There is no ice wall security and no ice wall (proof here)

Occams razor definatly does not fit, there is many places in which Occams razor actually favors FE.  

Like gravity, continual linear acceleration is much simpler than RE's definition, where noone can even say why gravity occurs

I think much of it depends on what one would consider believable. Saying the disc is moving through space and continually accelerating seems to be beyond belief.

Noone can say why Gravity exists? Well we can say why it exists, as well as the fact how it exists. The actual gravity waves are a mystery just like light waves (or particles), yet we know that light exists as we can see it.

Also, I believe Occam's Razor would be traumatized with the Moon and Sun being small discs rotating in unison above the disc while constantly accelerating. You have your beliefs, and I have mine, but I think the simplest explanation is the Earth is round. Everything fits, or almost fits anyway, certainly more 'fittable' than the FE theory.

The biggest difference between FE theory and RE theory is FE relies on the conspiracy for many of it's arguments.

I think much of it depends on what one would consider believable. Saying the disc is moving through space and continually accelerating seems to be beyond belief.

At one time the notion that Jupiter has moons was beyond belief.  What's beyond belief for some might be perfectly mundane for others.

Noone can say why Gravity exists? Well we can say why it exists, as well as the fact how it exists.

Please, enlighten us.

The actual gravity waves are a mystery just like light waves (or particles),

As a matter of fact, gravity waves are in no way mysterious.  They are a direct corollary of the field equations of general realtivity.

The thing that's a mystery is: how does mass generate the gravitational field? (in Newtonian theory) or how do matter and energy cause spacetime to be curved? (in GR)

You have your beliefs, and I have mine, but I think the simplest explanation is the Earth is round.

Ah, the classic abuse of Occam's Razor: both parties to the debate claim that Occam's Razor supports there side.

At one time the notion that Jupiter has moons was beyond belief.  What's beyond belief for some might be perfectly mundane for others.

At one time it was theorized that men could sail off the edge, although this couldn't happen for either FE or RE. In FE they would come up against the ice wall. In either case, we know we can't sail off the world now. Our technology has evolved to allow us to realize we are safe in that regard. We have explored the planet. Sure Jupiter has moons, although Jupiter spins on it's axis as does it's moons as they orbit, to me that is mundane.

Please, enlighten us.

First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?

Mountains exert gravitational force. If one were to hang a weight on a string it would not be perpendicular to the ground and would in fact hang off center in favor of the mountain.

Ah, the classic abuse of Occam's Razor: both parties to the debate claim that Occam's Razor supports there side.

Ah the classic response to the conspiracy theory: When yours cannot be proven, cast doubt on everything we know and believe, including the thousands of scientists, politicians {well I suppose anyone could create uncertainty with that group } historians and their families.

When solid answers, not just proof, can be provided to many of the outstanding questions my previous statement stands. "The biggest difference between FE theory and RE theory is FE relies on the conspiracy for many of it's arguments."

What I am really interested in knowing, do you actually believe the FE theory? Or do you just debate this for pure argument's sake? I believe in free-flowing thought and discussion as there is no other way for the human race to progress with out it.

I also have to believe that things we understand today can be disproven tomorrow. I may not like it, but it has to be accepted if it can be proven. How often have we heard doctors say one thing is bad for you and then a few years later change their stance?

Earth's history is full of misconceptions which are then corrected later. But I still believe the Earth is round, til proven otherwise.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Please, enlighten us.

First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?

Mountains exert gravitational force. If one were to hang a weight on a string it would not be perpendicular to the ground and would in fact hang off center in favor of the mountain.

He didn't mean tell us how gravity causes matter to interact.  
Specifically:

Noone can say why Gravity exists? Well we can say why it exists, as well as the fact how it exists.

His response:

The thing that's a mystery is: how does mass generate the gravitational field? (in Newtonian theory) or how do matter and energy cause spacetime to be curved? (in GR)

Which you said can be explained.  I am very interested!

In either case, we know we can't sail off the world now.

Irrelevant.  The point is that what seems beyond belief to you is of no consequence for what is actually true.

First of all Gravity is not a constant. ...

Irrelevant.  You have merely explained the mechanics of what gravity does, not why it exists in the first place.

Which you said can be explained.  I am very interested!

No you misunderstand, I cannot explain that. How about someone answer my questions/comments rather than debate a miscommunication. Or does this site focus on disinformation rather than tackle the real argument?

The Antarctic Ocean is 14 500 feet deep. That is an extrodinary amount of pressure if applied to ice.

As a matter of fact, gravity waves are in no way mysterious.

I think they are very mysterious, like everything else in the Universe...


Soon we will find out how deep the ice is anyways: http://www.spacemart.com/reports/European_Satellite_Cryosat_To_Measure_Ice_Depth_In_Antarctic.html

Quote from: "Erasmus"

As a matter of fact, gravity waves are in no way mysterious.

I think they are very mysterious, like everything else in the Universe...

Gravity waves are not mysterious in the same way that Phoenix believes gravity itself is not mysterious: their dynamics and causes are well-known.

At 13 000 - 16 000 feet below the surface, the ice wall would crack, no matter how thick. The cracks would start at the edge and eventually would be able to crack open the entire wall.

At 13 000 - 16 000 feet below the surface, the ice wall would crack, no matter how thick. The cracks would start at the edge and eventually would be able to crack open the entire wall.

Stop going in cricles.  We already reached an impasse on this issue, in which we said, "Your method of computing pressures is wrong, and doesn't even agree with your 'Challenger Deep' evidence, whereas ours does." and you ... don't seem to have gotten back to us on that.  Now, again, you're merely throwing out claims about whatice would and would not do under conditions that we know you misunderstand, with no justification whatsoever.

and you ... don't seem to have gotten back to us on that.....

Yeah, I can say the same after my long winded posting.....

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

At 13 000 - 16 000 feet below the surface, the ice wall would crack, no matter how thick. The cracks would start at the edge and eventually would be able to crack open the entire wall.

Stop going in cricles.  We already reached an impasse on this issue, in which we said, "Your method of computing pressures is wrong, and doesn't even agree with your 'Challenger Deep' evidence, whereas ours does." and you ... don't seem to have gotten back to us on that.  Now, again, you're merely throwing out claims about whatice would and would not do under conditions that we know you misunderstand, with no justification whatsoever.

I've remade my argument just as the flat Earth argument has been remade.

"The Southern Ocean is located in the Southern Hemisphere at 4,000 to 5,000 meters (13,000 to 16,000 ft) deep."

-http://Wikipedia.org (Antarctic Ocean)

Calculate the pressure of the water 14 500 feet down. How can you say that the ice would remain solid down that far? In fact, I've found an argument so delicious I had to make a new thread for it... See you at http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=31841.

Calculate the pressure of the water 14 500 feet down.

14,500 ft. is 4,419.6 meters, which is about 442 atmospheres or 44.2 MPa or 6188 psi.

How can you say that the ice would remain solid down that far?

I don't know.  According to this triple-point phase diagram for water, at 44 MPa water is solid below -10°C.

If water that deep is not cold enough, I guess it must be that far enough down there is rock instead of ice.  I don't see, however, how this is particularly damning to the theory, despite what your fans in your "delicious" new thread think.

I see the problem here, FE theorists argue what is arguable, but when it's not arguable they seem to ignore it. I've gone through a few threads and they seem to focus entirely on how something was worded rather than actually debating the issue.

I originally came here to intellectually discuss the possibilities, but I can see that won't happen. There just isn't enough proof for FE, so instead of any of the FE's arguing a valid point, they sidestep the issue and concentrate on something irrelevent. This is not scientific process.

I don't know.  According to this triple-point phase diagram for water, at 44 MPa water is solid below -10°C.

strange. you will use a phase diagram but presumably you think gravity does not exist. how do you know that phase diagrams are not part of the Conspiracy?

In that case, How do we know that you are not part of the conspiracy and that you should not be banned for spying huh?

Mostly those kind of things i woud say are of no help to the conspiracy and therefore would not need to be faked

I've gone through a few threads and they seem to focus entirely on how something was worded rather than actually debating the issue.

Slander.

Science requires a great deal of clarity in writing.  In order to determine exactly what is being asked, the question must be clear.

As long as the question is clear, I will attempt to address the content, and not the wording.

Slander you claim, well I had posted the question and it was ignored. I have read a few other posts and you chose to ignore the question or sidestep it rather than answer it. Yes clarity is required, however both sides should work on clarification. If you don't understand something, ASK.

From my previous post: "First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?"

Or shall the argument about how I worded something continue?

I believe that mountains and valleys are already formed, its not like a little push from anything can topple them too easily.

but then again, I  cannot claim to understand the forces you are talking about too well

you will use a phase diagram but presumably you think gravity does not exist. how do you know that phase diagrams are not part of the Conspiracy?

See, and I thought I was being generous.

If you want to suggest that phase diagrams are part of the conspiracy, go right ahead.  If they're invalid, then Ubuntu's claims are totally without merit, since there'd be no reason to believe that ice would melt under the pressures he's describing.

All I was saying is that if phase diagrams for water are accurate then water of a sufficently low temperature will be solid, even at 14,500 ft. below the surface of the ocean.

From my previous post: "First of all Gravity is not a constant. At various places around the world there are slight measurable differences between what is measured. We tend to use the 9.8 m/s as a generalization. So if we are to assume we are on an accelerating disc, then the landscape itself beneath our feet would be constantly rising and/or falling to such a degree that valleys and mountains would be forming before our very eyes. Would this not be so?"

I'll just assume you meant "9.8 m/s^s".

And no, this would not be so.  You are referring to tidal effects which in some places (neutron stars and black holes) are strong enough to reshape terrain.  On the (round) Earth, however, they are far too miniscule to raise mountains.  Furthermore, the Flat Earth experiences no tidal effects, so there's no reason to believe that any bits of the Earth would be pulled more than others.

Furthermore, the Flat Earth experiences no tidal effects.

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

OK, so you do believe in gravity for other objects? I find this interesting, as you dismiss the possibility of gravity for Earth.

I am using this argument against FE, not for RE. Because according to RE, gravity is caused by mass, the closer you are to it, the greater the pull. Hence why Mt Everest has a lower gravity, but that's not what is at debate here.

Miniscule or not, the variance in force is measured. If the disc is accelerating at a constant velocity, yet we can measure the difference, then the section of earth that is being measured has to be travelling slower or faster than the surrounding region. If it is indeed doing so, then it would be moving.

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

As Phoenix mentioned, the intensity of Earth's gravitational field varies as the inverse square of the distance from the Earth's centre (as long as you're outside the Earth itself, of course). If you place an object in this field, which object has extent in the direction parallel to the Earth's radius, it will experience different gravitational pulls at either end of this extent.

For example, if you place a very small metal sphere (like a ball bearing) someplace in the Earth's gravitational field, then to a very good approximation the entire sphere feels the same gravitational pull.  However, if you place a hundred-mile-long tower in the field, perpendicular to the ground, the "lower" end will experience much stronger gravity than the "upper" end.

For another example, consider the moon's gravitational field.  Now imagine putting a very large rock, covered in water, in a stable orbit in that field (imagine the rock somehow attracts the water to it).  The water on the side closest to the moon will be pulled with the greatest force.  The water on the far side will be pulled with the least force.  The rock itself will be pulled with a force somewhere in between.  The resulting effect will look something like this:



The thickness of the dashed lines indicates the strength of the gravitational pull between the endpoints of the lines; the arrows point to regions of high tide.  If the Green thing is the Earth and the gray thing the moon, the  effect you see is called "tides", and so any similar effect due to experiencing a gradient in a force field is called a "tidal effect".

Furthermore, the Flat Earth experiences no tidal effects.

You said there are no tides!

You said there are no tides!

No gravitational tidal effects.  No effects caused by experiencing the gradient of a gravitational force field.

No effects caused by experiencing the gradient of a gravitational force field? True according to RE, but my previous question of deviations in measurable force across the "disc" still remains unanswered. If one spot records a higher or lower force then the surface must in fact be raising or lowering to account for the deviation in velocity.

If one spot records a higher or lower force then the surface must in fact be raising or lowering to account for the deviation in velocity.

Indeed.  However, you have not demonstrated your antecedent, and so your conclusion is not enforced.

You strive to frustrate others who attempt to make an argument. You say clarity is required, yet you try your best to sidestep or avoid the issue. Say what you will, but slander it is not!

I have a great deal of patience myself, however I find you to be particularly troublesome. I came here to debate, but it seems there's very little of that. Whatever proof is provided to you, is immediately dismissed as conspiracy. Do you really think NASA faked those photos from the '60's? I do not, I live in the real world, the round one!

Any moderator with permissions please remove my account, I won't be needing it anymore. I'm going to try to find another board where scientific reasoning is used, not abused.