Noob question: what keeps the air and light on the earth?

you can't just declare Equivalency Principal!!!!

Yes, I can.

if an air molecule was going at some speed v out towards space, then it would still be contained within earth's atmosphere, as gravity would cause it to come back.

In the RE model, air molecules must reach escape velocity in order to escape the Earth's gravitational field. They reach it by colliding with molecules from solar wind and gaining additional energy as a result.

however, when it flies at the top of the ice wall with relative speed v, it can go over, with nothing to keep it in.

As long as the air molecules travel faster (or accelerate faster) than FE, they will escape.

and don't you think such an Ice wall would be observable if we went to the tip of Chile, and looked with a telescope or something?

The height of the "wall" increases as one moves toward the edge of the world. Atmospheric distortion and EA explain why you cannot look at the massive structure directly from a telescope.

Realy Jack?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:38:24 PM

you can't just declare Equivalency Principal!!!!

Yes, I can.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:38:24 PM

if an air molecule was going at some speed v out towards space, then it would still be contained within earth's atmosphere, as gravity would cause it to come back.

In the RE model, air molecules must reach escape velocity in order to escape the Earth's gravitational field. They reach it by colliding with molecules from solar wind and gaining additional energy as a result.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:38:24 PM

however, when it flies at the top of the ice wall with relative speed v, it can go over, with nothing to keep it in.

As long as the air molecules travel faster (or accelerate faster) than FE, they will escape.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:38:24 PM

and don't you think such an Ice wall would be observable if we went to the tip of Chile, and looked with a telescope or something?

The height of the "wall" increases as one moves toward the edge of the world. Atmospheric distortion and EA explain why you cannot look at the massive structure directly from a telescope.

The curvature and lack of wall can also explain this.

No U lrn2fluidsmech. air isn't static, el vato.

I am familiar with the study of fluid mechanics and the properties of air, which is why I am aware that an Ice Wall would be an effective container for it.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:41:01 PM

No U lrn2fluidsmech. air isn't static, el vato.

I am familiar with the study of fluid mechanics and the properties of air, which is why I am aware that an Ice Wall would be an effective container for it.

Absolutely. If it was a hundred miles high. If it was 150 feet, as many FE'ers think, all the air above 150 feet would have no reason to stay here.

Simple experiment to try at home!

Get a small cylindrical container, throw in some dry ice (frozen CO₂), and wait for the container to fill up with gas. You'll notice that the gas does not stay centered over the container above the walls, it spills off the side.  See how much gas stays piled up above the container? (Spoiler alert: it's none).

You can conclude with this experiment that a flat earth would only have an 'atmolayer' up to the altitude of the top of the ice wall.

The height of the "wall" increases as one moves toward the edge of the world. Atmospheric distortion and EA explain why you cannot look at the massive structure directly from a telescope.

That's absurd. you can see the moon. you'd still be able to see a 62 mile wall on Antarctica from Chile on Real Earth. Also normal people have gone to Antarctica, and they don't see a gigantic icewall

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:41:01 PM

No U lrn2fluidsmech. air isn't static, el vato.

I am familiar with the study of fluid mechanics and the properties of air, which is why I am aware that an Ice Wall would be an effective container for it.

Absolutely. If it was a hundred miles high. If it was 150 feet, as many FE'ers think, all the air above 150 feet would have no reason to stay here.

Simple experiment to try at home!

Get a small cylindrical container, throw in some dry ice (frozen CO₂), and wait for the container to fill up with gas. You'll notice that the gas does not stay centered over the container above the walls, it spills off the side.  See how much gas stays piled up above the container? (Spoiler alert: it's none).

You can conclude with this experiment that a flat earth would only have an 'atmolayer' up to the altitude of the top of the ice wall.

You forgot 'accelerate the container upwards at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2'.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 08:10:07 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:41:01 PM

No U lrn2fluidsmech. air isn't static, el vato.

I am familiar with the study of fluid mechanics and the properties of air, which is why I am aware that an Ice Wall would be an effective container for it.

Absolutely. If it was a hundred miles high. If it was 150 feet, as many FE'ers think, all the air above 150 feet would have no reason to stay here.

Simple experiment to try at home!

Get a small cylindrical container, throw in some dry ice (frozen CO₂), and wait for the container to fill up with gas. You'll notice that the gas does not stay centered over the container above the walls, it spills off the side.  See how much gas stays piled up above the container? (Spoiler alert: it's none).

You can conclude with this experiment that a flat earth would only have an 'atmolayer' up to the altitude of the top of the ice wall.

You forgot 'accelerate the container upwards at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2'.

The effect we know of as 'gravity' takes care of that for us. It is valid here because CO₂ is heavier than air, just the same as air is heavier than vacuum.

You could accelerate it upwards too if you want, that just proves the point even further.

Quote from: James on May 17, 2010, 08:49:16 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 08:10:07 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 11:41:01 PM

No U lrn2fluidsmech. air isn't static, el vato.

I am familiar with the study of fluid mechanics and the properties of air, which is why I am aware that an Ice Wall would be an effective container for it.

Absolutely. If it was a hundred miles high. If it was 150 feet, as many FE'ers think, all the air above 150 feet would have no reason to stay here.

Simple experiment to try at home!

Get a small cylindrical container, throw in some dry ice (frozen CO₂), and wait for the container to fill up with gas. You'll notice that the gas does not stay centered over the container above the walls, it spills off the side.  See how much gas stays piled up above the container? (Spoiler alert: it's none).

You can conclude with this experiment that a flat earth would only have an 'atmolayer' up to the altitude of the top of the ice wall.

You forgot 'accelerate the container upwards at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2'.

The effect we know of as 'gravity' takes care of that for us. It is valid here because CO₂ is heavier than air, just the same as air is heavier than vacuum.

You could accelerate it upwards too if you want, that just proves the point even further.

In b4 FES nitpicking:
I'll just say it now, you mean CO2 is heavier than Nitrogen, which is the majority of air. because CO2 is a part of air

I believe what I said was accurate.

I believe what I said was accurate.

air is 0.038% CO2 according to wikipedia