If the Earth is flat with this big "ice wall" how is THIS possible?

Quote from: boydster on April 18, 2019, 05:15:35 PM

Quote from: turtles on April 18, 2019, 05:04:40 PM

Quote from: boydster on April 18, 2019, 04:46:46 PM

Ice is even taller on Pluto, with water ice mountains that are several kilometers high. So, it can get pretty strong.

Ice isn't stronger on Pluto, it's just got lower gravity.

But you don't even believe in Pluto do you? Those flyby pictures are just NASA fakes to you?

Uh, yeah, at the temperatures it would be on Pluto, it's definitely stronger than the glaciers you are referring to.

Also, why would you assume my beliefs?

OK, stronger due to temperatures we don't have on Earth, so it's not really relevant.

It's entirely relevant in the ice wall model. Because of the coldness. Where there isn't any sun. So it gets very cold.

Quote from: turtles on April 19, 2019, 08:40:08 AM

Quote from: boydster on April 18, 2019, 05:15:35 PM

Quote from: turtles on April 18, 2019, 05:04:40 PM

Quote from: boydster on April 18, 2019, 04:46:46 PM

Ice is even taller on Pluto, with water ice mountains that are several kilometers high. So, it can get pretty strong.

Ice isn't stronger on Pluto, it's just got lower gravity.

But you don't even believe in Pluto do you? Those flyby pictures are just NASA fakes to you?

Uh, yeah, at the temperatures it would be on Pluto, it's definitely stronger than the glaciers you are referring to.

Also, why would you assume my beliefs?

OK, stronger due to temperatures we don't have on Earth, so it's not really relevant.

It's entirely relevant in the ice wall model. Because of the coldness. Where there isn't any sun. So it gets very cold.

So now that it is convenient to this thread the FE position is that the ice wall is cold in the region of below say 30K in order for it to be able to support itself at maybe a few km tall?

Let's examine the problems with that position.

First, a few km tall is still nowhere near the required "thousands of km" tall required to stop the air leaking over the top. Ice is not strong enough for an ice wall that tall.

Second, if the back of the ice wall was that cold then it's enough to freeze air that does go over the top, therefore we have low pressure behind the wall and so a never ending leaking of our atmosphere. If you're going with this "extremely cold wall" arguement in this thread then you're going against your arguements in other threads, eg, "it's warm on the other side so pressure is equal"

Three, the side of the thousands of km tall ice wall facing us would have to be in the normal terrestrial temperature range, but if it was that warm it would collapse of it was more than a few hundred metres tall.

Four, we still can't see this thousands of km tall wall. Why not?

What are you even talking about? You clearly have me confused with someone else.

What are you even talking about? You clearly have me confused with someone else.

Ah yes, FE "dodging the issue" tactic #37: "all FEers believe completely different things about the FE, never expect one FEer to support another FEers points"

Points one and three apply directly to the "ice strength" arguement, you could at least have a go at them.

Points two and four....anyone....?

I already addressed your first point. I'm pretty sure a RE addressed your third point in a previous thread.

I already addressed your first point. I'm pretty sure a RE addressed your third point in a previous thread.

No, I'm still awaiting an explanation for how an ice wall several thousand km tall is strong enough to stand up on Earth.

I've not seen an answer to three, if you know where it is and would be so kind as to link to it I'd be grateful.

Yeah, I know I'm not going to get an answer to 2 and 4, they would break FET

but if it was that warm it would collapse of it was more than a few hundred metres tall.

Do you have a justification for that other than your assertion?

Four, we still can't see this thousands of km tall wall. Why not?

Again, why not just appeal to the sun?

Quote from: JustinV on April 05, 2019, 07:35:19 PM

If the Earth is flat with this big "ice wall" how is THIS possible?

You were able to post a link to something because you have interweb access.   

I don't have an access to everywhere.  NASA backed fetö forbids me enter everywhere I want. I am lucky since they have allow me enter here. So why?

I don't have an access to everywhere.  NASA backed fetö forbids me enter everywhere I want. I am lucky since they have allow me enter here. So why?

It isn't NASA, it is your corrupt government. They don't like people accessing parts of the internet which show them to be abhorrent.

NASA backed fetö forbids me enter everywhere I want. . . . . . . .  So why?

Prove it's got anything to do with NASA and not Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Quote from: turtles on April 20, 2019, 09:24:42 AM

but if it was that warm it would collapse of it was more than a few hundred metres tall.

Do you have a justification for that other than your assertion?

I posted a link further up the thread. It seems that the highest an unsupported glacial wall can get in earth is about 220m

Quote from: turtles on April 20, 2019, 09:24:42 AM

Four, we still can't see this thousands of km tall wall. Why not?

Again, why not just appeal to the sun?

Appeal to the sun? I don't know what that means. Like, to Ra the sun god?

I posted a link further up the thread. It seems that the highest an unsupported glacial wall can get in earth is about 220m

That is a gizmodo article, which then linked to a paper discussing calving. This is not focusing on the maximum height of glaciers themselves.
This indicates it can go to 4 km (but not listing the overall maximum).

Appeal to the sun? I don't know what that means. Like, to Ra the sun god?

The sun is allegedly 5000 km above Earth, but can't bee seen all over at once.

See my new thread; it will have all the answers you need.

Quote from: turtles on April 21, 2019, 04:04:48 AM

I posted a link further up the thread. It seems that the highest an unsupported glacial wall can get in earth is about 220m

That is a gizmodo article, which then linked to a paper discussing calving. This is not focusing on the maximum height of glaciers themselves.
This indicates it can go to 4 km (but not listing the overall maximum).

Excellent, so we have 4km. Still only several thousand km short of what we need for the ice wall to be able to hold the air in.

Quote from: turtles on April 21, 2019, 04:04:48 AM

Appeal to the sun? I don't know what that means. Like, to Ra the sun god?

The sun is allegedly 5000 km above Earth, but can't bee seen all over at once.

Er, yes, crazy isn't it. Who would believe such a thing? That would probably mean the sun is lower than the edge wall.

If the earth were an inf plane (and ignoring all other factors that prove otherwise), the ice wall would stretch out inf or at least until another hot sun.
It would not actually be a wall.
We would be a pothole in a plane of ice.
So structural integrity of a "thin vertical wall" would be a non issue.

If the earth were an inf plane (and ignoring all other factors that prove otherwise), the ice wall would stretch out inf or at least until another hot sun.
It would not actually be a wall.
We would be a pothole in a plane of ice.
So structural integrity of a "thin vertical wall" would be a non issue.

That's some mighty big "ifs". That would require some evidence. That much mass above us would exert a fair gravitational pull upwards I think?

If it were true, you'd still have a problem with the front surface of the ice peeling away, especially when it's several thousand km vertically  tall. The thickness of the wall wouldn't help any more than the kms of ice in a glacier stops the front surface from calving. There's probably a stable gradient at which ice can support itself. You'd have to have an ice slope instead, thousands and thousands of km long.

Imagine the skiing!

it's still a non issue.
glaciers edge walls sheer off but like your skin, a new layer pushes forward.
ICE IS STRONG!

but yes... i think the theory is ridiculous.

Has anybody, apart from me, bothered to read the topic, "If the Earth is flat with this big "ice wall" how is THIS possible?", and the OP?

http://www.gcmap.com/featured/20190320

The link refers to this site:

Featured Map for 20 March 2019: Southern Oceanic Flights

Many of us view today as the vernal equinox, the start of spring in the northern hemisphere, but for people in the southern hemisphere today is the autumnal equinox, the beginning of autumn except in countries including Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand which align their seasons with the Gregorian calendar and thus started autumn at the beginning of March.

Today's Featured Map, contributed by a user of the Great Circle Mapper, shows regularly scheduled long-distance southern oceanic flights over about six hours in duration, which translates to a minimum of about 5,000 km or 2,700 nm. To compile the data, he used FlightAware with likely pairs of airports. Many of these flights are ones where you are more likely to see an iceberg than another aircraft!

References and additional information:
          Search for flights by origin and destination airport – FlightAware

How are these flights possible if the earth is laid out like?

it's still a non issue.
glaciers edge walls sheer off but like your skin, a new layer pushes forward.
ICE IS STRONG!

but yes... i think the theory is ridiculous.

Oooo, I like it - the sun constantly melts the ice...the infinite glacier pushes new ice forwards to replace it...a never ending crashing of ice falling from thousands of km up which strangely no one has ever heard. Meanwhile, the ice from the top burns up in the atmosphere as it falls from great height...though of course no one witnesses it's firey arrival because NASA agents are constantly telling everyone "quick - look over there" and point the opposite direction.

The ice falls to the Southern ocean...floats north and melts. "But wait", I hear you cry, "this infinite supply of melting ice, won't it eventually fill our pothole Earth and drown the Sun?". Worry not gently reader, the hole at the North Pole, the entrance to the Underworld is The Great Drain, washing away our excess water. Admittedly, it's not draining quite as well right now, hence the troubling rise in ocean levels.  NASA has a huge toilet plunger to remedy such situations, it's being fixed right now.

a never ending crashing of ice falling from thousands of km up which strangely no one has ever heard.

Just as unheard as the sonic boom the sun makes while revolving around the FE. 10,400 Miles in Diameter. At the Equator, still 5,200 Miles, which means the sun has to travel a circle of about U=2·pi·r=2·3.14·2,600=16,328 Miles in 24 hours, which means that she travels at a speed of 680 Miles per Hour.
Okay, you got me there because the speed of sound is over 700 Miles per Hour.... but here comes the seasons.
According to FE logic, the sun travels further south when it's winter in the northern hemiplane. Which means the sun ha sto cover an even greater distance.
Let's assume that it travels at around a radius of 7500 miles. Using the same math (yes, I know, you HATE math), the sun covers a distance of 23,550 Miles in 24 hours, meaning the sun has a blasting speed (pun intended) of 981 mph, which means that it is way above the speed of sound meaning that in winter, the sun would make a roaring noise with every rotation.

Well, never heard that, actually.....

I believe hes showing a 3 sided triangle with angles adding to 270.

I read it, rab!

Quote from: turtles on April 22, 2019, 03:55:19 PM

a never ending crashing of ice falling from thousands of km up which strangely no one has ever heard.

Just as unheard as the sonic boom the sun makes while revolving around the FE. 10,400 Miles in Diameter. At the Equator, still 5,200 Miles, which means the sun has to travel a circle of about U=2·pi·r=2·3.14·2,600=16,328 Miles in 24 hours, which means that she travels at a speed of 680 Miles per Hour.
Okay, you got me there because the speed of sound is over 700 Miles per Hour.... but here comes the seasons.
According to FE logic, the sun travels further south when it's winter in the northern hemiplane. Which means the sun ha sto cover an even greater distance.
Let's assume that it travels at around a radius of 7500 miles. Using the same math (yes, I know, you HATE math), the sun covers a distance of 23,550 Miles in 24 hours, meaning the sun has a blasting speed (pun intended) of 981 mph, which means that it is way above the speed of sound meaning that in winter, the sun would make a roaring noise with every rotation.

Well, never heard that, actually.....

Not to mention the tremendous energy needed to drive a 50 km diameter sphere at that velocity.

The big problem with the whole flat earth hypothesis is that there is no one working "Flat Earth Theory" and not even one acceptable "continental layout".
I wonder why ?

So as soon as you try to debunk one idea some flat-earther (or worse still some pseudo-flat-earther) will pop up and claim, "But in such-and-such-model that's easily explained by so-and-so".

In this case, someone could say, "but many flat earthers don't believe a dome and the Sun and Moon are in a vacuum".

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 10, 2019, 05:27:14 AM

I believe hes showing a 3 sided triangle with angles adding to 270.

I read it, rab!

If you are referring to Re: If the Earth is flat with this big "ice wall" how is THIS possible? « Reply #47 on: Today at 08:52:17 AM »
I think that he's referring to the impossibly of flying those routes non-stop and in the specified time if the earth were like in the "ice-wall map".

Here is a post thst looks at the Sydney to/from Santiago flights, Re: distance between santiago de chile and melbourne on a fe? « Reply #1 on: March 10, 2019, 11:40:21 AM » and a little from it:

The usual flight distance from Santiago to Sydney is about 11,600 km in about 13 hours 30 minutes.
Sydney to Santiago is faster and usually a shorter distance than the return flight from Santiago to Sydney because of the west to east jet-stream.

But on the "standard flat earth map", the "UN Flag" or "Ice-Wall", the shortest distance Sydney to/from Santiago would be about 25,500 km.
That would be quite impossible because of the range of aircraft and maximum speed.

This one gives details from a QANTAS pilot that used to fly that route, Re: Is Qantas killing the passangers? « Reply #171 on: January 07, 2019, 12:24:28 PM »

This is the route, with time and distance for a Sydney to Johannesburg flight:

FlightAware QANTAS QFA63 Sydney to Johannesburg

I'll let someone else plot it on a flat earth map.

Most likely, this map is simply another construct made by a society that is stuck on a globe-centered mindset, and simply used as convention. In fact, the flights themselves are routed around the ice wall, but this notation is used for ease of understanding.