The Atmosphere

Why is there an atmosphere, according to the Flat Earth theory?
It just doesn't seem to fit that a gas would rise along with the other gravitational forces :?:  :!:

All of the elements are sinking and since the gases are lighter and denser then the heavy metals and other elements under the earth, they stay on top.

Why is there an atmosphere, according to the Flat Earth theory?
It just doesn't seem to fit that a gas would rise along with the other gravitational forces :?:  :!:

I don't follow.  What other gravitational forces?

The "gravity" caused by Earth's constant rising.

And to 18C, I meant, why doesn't it spill over the side?
 :?: [/quote]

why doesn't it spill over the side?

Ah, a question which actually makes sense, unlike your original post which made none.

As for why the atmosphere doesn't spill over the sides of the flat earth, there are three theories that I am aware of. The first is that the ice wall is much higher than 150 feet if you go far enough south, and is actually high enough to old the atmosphere in. The second is that the celestial dome which supports the sun, moon, and stars also holds the atmosphere in. The third is that the earth has infinite extent, so there is no edge for the atmosphere to spill over.

As for why the atmosphere doesn't spill over the sides of the flat earth, there are three theories that I am aware of. The first is that the ice wall is much higher than 150 feet if you go far enough south, and is actually high enough to old the atmosphere in. The second is that the celestial dome which supports the sun, moon, and stars also holds the atmosphere in. The third is that the earth has infinite extent, so there is no edge for the atmosphere to spill over.

This is the stupidest shit ever. You are kidding right?

1) The ice wall would have to be like 10 miles high for this to be possible. Someboody would have seen the damn thing by now. We would have pictures of it, real pictures, not those phoney baloney photoshoppy things you shrills try to pass off as pcitures. If it were this high you probably could see it from the tip of South America. In fact if the Earth is flat like you say you wouldn't have to be anywhere near it.

2) "Celestial Dome?" You mean like the Biblical "frimament?" Where the hell did this come from? So this theory says the cosmos is kinda like a gigantic snow globe, sitting on God's curiosity shelf? Are you fucking serious?

3) The Earth just stretches off into infinity? Just forever and ever and ever, yet it's still accelrating upwards, and there's still a gigantic snow-globe dome over it? Does any of this shit make sense to anyone?

Actually, the part I want to know is how you keep a satellite up in the air for years. Wouldn't that require a lot of fuel?

Edit: Also, the RE conspiracy government moved my post into the wrong thread. 4 srsly.

Actually, the part I want to know is how you keep a satellite up in the air for years. Wouldn't that require a lot of fuel?

Yep, that's why they are not in orbit.

Your theories sound like rubbish.

I think it would be impossible for there to be an ice wall structurally stable at that height.

A celestial dome assumes the earth is like the bottom of a crystal ball, right? Because if that is true, I wonder why airplane flights from South America to Australia haven't crashed into it yet. Or is it so high that it holds the stars up? If that is true, then, once again, I doubt its structural integrity.

Do I even have to comment on the last one? It contradicts the very notion of an ice wall.

It doesn't take any energy to keep a satellite in orbit, if the orbit is stable.  The centrifugal force outwards due to its angular acceleration cancels out the gravitational force inwards, resulting in something that can be maintained for as long as it is stable.

Your theories sound like rubbish.

I think it would be impossible for there to be an ice wall structurally stable at that height.

A celestial dome assumes the earth is like the bottom of a crystal ball, right? Because if that is true, I wonder why airplane flights from South America to Australia haven't crashed into it yet. Or is it so high that it holds the stars up? If that is true, then, once again, I doubt its structural integrity.

Do I even have to comment on the last one? It contradicts the very notion of an ice wall.

The ice wall is heavy rock covered in ice, but is called the ice wall for clarification.

1) The ice wall would have to be like 10 miles high for this to be possible. Someboody would have seen the damn thing by now. We would have pictures of it, real pictures, not those phoney baloney photoshoppy things you shrills try to pass off as pcitures. If it were this high you probably could see it from the tip of South America. In fact if the Earth is flat like you say you wouldn't have to be anywhere near it.

Can you see Mount Everest from Alaska? Why should this be any different? If explanation 1 is true, then the "ice wall" is simply a very long, very tall mountain range which is potentially several thousand miles south of the coast of Antarctica.

2) "Celestial Dome?" You mean like the Biblical "frimament?" Where the hell did this come from? So this theory says the cosmos is kinda like a gigantic snow globe, sitting on God's curiosity shelf? Are you fraking serious?

This is one possible explanation, yes.

3) The Earth just stretches off into infinity? Just forever and ever and ever, yet it's still accelrating upwards, and there's still a gigantic snow-globe dome over it? Does any of this shit make sense to anyone?

If explanation 3 is true, there may not be a dome. But why shouldn't it stretch off to infinity?

Your theories sound like rubbish.

Yeah, well, I wasn't the one who made a post about sky crappers containing an obviously distorted photograph showing curvature of horizon which simply is not visible at that height.

I think it would be impossible for there to be an ice wall structurally stable at that height.

It's essentially a mountain range, and as far as I know, mountains are pretty structurally stable, but if you want, you could try to move one and if you succeed, I'll reconsider.

A celestial dome assumes the earth is like the bottom of a crystal ball, right? Because if that is true, I wonder why airplane flights from South America to Australia haven't crashed into it yet. Or is it so high that it holds the stars up? If that is true, then, once again, I doubt its structural integrity.

Spheres and domes are extremely structurally sound, which is why spheres appear so commonly in nature, and why domes appear so commonly in architecture. Nobody has crashed into it because it would have to be very high up over most of the surface of the planet, and would only meet the ground well south of the coast of Antarctica, where nobody ever goes. As for the strength, who knows what material it might be made of? I'm not claiming that there is a gigantic glass dome which supports the sun.

It doesn't take any energy to keep a satellite in orbit, if the orbit is stable.  The centrifugal force outwards due to its angular acceleration cancels out the gravitational force inwards, resulting in something that can be maintained for as long as it is stable.

Gravity?  What's that?

Really, I enjoy this as much as you do.

Why is there, all of a sudden, this huge mountain range without any tectonic interference? Even Mount Everest was the result of tectonics.

hold on, the atmosphere is at the top because it is less dense that the rock etc... ok, that makes sense.

what doesnt is that the atmosphere is a mixture of gases. if you theory was true, the heaviest gases would be at ground level, and the lighter gases would be much higher up. measurements show that it is pretty evenly mixed... or are the measurements "bullshit" made up by the conspirators, to fool us?

a celestial dome holding the sun and stars up? you guys need to get out more. what possable type of construct could hold and spin stars over our heads?

a celestial dome holding the sun and stars up? you guys need to get out more. what possable type of construct could hold and spin stars over our heads?

I think a giant, spinning dome would do the trick.

The celestial dome could be explained by a curvature of space.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/metric.html

The celestial dome could be explained by a curvature of space.

No, it can't.