it would make sense that the glaciers would melt much quicker.

You failed to mention that it is less powerful and smaller than assumed as well. This would be the reason as to why they don't. Granted, they're melting because of global warming, but that doesn't exactly disprove a flat Earth. A flat Earth has an atmosphere as well, and we would have destroyed it just as much anyways.

ok i didnt know that it was supposed to be smaller.

Well there was an entire topic. It is smaller and less powerful, but closer so it gives the same result as if it were bigger, more powerful and far away.

#1 is unknown since there has never been any recorded travel off the face of the Earth, but theoretically there is a gigantic mass which is what accounts for our grvity.

And all of those journeys out into space mean nothing? Are there no pictures taken from space?

(the sun) is smaller and less powerful, but closer so it gives the same result as if it were bigger, more powerful and far away.

Wouldn't that be the same thing as if it were more powerful and farther away? What I mean is: If the sun was farther away, yet proportionately more powerful, the Earth would receive the same amount of heat if the sun were closer and proportionately less powerful. You said yourself that it would give the same result.

Well there was an entire topic. It is smaller and less powerful, but closer so it gives the same result as if it were bigger, more powerful and far away.

yea so then it would have the same result that our sun has with global warming and such. like mr. squirrel pointed out.

Granted, they're melting because of global warming, but that doesn't exactly disprove a flat Earth.

So you believe in the concept of global warming but you don't believe that the earth is round?

So you believe in the concept of global warming but you don't believe that the earth is round?

Statement B does not follow statement A.

What you said breaks down to something like this:
Statement A: You believe the earth is flat
ergo
Statement B: You should believe the earth is round.

See how those don't necessitate each other?

Quote

So you believe in the concept of global warming but you don't believe that the earth is round?

Statement B does not follow statement A.

What you said breaks down to something like this:
Statement A: You believe the earth is flat
ergo
Statement B: You should believe the earth is round.

See how those don't necessitate each other?

Again, you missed my point... of course global warming doesn't disprove that the earth is flat...

I'm just pointing out that he believes in a fairly new and complex concept which he has not observe first hand...

Quote from: "6strings"

Quote

So you believe in the concept of global warming but you don't believe that the earth is round?

Statement B does not follow statement A.

What you said breaks down to something like this:
Statement A: You believe the earth is flat
ergo
Statement B: You should believe the earth is round.

See how those don't necessitate each other?

Again, you missed my point... of course global warming doesn't disprove that the earth is flat...

I'm just pointing out that he believes in a fairly new and complex concept which he has not observe first hand...

Global warming is more believable than a round Earth mind you.

Quote from: "pablo"

Quote from: "6strings"

Quote

So you believe in the concept of global warming but you don't believe that the earth is round?

Statement B does not follow statement A.

What you said breaks down to something like this:
Statement A: You believe the earth is flat
ergo
Statement B: You should believe the earth is round.

See how those don't necessitate each other?

Again, you missed my point... of course global warming doesn't disprove that the earth is flat...

I'm just pointing out that he believes in a fairly new and complex concept which he has not observe first hand...

Global warming is more believable than a round Earth mind you.

how is that?