why an ice "wall"

hi, im new here, and i just wanted to know, why is it that the FE theory advances a "wall"?

Why isnt it just assumed that beyond this wall is more... ice?  And if this is the case, coudlnt there be more regions of this vast disk where there is liveable conditions?  The FE theory seems to say (correct me if im wrong) that the sun keeps us from freezing (just like the RE theory).

so, if the sun isnt at the ice wall as much, or beyond it, why isnt it assumed.

The wall is what holds the oceans and atmosphere in.


Some theorize that the Flat Earth is an infinite plane.  Problem is the sun only circles the inner middle part where we all live.  Hence anything passed the ice wall is too cold to sustain life.

The wall is what holds the oceans and atmosphere in.


Some theorize that the Flat Earth is an infinite plane.  Problem is the sun only circles the inner middle part where we all live.  Hence anything passed the ice wall is too cold to sustain life.

Ummm no. There can exist life where there is no sunlight at all. There have just been discovered life 30.000 kilometres below the ocean, where there is no oxygen, sun or plants and a ton pressure pr 1 cm^3.
And do you really think a couple thousand kilometers is going to matter that much, when it is above the surface? It's not like the sun actually WON't shine over there...

Infinitely outward? 

Infinitely outward? 

What? Please explain further, I do not get what you mean.

What im saying is, life as we know it exists in a temperate zone.  Both in RET and FET.  If the flat earth truly is an infinite plane there is no way the sun shines all the way outward because of its current orbit.  Hence, no liquid water, no life. 

Life can exist on the ocean floor because there is energy there in the form of geothermal emission.  In a hypothetical ice-world beyond the "ice wall", there is no energy source, ergo no life.

Life can exist on the ocean floor because there is energy there in the form of geothermal emission.  In a hypothetical ice-world beyond the "ice wall", there is no energy source, ergo no life.

That depends on how far out on the "ice wall" you get. You can go thousands of kilometres while there would still be life and you would still be able to see the sun. It will only be once you go millions of kilometres that there might be too cold.
But it is also pretty stupid to expect that no life at all would have went up to the ice wall, since there is life everywhere else on this planet. There would be huge scientific break-throughs up there on the ice wall (but ofcourse, there is no ice wall)

If the Earth is indeed an infinite plane I would think it likely that other livable areas exist across the plane, likely an infinite number of them (meaning that there would be an infinite number of  perfect carbon copies of this one - whoa mind-blowing!).  But they're too far for us to have been able to reach thus far.

I don't agree with the infinite plane model, although I do accept it as a possibility.

MisterHamper, I think your estimate of how far out one would have to go before life could no longer be sustained by the sun is far-fetched.  On what did you base it?

Life can't exist without adequate energy.  If there is not enough energy on antarctica to produce life, there can not be life beyond antarctica where there is even less energy.

Unless you are suggesting that there is another sun?

The earth could not be a infinite plane. If it were infinite, it would require infinite energy to accelerate it forward. We wouldn't experience dark energy creating the effects of gravity.

Plus I have also theorized that the ice wall can be at times considered an 'ice battery' since during ice ages it would act more as a storage for water than keeping water from escaping. The name of the ice wall can be confusing since it is named after a function that it was not necessarily 'designed' for. It's like if we were to call clouds water trappers. Clouds happen not for the purpose of collecting water, it is just a phenomena we observe and name.

The earth could not be a infinite plane. If it were infinite, it would require infinite energy to accelerate it forward. We wouldn't experience dark energy creating the effects of gravity.

By assuming that the earth has been, is, and will be accelerating indefinitely, it is assumed that the Dark Energy "cloud" (or whatever the term is) already has infinite energy.  It requires no greater leap to believe that the earth might be infinite.

Unless you believe that the DE might be finite, and the earth might eventually emerge from its state of continual acceleration?

if the earth were an infinite plane, you wouldnt need acceleration to cause gravity, you would just need it to be affected by laws of gravity.

an infinite plane with finite depth produces a gravitational field that does not vary with height.

Quote from: grogberries on May 16, 2009, 09:55:54 PM

The earth could not be a infinite plane. If it were infinite, it would require infinite energy to accelerate it forward. We wouldn't experience dark energy creating the effects of gravity.

By assuming that the earth has been, is, and will be accelerating indefinitely, it is assumed that the Dark Energy "cloud" (or whatever the term is) already has infinite energy.  It requires no greater leap to believe that the earth might be infinite.

Unless you believe that the DE might be finite, and the earth might eventually emerge from its state of continual acceleration?

We had a member who claimed that he had worked out that an infinite plane wouldn't even require infinite energy.  I'm not sure why he saw it as an issue because if you're going to believe infinite matter to be possible you might as well believe the same about infinite energy.

I think it more likely that there is both finite matter and finite energy.  Therefore I do feel that the acceleration from DE is slowing down, just at such a slow rate as to be imperceptible, and will eventually stop (but probably not for billions of years).

If a meteor crashes into earth and shoots no matter into space, does the mass of earth become infinity + 1? It is rather absurd to think the mass of the earth is infinite. No one says the earth has to accelerate forever. It doesn't change the fact that we are accelerating right now.

its not really that absurd.  It doesnt have to extend out into infinity either, as it could just extend out far enough for the approximation to take effect.  The more important thing is the uniform density/depth, which a meteor crashing into earth might distort a little, but it wouldnt make an overall difference.

The wall needs to be there to prevent the overflowing of the oceans.

well, what i meant to imply was that there could be something on the other side. 

Maybe a secret lab!!!!   j/k, but something, maybe it just continues for a while as an ice mountain range.

The wall needs to be there to prevent the overflowing of the oceans.

So its entire existence is due only to being able to keep the FET alive? What empirical evidence do you have of its existence?

it would be similar to dark matter, it's existance is only theorized because its the only thing that makes sense.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 20, 2009, 07:05:23 AM

The wall needs to be there to prevent the overflowing of the oceans.

So its entire existence is due only to being able to keep the FET alive? What empirical evidence do you have of its existence?

the same reason that antarctica is frozen over. no sun=frozen water. the wall exists because the sun does not melt it.

oh, i thought his question was about the height.

Quote from: echa on May 20, 2009, 05:43:44 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 20, 2009, 07:05:23 AM

The wall needs to be there to prevent the overflowing of the oceans.

So its entire existence is due only to being able to keep the FET alive? What empirical evidence do you have of its existence?

the same reason that antarctica is frozen over. no sun=frozen water. the wall exists because the sun does not melt it.

Antarctica still gets sun light, but it is the amount of sun light that matters.