Why is an icewall necessary

Quote from: markjo on August 14, 2011, 11:12:00 AM

Just because you don't believe them, that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

Correct, and yet entirely irrelevant.

The personal experiences of eye witnesses are not relevant?

Quote from: Skeleton on August 15, 2011, 06:00:30 PM

The infinite earth plane leads to the question "why can nobody travel further than 90 degrees south (or north if you adhere to the SCM)?" Which they do not ever answer, (apart from one guy syaing "theres a wall in the way".) 

What do you mean by '90 degrees south'? I stand by what I said: with sufficient resources you or I could travel beyond the ice wall indefinitely.

Sentence in red verifies my view that they will rather toss in chaff than address the problem. Sentence in green is something that would already have happened if the icewall existed.

Let me put it this way: if the earth is flat, and if the icewall exists, it is either at the 90 degree south position, or it is not.
If it IS at that latitude, why is it not at the south pole?
If it is NOT at that latitude it is either nearer the equator or further from it. If it is nearer the equator, then people must be able to pass over it easily to reach the south pole, which leads to the question why can nobody go even further south than that?
If it is further from the equator then it does not require humans to have traversed over it, but will still lead to the question why can nobody still go further south than the south pole if the wall is even further south?

Wherever you want to put the wall, it leads to conflict with observed human activity.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A FLAT EARTH TO HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE

Incorrect.

the ocean is a fluid, so is the atmosphere, what holds the atmosphere in?

Please read the FAQ.

The personal experiences of eye witnesses are not relevant?

If they're fictitious, they're absolutely not relevant. Whether or not I believe in fiction is also not relevant.

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2011, 08:02:05 PM

The personal experiences of eye witnesses are not relevant?

If they're fictitious, they're absolutely not relevant. Whether or not I believe in fiction is also not relevant.

What if the experiences are not fictitious?  Would they be relevant and would you still choose to deny them?

Pizzaplanet.  It is impossible to thrust a flat object into a fluid without dispersing the fluid around the flat object. 

Pizzaplanet.  It is impossible to thrust a flat object into a fluid without dispersing the fluid around the flat object.

Of course it's possible. All you need is enough resistance to significantly slow the flat object down before it hits the fluid object and/or a dense enough fluid.

What if the experiences are not fictitious?  Would they be relevant and would you still choose to deny them?

They would be relevant. I cannot know for sure whether or not I'd believe in their authenticity, but assuming that they would be better documented than the fictitious claims we face these days, I probably would not deny them.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 05:26:55 PM

Pizzaplanet.  It is impossible to thrust a flat object into a fluid without dispersing the fluid around the flat object.

Of course it's possible. All you need is enough resistance to significantly slow the fluid down before it hits the flat object.

There is nothing between the fluid and the object, they are in direct contact.  Get a plate with a 1" rim.  Put 30" of water on it, lift.

You will have an exact model of the flat earth and its atmosphere

You will have an exact model of the flat earth and its atmosphere

Incorrect.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 08:08:38 PM

You will have an exact model of the flat earth and its atmosphere

Incorrect.

I will judge the strength of your argument by the technical details it contains.

I will judge the strength of your argument by the technical details it contains.

Okay.

As there is no mechanism to keep the atmosphere in position, it is impossible for a flat earth to have an atmosphere, therefore the earth is round.

Please provide a detailed sceintific hypothesis if you do not agree, or provide a post that does not contain one (or dont reply) if you do agree.

As there is no mechanism to keep the atmosphere in position, it is impossible for a flat earth to have an atmosphere, therefore the earth is round.

An invalid premise leads you to an invalid conclusion.
Here, I can do it as well:
As there is no mechanism to make the moon glow in RE, it clearly can't glow in RE, but it does, therefore the Earth is flat.

Please provide a detailed sceintific hypothesis if you do not agree, or provide a post that does not contain one (or dont reply) if you do agree.

Or, alternatively, I may not listen to you, since you don't quite own the place yet and you don't get to decide what I will or will not post.
Infinite Earth models, Rowbotham's model, and fractal models are all atmosphere-issue-free. You are more than welcome to stop being an angry noob and research them.

Also: The FAQ provides these answers (and an extra surprise answer I did not include. Consider it a teaser). You said you had read it. Why did you lie?

I read it, I understand what you guys are imagining, and I do not agree that your arguments hold water

I read it, I understand what you guys are imagining, and I do not agree that your arguments hold water

Take a cup with a 35" rim. Put 30" of water in it. Accelerate upwards.
Unless you have a shitty cup, it should, quite literally, hold water.

Take an infinitely large plate. Put 30" of water in it. Accelerate upwards.
You are now accelerating an infinite amount of water. Where do you expect it to go? It will not disperse.

Also, what is the "surprise answer" I didn't elaborate on? Why doesn't it hold water?

An infinite earth, with infinite mass, consuming infinite force, and going at an infinite speed, could have an atmosphere.

A regular flat earth could not

An infinite earth, with infinite mass, consuming infinite force, and going at an infinite speed, could have an atmosphere.

Yes.

A regular flat earth could not

Define "regular".

Also, what is the "surprise answer" I didn't elaborate on? Why doesn't it hold water?

You will find that I ask and answer direct questions, please provide complete details for your cryptic question.

Define "regular".

A flat earth with finite boundaries

A flat earth with finite boundaries

This is not a sufficient answer. Which model are we talking about? If you don't know the name, that's fine! (Also, lurk moar) You can just provide the specifications. The most important one would be the characteristics of the rim and the "gravitational" model.

Also, what is the "surprise answer" I didn't elaborate on? Why doesn't it hold water?

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:11:40 PM

A flat earth with finite boundaries

This is not a sufficient answer. Which model are we talking about? If you don't know the name, that's fine! (Also, lurk moar) You can just provide the specifications. The most important one would be the characteristics of the rim and the "gravitational" model.

Gravity is not compatible with a flat earth, so any "model" that does not contain gravity.  A flat earth with edges can not have an atmosphere

Gravity is not compatible with a flat earth

Hello, Sammy McSemantics. Do note how "gravitational" was in quotation marks. Contrary to what you may have thought, this was not unintentional.
Also, incorrect. The Davis model is perfectly compatible with gravity.

so any "model" that does not contain gravity.

This is not a sufficient answer. Which model are we talking about? If you don't know the name, that's fine! (Also, lurk moar) You can just provide the specifications. The most important one would be the characteristics of the rim.

A flat earth with edges can not have an atmosphere

Incorrect. (See also: The cup experiment posted not so long ago)

I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.

I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.

I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:36:35 PM

I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.

I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?

I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere.  I understand that you can use your imagination to create explanations for different problems, in the same spirit as a "Can superman beat the flash" conversation.

However, there is no science to describe these imaginings.

I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere.

That's interesting. You have already conceded about part of my statement. Namely, the infinite Earth one (which also implies fractal Earth).
I'm not sure why you think cups do not work. Could you elaborate? I use a cup at least once a day and I can confirm that they do their job.

Of course, answering my question and specifying which model(s) we're talking about would be very helpful.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 17, 2011, 09:41:19 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:36:35 PM

I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.

I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?

I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere.  I understand that you can use your imagination to create explanations for different problems, in the same spirit as a "Can superman beat the flash" conversation.

However, there is no science to describe these imaginings.

I love those "Superman vs Flash" stories.  And it's refreshing to see a REer admit he has no rebuttal to what a FEer is saying, even if that REer does seem to think that this somehow constitutes part of a winning argument (I guess you can't expect too much humility).

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:46:14 PM

I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere.

That's interesting. You have already conceded about part of my statement. Namely, the infinite Earth one (which also implies fractal Earth).
I'm not sure why you think cups do not work. Could you elaborate? I use a cup at least once a day and I can confirm that they do their job.

You need to be more clear.  Cups hold water.  Please describe your imagined flat earth in detail, and speed up this debate, unless dragging out debates with meaningless babble is your MO

Cups hold water.

Excellent! That and infinite/fractal Earth covers all popular models. We can now conclude that an atmosphere on FE is absolutely possible.

Please describe your imagined flat earth in detail

Rowbotham model and/or McIntyre model.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:46:14 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 17, 2011, 09:41:19 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:36:35 PM

I understand what you are saying, and I do not agree.

I respect your right to do so. What exactly do you disagree about? The key part of my previous post was questions. Do you disagree with the questions?

I disagree with your statement that flat earths can have an atmosphere.  I understand that you can use your imagination to create explanations for different problems, in the same spirit as a "Can superman beat the flash" conversation.

However, there is no science to describe these imaginings.

I love those "Superman vs Flash" stories.  And it's refreshing to see a REer admit he has no rebuttal to what a FEer is saying, even if that REer does seem to think that this somehow constitutes part of a winning argument (I guess you can't expect too much humility).

I agree that the existence of an atmosphere is not a problem with an infinite earth, as there would be infinite atmosphere. 

Having said that, I do not believe that I exist on an infinite plane.  Please refer to my countless posts on satellites for irrefutable proof that the earth is neither infinite nor a plane.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

Cups hold water.

Excellent! That and infinite/fractal Earth covers all popular models. We can now conclude that an atmosphere on FE is absolutely possible.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 17, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

Please describe your imagined flat earth in detail

Rowbotham model and/or McIntyre model.

Rowbatham is the name of a lunatic, and contains no details

countless posts

I am so sorry. I didn't know you can't count to 800.

irrefutable proof that the earth is neither infinite nor a plane.

lol

Rowbatham is the name of a lunatic, and contains no details

I don't know about Rowbatham, but the Rowbotham model is well-defined in Earth Not a Globe. I encourage you to read it! It's available at no charge in our very own Flat Earth Library!

You could also read the FAQ (about having read which you so persistently lie) for a very similar explanation pertaining to the McIntyre model.