REAL questitons about the flat earth

My original thread,http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12201.0, got out of hand. My original intention was to post question, some of which i did, but it got out of hand. I'm sorry.

OK first of all, why do you believe it is flat? Your evidence seems to show it is POSSIBLE for the earth to be flat, but does not actually prove it. (i know im gonna get a lot of crap about this, but I've never seen an FE proof. I know they exist, but so do RE ones)

How do you know about the ice wall?
What is the transition between the rock and the ice wall?
Wouldn't there be so much pressure from the water that the ice wall would just snap?
Four elephants and a turtle!?

Why is the sun 32 miles wide?
If the sun is so small, how does it heat up the earth?
If all energy came from the sun, and the sun is 32 miles wide, why is there energy at all?
If things get smaller as they go to the horizon, why doesn't the sun? It doesnt shrink, it sinks! 
Why will looking at a 32 mile wide ball of flames from 3000 miles away fry the snot out of your eyeballs?
Why will a 32 mile wide ball of flame stick together?
If the sun and moon are so far apart, and the moon is only illuminated by the reflection off the earth from the sun, and they are so far apart, how can we even SEE the moon?

My original thread,http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12201.0, got out of hand. My original intention was to post question, some of which i did, but it got out of hand. I'm sorry.

OK first of all, why do you believe it is flat? Your evidence seems to show it is POSSIBLE for the earth to be flat, but does not actually prove it. (i know im gonna get a lot of crap about this, but I've never seen an FE proof. I know they exist, but so do RE ones)

Science is used to explain the universe we live in. For us, it seems more plausible that the flat earth theories explain that universe. For others, the round earth theories seem more plausible. Even true round earth scientists would have to agree the world is flat, if there were the evidence to support it. My point is they arent sure, they just think its more likely.

How do you know about the ice wall?

It is one of our theories. Much like round earthers have theories about a molten core in the earth. Both are still unobserved, but critical to our belief.

What is the transition between the rock and the ice wall?

Im not following you.

Wouldn't there be so much pressure from the water that the ice wall would just snap?

Ice is incredibly durable. It was actually considered by the US Navy to build giant ships from a composition of ice and sawdust. The prototypes were able to withstand direct torpedo and missle attacks. The project was scrapped because, "ships made from ice" sounded too silly to the general in charge.

Four elephants and a turtle!?

This is an ancient belief that is no longer consistant with our model.

Why is the sun 32 miles wide?

Because it is so close.

If the sun is so small, how does it heat up the earth?

It doesnt.

If all energy came from the sun, and the sun is 32 miles wide, why is there energy at all?

You misunderstand our model.

If things get smaller as they go to the horizon, why doesn't the sun? It doesnt shrink, it sinks! 

This is discussed in other threads. I have given a complete solution to this phenomena.

Why will looking at a 32 mile wide ball of flames from 3000 miles away fry the snot out of your eyeballs?

Because it is so bright.

Why will a 32 mile wide ball of flame stick together?

We have yet to understand enough about the composition of the sun to answer this.

If the sun and moon are so far apart, and the moon is only illuminated by the reflection off the earth from the sun, and they are so far apart, how can we even SEE the moon?

This is just from a misunderstanding of how much light is actually reflected. It is more than possible, but very likely.

It is one of our theories. Much like round earthers have theories about a molten core in the earth. Both are still unobserved, but critical to our belief.

I thought Tom stated that James Clark Ross observed the Ice Wall...?

it seems that u guys don't answer questions very well. u answer them, but never to a full extent.

if the sun doesn't heat the earth, then what does?

explain the science behind the theory of the ice wall? what facts brought this group to its existance?

what is the source behing the ice/saw dust navy ships?

how did u determine the sun to be 32 miles wide, and how did u determine how close it is?

what is the source behing the ice/saw dust navy ships?

That one is definitely real. They mentioned it on the UK TV series 'Brainiac' and it has all the properties narcberry says it does.

i wasn't trying to imply the ice ships were not true, i just wanted a source cuz i thought it was interesting and wanted to read up on it.

if the sun doesn't heat the earth, then what does?

Much of the Earth's warmth is trapped by a greenhouse effect.

explain the science behind the theory of the ice wall? what facts brought this group to its existance?

The Round Earth counterpart to the 150 foot Ice Wall described in the FAQ is called the Ross Ice Shelf. It is a massive wall of ice that surrounds Antarctica. It is several hundred meters thick. The nearly vertical ice front to the open sea is more than 50 meters high above the water surface. Ninety percent of the floating ice is below the water surface.

The Ross Ice Shelf was named after Sir James Clark Ross, an early 1800's explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the South Magnetic Pole. Upon confronting the massive wall of ice he famously remarked 'Well, there's no more chance of sailing through that than through the cliffs of Dover.'

how did u determine the sun to be 32 miles wide, and how did u determine how close it is?

We used the exact triangulation equations and measurements the ancient greeks used (and modern Astronomers still use), except under the presumption of a Flat Earth.

    In early 1943 two American professors discovered that a very tough material could be produced by adding a small amount of wood pulp to water before freezing. They called this material pykrete, in honour of Geoffrey Pyke.

    Lord Mountbatten had a block of pykrete prepared by a Canadian engineering company, and took this block to the Quebec Conference in the fall of 1943. As it appeared that "Habbakuk" would run into supply and technical problems, not to mention the high costs ($100 million for the first ship), it was Mountbatten's aim to get the Americans to take over the project. It is reported that he fired a revolver at the pykrete block during a coffee break, and the bullet bounced off and struck one of the senior officers who were present -- thankfully without serious injury!

How would ice ships be a good idea? Sounds completely retarded. Please explain how a engine would not manage to melt an ice ship, they get extremely hot.

What is a sunburn if there is no energy fromt he sun?  Not to mention night is colder then the day. 

Yeah dumbass, if the sun doesn't give off any energy then why is it hotter in the sun instead of shade? Or during the day instead of night?

ok, so the greenhouse effect traps in the heat....but where does the heat come from, if not the sun? the heat has to come from somewhere for it to be trapped at all.

Quote

if the sun doesn't heat the earth, then what does?

Much of the Earth's warmth is trapped by a greenhouse effect.

That doesn't explain the question of where the heat came from originally. You can't just have heat energy come without a having a source. {EDIT: The above poster beat me to it.   }

That theory also raises the question of why the North pole and South pole/ice wall have so much of a temperature differential from the equator region.

Quote

explain the science behind the theory of the ice wall? what facts brought this group to its existance?

The Round Earth counterpart to the 150 foot Ice Wall described in the FAQ is called the Ross Ice Shelf. It is a massive wall of ice that surrounds Antarctica. It is several hundred meters thick. The nearly vertical ice front to the open sea is more than 50 meters high above the water surface. Ninety percent of the floating ice is below the water surface.

The Ross Ice Shelf was named after Sir James Clark Ross, an early 1800's explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the South Magnetic Pole. Upon confronting the massive wall of ice he famously remarked 'Well, there's no more chance of sailing through that than through the cliffs of Dover.'

This topic has already been debated heavily, so I'm just going to pull the FE fast one and make you go to another thread. Don't like it? Neither do we.

Quote

how did u determine the sun to be 32 miles wide, and how did u determine how close it is?

We used the exact triangulation equations and measurements the ancient greeks used (and modern Astronomers still use), except under the presumption of a Flat Earth.

No arguments with this statement by itself; however, notice that it requires the assumption of the Flat Earth. The problems occur when you use it to prove that the Earth is flat. I'm sorry, but you can't do that. Proof doesn't work that way.

i am still waiting for names of FE's who died going to the ice wall.

it's pretty obvious u would use mathematical equations to get the sun to be 32 miles wide. i wanted to know the equations and how u worked to them to come to that conclusion. if it only works for you when u assume the earth is flat....then that proves that it actually doesn't work in your favor. how does it work out if u don't assume that?

But what is holding the ice wall down? Why doesn't water leak from underneath?  The earth is made of rock and then on top is the ice wall, but whats in between?

What is a sunburn if there is no energy fromt he sun?  Not to mention night is colder then the day. 

No answers?

Now I know, most of you here are atheists. Let's not argue about the RE or FE model for a second here and think with logically. You see a chair, it wouldn't be there without a creator. God owns this universe, whether you think the Earth is flat or spherical. My strong premise is: "It takes something/someone to make something/someone exist". ok, you may say "but there is this very logical Big Bang Theory", although it all comes back to the origin. What created this "1" before "2" exists?

This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?

Now I know, most of you here are atheists. Let's not argue about the RE or FE model for a second here and think with logically. You see a chair, it wouldn't be there without a creator. God owns this universe, whether you think the Earth is flat or spherical. My strong premise is: "It takes something/someone to make something/someone exist". ok, you may say "but there is this very logical Big Bang Theory", although it all comes back to the origin. What created this "1" before "2" exists?

This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?

If it takes something/someone to make something/someone exist, then something/someone must have created God.  Either that, or QED, God doesn't exist.

Who/what created God, Akira?

Now I know, most of you here are atheists. Let's not argue about the RE or FE model for a second here and think with logically. You see a chair, it wouldn't be there without a creator. God owns this universe, whether you think the Earth is flat or spherical. My strong premise is: "It takes something/someone to make something/someone exist". ok, you may say "but there is this very logical Big Bang Theory", although it all comes back to the origin. What created this "1" before "2" exists?

This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?

fuck First Cause proofs. its complete BS. There are other plausible causes rather than a god. The singularity, or the origin of Big Bang, can be solved through String Theory.

Quote from: akira on April 04, 2007, 10:27:11 PM

Now I know, most of you here are atheists. Let's not argue about the RE or FE model for a second here and think with logically. You see a chair, it wouldn't be there without a creator. God owns this universe, whether you think the Earth is flat or spherical. My strong premise is: "It takes something/someone to make something/someone exist". ok, you may say "but there is this very logical Big Bang Theory", although it all comes back to the origin. What created this "1" before "2" exists?

This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?

If it takes something/someone to make something/someone exist, then something/someone must have created God.  Either that, or QED, God doesn't exist.

but some people do think that God was not created as He is beyond time and matter and is not limited by the forces that He has created.

Who/what created God, Akira?

some people do think that God was not created as He is beyond time and matter and is not limited by the forces that He has created. although I think that our knowledge and brain is too limited to know what created God himself. but I'm just saying, it makes more sense believing that something created this whole universe, rather than believing the chance of it built on its own.

How would ice ships be a good idea? Sounds completely retarded. Please explain how a engine would not manage to melt an ice ship, they get extremely hot.

The Brainiac team used a flamethrower on a large block of it. They also shot flame at an identically sized block of ice. The ice melted pretty quickly whilst the ice/wood pulp mix charred a bit but did not melt. The ships design probably would have included some sort of heat insulation.

our knowledge and brain is too limited to know what created God himself. but I'm just saying, it makes more sense believing that something created this whole universe, rather than believing the chance of it built on its own.

Seconded. Just my personal opinion.

Can someone please answer my question?

Quote from: duuuuh on April 04, 2007, 10:35:04 PM

Quote from: akira on April 04, 2007, 10:27:11 PM

Now I know, most of you here are atheists. Let's not argue about the RE or FE model for a second here and think with logically. You see a chair, it wouldn't be there without a creator. God owns this universe, whether you think the Earth is flat or spherical. My strong premise is: "It takes something/someone to make something/someone exist". ok, you may say "but there is this very logical Big Bang Theory", although it all comes back to the origin. What created this "1" before "2" exists?

This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?

If it takes something/someone to make something/someone exist, then something/someone must have created God.  Either that, or QED, God doesn't exist.

but some people do think that God was not created as He is beyond time and matter and is not limited by the forces that He has created.

Who/what created God, Akira?

some people do think that God was not created as He is beyond time and matter and is not limited by the forces that He has created. although I think that our knowledge and brain is too limited to know what created God himself. but I'm just saying, it makes more sense believing that something created this whole universe, rather than believing the chance of it built on its own.

(Sorry, GnR)  I get what you're saying Akira, the big problem I have is that the whole premise of your argument for a God is that we are too complex for our existence to just be a coincidence ("This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?").  My understanding of most people's understanding of God is that he Himself is rather complex; I've even heard him referred to as perfect.  So if you are going to argue that life and humanity are too complex to not have been created, then you have to argue that the Creator himself was too complex to not have been created, but since you can't go on forever like that, it's a completely contradictory argument.  "First Cause" has no place in rational discussion of the existence of God.

(Sorry, GnR)  I get what you're saying Akira, the big problem I have is that the whole premise of your argument for a God is that we are too complex for our existence to just be a coincidence ("This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?").  My understanding of most people's understanding of God is that he Himself is rather complex; I've even heard him referred to as perfect.  So if you are going to argue that life and humanity are too complex to not have been created, then you have to argue that the Creator himself was too complex to not have been created, but since you can't go on forever like that, it's a completely contradictory argument.  "First Cause" has no place in rational discussion of the existence of God.

Although this is probably more at home in the religion and philosophy section, I'd like to respond anyway. Although it is true that God created man in his own image (hence likely involving skeletal structure, organs, etc...) his divine powers means that there is no need for a creator of God. God exists outside the universe and outside the boundaries of time. Whilst humans are forced to think of things in terms of beginning and ends, his all powerful nature render the need for a creator of himself obsolete. This isn't true with humans. Evidently, we do not possess these powers nor have the ability to think outside our universe, existence and time. Infinity stretching from a boundless past to an eternal future is the plain of God.

Either everything has to have a creator or it doesn't.  If you are going to argue that there is a special circumstance for God, that's not using logic, it's using the same kind of pseudoscience that people on this site espouse.  It's not rationalizing.  God is either something you accept as fact or don't.  You can't logically prove or disprove the existence of God and trying only leads to contradictions like this one.  That's why faith is such an important tenet in Christianity.

Have you ever read "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant?

Quote from: Hyperion395 on April 04, 2007, 12:48:28 PM

How would ice ships be a good idea? Sounds completely retarded. Please explain how a engine would not manage to melt an ice ship, they get extremely hot.

The Brainiac team used a flamethrower on a large block of it. They also shot flame at an identically sized block of ice. The ice melted pretty quickly whilst the ice/wood pulp mix charred a bit but did not melt. The ships design probably would have included some sort of heat insulation.

Quote from: akira on April 05, 2007, 01:53:37 AM

our knowledge and brain is too limited to know what created God himself. but I'm just saying, it makes more sense believing that something created this whole universe, rather than believing the chance of it built on its own.

Seconded. Just my personal opinion.

It doesnt melt for 2 reasons working in tandem.
1. Water has a very impressive heat index.
2. Water is a conductor.

This means you aren't just melting some of the ice, but effectively the whole ship at once (to a degree).

Ice ship idea is stupid. My proof? No one has done it yet. It's been around for 50 years, lots of people know about it, no one has bothered to try it.

Ice ship idea is stupid. My proof? No one has done it yet. It's been around for 50 years, lots of people know about it, no one has bothered to try it.

It does seem silly, but there were working prototypes. Regardless, it is only an example, not the focus of the thread.

Pure water is not a conducter, granted, pure water does not exist.

Agreed, but salt water is actually a good conductor.

I'll offer a response to question number 1, about the ice wall.

The "ice wall" is an unofficial FE explanation about the configuration of the Flat Earth.  The FES has not settled officially on where the The Edge of the Flat Earth exists, but using a 19th century Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map (similar to the map in the UN flag), with Antarctica spread all around the rim of the map, some FEers have postulated that Antarctica, instead of being an island-like continent is  spread thin around the rim of a circular Flat Earth, and that the icy coast that appears on much of Antarctica's shore is a barrier to further exploration - they even suppose that it is a barrier deliberately fortified with troops and garrisons to keep visitors and explorers out of Antarctica.

There are some problems to this notion.  While those snowy cliffs appear in a lot of photographs, they are not continuous around Antarctica and they are not stable.  There are considerable patches of the Antarctic shore where there are no snowy or icy bluff and the surface simply slopes down to the ocean, enabling the penguins to waddle right into the water, and other places where the snow or ice is only a few feet above the water so that the penguins can dive into and jump out of the water.  Additionally, throughout the years, but especially in the summer months (at the South Pole, that's around December - February), enormous chunks of the shoreline cliffs break off and fall into the ocean.  People who have been to Antarctica are very consistent - there are no troops there, no garrisons, no fortifications of the shorelines.  The only thing that discourages explorers is common sense -- the climate is always very hostile, with no plants or game animals (apart from penguins and some other sea birds - none of them appetizing), and Antarctica being almost the size of North America, with only about two or three dozen occupied communities, mostly research stations, widely scattered, and ill-prepared to mount rescue missions or accommodate unexpected guests.  Even so there are always at least 150 humans in Antarctica at the various research stations plus some photographers and explorers.

In any case there have been plenty of ships that have completely circumnavigated Antarctica, proving that it cannot be surrounding the rim of a flat planet.  In fact, there are one or two ocean liners scheduling such circumnavigations every year (it takes about 6 weeks), with plenty of stops to annoy the penguins.