Antarctica and Ice wall

So I want to start a debate.

I heard that you guys believe that there are ice walls surrounding the Earth, and It is infinitely huge and goes out forever and ever.
So does that mean every thing, every comet, every star, every galaxy, every black hole, Will eventually hit the ice wall if they are coming in the direction of the infinitely huge ice wall.
Also if a black hole does hit the ice wall wouldn't you think that a black hole has already hit it, sucked the ice wall in, and eventually the "Flat earth" would be in the black hole.

Also, how does the solar system work if the sun were just a thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of miles away from us and is smaller.

Also, if you're argument that planets and stars and other stuff are just lights in the sky, I call bullshit on that because how would light have traveled there and go to earth and make us see it.

Also, will you guys show me a photo of evidence that there is in fact an infinitely huge ice wall in space, and that the planets and other stuff in the sky are just lights in the sky.

Also, I can't understand why there are people with different answers and explanations and don't have one answer that disproves one argument. Like people still believing that there are planets in the sky, and one person saying they're just lights in the sky. If you're group is the truth and all, why are people saying some bullshit like that and won't stick to the theory and stuff.

Also, if you're argument that planets and stars and other stuff are just lights in the sky, I call bullshit on that because how would light have traveled there and go to earth and make us see it.

Also, will you guys show me a photo of evidence that there is in fact an infinitely huge ice wall in space, and that the planets and other stuff in the sky are just lights in the sky.

WHAT???
CANNOT COMPUTE.

people who have been saying that, never really looked up.
They have been seeing some "lights" in the sky, but all of them looked the same and they never saw a pattern in them of never noticed that some of these "lights" act differently.

For them...just some random lights in the sky.

they don't see that most of the lights orbit around one particular light on the north side.
they don't see that some of those lights rise in the east and set in the west
they don't see that some of them move across the night sky from east to west.
They don't see that some of those lights can move very quickly.
 

Sounds like this guy is TRIGGERED about "lights in the sky" hahahahaha he says it like 5 times lmfaooo

Sounds like this guy is TRIGGERED about "lights in the sky" hahahahaha he says it like 5 times lmfaooo

Maybe because so many flat earthers seen to think that the planets and stars are just "lights in the sky" as in:

Quote from: Nayuta Ito on May 05, 2017, 05:35:23 PM

I guess even FEers admit that Mars exists. Then, what causes Mars to "move" in the sky like that way? (i.e. changing the relative position to other stars every day, and going back)

I don't think that Flat Earthers like astronomy. This post might not be quite representative, but it seems be not far off.

Quote from: Marciano on January 09, 2016, 09:18:51 PM

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

Yes, so many Flat Earthers just try to close their eyes to those "lights in the sky" because their movement just will not fit into their model!

Flat earthers, in general, seem to deny all the observations of astronomers right from Babylonian times.
Which seems very strange because those Babylonians were Flat Earthers and I have little argument with that.
They, with few measuring instruments, developed a model that explained what they observed and it fitted fairly well.

But the neo-Flat Earthers seem to start with a flat disc encompassing the whole earth with celestial bodies circling above it.
Then they try to shoehorn all observations to fit these preconceived assumptions - it does not work!

As a result, all astronomical observations have to be ignored or declared fake.

Sounds like this guy is TRIGGERED about "lights in the sky" hahahahaha he says it like 5 times lmfaooo

maybe it was on purpose? could it be that I mentioned "lights in the sky" to illustrate how some, if not all FE-ers make their observations? with their asses.
to show the reader how the diversity of stars, planets, satellites, meteors and other celestial bodies can all be reduced to the same thing like "lights in the sky"...like they never noticed the differences between them.
Yeah I know, in this post I again mentioned it 3 more times so what?

I like how nobody that are Flat Earthers made any argument to any of my point other than the "planets = lights in the sky is bullshit" can someone actually make some fucking scientific points against mine for fucks sake. All I'm trying to do is have a debate, not an idiotic fucking argument.

I agree I've done some research on the flat earth using Google and YouTube and there is no consistency of their information. Seems like none of them are on the same page, or they're just each finding their own "work around" to everything that is currently scientific fact.

The usual (not universal) FE myth/explanation is that Antarctica is spread all around the rim of the flat planet, completely surrounding the circumference of the flat Earth with ice and snow.  Moreover, this ice and snow is so formidable that no one is ever able to get beyond to explore.  And, according to some FEers, there are troops of armed soldiers at the Antarctic coastline all around the circumference of the flat Earth (they were somehow positioned and housed beyond those impenetrible ice walls) to turn back anyone else who is able to get to the ice walls.

First and foremost, every year ocean liners offer a cruise that completely circumnavigates Antarctica - it takes about five weeks at a leisurely pace - with frequent stops to allow passengers to go ashore (where there aren't huge ice walls) and annoy the penguins.  Since the ships can circumnavigate Antarctica (the distance covered is roughly comparable to the coastline of Australia), clearly Antarctica is not on the rim of a flat planet.  Moreover, every year for the past few decades, several groups devoted to studying either icebergs or penguins come to Antarctica and travel over substantial parts of it doing their thing.  Also, almost every year various photographic expeditions come and film the effects (or non-effects) of climate change or the changing fortunes of the penguins.  So there's plenty of human travel across Antarctica. 

And none of the tourists or expeditions mention armed guards.  Imagine how many men it would take to post a guard along the circumference of the flat planet.  If the story were true, over the last half century more than a million men (and women) have served as guards there and returned to their home country - anyone ever see or ever hear about any of them?

The ice walls, such as they exist on the coast of Antarctica, are created by the ocean and are battered by the ocean - and the ice walls are continually breaking down and being replaced naturally.  The ice wall does not exist everywhere and at all times on the coast of Antarctica; ships have little trouble finding clear shore to drop anchor.

Cmon, can any FErs please come down here and have a debate with me.

Maybe because so many flat earthers seen to think that the planets and stars are just "lights in the sky" as in:

Have we ever been on a planet to now that it is not a light?

Don't tell me about the fake Moon landing, it has been proven that it was all done on earth when analyzing the shadows and the lighting of the Moon photos.

The Van Allen Belt, does not let even electrons to enter the Earth, and you are telling me that a spaceship traveled their?

And let's assume that it did, all the electrical instruments would have gotten fried.

Remember the first airplane that the US built that could withstand an EMP pulse was the B-1 bomber. The design of the B-1 STARTED in April 1969, which was during the Apollo program, so the technology to block EMP was not developed.

Quote

Maybe because so many flat earthers seen to think that the planets and stars are just "lights in the sky" as in:

Have we ever been on a planet to now that it is not a light?

Yes, spacecraft have landed on Venus and Mars and flown close enough to Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto to know that for sure.
Your believing or disbelieving those facts changes nothing.

Besides, there is plenty of detail in telescope images to measure the size of the planets and to see that they rotate, just like the earth.

Don't tell me about the fake Moon landing,

No, I won't "tell you about the fake Moon landing," but I could tell you quite a lot about the real manned moon landings and the numerous unmanned lunat probes and landings right up till recent times.

it has been proven that it was all done on earth when analyzing the shadows and the lighting of the Moon photos.

Incorrect, that was only "proven" by totally biased Flat Earthers and other sceptics

The Van Allen Belt, does not let even electrons to enter the Earth, and you are telling me that a spaceship traveled their?

Incorrect!

NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
Two donuts of seething radiation that surround Earth, called the Van Allen radiation belts, have been found to contain a nearly impenetrable barrier that prevents the fastest, most energetic electrons from reaching Earth.

NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

Please read all the material, not just the bits that you feel prop up your hypothesis.

And I am "telling you that" not just one but many "spaceship space craft travelled there" and far beyond.

And let's assume that it did, all the electrical instruments would have gotten fried.

Totally incorrect, the type of radiation in the Van Allen Belts is mainly "particulate radiation" and best shielded by lightweight materials such as the aluminium and plastics used in spacecraft anyway.  The crews of the Apollo missions had shielded areas if necessary.

The Van Allen Probes . . . . . . .  have several scientific goals, including discovering how the particles — ions and electrons — in the belts are accelerated and transported, how electrons are lost and how the belts change during geomagnetic storms.

From: Van Allen Radiation Belts: Facts & Findings

You might also read:
          Apollo and the Van Allen Belts, an estimate of the radiation dose received, Robert A. Braeunig,
though you won't because it does not fit your neo-F;at Earthism Religion.

Remember the first airplane that the US built that could withstand an EMP pulse was the B-1 bomber. The design of the B-1 STARTED in April 1969, which was during the Apollo program, so the technology to block EMP was not developed.

This is totally irrelevant as the radiation in the Van Allen Belts is nothing like the Electromagnetic Magnetic radiation of an EMP.

The radiation in the Van Allen Belts is mainly particle, like electrons and ions, which are easily blocked by light materials.
An EMP from a nuclear blast is very intense electromagnetic radiation - totally different "animals".

So run away with your totally biased rubbish! Mr InFlatEarth your total ignorance on these matters is appalling!

Quote

Maybe because so many flat earthers seen to think that the planets and stars are just "lights in the sky" as in:

\
Have we ever been on a planet to now that it is not a light?
Don't tell me about the fake Moon landing, it has been proven that it was all done on earth when analyzing the shadows and the lighting of the Moon photos.

Or in other words:
"I'm going to ignore all the evidence ever provided and stick to my insane delusional beliefs".

Yes, we have been to the moon and landed there, and by "we" I mean the people of Earth.
We have also sent probes to other planets, some of which are still working on the planet, i.e. mars.

So yes, we know they aren't simply points of light.

No one has ever proven that the moon landings were fake. They have just provided some pathetic analysis that is so massively flawed it isn't funny.

The shadows and lighting in no way show the moon landings to be fake.

The Van Allen Belt, does not let even electrons to enter the Earth, and you are telling me that a spaceship traveled their?

Yes, they don't let electrons, with a mass to charge ratio of 5.69E-12 kg/C in.
What about humans in a spaceship?
They have a very large mass and effectively 0 charge. So their mass to charge ratio is pretty much infinite. That means the Van Allen Belts can't stop them.

So yes, I am telling you that an object with a massive mass to charge ratio cannot be stopped by the Van Allen Belts.

And let's assume that it did, all the electrical instruments would have gotten fried.

No, they wouldn't.

Remember the first airplane that the US built that could withstand an EMP pulse was the B-1 bomber. The design of the B-1 STARTED in April 1969, which was during the Apollo program, so the technology to block EMP was not developed.

No. I'm pretty sure that the Wright Flyer I was the first powered aircraft capable of withstanding EMP.

You also need to learn of the difference between a targeted EMP, and between natural EMR which can have quite different profiles and origin.
EMP is primarily a form of radiation, like light but at various frequencies. The Van Allen Belts instead have charged particles. They are quite different and are stopped in different ways.