New Ice Wall Question

Read this on the FAQ.

Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A1: In the general model, there is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south. Antarctica as a continent does not exist.

If Ice floats on water, how exactly does it hold in the water?  Also, where is your evidence to back this up?

The ice is attached at the bottom.

The ice is attached at the bottom.

The ice is attached to the Earth itself, under water?  Where is your evidence of this?

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 02:34:47 PM

The ice is attached at the bottom.

The ice is attached to the Earth itself, under water?  Where is your evidence of this?

It's self-evident. If the ice were not attached, the oceans would spill away, as you have indicated.

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 02:37:07 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 02:34:47 PM

The ice is attached at the bottom.

The ice is attached to the Earth itself, under water?  Where is your evidence of this?

It's self-evident. If the ice were not attached, the oceans would spill away, as you have indicated.

Well, there is lies the problem with that model.  See water is warmer than ice, otherwise it would be ice.  And we all know what happens when you put ice in water that is even a little warmer than the ice.  It melts.  Even the ice on the coasts of Antarctica melts some.  Eventually this bond you speak of, which you have no evidence of, would weaken and break.  We've all seen videos of ice chunks breaking off and falling into the water.  Once that barrier broke, you water would have to go somewhere.

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 02:59:50 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 02:37:07 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 02:34:47 PM

The ice is attached at the bottom.

The ice is attached to the Earth itself, under water?  Where is your evidence of this?

It's self-evident. If the ice were not attached, the oceans would spill away, as you have indicated.

Well, there is lies the problem with that model.  See water is warmer than ice, otherwise it would be ice.  And we all know what happens when you put ice in water that is even a little warmer than the ice.  It melts.  Even the ice on the coasts of Antarctica melts some.  Eventually this bond you speak of, which you have no evidence of, would weaken and break.  We've all seen videos of ice chunks breaking off and falling into the water.  Once that barrier broke, you water would have to go somewhere.

You realise that the artic is entirely ice? Why hasn't that gone? Also, many people believe it is a mountain range.

That is not the case, because the sea is not homogenously temperate. The further from the path of the Sun water is, the colder it is, to a point at which it freezes. Since the Sun's path traces a locus around the North Pole, it is not particularly surprising that the boundary beyond which Antarctic seawater turns to ice is a similar, broader locus.

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 03:04:19 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 02:59:50 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 02:37:07 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 02:34:47 PM

The ice is attached at the bottom.

The ice is attached to the Earth itself, under water?  Where is your evidence of this?

It's self-evident. If the ice were not attached, the oceans would spill away, as you have indicated.

Well, there is lies the problem with that model.  See water is warmer than ice, otherwise it would be ice.  And we all know what happens when you put ice in water that is even a little warmer than the ice.  It melts.  Even the ice on the coasts of Antarctica melts some.  Eventually this bond you speak of, which you have no evidence of, would weaken and break.  We've all seen videos of ice chunks breaking off and falling into the water.  Once that barrier broke, you water would have to go somewhere.

You realize that the arctic is entirely ice? Why hasn't that gone? Also, many people believe it is a mountain range.

Yes I do.  You will note that the arctic changes size throughout the year.  The ice wall theory, as James put it, is a constant wall of ice permanently bonded to the bottom of the ocean.  I'm simply saying that the temperature difference between said ice and the water would result in weakening of the ice, or at the very least, it's erosion.  And still, no one has provided the evidence I asked for.  Instead you are trying to pick apart my question.  Stop changing the subject and point out the evidence you have to back up the "Ice Wall" claim.

I'm simply saying that the temperature difference between said ice and the water would result in weakening of the ice, or at the very least, it's erosion.

What, are you suggesting this doesn't happen in Antarctica? The splintering and collapse of the Antarctic ice shelves is well documented.

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 03:15:56 PM

I'm simply saying that the temperature difference between said ice and the water would result in weakening of the ice, or at the very least, it's erosion.

What, are you suggesting this doesn't happen in Antarctica? The splintering and collapse of the Antarctic ice shelves is well documented.

I'm not sure where you came up with that, but...   Stop dodging the question.  Where is the evidence of this ice wall being permanently bonding to the seabed?

Don't ask me. I don't believe Antarctica is the ice wall. As for 'where I came up with that', BBC News if I remember correctly. Google is your friend.

Don't ask me. I don't believe Antarctica is the ice wall. As for 'where I came up with that', BBC News if I remember correctly. Google is your friend.

So from the BBC news, you came to the conclusion that I didn't think ice melted in the Antarctic?

The only time in history that the BBC deigned to correctly represent the facts about geological matters was when they interviewed my colleagues and I in 2008. I have found that besides this oasis of truth, the BBC has not been a reliable source of information about the Earth.

Sliver, I am having trouble understanding how your globularist Earth-poles would survive this kind melting either. Don't your enquiries undermine your own beliefs?

The only time in history that the BBC deigned to correctly represent the facts about geological matters was when they interviewed my colleagues and I in 2008. I have found that besides this oasis of truth, the BBC has not been a reliable source of information about the Earth.

Sliver, I am having trouble understanding how your globularist Earth-poles would survive this kind melting either. Don't your enquiries undermine your own beliefs?

Well, first off, you still have not provided the links I asked for.  Second, the north pole has no land mass under it, and melts/refreezes all the time.  It moves somewhat as well, since it's not attached to anything.  Third, Antarctica is a continent, and has a land mass under all the ice, thus preventing it from completely disappearing or moving.  But, then again, you are trying to change the subject.  Instead of backing up the BS in your FAQ, you are trying to pick apart my posts.

Also, many people believe it is a mountain range.

Emphasizing this.

Well, first off, you still have not provided the links I asked for.  Second, the north pole has no land mass under it, and melts/refreezes all the time.  It moves somewhat as well, since it's not attached to anything.  Third, Antarctica is a continent, and has a land mass under all the ice, thus preventing it from completely disappearing or moving.  But, then again, you are trying to change the subject.  Instead of backing up the BS in your FAQ, you are trying to pick apart my posts.

Where is your evidence to back this up?

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:19:45 PM

Well, first off, you still have not provided the links I asked for.  Second, the north pole has no land mass under it, and melts/refreezes all the time.  It moves somewhat as well, since it's not attached to anything.  Third, Antarctica is a continent, and has a land mass under all the ice, thus preventing it from completely disappearing or moving.  But, then again, you are trying to change the subject.  Instead of backing up the BS in your FAQ, you are trying to pick apart my posts.

Where is your evidence to back this up?

The part about Antarctica or the part about you changing the subject?

As for Antarctica... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
And as for you changing the subject, please refer to the first post in this thread, and where our conversation is now.  You can also reference other threads that have been similarly derailed.

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

Its actually one of the most resourceful articles out there. There are moderators and volunteers who keep it clean of vandalism. No matter our own personal views the articles are GENERALLY kept unbiased and use fully resourceable references.
Theres even an article about you guys, it doesnt even call your nut jobs.

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

OK, smart ass.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27068/Antarctica

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

Its actually one of the most resourceful articles out there. There are moderators and volunteers who keep it clean of vandalism. No matter our own personal views the articles are GENERALLY kept unbiased and use fully resourceable references.
Theres even an article about you guys, it doesnt even call your nut jobs.

This is only your opinion. It is a generally accepted standard in the academic community (both zetetic and globularist) that Wikipedia does not meet the requirements of published academic research.

Quote from: dude55 on April 25, 2010, 04:29:03 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

Its actually one of the most resourceful articles out there. There are moderators and volunteers who keep it clean of vandalism. No matter our own personal views the articles are GENERALLY kept unbiased and use fully resourceable references.
Theres even an article about you guys, it doesnt even call your nut jobs.

This is only your opinion. It is a generally accepted standard in the academic community (both zetetic and globularist) that Wikipedia does not meet the requirements of published academic research.

That as well is also  your opinion, as many people consider it quite the resourceful site. (On certain subjects.)

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

OK, smart ass.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27068/Antarctica

Thank you for providing a published document to support your claims. This does indeed make the claim that Anatarctica has land under it, I am in agreement that underneath Antarctica there is solid land. That was actually what I mean when I said "the ice is attached at the bottom" in my first post of this thread.

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:32:48 PM

Quote from: dude55 on April 25, 2010, 04:29:03 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

Its actually one of the most resourceful articles out there. There are moderators and volunteers who keep it clean of vandalism. No matter our own personal views the articles are GENERALLY kept unbiased and use fully resourceable references.
Theres even an article about you guys, it doesnt even call your nut jobs.

This is only your opinion. It is a generally accepted standard in the academic community (both zetetic and globularist) that Wikipedia does not meet the requirements of published academic research.

That as well is also  your opinion, as many people consider it quite the resourceful site. (On certain subjects.)

It is never cited in published academic works because its ambiguous authorship undermines its scholastic integrity. This is not my opinion, this is a fact about the publication of research.

Quote from: dude55 on April 25, 2010, 04:34:03 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:32:48 PM

Quote from: dude55 on April 25, 2010, 04:29:03 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

Its actually one of the most resourceful articles out there. There are moderators and volunteers who keep it clean of vandalism. No matter our own personal views the articles are GENERALLY kept unbiased and use fully resourceable references.
Theres even an article about you guys, it doesnt even call your nut jobs.

This is only your opinion. It is a generally accepted standard in the academic community (both zetetic and globularist) that Wikipedia does not meet the requirements of published academic research.

That as well is also  your opinion, as many people consider it quite the resourceful site. (On certain subjects.)

It is never cited in published academic works because its ambiguous authorship undermines its scholastic integrity. This is not my opinion, this is a fact about the publication of research.

Not many Encylopedias ARE Referenced in academic works. Some? Yes. Alot? No. Mostly because new versions are always brought out. Just as Wikipedia is often updated as information comes out.

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:32:04 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

OK, smart ass.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27068/Antarctica

Thank you for providing a published document to support your claims. This does indeed make the claim that Anatarctica has land under it, I am in agreement that underneath Antarctica there is solid land. That was actually what I mean when I said "the ice is attached at the bottom" in my first post of this thread.

OK, now it's your turn.  Provide a link to published material that proves the existence of the Ice Wall.

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:35:33 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:32:04 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

OK, smart ass.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27068/Antarctica

Thank you for providing a published document to support your claims. This does indeed make the claim that Anatarctica has land under it, I am in agreement that underneath Antarctica there is solid land. That was actually what I mean when I said "the ice is attached at the bottom" in my first post of this thread.

OK, now it's your turn.  Provide a link to published material that proves the existence of the Ice Wall.

Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. pp. 90-91.

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:40:24 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:35:33 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:32:04 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

OK, smart ass.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27068/Antarctica

Thank you for providing a published document to support your claims. This does indeed make the claim that Anatarctica has land under it, I am in agreement that underneath Antarctica there is solid land. That was actually what I mean when I said "the ice is attached at the bottom" in my first post of this thread.

OK, now it's your turn.  Provide a link to published material that proves the existence of the Ice Wall.

Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. pp. 90-91.

Thats not a link to a published material. Thats info for a published material. That might I add is farely out of date. :/

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:43:52 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:40:24 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:35:33 PM

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:32:04 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

OK, smart ass.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27068/Antarctica

Thank you for providing a published document to support your claims. This does indeed make the claim that Anatarctica has land under it, I am in agreement that underneath Antarctica there is solid land. That was actually what I mean when I said "the ice is attached at the bottom" in my first post of this thread.

OK, now it's your turn.  Provide a link to published material that proves the existence of the Ice Wall.

Rowbotham, S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. pp. 90-91.

Thats not a link to a published material. Thats info for a published material. That might I add is farely out of date. :/

Here's the link he was too lazy to post.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za22.htm#page_90
It proves nothing.

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:37:16 PM

Quote from: dude55 on April 25, 2010, 04:34:03 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:32:48 PM

Quote from: dude55 on April 25, 2010, 04:29:03 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 04:27:38 PM

So your evidence is Wikipedia, a publically editable internet encyclopedia? I'm glad to know that you are at the cutting edge of rigorous scholastic research.

Its actually one of the most resourceful articles out there. There are moderators and volunteers who keep it clean of vandalism. No matter our own personal views the articles are GENERALLY kept unbiased and use fully resourceable references.
Theres even an article about you guys, it doesnt even call your nut jobs.

This is only your opinion. It is a generally accepted standard in the academic community (both zetetic and globularist) that Wikipedia does not meet the requirements of published academic research.

That as well is also  your opinion, as many people consider it quite the resourceful site. (On certain subjects.)

It is never cited in published academic works because its ambiguous authorship undermines its scholastic integrity. This is not my opinion, this is a fact about the publication of research.

Not many Encylopedias ARE Referenced in academic works. Some? Yes. Alot? No. Mostly because new versions are always brought out. Just as Wikipedia is often updated as information comes out.

As a 15 year old, which you claim to be, I'm surprised that you've read "a lot" of academic works. It's very laudable. Which journals do you read?

Thats not a link to a published material. Thats info for a published material. That might I add is farely out of date. :/

As I'm sure you know, it is standard practice to offer textual references to published information in this format in support of scholarly arguments. I don't see why providing a web link would give my claims any more efficacy.

It proves nothing.

It offers corroboration. I didn't say it proved the Ice Wall, no written document can do that to your satisfaction, because it is fundamentally an empirical claim about geography.