New Ice Wall Question

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.

It only says that this is what one model looks like in a cross section.  I asked for evidence proving the ice wall, and how it holds in the oceans.  Until you can do that, I call BS.

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 05:14:09 PM

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.

It only says that this is what one model looks like in a cross section.  I asked for evidence proving the ice wall, and how it holds in the oceans.  Until you can do that, I call BS.

So let me get this straight, you believe, as I do, that Antarctica's ice is permenantly physically anchored to the ocean floor, yet you fail to see how this could impede the flow of water?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 25, 2010, 03:37:06 PM

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?

No, I came to that conclusion based on this post:

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.

You seem to have difficulty with this notion. My point of course is that this is a well documented phenomona, and is consistent with both theories, which leads me to wonder why you appear to question its occurence.

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 05:19:16 PM

Quote from: James on April 25, 2010, 05:14:09 PM

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.

It only says that this is what one model looks like in a cross section.  I asked for evidence proving the ice wall, and how it holds in the oceans.  Until you can do that, I call BS.

So let me get this straight, you believe, as I do, that Antarctica's ice is permenantly physically anchored to the ocean floor, yet you fail to see how this could impede the flow of water?

No, I believe that the continent of Antarctica's land mass is part of the ocean floor, and the ice in Antarctica is on top of that land.  I also do not believe that this landmass surrounds a flat Earth.

Quote from: Sliver on April 25, 2010, 04:06:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 25, 2010, 03:37:06 PM

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?

No, I came to that conclusion based on this post:

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.

You seem to have difficulty with this notion. My point of course is that this is a well documented phenomona, and is consistent with both theories, which leads me to wonder why you appear to question its occurence.

Let me clarify it for you.  If the Earth were a bowl, and was surrounded by an wall of ice, as the one model suggests and the FAQ asserts, then this wall would be subject to erosion and would eventually weaken and break due to the fact that it sits in water that is warmer than the ice.  I am perfectly certain that ice in the Antarctic melts.  That's what my sentence says.  Ice in water that is of a temperature higher than that of the ice, will melt.

The entire fucking ice wall bullshit is out of date.
We are talking the 1800's for Christs sake, NZ was barely even colonized then.

He made that when Antarctica was viewed as that, a wall of ice - since then it has been explored, circumnavigated and mapped, it has a set size, the ice wall theory is rubbish.


Quit holding onto straws that no longer explain what is proven to exist.

Read this on the FAQ.

Quote from:  FES 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?

I noticed that none of the FE'ers touched this part.

The entire fucking ice wall bullshit is out of date.
We are talking the 1800's for Christs sake, NZ was barely even colonized then.

He made that when Antarctica was viewed as that, a wall of ice - since then it has been explored, circumnavigated and mapped, it has a set size, the ice wall theory is rubbish.


Quit holding onto straws that no longer explain what is proven to exist.

You do realize what forum you are right?

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.

Wikipedia sources its information at the bottom of every page.  The sources that it uses are legitimate.  And as mentioned earlier, any kind of addition/article is subject to moderators and requires citations to maintain its place on the page.

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.

Admission of conclusion by inference rather than evidence: Ice wall officially admitted to have no evidence by flat earther moderator.

Read this on the FAQ.

Quote from:  FES 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?

I'll give you some credit, you guys changed your stance a bit and admitted that there would have to be land holding the water in, but still, no one has provided evidence that the ice wall even exists.  So, the question still stands.

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.

Admission of conclusion by inference rather than evidence: Ice wall officially admitted to have no evidence by flat earther moderator.

If you bothered to read the embedded quotes, you'd see that I said that the attachment of the Ice Wall to the ocean floor is self-evident. Don't play the dumbshoe with my arguments!

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 02:32:51 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.

Admission of conclusion by inference rather than evidence: Ice wall officially admitted to have no evidence by flat earther moderator.

If you bothered to read the embedded quotes, you'd see that I said that the attachment of the Ice Wall to the ocean floor is self-evident. Don't play the dumbshoe with my arguments!

That ice floats on water is self-evident.  That ice is (or even can be) attached to an ocean floor is not.

Antarctic ice doesn't attach to the ocean floor, it attaches to the Antarctic continent.


Don't confuse the two, the Antarctic continent is above sea level.

Antarctic ice doesn't attach to the ocean floor, it attaches to the Antarctic continent.


Don't confuse the two, the Antarctic continent is above sea level.

For the purposes of this argument there is no difference - it arose because somebody claimed that water could flow UNDER the Ice Wall. The composition of the Ice Wall, provided it's make of solids, does not mitigate the obvious falsity of the original claim.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 27, 2010, 08:08:05 PM

Antarctic ice doesn't attach to the ocean floor, it attaches to the Antarctic continent.


Don't confuse the two, the Antarctic continent is above sea level.

For the purposes of this argument there is no difference - it arose because somebody claimed that water could flow UNDER the Ice Wall. The composition of the Ice Wall, provided it's make of solids, does not mitigate the obvious falsity of the original claim.

So far, the only image I have seen of your ice wall is a pictures of an ice shelf.

Guess what, water flows under them.


Water also flows under ground, ever heard of an Aquifer?
There could also be massive underground caves throughout the ice wall crust letting water out.

Quote from: James on April 28, 2010, 05:43:12 AM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 27, 2010, 08:08:05 PM

Antarctic ice doesn't attach to the ocean floor, it attaches to the Antarctic continent.


Don't confuse the two, the Antarctic continent is above sea level.

For the purposes of this argument there is no difference - it arose because somebody claimed that water could flow UNDER the Ice Wall. The composition of the Ice Wall, provided it's make of solids, does not mitigate the obvious falsity of the original claim.

So far, the only image I have seen of your ice wall is a pictures of an ice shelf.

Guess what, water flows under them.


Water also flows under ground, ever heard of an Aquifer?
There could also be massive underground caves throughout the ice wall crust letting water out.

Also, in the other model, the one where Antarctica is it's own continent, and even in your little logo, there is nothing at the edge.  What holds the water in on those models?  Or does it look something like it did it the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie?

I don't see any reason to believe that water would necessarily slip through the ice if it was entirely ice from the bottom up.

I don't see any reason to believe that water would necessarily slip through the ice if it was entirely ice from the bottom up.

Ever put ice in a glass of water and waited a while?


Water melts ice, especially salt water.

I don't see any reason to believe that water would necessarily slip through the ice if it was entirely ice from the bottom up.

Strange but true fact about water.  Water is one of the very few substances where its solid phase (ice) is less dense than its liquid phase.  In other words, ice floats on top of water.