Seven Topics of Confusion

This is my first post here, and I am a RE'r. So I would like some explanations for the following 7 subjects:

Santa Claus
I've read through quite alot of the topics, and one that primarily strikes me as odd is the idea of an "Ice Wall" that prevents water from flowing off the Earth. And one of the most ignorant things that I've seen from it is the idea that "Because you can't prove that it DOESN'T exist, it must be there". So therotically, and by that logic, doesn't Santa Claus also exist? How come an Ice Wall can be there because we can't prove it but not Santa Claus? Or the Sasquatch? If I told you that there was a whale doing jumping jacks outside of my house right now, would I be able to reasonably say that it is true because you can't prove otherwise?

Venus
According to what I've gathered, every planet except the Earth is still a globe. But what strikes me as odd is how come we can't see Venus every night then? Surely, if the Earth is at the center and the others revolving around it, we would always be able to see it wouldn't we? Along with all the other planets? Another thing that also pertains to this is the idea of the Earth always moving upwards at a constant velocity. How come we don't pass by all the other planets and stars and hit smack dab straight into the Sun? And if everything moves upwards at the same rate then how come we can't always see all the planets? We've had cases here on Earth already where Venus was able to be seen, but only for a limited time. I would like to know how that is explained by a Flat Earther. To further back up my claim, Venus should be technically between the Sun and Earth, or only slightly further back from the Sun. It should always be visible.

Sun Heat
According to the diagrams of the Flat Earth, the sun is only 32 miles in diameter and goes in a circle-like motion across the globe providing light. But how does this small star manage to bring heat to the entire planet? How come places that are not currently being lit by the sun don't completely freeze until it comes back? Unlike a Round Earth theory, the sun is not near big enough to heat up a large portion of the Earth at a time since then they would always have light. The Round Earth Theory allows a location to have heat for about 14 hours, giving it ample time to retain the heat before morning comes. How does that work in a Flat Earth Theory where it would be more around 20 hours due to the size of the sun?

Earth Tide Wobble
I read inside of the FAQ that tides are caused by a see-saw effect from Earthquakes. But how the entire Earth does not feel the effect of this when it happens, and only certiain parts? On that note, the swing obviously is NOT too weak to be noticeable because that would be unable to explain tsunamis.

Volcanos
By the Flat EArth theory, how would it be possible for their to be enough space for the Earth's Core, which is the only explanation for how volcanos form? Considering how thin the planet is by it, I do not see how there would be enough room to carry out the processes, not to mention that it requires a core because otherwise there can be no magma.

Space Shuttle Deaths
Many families were on the ground floor when the Challenger exploded into the air and left all the astronauts inside dead. There is no way the government could possibily have gathered all of them and made a conspiracy with them. How do you explain the eye-witness accounts of shuttles going into space which entire crowds of people always see, along with everybody on LIVE television?

Constellations
How do constellations work? If the Earth is always stationary, shouldn't we always be able to see the same constellation patterns every single night? Currently, you can only see certain stars on certain months but how can that happen by the Flat Earth Theory?

Have fun 

Lurk more.  Read the FAQ (it won't help much, but it's a start).  Lurk moar.  Use the search (it's a bit of a pain, but most all of your points have been discussed to death before).  LURK MOAR!! 

I did do a search. These were the results of my endeavor

Santa - Very few topics, with no detailed discussions

Venus - Very few topics, with no detailed discussions

Sun Heat - Very few topics, with no detailed discussions

Tides - Many discussions about the actual idea of tides, but not about the theory that is proposed

Volcanoes - Many about how volcanoes work, but none on the Earth's Core

Space Shuttle Deaths - Many on the actual shuttles, but not on the deaths

Constellations - Very few topics, with no detailed discussions and a "gears in the sky" theory.

That didn't really help answer my questions.

Santa Claus: Lots of people have seen the ice wall.  Its existence is not disputed.

Venus: I think when it's closest to the sun, which is most of the time, it's not visible.  Sometimes it breaks just far enough away that you can see it.

Sun Heat: Obviously the FE sun doesn't generate energy in the same way as the RE sun.

Earth Tide Wobble: I don't agree with this particular theory.  Exactly what causes the tides is unknown, but some here have theorized that the moon is exerting a slight gravitational pull, and there might be another body underneath the earth that is also exerting a pull on the oceans.

Volcanoes: I'm not sure where you got the idea the FE is so thin.  You're incorrect.

Space Shuttle Deaths: Nobody saw the Challenger go into space.

Constellations: This one I'm not sure about.  Maybe someone with a better understanding of FE astronomy will come along and help.

Volcanoes: I'm not sure where you got the idea the FE is so thin.  You're incorrect.

Probably from this very site like I did.



or possibly from many of the diagrams/models depicting what the artist/creator feels the flat earth looks like.





I could go on, but i'll leave it at that.

Those are not to scale.

Santa Claus isn't believed in by all, or at least by the vast majority of FEers as he isn't required for the model to work.

Venus is also a puzzle to me on FE model as well. I honestly can't work out what it's doing. As a side note, Venus is a wonderful thing to observe around this time. You'll be able to see it up to around 3 hours after sunset, easy to spot as it's by far the brightest thing in the sky after the Sun and Moon. A sufficiently powerful pair or binoculars or telescope may even be able to bring out it's half moon shape, and it will get even larger and easier to resolve as it moves closer to us in it's orbit and changes to a crescent shape. You may even be able to spot Uranus close by, if you know where to look, or check over a number of days to find which point of light is the slowly moving one.

Nobody knows how the sun works, it's just another thing FEers have to assume happens to make their model work. Same with tides.

I think the FE model planet is assumed to have a sufficiently large core to make volcanoes work.

The shuttle's assumed to be due to the conspiracy, I guess.

The constellations are due to more unknown forces spinning everything round above us.

Santa Claus: Lots of people have seen the ice wall.  Its existence is not disputed.

Venus: I think when it's closest to the sun, which is most of the time, it's not visible.  Sometimes it breaks just far enough away that you can see it.

Sun Heat: Obviously the FE sun doesn't generate energy in the same way as the RE sun.

Earth Tide Wobble: I don't agree with this particular theory.  Exactly what causes the tides is unknown, but some here have theorized that the moon is exerting a slight gravitational pull, and there might be another body underneath the earth that is also exerting a pull on the oceans.

Volcanoes: I'm not sure where you got the idea the FE is so thin.  You're incorrect.

Space Shuttle Deaths: Nobody saw the Challenger go into space.

Constellations: This one I'm not sure about.  Maybe someone with a better understanding of FE astronomy will come along and help.

It's called Antarctica and you can walk all
the way across it. There are no freaking guards,
just blasted penguins and seals. No conspiracy,
just idiocy.

The solar system is heliocentric, we proved
that long ago. We see Venus when it visits us
along it's path around the sun.

Really? All your sun theory makes absolute
nonsense. The sun fires particles at light speed
with disintegrate anything it makes contact with
but since the Earth has a magnetic core and pores,
it makes a magnetic field through which they can
not enter besides the poles themselves creating
the solar winds because the particles make
contact with the particles in our atmosphere
proving RE theory. Got it?

The moon has a gravitational pull on the
Earth and the water rises as a result of that.

In FE, what heats the internal
Earth then to create magma?
What about plate tectonics?
Conspiracy?

*sigh*

Constellations are stars that are
millions and millions of miles away
from each other and are not in the
same plane as the other stars in their
constellation. How FE would see the
change in constellation would be an
oddity.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 20, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

Santa Claus: Lots of people have seen the ice wall.  Its existence is not disputed.

Venus: I think when it's closest to the sun, which is most of the time, it's not visible.  Sometimes it breaks just far enough away that you can see it.

Sun Heat: Obviously the FE sun doesn't generate energy in the same way as the RE sun.

Earth Tide Wobble: I don't agree with this particular theory.  Exactly what causes the tides is unknown, but some here have theorized that the moon is exerting a slight gravitational pull, and there might be another body underneath the earth that is also exerting a pull on the oceans.

Volcanoes: I'm not sure where you got the idea the FE is so thin.  You're incorrect.

Space Shuttle Deaths: Nobody saw the Challenger go into space.

Constellations: This one I'm not sure about.  Maybe someone with a better understanding of FE astronomy will come along and help.

It's called Antarctica and you can walk all
the way across it. There are no freaking guards,
just blasted penguins and seals. No conspiracy,
just idiocy.

The solar system is heliocentric, we proved
that long ago. We see Venus when it visits us
along it's path around the sun.

Really? All your sun theory makes absolute
nonsense. The sun fires particles at light speed
with disintegrate anything it makes contact with
but since the Earth has a magnetic core and pores,
it makes a magnetic field through which they can
not enter besides the poles themselves creating
the solar winds because the particles make
contact with the particles in our atmosphere
proving RE theory. Got it?

The moon has a gravitational pull on the
Earth and the water rises as a result of that.

In FE, what heats the internal
Earth then to create magma?
What about plate tectonics?
Conspiracy?

*sigh*

Constellations are stars that are
millions and millions of miles away
from each other and are not in the
same plane as the other stars in their
constellation. How FE would see the
change in constellation would be an
oddity.

Thanks for the input! 

Santa Claus: Lots of people have seen the ice wall.  Its existence is not disputed.

Then why do we not have any photos? I'm sure I could compile a group of kids and they would well be able to say that they have seen Santa before. Does that make it any more true? Heck, I could do the same for the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, or the Whale outside.

Venus: I think when it's closest to the sun, which is most of the time, it's not visible.  Sometimes it breaks just far enough away that you can see it.

Regardless of the validity of this statement, which is difficult to believe since according to FE theory the sun is above us but Venus is off to the side, this fails to explain how come the Earth does not get away from all the other planets and stars, or crash into the sun since it's moving at a constant upwards rate.

Sun Heat: Obviously the FE sun doesn't generate energy in the same way as the RE sun.

Then how would it generate heat? It just doesn't make sense how different objects with the same basic function spread out heat differently. I cannot see any other model besides the timeless one where a star emits heat and light in all directions equally.

Earth Tide Wobble: I don't agree with this particular theory.  Exactly what causes the tides is unknown, but some here have theorized that the moon is exerting a slight gravitational pull, and there might be another body underneath the earth that is also exerting a pull on the oceans.

I can accept that. But I would like an explanation from those who do believe in it.

Volcanoes: I'm not sure where you got the idea the FE is so thin.  You're incorrect.

Perhaps, but if you agree there's a core in the Earth then wouldn't it need to be pretty big in order to prevent everyone from being scorched to death? Not only that, but if the Earth is really thin enough not to be a globe but hold a core, how come the ice cap at the top of the world exists? Wouldn't heat be more concentrated on the areas that are closer to the center of the Earth, and not on the Equator?

Space Shuttle Deaths: Nobody saw the Challenger go into space.

Really now? And the Challenger exploded in midflight, but there is no denying that space shuttles have been able to go into space. These aren't the only times where audiences were present when it was sent into the air. A conspiracy would not explain how the government would be able to stop so many people from telling "the truth", nor would it explain the deaths of the astronauts. Especially since the last time the families, or anybody really, actually saw them were when they entered the shuttle.

Constellations: This one I'm not sure about.  Maybe someone with a better understanding of FE astronomy will come along and help.

Hopefully.

Santa Claus isn't believed in by all, or at least by the vast majority of FEers as he isn't required for the model to work.

No, but it's the actual concept (not Santa Claus) that I am talking about. The mentality if "If you can't prove it doesn't exist and if it's plausible then it does"

Venus is also a puzzle to me on FE model as well. I honestly can't work out what it's doing. As a side note, Venus is a wonderful thing to observe around this time. You'll be able to see it up to around 3 hours after sunset, easy to spot as it's by far the brightest thing in the sky after the Sun and Moon. A sufficiently powerful pair or binoculars or telescope may even be able to bring out it's half moon shape, and it will get even larger and easier to resolve as it moves closer to us in it's orbit and changes to a crescent shape. You may even be able to spot Uranus close by, if you know where to look, or check over a number of days to find which point of light is the slowly moving one.

I think I may have seen Venus once. Pretty impressive like you said. Though the puzzle, as you said, still exists.

Nobody knows how the sun works, it's just another thing FEers have to assume happens to make their model work. Same with tides.

But isn't this somewhat like blind faith, one of the core concepts that a Flat Earth Theorist is trying to stop?

I think the FE model planet is assumed to have a sufficiently large core to make volcanoes work.

I already addressed this to the other responder. The same questions apply here.

The shuttle's assumed to be due to the conspiracy, I guess.

I already responded about the conspiracy idea in the other poster's response quote.

The constellations are due to more unknown forces spinning everything round above us.

Already addressed this as being somewhat too similar to blind faith.

Then why do we not have any photos? I'm sure I could compile a group of kids and they would well be able to say that they have seen Santa before. Does that make it any more true? Heck, I could do the same for the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, or the Whale outside.

We do have photos of the Antarctic coast and the 150 foot wall of ice which surrounds it.

http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg

Regardless of the validity of this statement, which is difficult to believe since according to FE theory the sun is above us but Venus is off to the side, this fails to explain how come the Earth does not get away from all the other planets and stars, or crash into the sun since it's moving at a constant upwards rate.

The sun and stars are also accelerating upwards.

Then how would it generate heat? It just doesn't make sense how different objects with the same basic function spread out heat differently. I cannot see any other model besides the timeless one where a star emits heat and light in all directions equally.

Electron Degeneracy Pressure.

I can accept that. But I would like an explanation from those who do believe in it.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Perhaps, but if you agree there's a core in the Earth then wouldn't it need to be pretty big in order to prevent everyone from being scorched to death? Not only that, but if the Earth is really thin enough not to be a globe but hold a core, how come the ice cap at the top of the world exists? Wouldn't heat be more concentrated on the areas that are closer to the center of the Earth, and not on the Equator?

The ice cap and antarctic rim exist because the sun's light is coming in at a steep angle, heating up less land per square inch of sunlight.

Really now? And the Challenger exploded in midflight, but there is no denying that space shuttles have been able to go into space. These aren't the only times where audiences were present when it was sent into the air. A conspiracy would not explain how the government would be able to stop so many people from telling "the truth", nor would it explain the deaths of the astronauts. Especially since the last time the families actually saw them were when they entered the shuttle.

Prop malfunction.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 20, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

Santa Claus: Lots of people have seen the ice wall.  Its existence is not disputed.

Then why do we not have any photos?

We do.  Try a more thorough search next time.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 20, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

Venus: I think when it's closest to the sun, which is most of the time, it's not visible.  Sometimes it breaks just far enough away that you can see it.

Regardless of the validity of this statement, which is difficult to believe since according to FE theory the sun is above us but Venus is off to the side, this fails to explain how come the Earth does not get away from all the other planets and stars, or crash into the sun since it's moving at a constant upwards rate.

Venus is under the influence of the UA as well.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 20, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

Sun Heat: Obviously the FE sun doesn't generate energy in the same way as the RE sun.

Then how would it generate heat? It just doesn't make sense how different objects with the same basic function spread out heat differently. I cannot see any other model besides the timeless one where a star emits heat and light in all directions equally.

It's unknown how it generates heat.  The distinction you make is arbitrary because we make a lot of assumptions about the sun based on the RE hypothesis that it's 93 million miles away and several hundred times the size of the earth.  And I think it does emit light and heat in all directions equally.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 20, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

Volcanoes: I'm not sure where you got the idea the FE is so thin.  You're incorrect.

Perhaps, but if you agree there's a core in the Earth then wouldn't it need to be pretty big in order to prevent everyone from being scorched to death?

It is.

Not only that, but if the Earth is really thin enough not to be a globe but hold a core, how come the ice cap at the top of the world exists? Wouldn't heat be more concentrated on the areas that are closer to the center of the Earth, and not on the Equator?

I don't follow.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 20, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

Space Shuttle Deaths: Nobody saw the Challenger go into space.

Really now? And the Challenger exploded in midflight, but there is no denying that space shuttles have been able to go into space. These aren't the only times where audiences were present when it was sent into the air. A conspiracy would not explain how the government would be able to stop so many people from telling "the truth", nor would it explain the deaths of the astronauts. Especially since the last time the families actually saw them were when they entered the shuttle.

They might be able to make it into space but they can't stay there.  Because of the UA sustained spaceflight is impossible.

Quote

Then why do we not have any photos? I'm sure I could compile a group of kids and they would well be able to say that they have seen Santa before. Does that make it any more true? Heck, I could do the same for the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, or the Whale outside.

We do have photos of the Antarctic coast and the 150 foot wall of ice which surrounds it.

http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg

Quote

Regardless of the validity of this statement, which is difficult to believe since according to FE theory the sun is above us but Venus is off to the side, this fails to explain how come the Earth does not get away from all the other planets and stars, or crash into the sun since it's moving at a constant upwards rate.

The sun and stars are also accelerating upwards.

Quote

Then how would it generate heat? It just doesn't make sense how different objects with the same basic function spread out heat differently. I cannot see any other model besides the timeless one where a star emits heat and light in all directions equally.

Electron Degeneracy Pressure.

Quote

I can accept that. But I would like an explanation from those who do believe in it.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

Perhaps, but if you agree there's a core in the Earth then wouldn't it need to be pretty big in order to prevent everyone from being scorched to death? Not only that, but if the Earth is really thin enough not to be a globe but hold a core, how come the ice cap at the top of the world exists? Wouldn't heat be more concentrated on the areas that are closer to the center of the Earth, and not on the Equator?

The ice cap and antarctic rim exist because the sun's light is coming in at a steep angle, heating up less land per square inch of sunlight.

Quote

Really now? And the Challenger exploded in midflight, but there is no denying that space shuttles have been able to go into space. These aren't the only times where audiences were present when it was sent into the air. A conspiracy would not explain how the government would be able to stop so many people from telling "the truth", nor would it explain the deaths of the astronauts. Especially since the last time the families actually saw them were when they entered the shuttle.

Prop malfunction.

1. That is Antarctica, which there is no end to.

2. Do other world have a similar concept of gravity to RE?

3. It's called Nuclear Fission.
How do you explain star life cycle?

4. What?

5. You say the Earth is flat. Everyone everywhere
will be able to see the sun at every time of the day.
With a sun sitting directly above Earth like how you
say, it would be catastrophic to your "ice wall" theory.

6. Sure

Quote

Perhaps, but if you agree there's a core in the Earth then wouldn't it need to be pretty big in order to prevent everyone from being scorched to death? Not only that, but if the Earth is really thin enough not to be a globe but hold a core, how come the ice cap at the top of the world exists? Wouldn't heat be more concentrated on the areas that are closer to the center of the Earth, and not on the Equator?

The ice cap and antarctic rim exist because the sun's light is coming in at a steep angle, heating up less land per square inch of sunlight.

I did some sums regarding this. Assuming an average temperature of 85 F at the equator where the Sun's rays are perpendicular to the Earth, at the angle the Sun's rays hit the Earth at the ice wall the same amount of energy would be spread out such that the average temperature would be about -360 F or 55 K. At this temperature nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, methane, krypton, nitrous oxide, xenon, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, iodine, carbon monoxide, ammonia and water are all frozen solid. Oxygen melts at ~54 K, so on a cold day at the ice wall it'd be frozen solid, on a warm day it'd be kinda slushy. Neon, helium and hydrogen would all still be gaseous, but since these only represent 0.002379% of the atmosphere we can mostly ignore them. After 4.5 billion years of pretty much every gas in the atmosphere freezing or liquifying at the ice wall, what do we all breathe?

After 4.5 billion years of pretty much every gas in the atmosphere freezing or liquifying at the ice wall, what do we all breathe?

Air.

Quote from: cracrat on January 22, 2009, 02:01:23 AM

After 4.5 billion years of pretty much every gas in the atmosphere freezing or liquifying at the ice wall, what do we all breathe?

Air.

Where does this air come from though if it is continually freezing to the ice wall? Surely you're not suggesting there is mystical source that continually replenishes the atmosphere/layer are you?

Why do you think all the air would freeze to the ice wall?  I don't know if you did your math right or not but for the sake of arguement I understand what you you mean about freezing near the icewall, but why everywhere?

Why do you think all the air would freeze to the ice wall?  I don't know if you did your math right or not but for the sake of arguement I understand what you you mean about freezing near the icewall, but why everywhere?

Simply because gases will expand to fill the available space. As they condense on to the ice wall, the pressure there will drop slightly  and gases from the "high" pressure areas away from the ice wall will redistribute themselves to fill this void. These in turn will freeze and more gases will fill the void and so on and so on. Added to this that at some point air pressure would drop sufficiently to allow the oceans to boil at 20 C (about 40 Torr, or 1/20 of standard atmospheric pressure according to the nomograph from the lab), and this vapour in turn would freeze to the ice wall too. Once the oceans are gone, there is no mechanism for distributing the Sun's energy around the world so there would be no way of the atmospheric gasses defrosting from the ice wall. I have no idea how to do the sums to work out how long the whole process would take, but eventually most of the atmospheric gases and the oceans too would have condensed onto the ice wall. The Earth would look like a very dry rocky plain with a dirty great wall of frozen stuff round the outside, shaped such that the Sun's ray no part of it strongly enough to melt it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2009, 02:29:03 PM

Quote

Perhaps, but if you agree there's a core in the Earth then wouldn't it need to be pretty big in order to prevent everyone from being scorched to death? Not only that, but if the Earth is really thin enough not to be a globe but hold a core, how come the ice cap at the top of the world exists? Wouldn't heat be more concentrated on the areas that are closer to the center of the Earth, and not on the Equator?

The ice cap and antarctic rim exist because the sun's light is coming in at a steep angle, heating up less land per square inch of sunlight.

I did some sums regarding this. Assuming an average temperature of 85 F at the equator where the Sun's rays are perpendicular to the Earth, at the angle the Sun's rays hit the Earth at the ice wall the same amount of energy would be spread out such that the average temperature would be about -360 F or 55 K. At this temperature nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, methane, krypton, nitrous oxide, xenon, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, iodine, carbon monoxide, ammonia and water are all frozen solid. Oxygen melts at ~54 K, so on a cold day at the ice wall it'd be frozen solid, on a warm day it'd be kinda slushy. Neon, helium and hydrogen would all still be gaseous, but since these only represent 0.002379% of the atmosphere we can mostly ignore them. After 4.5 billion years of pretty much every gas in the atmosphere freezing or liquifying at the ice wall, what do we all breathe?

Why would you assume it was 85 degrees at the equator?

Quote from: cracrat on January 22, 2009, 02:01:23 AM

After 4.5 billion years of pretty much every gas in the atmosphere freezing or liquifying at the ice wall, what do we all breathe?

Air.

You breathe air? Air is a composition of many
gases. You only need one to live: Oxygen. Reason
why is cells need oxygen to take the carbon out of
them creating CO₂.

Quote from: Robbyj on January 22, 2009, 05:38:03 AM

Why do you think all the air would freeze to the ice wall?  I don't know if you did your math right or not but for the sake of arguement I understand what you you mean about freezing near the icewall, but why everywhere?

Simply because gases will expand to fill the available space. As they condense on to the ice wall, the pressure there will drop slightly  and gases from the "high" pressure areas away from the ice wall will redistribute themselves to fill this void. These in turn will freeze and more gases will fill the void and so on and so on. Added to this that at some point air pressure would drop sufficiently to allow the oceans to boil at 20 C (about 40 Torr, or 1/20 of standard atmospheric pressure according to the nomograph from the lab), and this vapour in turn would freeze to the ice wall too. Once the oceans are gone, there is no mechanism for distributing the Sun's energy around the world so there would be no way of the atmospheric gasses defrosting from the ice wall. I have no idea how to do the sums to work out how long the whole process would take, but eventually most of the atmospheric gases and the oceans too would have condensed onto the ice wall. The Earth would look like a very dry rocky plain with a dirty great wall of frozen stuff round the outside, shaped such that the Sun's ray no part of it strongly enough to melt it.

Eventually it would reach equalibrium.  If you think all of the ocean would eventually freeze to the ice wall, by that logic it would also freeze to the north and south poles.

Quote from: cracrat on January 22, 2009, 06:04:26 AM

Quote from: Robbyj on January 22, 2009, 05:38:03 AM

Why do you think all the air would freeze to the ice wall?  I don't know if you did your math right or not but for the sake of arguement I understand what you you mean about freezing near the icewall, but why everywhere?

Simply because gases will expand to fill the available space. As they condense on to the ice wall, the pressure there will drop slightly  and gases from the "high" pressure areas away from the ice wall will redistribute themselves to fill this void. These in turn will freeze and more gases will fill the void and so on and so on. Added to this that at some point air pressure would drop sufficiently to allow the oceans to boil at 20 C (about 40 Torr, or 1/20 of standard atmospheric pressure according to the nomograph from the lab), and this vapour in turn would freeze to the ice wall too. Once the oceans are gone, there is no mechanism for distributing the Sun's energy around the world so there would be no way of the atmospheric gasses defrosting from the ice wall. I have no idea how to do the sums to work out how long the whole process would take, but eventually most of the atmospheric gases and the oceans too would have condensed onto the ice wall. The Earth would look like a very dry rocky plain with a dirty great wall of frozen stuff round the outside, shaped such that the Sun's ray no part of it strongly enough to melt it.

Eventually it would reach equalibrium.  If you think all of the ocean would eventually freeze to the ice wall, by that logic it would also freeze to the north and south poles.

No. I said that the atmosphere would eventually freeze to the ice wall and in doing so reduce atmospheric pressure. In time, the pressure would become low enough to allow the ocean to boil at ambient temperature. When that happens, the water vapour generated would also freeze to the ice wall. If material from the Earth system is continually being removed by condensing on the ice wall never to return, it can not reach equilibrium until all the volatile materials have been removed.

It depends very much on the formation of the Cambridge flat earth.

We do have photos of the Antarctic coast and the 150 foot wall of ice which surrounds it.

http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg

Firstly...





Am I to assume that these are also the Ice Wall? We have many many pictures of the Earth, yet I only found 2 of this supposed Ice wall that don't look like they came from another location. Why are there so few? Not only that, but if photographic evidence of the Earth cannot be accepted on your end of the argument then I fail to see how come I can validate these as actual proof of it. Finally, how come I've yet to see any person who has said that they have been to the ice wall with evidence as well? Wouldn't there be some kind of news about it?

The sun and stars are also accelerating upwards.

Only two response questions to this one. Firstly, how is the very idea of all the planets and stars moving upwards constantly from some kind of infinite source of energy considered more logical and less blind faith then gravity? Second, it seems that gravity between planets is not disputed at all so I won't argue about that. But I must wonder how come those with less amounts of gravity aren't moving slower then the Earth. Why do all the planets and stars, regardless of how large they are, always move up at the same constant rate shared between them all yet still allow there to be differences in gravity?

Electron Degeneracy Pressure.

"Electron degeneracy pressure occurs when electrons are compressed into a very small volume. Since their positions are well-known, they gain a large momentum in accordance with Heisenberg's  uncertainty principle. This momentum creates a pressure which is temperature-independent and can result in helium flash  in stars.  Electron degeneracy pressure also supports white dwarf stars, and has magnitude "

This does not seem to answer the question about how the sun could generate heat differently then other stars, nor does it answer how it could do it consistently for over millions of years.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

I do not understand the response.

The ice cap and antarctic rim exist because the sun's light is coming in at a steep angle, heating up less land per square inch of sunlight.

This may address the heat from the sun, but not from the actual core which also generates heat. Here's a handy diagram I made.



It was a 5 minute job, but it shows what I am trying to display. Even if the sun rays do not hit the poles correctly, it does not explain why the core doesn't warm them up to barren, hot deserts.

Prop malfunction.

Regardless of whether it was a "prop malfunction" or not, which is EXTREMELY disgraceful to the families who lost their sons and daughters in it, this doesn't discredit the ability of shuttles to get into space. In fact, it only supports it. If this one was a malfunction, then what about the other 123 shuttle launches with crowds beheath them? You cannot logically say the government would be able to brainwash so many people in such a short amount of time. Nor can you discredit the ability of shuttles to make it into space if this one made it so far after a malfunction. We've also had a shuttle that "exploded" on the way down from the atmosphere. How could it have gotten so high if it never made it into space? After all, we can see planes that are only a little lower then that.

We do.  Try a more thorough search next time.

I have addressed this.

Venus is under the influence of the UA as well.

I have addressed this.

It's unknown how it generates heat.  The distinction you make is arbitrary because we make a lot of assumptions about the sun based on the RE hypothesis that it's 93 million miles away and several hundred times the size of the earth.  And I think it does emit light and heat in all directions equally.

It's funny that you all try to discourage the idea of blind faith and agreeing with the masses because you view their ideas as illogical yet fail to provide alternative theories on some very important points. The idea of a 32 mile sun floating above our heads somehow, without much explanation, does not seem to make much sense in comaparison to the idea of a giant one. Of course, this may be my point of view but in both cases there seems to be a lack of "True evidence"

It is.

I don't follow.

Addressed.

Also, I would like to note that neither one you replied to the following four issues:

Blind faith
Constellations
Venus
The Tide Theory (Was addressed with an innapropiate response)

A flat earth would not have a spherical core.

Am I to assume that these are also the Ice Wall? We have many many pictures of the Earth, yet I only found 2 of this supposed Ice wall that don't look like they came from another location. Why are there so few? Not only that, but if photographic evidence of the Earth cannot be accepted on your end of the argument then I fail to see how come I can validate these as actual proof of it. Finally, how come I've yet to see any person who has said that they have been to the ice wall with evidence as well? Wouldn't there be some kind of news about it?

Yes, that is the Ice Wall which boarders the majority of the Antarctic coast. They're also known as Ice Shelves. People have been them and continue to visit them at the coast of Antarctica. And yes, there was news about it when they were discovered... 150 years ago.

Only two response questions to this one. Firstly, how is the very idea of all the planets and stars moving upwards constantly from some kind of infinite source of energy considered more logical and less blind faith then gravity?

Because the upwards acceleration of the earth is directly observable. "Gravity" is not.

"Electron degeneracy pressure occurs when electrons are compressed into a very small volume. Since their positions are well-known, they gain a large momentum in accordance with Heisenberg's  uncertainty principle. This momentum creates a pressure which is temperature-independent and can result in helium flash  in stars.  Electron degeneracy pressure also supports white dwarf stars, and has magnitude "

This does not seem to answer the question about how the sun could generate heat differently then other stars, nor does it answer how it could do it consistently for over millions of years.

It says right in your quote that Electron Degeneracy Pressure supports dwarf stars in your model.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2009, 02:29:03 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

I do not understand the response.

I'm pretty sure it means to consult the book Earth Not a Globe.

This may address the heat from the sun, but not from the actual core which also generates heat. Here's a handy diagram I made.

It was a 5 minute job, but it shows what I am trying to display. Even if the sun rays do not hit the poles correctly, it does not explain why the core doesn't warm them up to barren, hot deserts.

What?

Regardless of whether it was a "prop malfunction" or not, which is EXTREMELY disgraceful to the families who lost their sons and daughters in it, this doesn't discredit the ability of shuttles to get into space. In fact, it only supports it. If this one was a malfunction, then what about the other 123 shuttle launches with crowds beheath them? You cannot logically say the government would be able to brainwash so many people in such a short amount of time. Nor can you discredit the ability of shuttles to make it into space if this one made it so far after a malfunction. We've also had a shuttle that "exploded" on the way down from the atmosphere. How could it have gotten so high if it never made it into space? After all, we can see planes that are only a little lower then that.

No one is disputing that the shuttle goes up into the air until its out of sight. Hitler's V2 rocket also went straight up into the air until it was out of sight, and it never went into space.

After WWII the nazi mastermind behind the V2 was made the administrator of NASA, by the way.

It says right in your quote that Electron Degeneracy Pressure supports dwarf stars in your model.

Only if you assume that gravity exists, and only if you assume that it was a large ball several million kilometres across for several million years beforehand.

Also the problem that electron degeneracy pressure doesn't generate huge amounts of heat and light, leaving us back at our original problem.

After WWII the nazi mastermind behind the V2 was made the administrator of NASA, by the way.

Godwin's law.

Quote

After WWII the nazi mastermind behind the V2 was made the administrator of NASA, by the way.

Godwin's law.

That is not a comparison to nazi germany, he was an actual nazi.

Quote from: NTheGreat on January 23, 2009, 08:48:03 AM

Quote

After WWII the nazi mastermind behind the V2 was made the administrator of NASA, by the way.

Godwin's law.

That is not a comparison to nazi germany, he was an actual nazi.

What does him having been a Nazi have to do with NASA's fake space program?  Sounds like another attempt to derail the discussion.

Blind faith

I'd like to handle this issue.  We'll call it the "eight topic of confusion".

It is true, blind faith is a persistent presence on these boards that despite our best efforts refuses to go away.  Every day multiple REers post for the first time quite sure that the earth is spherical, but completely unable to support that stance on their own.  Believe me, I detest blind faith in all its forms, from blind adherence to the dogma of Christianity to blind adherence to the dogma of NASA.  I consider it part of my duty to educate these poor lost souls and show them that yes, plausible alternatives do exist.  Just examine the evidence and see that despite what you've been told by people you trust all your life, there are other possibilities.  You don't have to be lost anymore; you can be found.  You don't have to be blind anymore; you can see.

Quote from: Aqua Dragon on January 22, 2009, 02:47:28 PM

Blind faith

I'd like to handle this issue.  We'll call it the "eight topic of confusion".

It is true, blind faith is a persistent presence on these boards that despite our best efforts refuses to go away.  Every day multiple REers post for the first time quite sure that the earth is spherical, but completely unable to support that stance on their own.  Believe me, I detest blind faith in all its forms, from blind adherence to the dogma of Christianity to blind adherence to the dogma of NASA.  I consider it part of my duty to educate these poor lost souls and show them that yes, plausible alternatives do exist.  Just examine the evidence and see that despite what you've been told by people you trust all your life, there are other possibilities.  You don't have to be lost anymore; you can be found.  You don't have to be blind anymore; you can see.

I agree on this, but if you follow your own rules you must admit that with all the evidence FOR a round earth compared to a flat earth, it is most likely that the earth is round. I know that you don't believe in a mystical shadow object, a huge conspiracy, the fantastic bendy light theory and the sci-fi atmoshield (Which is probably been inspired from a computer game). There are too much holes in all of these theories, no, hypothesis, that per now they can't be used to prove anything. They should all be dismissed until they've been backed up with more evidence.