Ice wall thousands of km high

Continuation of tangent topic originally started in https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81354.0 into a separate thread

Quote from: turtles on May 07, 2019, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 06, 2019, 11:18:04 PM

You heard about an ice wall.

You invented that it was thousands of km high based on nothing other than casual thought.
You stated "It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in." (Notwithstanding that keeping air "in" would require 200-ish km. Certainly not more than 600 km.)

Nope, you may well be able to orbit in the rarified gases at 200km, 600km, or more and a wall that height would keep 99% of the atmosphere in, but you let that last 1% leak over the top and the 99% that's left will expand and then the top 1% of that will leak away until you've got nothing less. Not 1% you think? Only 0.0001%? Fine, it'll just take longer, the Earth has been here long enough already.

Oh, is that now your invented process with invented values for how things work? (At 600 km, it's about 5 x 10^-12. That's 0.0001% of your 0.0001%). But by your unassailable logic, the same thing happens on a spherical Earth. Atmospheric molecules randomly collide and statistically a small percentage of them acquire sufficient kinetic energy to achieve escape velocity and are ejected into space (i.e., they "leak over the edge" of the gravity well). It's a small fraction, but the rest of the atmosphere will expand and the process continues until there's nothing left. It takes longer, but the Earth has been here long enough. By your reasoning, the Earth therefore has no atmosphere.

Quote from: turtles on May 07, 2019, 01:13:27 AM

So, if you want to shoot this theory down, tell me, what's keeping the air in?

Off-topic. Pointing out your poor logic and rhetorical fallacies does not compel me to solve the problem for you.

Quote from: turtles on May 07, 2019, 01:13:27 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 06, 2019, 11:18:04 PM

Quote

You asked why we can't see this wall.

Yes, why can't we?

Quote

No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high.

Hardly anyone believes in the FE either, if belief is based on numbers you're on shaky ground too.

Quote

Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.

Right, so now you're saying the whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?

Quote

The rest of your post about what I think and how I constructed my reply is rubbish -- another one of your inventions that is not true.

What, you think that what you think  isn't important? I think it is, tell me what you think keeps the air in. You do have an opinion don't you?

Quote

Your logical conclusion is that the only possible thing that keeps air in is your invented ice wall. You have shown no "logical conclusion" other than "Well, *I* can't think of anything, therefore it excludes all other explanations." That is why I think you don't understand what a logical conclusion is. Either that, or you do understand, and are intentionally trying to hoodwink readers.

We're never going to progress without a discussion. If you think logic leads in a different direction then tell me. Maybe you're a dome believer in which case you don't need a tall wall in your universe?

I already told you why you can't see the wall ... you invented it and it doesn't exist. Let's not play that game.

Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions). But if no one has presented an explanation except you, and you use that to then argue why that explanation should not be used by your opponents, that's a fallacious argument. (E.g. Dragons at the edge keep the air in. The dragons need to fly around in the air to blow the air back. Why can't we see these dragons that you keep talking about?)

"The whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?" You really either don't understand or are being intentionally thick.

And then more off-topic nonsense.

Who says I have any interest in progressing? Your inability to understand simple logic and common rhetorical fallacies makes discussions like this wearisome and unproductive.

I already told you why you can't see the wall ... you invented it and it doesn't exist. Let's not play that game.

Hilarity ensues as we are told that "made up" things can't be discussed on the Flat Earth forums. Right, so the wall exists when it's short but can't keep the air in, but not when it's tall.

Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions).

But you said earlier "No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high." so you're saying on one hand that as no one else believes in a tall wall so it's a bad idea (ie, numbers matter) and on the other hand "Belief isn't based on numbers".

But if no one has presented an explanation except you, and you use that to then argue why that explanation should not be used by your opponents, that's a fallacious argument. (E.g. Dragons at the edge keep the air in. The dragons need to fly around in the air to blow the air back. Why can't we see these dragons that you keep talking about?)

I'm not sure I follow you. How did I say the tall wall explanation can't be used by anyone else? To be honest, I think the dragons explanation is not as good as the tall wall explanation.

"The whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?" You really either don't understand or are being intentionally thick.

Actually I did misread your "Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.".

Who says I have any interest in progressing?

Ah well, this is going to be a short new thread then.

Oh, is that now your invented process with invented values for how things work? (At 600 km, it's about 5 x 10^-12. That's 0.0001% of your 0.0001%). But by your unassailable logic, the same thing happens on a spherical Earth. Atmospheric molecules randomly collide and statistically a small percentage of them acquire sufficient kinetic energy to achieve escape velocity and are ejected into space (i.e., they "leak over the edge" of the gravity well). It's a small fraction, but the rest of the atmosphere will expand and the process continues until there's nothing left. It takes longer, but the Earth has been here long enough. By your reasoning, the Earth therefore has no atmosphere.

Yes, they do leak over the edge of the gravity well. A gravity well is infinitely tall. OK, practically we don't have to think about infinity but that's still far taller than a 2 thousand km tall wall, or a 600km wall, sounds like neither of those are tall enough. How tall do you think the wall needs to be?  ( https://phys.org/news/2019-02-earth-atmosphere-moon.html )

Yeah this is all a rehash of a thread where JackBlack, among others, explained to you that this particular straw man that you have constructed (that you still to this day don't understand is a straw man) is not the great argument that you think it is. I'm not sure why you continue to cling to it.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 07, 2019, 01:55:30 PM

Quote

Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions).

But you said earlier "No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high." so you're saying on one hand that as no one else believes in a tall wall so it's a bad idea (ie, numbers matter) and on the other hand "Belief isn't based on numbers".

Do you really not know what a straw man argument is? No one else believes in a tall wall, so it's not that it's a bad idea (nothing to do with numbers), it's an idea you're not allowed to present as an idea your opposition holds, (which you did).

Ok, so no high ice wall, ok. But then, how is the air kept in given that the ground accelerate with 1g upwards? Is the dome made of some kind of glass? And why is Antarctica so awkwardly stretched on FE map, doesn't this bother you?

Btw, FEB, you can travel to the south pole, read the video description:

Maybe you do croud funding and sent someone to it?

Lots of wriggling but no solutions for what is actually keeping the air in.

Just one more nail in the FE coffin.

Come on Curiouser and Curiouser, you bought up gravity wells, run with it!

Lots of wriggling but no solutions for what is actually keeping the air in.

Just one more nail in the FE coffin.

Come on Curiouser and Curiouser, you bought up gravity wells, run with it!

You seem to have far greater interest in the subject than I do; please go ahead.

My interest in any of the posts on this topic is the deceptive practice of giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent, that is, "attacking a straw man."

Quote from: turtles on May 08, 2019, 02:45:22 AM

Lots of wriggling but no solutions for what is actually keeping the air in.

Just one more nail in the FE coffin.

Come on Curiouser and Curiouser, you bought up gravity wells, run with it!

You seem to have far greater interest in the subject than I do; please go ahead.

I've given my opinion. Unless/until someone has a better idea we can safely assume I'm right. Unless you're a Domist.

My interest in any of the posts on this topic is the deceptive practice of giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent, that is, "attacking a straw man."

Ah yes, the classic conspiracy theorist technique of moving a discussion away from the subject and concentrating on an irrelevant issue. It's how most threads here end up.

You've made an assertion against an argument that literally no one else agrees with, and backed it up with "because I think so"

Ah yes, the classic conspiracy theorist technique of moving a discussion away from the subject and concentrating on an irrelevant issue. It's how most threads here end up.

I suppose that depends on what you think the subject is.

You think it's about determining what keeps the air contained on some version of the idea of a Flat Earth.

I think it's about a jackass who misinterpreted a position commonly held by Flat Earthers because he didn't learn enough about their positions before wanting to start an argument, made up a position about an ice wall thousands of km high with an invented rationale, gave the impression that this was a position that was held by the people he wanted to argue with, was called out for employing a straw man argument, and has been furiously trying to defend himself with arguments not on the subject because he not only doesn't understand the beliefs of the people he's arguing with but he doesn't understand what a straw man argument is and that he is guilty of it, intentionally or unintentionally.

I wonder who's right?

Sounds like you need to find a forum on something like the philosophy of discourse.

Look at that, true to form we're away from the subject of this thread and onto an irrelevance. Well done, sir.

I still can't see that edge wall.... what is keeping all that air in....?

The subject of the thread is your ridiculous assertion. It's literally in the thread title. Where are all the FEers that share this view of yours?

The subject of the thread is your ridiculous assertion. It's literally in the thread title. Where are all the FEers that share this view of yours?

So I'll ask once again....what do you think is keeping the air in?

Gravity

Gravity

Oh, someone gives a (partial) answer. It's like pulling teeth.

So...gravity (is that compatible with the UA?) is the answer. Gravity has a component acting downwards perpendicular to the surface and another component towards the pole. To stop the air spilling over the wiki approved wall height of 150 feet gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole. Although the terrain is flat the effect is like the North pole being at the bottom of a huge bowl, every direction slopes up from there. All water drains to the north. The air thins to the south. Have we observed this? Is that what you meant?

Quote from: boydster on May 08, 2019, 02:59:02 PM

Gravity

Oh, someone gives a (partial) answer. It's like pulling teeth.

So...gravity (is that compatible with the UA?) is the answer. Gravity has a component acting downwards perpendicular to the surface and another component towards the pole. To stop the air spilling over the wiki approved wall height of 150 feet gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole. Although the terrain is flat the effect is like the North pole being at the bottom of a huge bowl, every direction slopes up from there. All water drains to the north. The air thins to the south. Have we observed this? Is that what you meant?

"To stop the air spilling over the wiki approved wall height of 150 feet gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."

"Must"

I see. This is one of your "logical conclusions" similar to your previously stated

I didn't exactly make it up, it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE).

So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."? Maybe work it out in propositional calculus?

I said before I don't think you understand what a logical conclusion is. I now know you don't understand what a logical conclusion is.

Quote from: boydster on May 08, 2019, 02:59:02 PM

Gravity

Oh, someone gives a (partial) answer. It's like pulling teeth.

So...gravity (is that compatible with the UA?) is the answer.

I'm not sure how to explain this to you in a way that you will be able to actually process.

Yes. Gravity. It's not a partial answer. That's how the air stays here. Do you have some other explanation you'd like to offer?

I don't care if it's compatible with UA. Why would I? Are you of the mindset that, since you have made terrible arguments against UA and I have pointed some of them out, that somehow means I must subscribe to UA? Is this another one of your impeccable logical conclusions?

Quote from: turtles on May 08, 2019, 04:06:51 PM

Quote from: boydster on May 08, 2019, 02:59:02 PM

Gravity

Oh, someone gives a (partial) answer. It's like pulling teeth.

So...gravity (is that compatible with the UA?) is the answer.

I'm not sure how to explain this to you in a way that you will be able to actually process.

Yes. Gravity. It's not a partial answer. That's how the air stays here. Do you have some other explanation you'd like to offer?

I don't care if it's compatible with UA. Why would I? Are you of the mindset that, since you have made terrible arguments against UA and I have pointed some of them out, that somehow means I must subscribe to UA? Is this another one of your impeccable logical conclusions?

There we go again, latching onto probably the least important part of my reply, a question saying "is that compatible with the UA?" while ignoring the main part of the post because it's inconvenient.

So, to make things easier for you let's forget the UA and just have gravity.

Let's stick with liquids here and not complicate things with gases expanding. If you put a liquid in a cup gravity holds it down. The liquid wants to spread out sideways to lower it's potential energy but it's held in by the sidewall of the cup. If you overfill the cup the liquid doesn't just pile up above the cup, it expands sideways, overspills the sides of the cup and spreads out across the table.

So, a flat earth with a 150 foot ice wall but tens, hundreds of km of atmosphere above it. What's holding it in? Why doesn't it spill over the top of the ice wall?

So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."?

Absolutely it's wrong, it doesn't match observations at all. What's your explanation for keeping the air in, Curiouser and Curiouser? I'm making up crazy Heath Robinson explanations for what's keeping the air in (ridiculously high edge walls, gravity pulling towards the North pole) which don't match the real world. Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

Quote

So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."?

Absolutely it's wrong, it doesn't match observations at all. What's your explanation for keeping the air in, Curiouser and Curiouser? I'm making up crazy Heath Robinson explanations for what's keeping the air in (ridiculously high edge walls, gravity pulling towards the North pole) which don't match the real world. Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

It would be useful if you could learn how to quote using the author, link, and date tags rather than just an undifferentiated "quote" command.

If it's absolutely wrong and doesn't match observations, why are you admittedly making it up, and presenting it giving the impression that it is an FE argument, then knocking it down? (Again, see definition of straw man argument.)

My explanation for "keeping the air in"? I've never talked to him about the subject, but I'm relatively confident that I hold the same opinion as boydster.

Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

Your attempt to presume to know my mood or my motives is as flawed as your invented wall of thousands of km. Just things that you wish were positions people hold so you can use them in arguments against them.

You may be having trouble distinguishing between me arguing in favor of something, and me pointing out that your arguing against it is based on flawed reasoning and assumptions.

My interest in this conversation is the latter, not the former.

You can keep asking "what's keeping the air in?" over and over ... that's not what I'm talking about, or interested in talking about in the topic I started. See:

My interest in any of the posts on this topic is the deceptive practice of giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent, that is, "attacking a straw man."

I suppose that depends on what you think the subject is.

You think it's about determining what keeps the air contained on some version of the idea of a Flat Earth.

I think it's about a jackass who misinterpreted a position commonly held by Flat Earthers because he didn't learn enough about their positions before wanting to start an argument, made up a position about an ice wall thousands of km high with an invented rationale, gave the impression that this was a position that was held by the people he wanted to argue with, was called out for employing a straw man argument, and has been furiously trying to defend himself with arguments not on the subject because he not only doesn't understand the beliefs of the people he's arguing with but he doesn't understand what a straw man argument is and that he is guilty of it, intentionally or unintentionally.

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 02:41:46 AM

Quote

So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."?

Absolutely it's wrong, it doesn't match observations at all. What's your explanation for keeping the air in, Curiouser and Curiouser? I'm making up crazy Heath Robinson explanations for what's keeping the air in (ridiculously high edge walls, gravity pulling towards the North pole) which don't match the real world. Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

It would be useful if you could learn how to quote using the author, link, and date tags rather than just an undifferentiated "quote" command.

Yes, but it's not easy when I'm using a phone, especially if trying to quote two different people

If it's absolutely wrong and doesn't match observations, why are you admittedly making it up, and presenting it giving the impression that it is an FE argument, then knocking it down? (Again, see definition of straw man argument.)

Because

• although they are crazy explanations I can't think of any less crazy ways of solving a problem which is itself intrinsically crazy.
• in the absence of any other explanations I have to assume no one else has a better idea
• I've not claimed it's a FE believers idea.

My explanation for "keeping the air in"? I've never talked to him about the subject, but I'm relatively confident that I hold the same opinion as boydster.

The word "gravity" is not an explanation, as I've explained in my reply to boydster.

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 02:41:46 AM

Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

Your attempt to presume to know my mood or my motives is as flawed as your invented wall of thousands of km. Just things that you wish were positions people hold so you can use them in arguments against them.

Yes, well it seems every believer believes in different, often conflicting, FET. No one can be expected to remember the nuances of each believer.

You may be having trouble distinguishing between me arguing in favor of something, and me pointing out that your arguing against it is based on flawed reasoning and assumptions.

My interest in this conversation is the latter, not the former.

My interest is in the title of this thread.

You can keep asking "what's keeping the air in?" over and over ... that's not what I'm talking about, or interested in talking about in the topic I started. See:

Maybe a different title would have helped.

And once again we have been deflected away from talking about what is keeping the air in. No further forward with the problem. I can only assume it's because it's yet one more nail in FETs coffin.

Ok turtles, how do you think air stays on the Earth since you don't think Gravity can accomplish it?

Ok turtles, how do you think air stays on the Earth since you don't think Gravity can accomplish it?

I've not said the air on FE or RE will fly upwards into space because gravity can't hold it down.

I've only asked what is stopping the air from going sideways over the wall on the FE.

You clearly don't think Gravity can keep air here near the surface of the Earth. Remember, earlier in this thread when I said Gravity is what keeps the air here, and you said that was a partial answer? Please, share with the world what it is that YOU think keeps air right here near the surface of the Earth, and prevents it from just escaping into space.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 02:41:46 AM

Quote

So. No other possible explanation whatsoever. Do you want to explain how you came to this incorrect logical conclusion that "gravity must be pulling the air (and everything else) towards the North pole."?

Absolutely it's wrong, it doesn't match observations at all. What's your explanation for keeping the air in, Curiouser and Curiouser? I'm making up crazy Heath Robinson explanations for what's keeping the air in (ridiculously high edge walls, gravity pulling towards the North pole) which don't match the real world. Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

It would be useful if you could learn how to quote using the author, link, and date tags rather than just an undifferentiated "quote" command.

Yes, but it's not easy when I'm using a phone, especially if trying to quote two different people

Thank you for making the effort.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

If it's absolutely wrong and doesn't match observations, why are you admittedly making it up, and presenting it giving the impression that it is an FE argument, then knocking it down? (Again, see definition of straw man argument.)

Because

• although they are crazy explanations I can't think of any less crazy ways of solving a problem which is itself intrinsically crazy.

Inability to think of an explanation does not mean that the explanations you have thought of encompass the entirety of possibilities.

• in the absence of any other explanations I have to assume no one else has a better idea

Infinite plane Earth is a subject which is in the FAQ, the Wiki, and topics here. An infinite plane can be shown to have a finite gravitational force that is perpendicular to the plane with no tangential component, and does not require an answer to your continuous tiring pestering question of "what keeps the air in?" For one.

• I've not claimed it's a FE believers idea.

If you want to be pedantic, I never said that you claimed that either. But you gave the impression that it was by the way you argued.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

My explanation for "keeping the air in"? I've never talked to him about the subject, but I'm relatively confident that I hold the same opinion as boydster.

The word "gravity" is not an explanation, as I've explained in my reply to boydster.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 02:41:46 AM

Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

Your attempt to presume to know my mood or my motives is as flawed as your invented wall of thousands of km. Just things that you wish were positions people hold so you can use them in arguments against them.

Yes, well it seems every believer believes in different, often conflicting, FET. No one can be expected to remember the nuances of each believer.

"I can't be bothered to actually read my opponent's writing, so since I've already decided that I hold a different opinion from a general group of people, I'll just scattershot an argument, regardless of whether it applies in this case or not." Nice.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

You may be having trouble distinguishing between me arguing in favor of something, and me pointing out that your arguing against it is based on flawed reasoning and assumptions.

My interest in this conversation is the latter, not the former.

My interest is in the title of this thread.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

You can keep asking "what's keeping the air in?" over and over ... that's not what I'm talking about, or interested in talking about in the topic I started. See:

Maybe a different title would have helped.

And once again we have been deflected away from talking about what is keeping the air in. No further forward with the problem. I can only assume it's because it's yet one more nail in FETs coffin.

You assume a lot of things.

You clearly don't think Gravity can keep air here near the surface of the Earth. Remember, earlier in this thread when I said Gravity is what keeps the air here, and you said that was a partial answer? Please, share with the world what it is that YOU think keeps air right here near the surface of the Earth, and prevents it from just escaping into space.

I don't have to say what *I* think keeps the air on the surface of the RE, I can refer to the scientific consensus which shows that's gravity keeps most of the air on the earth. The only way the RE can lose air is upwards, and it's a tiny amount.

The FE could also lose a tiny amount upwards into space but has the additional problem of losing huge amounts sideways over the top of a 150 foot ice wall. Quite clearly we do still have air, so what in FET is stopping the air from going over the wall?

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 12:23:03 PM

Because

• although they are crazy explanations I can't think of any less crazy ways of solving a problem which is itself intrinsically crazy.

Inability to think of an explanation does not mean that the explanations you have thought of encompass the entirety of possibilities.

Absolutely, but I'm doing my best. No one else seems bothered by these problems.

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 12:23:03 PM

• in the absence of any other explanations I have to assume no one else has a better idea

Infinite plane Earth is a subject which is in the FAQ, the Wiki, and topics here. An infinite plane can be shown to have a finite gravitational force that is perpendicular to the plane with no tangential component, and does not require an answer to your continuous tiring pestering question of "what keeps the air in?" For one.

Then it's ignoring basic physics. You can't have a bubble of air sitting in one place under those conditions any more than you can have a pile of water sitting on a table. It will collapse and spread out sideways.

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 12:23:03 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

My explanation for "keeping the air in"? I've never talked to him about the subject, but I'm relatively confident that I hold the same opinion as boydster.

The word "gravity" is not an explanation, as I've explained in my reply to boydster.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 09:43:54 AM

Quote from: turtles on May 09, 2019, 02:41:46 AM

Meanwhile you're too scared to come up with an explanation because you know it'll be at least as crazy as mine and that kind of thing breaks FET.

Your attempt to presume to know my mood or my motives is as flawed as your invented wall of thousands of km. Just things that you wish were positions people hold so you can use them in arguments against them.

Yes, well it seems every believer believes in different, often conflicting, FET. No one can be expected to remember the nuances of each believer.

"I can't be bothered to actually read my opponent's writing, so since I've already decided that I hold a different opinion from a general group of people, I'll just scattershot an argument, regardless of whether it applies in this case or not." Nice.

You think I should be familiar with every FEers pet theory on what their personal FE looks like? If you agree with me then there's no need for you to engage in this thread. Because you have then you are interested...?

Oh, I see. So my "partial" answer was just missing an appeal to an authority then, got it.

Oh, I see. So my "partial" answer was just missing an appeal to an authority then, got it.

Let's just call my answer an appeal to evidence. One of the main points of FE is to claim "authority" (as if there's only one) is hiding the truth and their evidence is false, otherwise FET can't exist, so I suppose it's expected of you.

It's not as if you don't appeal to the authority of the FE wiki and the writings of Rowbotham is it, or have you actually seen the 150 foot ice wall?

Yet again avoiding the point of a conversation and going after some other issue.

So, what in FET is stopping the air from going over the wall?

When have I ever said that I think there is an ice wall, or that UA is a model I adhere to?

You are the one deflecting. This thread was about the fact that you created an argument that no one else agrees with, them proceeded to pretend others believe the thing that you invented to be true, then spammed posts in several threads about how ridiculous it is that anyone would believe the thing that literally no one has said they believe to be true.

This thread seams to be a perfect example of argumentum ad populum. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum