Ice wall thousands of km high

Also, argumentum ab auctoritate.

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

Possibly even argumentum ad verecundiam

http://wiki.c2.com/?AdVerecundiam

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

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

I think argumentum ad absurdum is more appropriate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Maybe even argumentum ad tua mater.

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

You're gonna make me search the entire FE forum? I don't think so. Doesn't matter about the ice wall really, it can be a rock wall if you like? Ice wall just seems to be the most common opinion around here, that's all. What would you like to replace it with?

UA, well we've been talking about gravity for the last few posts. Can switch back to UA or stay on gravity, I'm not fussed. Which one gives you must wiggle room and we'll go with that?

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.

If you think that's what the thread is about then yes I'm deflecting.

I think it's about the title of the thread so I think you're deflecting.

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

Quote from: boydster on May 10, 2019, 05:40:46 AM

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

You're gonna make me search the entire FE forum? I don't think so.

Ok, so you are both assumptive AND lazy. I see.

You said this:

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?

Please, show me where I have done what you accuse me of.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 05:48:33 PM

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.

That I believe.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 09, 2019, 05:48:33 PM

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.

A bubble of air. That's an interesting assumption to make and then to argue against.

I see a pattern.

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 agree to that, but you find it easier to believe in an infinite plane earth than in a globe?
And how does infinite plane earth work together with the dome, which seems to be the most accepted FET?

I agree to that, but you find it easier to believe in an infinite plane earth than in a globe?

It's irrelevant what I find easier to believe when the matter at hand is turtles' faulty argument, summarized:

   If a flat earth exists, then ice walls thousands of km high are required to keep the air in (despite this idea not being an argument that is common, if ever, raised by Flat Earth believers).
   Turtles asserts this must be the explanation as there are no other explanations he can think of.
   Turtles has ignored a common proposal among Flat Earth believers that the Earth is an infinite plane when that proposal negates his argument that the only possible way gravity works is by pulling everything towards the North Pole to keep the air in.
   Even when this is pointed out to him, turtles can only imagine a bubble of air resting on an infinite plane, and can't imagine any scenario that would prevent air from speading horizontally. (Hint: Complete the following phrase. "Infinite ____________.")

   It is difficult to assert "there is no other way; this is the sole logical conclusion" without addressing other hypotheticals. Which he has not done. His "logical conclusion" as a logical conclusion is faulty.

And how does infinite plane earth work together with the dome, which seems to be the most accepted FET?

Are you kidding? Have you been paying attention in the slightest?

Regardless of the validity of your assertion that a domed FE seems to be the most accepted FE (and ignoring that whole tangent about argument popularity relates to argument validity), the premise of turtles' argument specifically mentioned multiple times that this was for a Flat Earth model sans dome.

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).

Ok sorry, I didn't see that. 

And when did the ice appear at all?

And when did the ice appear at all?

@ 32ºF

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 02:03:47 AM

I agree to that, but you find it easier to believe in an infinite plane earth than in a globe?

It's irrelevant what I find easier to believe when the matter at hand is turtles' faulty argument, summarized:

   If a flat earth exists, then ice walls thousands of km high are required to keep the air in (despite this idea not being an argument that is common, if ever, raised by Flat Earth believers).

FEers have no explanation for what keeps the air in at all. Not the slightest clue. Should anyone dare to put forward an idea they will immediately try to shoot it down because....I don't know why, shame at not having an idea themselves perhaps?

   Turtles asserts this must be the explanation as there are no other explanations he can think of.

Turtles asserts that a hugely tall wall is his best explanation.This idea is absolutely crazy...and yet still far from the craziest idea on this website. No one else makes the slightest effort to come up with their own idea but will continually criticise anyone who does have an idea.

   Turtles has ignored a common proposal among Flat Earth believers that the Earth is an infinite plane when that proposal negates his argument that the only possible way gravity works is by pulling everything towards the North Pole to keep the air in.

Turtles is well aware of the infinite plane and has never ignored it. However when Boydster said that the reason the air doesn't spill over a 150 foot ice wall was "gravity" Turtles had to once again fill in the blanks and try to put some physics behind this one word explanation. Of course, the ridiculous world this conjoured up (gravity pulling towards the north pole to make a bubble of air not leaking over the wall) fails in many other ways, much like the standard FET fails.

   Even when this is pointed out to him, turtles can only imagine a bubble of air resting on an infinite plane, and can't imagine any scenario that would prevent air from speading horizontally. (Hint: Complete the following phrase. "Infinite ____________.")

Turtles and, apparently, no one else can imagine any scenario which stops the air spreading out horizontally over an infinite plane. What does keep the air inside the 150 foot ice wall?

   It is difficult to assert "there is no other way; this is the sole logical conclusion" without addressing other hypotheticals. Which he has not done. His "logical conclusion" as a logical conclusion is faulty.

If only someone knew what these other 'hypotheticals' are, if only someone had the imagination to come up with a solution to the problem (obviously it has to be a FE approved solution, no free thinking allowed here!)

Turtles will continue to watch the thread with amusement, wondering where the wriggling will lead to next. Most likely another attempt to argue that the thread is not about what the thread title is but actually about what kind of argument it is. Or a FEer will be wheeled out who believes something slightly different from the others (apparently perfectly valid, due to the fact that no FEer really knows how it all works) and be allowed to draw the conversation in a different direction for a while to waste some time.

What the actual fuck are you even talking about? I said nothing about gravity keeping air inside an ice wall of any size. You're embarrassing yourself right now.

Turtles is well aware of the infinite plane and has never ignored it.

You completely ignored it when you suggested that the counterargument to a non-existent 1000s of km ice wall was:

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?

You seem to have not given it the slightest consideration, since you came up with a counter-example scenario meant to deal with the issue of "keeping air in" by showing a contradiction. (I.e., we don't see a force pulling towards the pole, therefore there must be huge ice walls.)

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 11, 2019, 05:34:57 PM

Even when this is pointed out to him, turtles can only imagine a bubble of air resting on an infinite plane, and can't imagine any scenario that would prevent air from spreading horizontally. (Hint: Complete the following phrase. "Infinite ____________.")

Turtles and, apparently, no one else can imagine any scenario which stops the air spreading out horizontally over an infinite plane. What does keep the air inside the 150 foot ice wall?

Even after the hint? Given that you are considering the ramifications of the existence of an infinite plane, you can't imagine an atmosphere of infinite lateral extent? When an infinite plane (that you are "well aware of") was brought up, and an infinite atmosphere was hinted at, all you could imagine was a bubble of air sitting on it? Seems like you have a limited ability to extrapolate.

Now, please understand that this is not a scenario that I support. But given the though experiment of an infinite plane earth, I certainly have no trouble imagining an infinite atmosphere covering it. I certainly wouldn't immediately jump to "the air must be a bubble on the surface and that bubble must then spread out, so the only way to keep it in is high walls."


And I will remind you that 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." Thousand km high walls are not a thing that anyone but you argues about.

What the actual fuck are you even talking about? I said nothing about gravity keeping air inside an ice wall of any size. You're embarrassing yourself right now.

Well....

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

Gravity

I'm actually looking forward to whatever imaginative way you try to wiggle out of this

Quote from: turtles on May 20, 2019, 04:06:27 PM

Turtles is well aware of the infinite plane and has never ignored it.

You completely ignored it when you suggested that the counterargument to a non-existent 1000s of km ice wall was:

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

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?

You seem to have not given it the slightest consideration, since you came up with a counter-example scenario meant to deal with the issue of "keeping air in" by showing a contradiction. (I.e., we don't see a force pulling towards the pole, therefore there must be huge ice walls.)

No, the "gravity source pulling towards the North pole" was merely me trying to guess what boydster meant with his typically verbose-when-pressed answer of "gravity". I wasn't denying or confirming an infinite plane in that reply, perhaps the plane has no gravitational pull? It's very difficult to work anything out when everyone gives different answers with very limited explanation. I suspect sowing confusion in order to disguise the flimsiness of FET is the plan.

Quote from: turtles on May 20, 2019, 04:06:27 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 11, 2019, 05:34:57 PM

Even when this is pointed out to him, turtles can only imagine a bubble of air resting on an infinite plane, and can't imagine any scenario that would prevent air from spreading horizontally. (Hint: Complete the following phrase. "Infinite ____________.")

Turtles and, apparently, no one else can imagine any scenario which stops the air spreading out horizontally over an infinite plane. What does keep the air inside the 150 foot ice wall?

Even after the hint? Given that you are considering the ramifications of the existence of an infinite plane, you can't imagine an atmosphere of infinite lateral extent? When an infinite plane (that you are "well aware of") was brought up, and an infinite atmosphere was hinted at, all you could imagine was a bubble of air sitting on it? Seems like you have a limited ability to extrapolate.

Now, please understand that this is not a scenario that I support. But given the though experiment of an infinite plane earth, I certainly have no trouble imagining an infinite atmosphere covering it. I certainly wouldn't immediately jump to "the air must be a bubble on the surface and that bubble must then spread out, so the only way to keep it in is high walls."

Even with an infinite plane I can't imagine an atmosphere of infinite lateral extent, it would freeze, lowering the air pressure over the plane and allowing our atmosphere to expand our over the plane. Unless there was a very tall edge wall. Or a dome. Or a force field. Or gravity pulling the air towards the North pole. Unless you're proposing an infinite heat source in the plane as well? But then that would only be the opinion of a subset of FEers.

And I will remind you that 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." Thousand km high walls are not a thing that anyone but you argues about.

Well I know you think that. I'm not surprised FETs supporters try anything they can to try and steer the conversation away from the actual discussion.

Even with an infinite plane I can't imagine an atmosphere of infinite lateral extent ...

That seems about right. You do appear to have a limited imagination.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 20, 2019, 11:37:38 PM

And I will remind you that 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." Thousand km high walls are not a thing that anyone but you argues about.

Well I know you think that. I'm not surprised FETs supporters try anything they can to try and steer the conversation away from the actual discussion.

I like how you presume to dictate what the "actual discussion" is, while attempting both a placation and an insult.

Another one of your rhetorical fallacies, although unlike the "Straw Man Fallacy" (which you still fail to comprehend and understand that you committed), I don't know if it has a name. I will name it the "Turtles' Usurpation of Real Discussion" fallacy.

Quote from: boydster on May 20, 2019, 04:52:11 PM

What the actual fuck are you even talking about? I said nothing about gravity keeping air inside an ice wall of any size. You're embarrassing yourself right now.

Well....

Quote from: turtles on May 08, 2019, 02:47:15 PM

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

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

Gravity

I'm actually looking forward to whatever imaginative way you try to wiggle out of this

I'm not seeing where I said anything about the ice wall part of this anywhere. You didn't just make up my position so you could argue against a straw man, did you?

Quote from: turtles on May 21, 2019, 05:51:03 AM

Even with an infinite plane I can't imagine an atmosphere of infinite lateral extent ...

That seems about right. You do appear to have a limited imagination.

Why thank you sir. My "thousand km ice wall" (which, apparently, I'm the first person ever to imagine) and "North pole gravity" theories quite clearly display that lack of imagination, especially compared to the breadth of ideas your good self has contributed to the discussion.

Quote from: turtles on May 21, 2019, 05:51:03 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 20, 2019, 11:37:38 PM

And I will remind you that 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." Thousand km high walls are not a thing that anyone but you argues about.

Well I know you think that. I'm not surprised FETs supporters try anything they can to try and steer the conversation away from the actual discussion.

I like how you presume to dictate what the "actual discussion" is, while attempting both a placation and an insult.

Another one of your rhetorical fallacies, although unlike the "Straw Man Fallacy" (which you still fail to comprehend and understand that you committed), I don't know if it has a name. I will name it the "Turtles' Usurpation of Real Discussion" fallacy.

The actual discussion? What the one in the title of the thread?

I know, lets just label the whole discussion an attempt at Cunningham's Law.

Quote from: turtles on May 21, 2019, 05:20:36 AM

Quote from: boydster on May 20, 2019, 04:52:11 PM

What the actual fuck are you even talking about? I said nothing about gravity keeping air inside an ice wall of any size. You're embarrassing yourself right now.

Well....

Quote from: turtles on May 08, 2019, 02:47:15 PM

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

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

Gravity

I'm actually looking forward to whatever imaginative way you try to wiggle out of this

I'm not seeing where I said anything about the ice wall part of this anywhere. You didn't just make up my position so you could argue against a straw man, did you?

Oooh, I see. So I ask a question, you provide a one word reply but that's not actually an answer to my question? Sorry, I didn't realise that's how a conversation works. In the future I shall try to remember that your replies have nothing to do with the discussion.

You really ought to let more people know this.

I answered exactly the question you asked, with exactly as much detail as you deserved given your smug, know-it-all, condescending attitude. Is it my fault you continue to argue against phantoms?

I answered exactly the question you asked, with exactly as much detail as you deserved given your smug, know-it-all, condescending attitude. Is it my fault you continue to argue against phantoms?

Wait, is that actually an answer to my comment? Would it be safer if I assumed the opposite of what you wrote?

Actually you answered as imprecisely as you possibly could given that I had cornered you into giving some kind of answer, leaving yourself room to wiggle later.

I know you have to do that, giving a precise answer leaves you open to attack later on when you are forced to contradict yourself while supporting some other part of FET.

Smug, know-it-all and condescending? Wow, and I'm not even a FEer!

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. I bet you're fun at parties.

The actual discussion? What the one in the title of the thread?

I know, lets just label the whole discussion an attempt at Cunningham's Law.

Still engaging in the TURD fallacy, I see. And so entrenched and stubborn in your own opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumptions.

And so entrenched and stubborn in your own opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumptions.

Hahahaha. Oh wow, that's hilarious, to think a flat earther said that. 😂 Worthy of framing, I will have to bookmark that comment.

Anyway, enough of the amusing distraction. Why is all the air still here? Why doesn't it go sideways? Can we prove the infinite plane is infinite? How do you know? Can we prove it radiates an infinite amount of energy to heat an infinite amount of air? With infinite energy can we assume the FE universe won't die a heat death? Is there air beyond the ice wall?  Is it all as cold as Antarctica and covered in ice? Is there an infinite number of penguins out there? Why is the flat earth area not heated in the same way as the infinite plane? 

Answering those questions would go a little way towards understanding why we don't need a 1000km tall edge wall.

This one makes a lot of assumptions

This one makes a lot of assumptions

Those were questions, not assumptions. (Yes, I'm well aware you'll probably redefine what your comment was referring to, that's to be expected here.)

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 21, 2019, 01:58:44 PM

And so entrenched and stubborn in your own opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumptions.

Hahahaha. Oh wow, that's hilarious, to think a flat earther said that.  Worthy of framing, I will have to bookmark that comment.

Yes. It is hilarious to think that a flat earther said that.

And that is exactly my point. You are so entrenched and stubborn in your opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumption that I am a flat earther.

I am not.

I have never made a case that the earth is flat rather than round. I have never written that I believe those who make that case are correct. I have never written that any of the subsidiary theories (universal gravitation, spotlight sun, fake spaceflight, domes, ice walls, conspiracy theories, Rowbotham's experiments, etc.) are correct. With the possible exception of an obvious sarcastic jab here or there I have never written anything that states that I am a supporter of flat earth, or that flat earth theories are correct.

I have been employed in the space science field for over 20 years. I have been personally involved in the construction of over 20 spacecraft. I have personally built and installed optical equipment in a satellite, and after its launch directed high power lasers at the satellite and received both the reflected laser beam and the sensor data from the satellite. I have built satellites that take imagery used by Google maps. I have designed and built hardware for multiple interplanetary missions. I have enough inside knowledge of the infrastructure of spaceflight hardware and the aerospace industry to know the extent to which an entity would have to go to fake aspects of it. I use ultra-precise long range measuring and metrology instruments, and I have measured the curvature of the earth. I hold multiple gradute degrees, including in Atmospheric Science. I have built scientific instrument that measure the profile of the atmosphere from space, and as such have to compensate for the curvature of the earth.

There's very little chance anything written on a site like this will change people's beliefs about the round vs flat debate. It's mostly entertainment. But I do call people out when they assume they can swoop in with a single smug one-topic "gotcha" proof and that's sufficient to convince someone. Or when, like you, they use rhetorical and logical fallacies in an argument. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you intended it or not, you used the strawman fallacy in your argument. Period. And when I pointed it out, you assumed that because I disagreed with you I must be a flat earther.

People in the "I'm going to prove you wrong, you stupid flat-earther" camp almost always take any objection to their arguments defensively as "you disagree with me, you're obviously a stupid flat-earther" instead of reading what is actually written when the criticism is against the logic or validity of the argument technique.

Even when I pointed out multiple times that my interest in the conversation was not the physics of an ice wall, but that you presented a bad argument, your entrenched opinion of me as a stupid flat earther prevented you from actually reading what was written, and your eagerness to prove that I was wrong clouded your ability to see that you had made incorrect assumptions.

Perhaps with that perspective in mind, you should reread the enitre thread and ask yourself how many people involved in the conversations actually present any positions in favor of flat earth, rather than you just assuming so. It's probably fewer than you think.

Yes. It is hilarious to think that a flat earther said that.

And that is exactly my point. You are so entrenched and stubborn in your opinions and eager to prove people wrong that you're not seeing your incorrect assumption that I am a flat earther.

I am not.

Right, so you misrepresented yourself by omission. That's always a possibility here and a pain, but hey, it happens.

I have never made a case that the
 ...
compensate for the curvature of the earth.

Well, you're a learned wo/man then, if I'm to believe you. It's a wonder you have time to come here!

There's very little chance anything written on a site like this will change people's beliefs about the round vs flat debate.

I think you could change someones mind here. FET is basically a conspiracy theory from which someone could be deprogrammed. I'm not claiming I could do it, but sowing doubt helps.

Or when, like you, they use rhetorical and logical fallacies in an argument. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you intended it or not, you used the strawman fallacy in your argument. Period. And when I pointed it out, you assumed that because I disagreed with you I must be a flat earther.
...
instead of reading what is actually written when the criticism is against the logic or validity of the argument technique.

For the record, I don't think it was a straw man. I merely asked what's keeping the air in, expecting a FEer to explain. With no answer forthcoming I made up my own ridiculous theories, never claiming they were anyone's but my own, nor replacing someone else's argument (there wasn't one), expecting them to be knocked down and replaced with FET ones (something I have since found is known as Cunningham's Law).

Even when I pointed out multiple times that my interest in the conversation was not the physics of an ice wall,

Even though I pointed out many times that I'm only interested in the physics.