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.