Ice Wall...again

  • 36 Replies
  • 3292 Views
Ice Wall...again
« on: July 16, 2011, 05:52:42 PM »
Hey all,
After the verbal lashing I got from Thork  :P I thought it was time to make an official post. The ice wall has been talked to death I know but I don't think this idea has been brought up. I think it's safe to say that ice isn't a good barrier for water.  What if there is no Ice Wall holding in the oceans and instead a simple shore line with a beach on the outer rim of the Flat Earth.
I realy hope this hasn't been brought up before. So what say you?

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2011, 05:56:34 PM »
Why wouldn't ice be a good barrier for water?  Also, Antarctica is basically the beginning of the Ice Wall.  I don't think it would make much sense for the ice to suddenly trail off and turn into a beach.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2011, 06:06:57 PM »
I actually did some calculations about this. Not including the pressure, the ice wall need only be 14 inches thick to hold in the world's oceans.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2011, 06:11:55 PM »
Why wouldn't ice be a good barrier for water?  Also, Antarctica is basically the beginning of the Ice Wall.  I don't think it would make much sense for the ice to suddenly trail off and turn into a beach.

Antarctica is in the centre of the flat earth map, which is hexagonal. There is evidence for this.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2011, 06:22:45 PM »
Why wouldn't ice be a good barrier for water?  Also, Antarctica is basically the beginning of the Ice Wall.  I don't think it would make much sense for the ice to suddenly trail off and turn into a beach.

Antarctica is in the centre of the flat earth map, which is hexagonal. There is evidence for this.

Trolling was banned by the TFEF Convention.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2011, 06:25:23 PM »
Why wouldn't ice be a good barrier for water?  Also, Antarctica is basically the beginning of the Ice Wall.  I don't think it would make much sense for the ice to suddenly trail off and turn into a beach.

Antarctica is in the centre of the flat earth map, which is hexagonal. There is evidence for this.

Trolling was banned by the TFEF Convention.
The Flat Earth Foundation? You sir are trolling now.

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2011, 06:35:35 PM »
Why wouldn't ice be a good barrier for water?  Also, Antarctica is basically the beginning of the Ice Wall.  I don't think it would make much sense for the ice to suddenly trail off and turn into a beach.

I say this because first ice floats on water. Also the water touching it would be warmer than freezing so melting would be a problem. I think you also may be thinking a beach as a sandy vacation spot. There are meny types of beaches including snowy and icy.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2011, 06:36:05 PM »
Why wouldn't ice be a good barrier for water?  Also, Antarctica is basically the beginning of the Ice Wall.  I don't think it would make much sense for the ice to suddenly trail off and turn into a beach.

Antarctica is in the centre of the flat earth map, which is hexagonal. There is evidence for this.

Trolling was banned by the TFEF Convention.
The Flat Earth Foundation? You sir are trolling now.

No, Trolling in the FE Forums.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49464.0
John Davis explicitly stated that trolling is a bannable offense. The only time it's okay is when they can't prove that you don't believe what you're saying.

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2011, 06:42:31 PM »
I actually did some calculations about this. Not including the pressure, the ice wall need only be 14 inches thick to hold in the world's oceans.
I read that but IIRC you didn't take into account the pressure of the water. I could be wrong though and will have to re-read it.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2011, 06:44:43 PM »
I actually did some calculations about this. Not including the pressure, the ice wall need only be 14 inches thick to hold in the world's oceans.
I read that but IIRC you didn't take into account the pressure of the water. I could be wrong though and will have to re-read it.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2011, 06:46:22 PM »
John Davis explicitly stated that trolling is a bannable offense. The only time it's okay is when they can't prove that you don't believe what you're saying.

But isnt acting on the statement on the basis of the belief/non belief of the person saying it the George C Scott fallacy?
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2011, 06:53:21 PM »
John Davis explicitly stated that trolling is a bannable offense. The only time it's okay is when they can't prove that you don't believe what you're saying.

But isnt acting on the statement on the basis of the belief/non belief of the person saying it the George C Scott fallacy?

First of all it's called Poe's Law, and second I took your previous posts into account.

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2011, 06:54:17 PM »
I actually did some calculations about this. Not including the pressure, the ice wall need only be 14 inches thick to hold in the world's oceans.
I read that but IIRC you didn't take into account the pressure of the water. I could be wrong though and will have to re-read it.
doh I totaly missed that, sorry

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2011, 06:55:18 PM »
I actually did some calculations about this. Not including the pressure, the ice wall need only be 14 inches thick to hold in the world's oceans.

Yes, Yes. That makes sense to me. I actually made some calculations too, and came to the same conclusions. 14 inches must be enough to hold the waters.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2011, 06:57:33 PM »
I actually did some calculations about this. Not including the pressure, the ice wall need only be 14 inches thick to hold in the world's oceans.

Yes, Yes. That makes sense to me. I actually made some calculations too, and came to the same conclusions. 14 inches must be enough to hold the waters.

No, the pressure build up would cause it to be much more. I personally have yet to take a calculus course, so I can't really determine what it should be.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2011, 10:11:49 PM »
I actually did some calculations about this. Not including the pressure, the ice wall need only be 14 inches thick to hold in the world's oceans.

Yes, Yes. That makes sense to me. I actually made some calculations too, and came to the same conclusions. 14 inches must be enough to hold the waters.

No, the pressure build up would cause it to be much more. I personally have yet to take a calculus course, so I can't really determine what it should be.
Well rule of thumb is that the pressure doubles every 10 metres.  That means your ice wall probably would have to start to double in thickness every 10 metres.  I also am not sure but salt water is pretty good at melting ice.

Berny
Maybe you should grab a summer course.
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2011, 03:21:21 AM »
Why wouldn't ice be a good barrier for water?  Also, Antarctica is basically the beginning of the Ice Wall.  I don't think it would make much sense for the ice to suddenly trail off and turn into a beach.

I say this because first ice floats on water. Also the water touching it would be warmer than freezing so melting would be a problem. I think you also may be thinking a beach as a sandy vacation spot. There are meny types of beaches including snowy and icy.
'Ice Wall' is a misleading term. It is essentially a frozen landmass (i.e Antarctica).
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2011, 03:23:33 AM »
Also the water touching it would be warmer than freezing so melting would be a problem.

Source?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2011, 05:50:01 AM »
I have no source. I should have formed it as a question really. Wouldn't the water touching the ice be above freezing? I guess now that I think about it the ice could slowly form as it gets closer to the ice wall where it could be safe from higher temps.
Any comments on my op though? I know in Lord Wimores modle  Antarctica is its own continent so it couldn't have anything to do with the Ice Wall. Could a shore on the outer rim hold the oceans in place so there is no need for a wall?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2011, 05:54:34 AM »
Wouldn't the water touching the ice be above freezing?

No.

Any comments on my op though? I know in Lord Wimores modle  Antarctica is its own continent so it couldn't have anything to do with the Ice Wall. Could a shore on the outer rim hold the oceans in place so there is no need for a wall?

The Ice Wall is a shore that is made primarily of ice. The reason it is supposed to be made primarily of ice is that the edge of the world is no doubt very cold, being far away from direct sunlight most of the time.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Thork

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2011, 06:23:32 AM »
After the verbal lashing I got from Thork  :P I thought it was time to make an official post.
Stoppit noob. >:(

The ice wall has been talked to death I know but I don't think this idea has been brought up. I think it's safe to say that ice isn't a good barrier for water.  What if there is no Ice Wall holding in the oceans and instead a simple shore line with a beach on the outer rim of the Flat Earth.
I realy hope this hasn't been brought up before. So what say you?
There is a very easy answer to this. It is the reason round earthers designate Antartica a continent and the Arctic does not get this distinction.
The Arctic is a floating lump of ice.
The Antarctic sits on rock.
These are undisputable facts, that neither party argues.

So the icewall is sat on a bed of rock. A rocky rim around the earth, if you will. With the ice on top, this forms an impenetrable barrier keeping our oceans from spilling out over this rim.  And yes. Global warming terrifies flat earthers. Should the ice wall melt, our oceans would rush through the breach and with most of the planets water gone, no rain, no food, no life.  :o

This is also one of the reasons FErs know that the North Pole is the axis mundi and the South Pole the rim. The other way round and the water would drain from underneath.

Be energy efficient and recycle.
See, the flat earth society has a lot of positive messages.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 06:35:44 AM by Thork »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2011, 07:27:38 AM »
I also am not sure but salt water is pretty good at melting ice.

That doesn't really make sense to me. The water directly under ice is usually the saltiest (because ice pushes the salt out of itself), so that seems problemsome.


edit: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1662


?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2011, 11:18:29 AM »
This point is very easy to confirm.  Simply check the next photograph taken from orbit, and check whether there is an icewall.

Sustained spaceflight is possible, and undisputed, according to this forum


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49604.0

Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

?

Thork

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2011, 11:29:09 AM »
Please stop trying to drag people from threads they are interested in, to your unanswered threads that have been met with total apathy. That is how spammers work.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2011, 11:30:45 AM »
Please stop trying to drag people from threads they are interested in, to your unanswered threads that have met with disappointed apathy. That is how spammers work.

I was merely citing the source for my statement.

According to http://www.theflatearthsociety.org sustained spaceflight is an uncontested fact.  Just check their debate forum.  That is the source for my statement
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

?

Thork

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2011, 11:34:22 AM »
I am not interested in your half-baked thread. Neither is anyone else. Please stop derailing this perfectly good thread with spam links.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2011, 11:37:35 AM »
I am not interested in your half-baked thread. Neither is anyone else. Please stop derailing this perfectly good thread with spam links.

There is no need to check my sources if you are not interested.  Back to my original comment, it is easy to see if there is an icewall by checking pictures taken from orbit, and reading testimony from astronauts
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

?

Thork

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2011, 01:59:09 PM »
What are you doing? This is not a thread about astronauts. No one is interested in your opinion of astronauts.

Having failed to hi-jack people from this awesome ice-wall thread to your turgid space thread, you are now trying to turn this awesome ice-wall thread into a turgid space thread. If you and no other RErs haven't any objections to my last comments on the ice-wall, we shall consider it agreed and the thread may die.
Either refute this, or leave the awesome ice-wall thread

« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 02:01:26 PM by Thork »

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2011, 02:05:54 PM »


Picture taken from NASA spacecraft from orbit
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

?

Thork

Re: Ice Wall...again
« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2011, 02:09:30 PM »


Picture taken from NASA spacecraft from orbit

Stop making this a douchey space thread! >:(