Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall

Why isn't the ice wall reflective?  It might be reflective, I haven't seen it - have you seen it?  Then how do we know if it is reflective or not?  Maybe because it's reflective the conspirators have built a second inner non reflective wall around the world to stop us from being able to see it?

Also snow is very reflective.  It is very common for people to get sunburnt under their chin in snow because they forget to put sun block there or cover it up.

The UV is what ruins your skin.

Exactly my point; Ultra Violet is the shorter wave EM radiation that damages tissue, Infra Red is the main thermal bandwidth.  

Again; what extra-terrestrial, non-solar IR radiation is heating the spaceward edge of the IceWall sufficient to melt it?

I've said how many times that the Ice Wall ISN't reflective!

Non reflective?

If completely so;  Are you saying that the IceWall is some form of all absorbent Black Ice?

Also, god damnit, I've said how many times that the Ice Wall ISN't reflective! Stop ignoring that!

You've said it twice now (including this time), but you've yet to explain why.

Also, god damnit, I've said how many times that the Ice Wall ISN't reflective! Stop ignoring that!

Perhaps I need to be more clear when stating this. Or perhaps I need a clearer mind, you know, late at night when I do this stuff. I dont mean that it is 100% absorbant of light...The original context of this argument is that it is impossible for it to be transparent as claimed in this particular FE theory.

You've said it twice now (including this time), but you've yet to explain why.

Oops, looks like another FE has forgotten to read about what they're arguing again.



(EDITed to correct fatigue induced grammatical errors. I should try that preview button sometime)

the ice walls real i work there

Quote

Also, god damnit, I've said how many times that the Ice Wall ISN't reflective! Stop ignoring that!

Perhaps I need to be more clear when stating this. Or perhaps I need a clearer mind, you know, late at night when I do this stuff. I dont mean that it is 100% absorbant of light...The original context of this argument is that it is impossible for it to be transparent as claimed in this particular FE theory.

I think I see your error.  You took the word of a troll as FE theory.  The ice wall is NOT transparent to the entire EM spectrum.  The ice wall is basically rocks covered in snow and ice.  Last time I checked, other similar formations   like the Rocky Mountains can be seen.

Och. Bollocks.

Well there's me proved right, again (the ice wall isn't trasparent)

Again; what extra-terrestrial, non-solar IR radiation is heating the spaceward edge of the IceWall sufficient to melt it?

Ever heard of, oh, you know, the rest of the universe?

Och. Bollocks.

Well there's me proved right, again (the ice wall isn't trasparent)

It's hard to be wrong when you just spout the same observation we say is true. :?

The original context of this argument is that it is impossible for it to be transparent as claimed in this particular FE theory.

This paticular flat Earth theory claims nothing of the kind.

Oops, looks like another FE has forgotten to read about what they're arguing again.

I've read all of your posts in this thread. I'm still waiting for you to explain why the ice wall can't be reflective.

I've read all of your posts in this thread. I'm still waiting for you to explain why the ice wall can't be reflective.

And still you miss where I've explained it. I'm not going to point out to you where it is. You should be more than capable of finding it on your own.

It's hard to be wrong when you just spout the same observation we say is true.

Ok you can take that any way you want, but it was meant jokingly. Regardless, I think i need to explain my point. Again.

The Ice wall is not transparent in the way that it is so that you cannot see it from many a point on a FE (as I explained). However, as it has been verified by an FE'er, it is predominantly snow, ice and rocks...etc...And it is this supposed regular visibility that contributes to it's non-existance. By many conventional means, it would be possible to view a land mass that is ~50 metres high, and running the circumference of a FE. However, lo and behold - no astonishing results. The government cannot stop photons from taking pictures on themselves.

Woo! Pretentious!

And still you miss where I've explained it. I'm not going to point out to you where it is. You should be more than capable of finding it on your own.

I've tried finding it on my own. It's not there.
The fact that I can see Antarctica is a good indication to me that it's pretty reflective.

God dammit, stop being so pedantic!

Are we agreed that the ice wall is reflective?

dark matter is pushing the earth upwards at a constant speed. According to the inverse square law, the farther the earth gets from this dark matter, the less force it would feel. But what if the inverse square law doesn't apply to dark matter. That would mean that that peice of dark matter would be the only one in the universe since the forces from other dark matter located all around the universe would also push on the earth from other directions. But what if this dark matter is attached to the botom side of the earth? then we would encounter other dark matter along our journey upward. how about you people who think your smarter than the smartest physiscist who ever lived (newton, einstein) actaully explain how the earth is being pushed up by dark matter, a relatively new discovery. Dont just say its dark matter. explain it. gaurantee people will give different explainatons.

It's not dark matter, it's commonly referred to as dark energy.  As of now, it's mechanism is unknown.

It's not dark matter, it's commonly referred to as dark energy. As of now, it's mechanism is unknown.

No, but as of now its mechanism is unknown.

Quote

It's not dark matter, it's commonly referred to as dark energy. As of now, it's mechanism is unknown.

No, but as of now its mechanism is unknown.

I dont understand what u mean bibicul? are u trying to say that because he referred to it as an "it" it must therefore be matter? or energy? or what? i can call an EM wave "it." i dont get wat ur trying to say in the slightest  

He's being picky about my grammar.  I put an apostrophe in there.  Wow, good job biblicul.

Thanks.

1337 6r4/\/\4r |>i< U|> 8i8

Seriously? Wow.