Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?

  • 14 Replies
  • 1071 Views
Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« on: October 21, 2022, 03:45:16 AM »
Well.   I got this idea from another forum.  But the flat earther had it backwards.  In their thinking, the radiation of Fukushima should disperse and decrease in concentration as it migrated through the oceans towards the boundary of the flat earth.

In my thinking.  After centuries.  If the earths oceans and seas are caged in.  There should be a build up of radiation, pollution, and a massive collection of trash clearly defining the boundaries / ice wall?

And before the Industrial Age.  Wouldn’t there be a boon of shipwrecks to recover for treasure hunters and salvagers? 

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2022, 03:52:53 AM »
No. The 'dome' is our atmosphere. That 'thin blue line'. It is not impenetrable.

Dome or 'firmament' is what people who had no idea what it really was called it when they saw the blue sky. It is a clumsy word to use (as most people think of something 'physical') given what we know but it's purpose is much the same

It sustains our life, protects us from asteroids (small enough ones at least) and encapsulates our atmosphere. Our planet is not a 'closed system' and that can be true even of a domed flat earth model.


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2022, 03:55:43 AM »
No. The 'dome' is our atmosphere. That 'thin blue line'. It is not impenetrable.

Dome or 'firmament' is what people who had no idea what it really was called it when they saw the blue sky.

What exactly does your post have to do with radiation and pollution migrating through the seas to build up at the supposed ice wall? 

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2022, 04:03:24 AM »
No. The 'dome' is our atmosphere. That 'thin blue line'. It is not impenetrable.

Dome or 'firmament' is what people who had no idea what it really was called it when they saw the blue sky.

What exactly does your post have to do with radiation and pollution migrating through the seas to build up at the supposed ice wall?

Because earth is not a closed system

And there is no logical reason why 'stuff should build up at the ice wall'. I dont even know why you would think that

The oceans are vast and there is much more room for further pollution. As well as our ground absorbing and adsorbing our wastes and pollution


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2022, 04:16:38 AM »
Considering most ships would likely avoid such an area, I doubt that there would be a buildup of ships.
As for the rest, you would expect it to disperse and spread throughout, unless particular currents trapped it.

So no, I don't think there should be a build up of stuff at an ice wall.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2022, 05:02:49 AM »
Considering most ships would likely avoid such an area, I doubt that there would be a buildup of ships.
As for the rest, you would expect it to disperse and spread throughout, unless particular currents trapped it.

So no, I don't think there should be a build up of stuff at an ice wall.


Hmm.


I would still have to go with items like Fukushima would increase radiation levels high enough they would act as a means to track oceans currents.  And those ocean currents should be effected by the Ice Wall in some way.  In there is no evidence of an ice wall influencing ocean currents.


Quote
Higher Levels of Fukushima Cesium Detected Offshore
TOPICS: FUKUSHIMA RADIATION

https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/fukushima-higher-levels-offshore

These new data are important for two reasons,” said Buesseler. “First, despite the fact that the levels of contamination off our shores remain well below government-established safety limits for human health or to marine life, the changing values underscore the need to more closely monitor contamination levels across the Pacific. Second, these long-lived radioisotopes will serve as markers for years to come for scientists studying ocean currents and mixing in coastal and offshore waters.”




*

JackBlack

  • 22468
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2022, 02:05:59 PM »
I would still have to go with items like Fukushima would increase radiation levels high enough they would act as a means to track oceans currents.  And those ocean currents should be effected by the Ice Wall in some way.  In there is no evidence of an ice wall influencing ocean currents.
How?
I see this as no better than FEers claiming they should be able to see the curve or feel Earth rotate.

Just how should the ocean currents be affected, and how would that differ from the effect of Antartica?

Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2022, 06:43:24 PM »
I would still have to go with items like Fukushima would increase radiation levels high enough they would act as a means to track oceans currents.  And those ocean currents should be effected by the Ice Wall in some way.  In there is no evidence of an ice wall influencing ocean currents.
How?
I see this as no better than FEers claiming they should be able to see the curve or feel Earth rotate.

Just how should the ocean currents be affected, and how would that differ from the effect of Antartica?

 
This


https://oceantracks.org/library/the-north-pacific-ocean/major-currents

Whatever this would be.  Changes in distances, dimensions, and relative positions.




While completely ignoring how gravity would work on a flat earth.

The Coriolis effect wouldn’t be in existence as we know it on a none-rotating earth to…
Quote
Gyres are large rotating current systems in the ocean. The motion of gyres is determined by the direction of the prevailing winds and the influence of the Coriolis effect.
https://oceantracks.org/library/the-north-pacific-ocean/major-currents


If there was a imaginary large fixed circular ice wall, that means its probably supported and fixed by a large continental shelf. That will change how tsunamis propagate through the oceans.  And probably tides.  But you have to have gravity for tides. 

If somehow the imaginary fixed ice wall was just a big ice cube in the oceans.  Or enough glacier building up into the ocean.  The ice wall would cause a ring of cooling causing the ocean waters to cool and sink at the ice wall resulting in the tendency of warmer waters to flow towards the ice wall.

With submarines free to explore under the ice wall if it was just a big ice cube floating around. 

If the ice wall existed. Shouldn’t a big iceburg fall off the ice wall from time to time?  Resulting in a larger number of icebergs than what round earth Antarctica could explain?

Then tracking Antarctica icebergs would be a different pattern than this.

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/glacier-types/ice-shelves-sea-ice-icebergs/#SECTION_2

Thus.  By definition. Different currents that are tracked using round earth Antarctica icebergs….

Now.   You going to be argumentative to just be argumentative? 
« Last Edit: October 21, 2022, 06:48:03 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2022, 06:51:26 PM »
The Coriolis effect wouldn’t be in existence as we know it on a none-rotating earth to…
Which is then really saying the Coriolis effect would be the difference. No need to invoke the ice wall.

If there was a imaginary large fixed circulate ice wall, that means its probably supported and fixed by a large continental shelf.
Just like Antartica? Why would the ice wall need a shelf sticking out below it?

If somehow the imaginary ice wall was just a big ice cube in the oceans.  Or enough glacier building up into the ocean.  The ice wall would cause a ring of cooling causing the ocean waters to cool and sink at the ice wall resulting in the tendency of warmer waters to flow towards the ice wall.
And why shouldn't Antarctica do that, or what should be different with Antartica?

With submarines free to explore under the ice wall of it was just a big ice cube floating around.
On average, roughly 10% of the ice is above water. So if it was just floating, it would go down 9 times as far as it goes up.

If the ice wall existed. Shouldn’t a big iceburg fall off the ice wall from time?  Resulting in a large number of icebergs than what round earth Antarctica could explain?
How many should be expected for Antartica? How many should be expected for an ice wall?
Is the number observed closer to Antartica or the ice wall?
At this point your argument appears to be that Earth is round and if it was flat it would be different.

Different currents that are tracked using round earth Antarctica icebergs….
But are the currents observed those expected for a RE or a FE?

So far the only point you really have is the Coriolis effect.

You haven't shown things should be building up at the ice wall.
And while you have stated that it should be different if Earth was flat, you haven't shown what is expected for each and thus if what is observed matches a RE or a FE.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2022, 07:27:29 PM »

If there was a imaginary large fixed circulate ice wall, that means its probably supported and fixed by a large continental shelf.
Just like Antartica? Why would the ice wall need a shelf sticking out below it?


Quote
The Antarctic continental shelf is a submerged piece of the Antarctic continent that underlies a portion of the Southern Ocean — the ocean which surrounds Antarctica. The shelf is generally narrow and unusually deep, its edge lying at depths averaging 500 meters (the global mean is around 100 meters), with troughs extending as far as 2000 meters deep.[1] It is home to a thriving ecosystem of penguins and cold-water fish and crustaceans. This profound submersion is a result of ice sheet loading, thermal subsidence, and long-term erosion due to climatic variations over the past 34 million years.

Several countries have issued proclamations claiming ownership over parts of the shelf, including Chile (since 1947), Australia (since 1953), France, and Argentina.[2]

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

Hope you find someone else to argue with for the sake of arguing. 

Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2022, 07:36:35 PM »

Different currents that are tracked using round earth Antarctica icebergs….
But are the currents observed those expected for a RE or a FE?

Exactly how would these icebergs used to track the currents around this continent




Equate to the same distribution and currents from an ice wall encompassing the entire known world?




If you think the two are fundamentally the same,  you have some serious issues.  Or here just to troll. 

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2022, 04:17:59 AM »

If there was a imaginary large fixed circulate ice wall, that means its probably supported and fixed by a large continental shelf.
Just like Antartica? Why would the ice wall need a shelf sticking out below it?
Hope you find someone else to argue with for the sake of arguing.
So rather than even attempt to justify how it should be different to Antarctica, you just provide information on Antarctica.
Great job.

Exactly how would these icebergs used to track the currents around this continent
Equate to the same distribution and currents from an ice wall encompassing the entire known world?
By using a different projection for the data.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2022, 04:37:10 AM »

If there was a imaginary large fixed circulate ice wall, that means its probably supported and fixed by a large continental shelf.
Just like Antartica? Why would the ice wall need a shelf sticking out below it?
Hope you find someone else to argue with for the sake of arguing.
So rather than even attempt to justify how it should be different to Antarctica, you just provide information on Antarctica.
Great job.

Exactly how would these icebergs used to track the currents around this continent
Equate to the same distribution and currents from an ice wall encompassing the entire known world?
By using a different projection for the data.

 By all means project these currents as the should relate to the flat earth delusion where Antarctica is an ice wall encompassing the known world on a flat earth map.



It will be interesting to see how you project the Ross and Waddell Gyres if you want to make an effort to prove me wrong the ocean currents would be different sizes, velocities, and dimensions for a world with an ice wall. 


Quote
The Weddell Gyre is one of the two gyres that exist within the Southern Ocean. The gyre is formed by interactions between the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and the Antarctic Continental Shelf. The gyre is located in the Weddell Sea, and rotates clockwise. South of the ACC and spreading northeast from the Antarctic Peninsula, the gyre is an extended large cyclone. Where the northeastern end ends at 30°E, which is marked by the southward turn of the ACC, the northern part of the gyre spreads over the Southern Scotia Sea and goes northward to the South Sandwich Arc. Axis of the gyre is over the southern flanks of the South Scotia, America-Antarctic, and Southwest Indian Ridges.[1] In the southern part of the gyre, the westward return flow is about 66 sverdrup (Sv), while in the northern rim current, there is an eastward flow of 61 Sv.[2]


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

[/quotew

*

JackBlack

  • 22468
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2022, 04:46:51 AM »
By all means project these currents as the should relate to the flat earth delusion where Antarctica is an ice wall encompassing the known world on a flat earth map.
No thanks. I'll leave it to you to plot out the path on the azimuthal equidistant projection commonly used by FEers.

the ocean currents would be different sizes, velocities, and dimensions for a world with an ice wall.
Again, the issue isn't it being different. The issue is showing what is expected for each model, and then showing that what is observed matches one of these models.

*

Timeisup

  • 4038
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Shouldn’t there be a buildup of stuff at the ice wall?
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2022, 07:13:36 AM »

If there was a imaginary large fixed circulate ice wall, that means its probably supported and fixed by a large continental shelf.
Just like Antartica? Why would the ice wall need a shelf sticking out below it?
Hope you find someone else to argue with for the sake of arguing.
So rather than even attempt to justify how it should be different to Antarctica, you just provide information on Antarctica.
Great job.

Exactly how would these icebergs used to track the currents around this continent
Equate to the same distribution and currents from an ice wall encompassing the entire known world?
By using a different projection for the data.

 By all means project these currents as the should relate to the flat earth delusion where Antarctica is an ice wall encompassing the known world on a flat earth map.



It will be interesting to see how you project the Ross and Waddell Gyres if you want to make an effort to prove me wrong the ocean currents would be different sizes, velocities, and dimensions for a world with an ice wall. 


Quote
The Weddell Gyre is one of the two gyres that exist within the Southern Ocean. The gyre is formed by interactions between the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and the Antarctic Continental Shelf. The gyre is located in the Weddell Sea, and rotates clockwise. South of the ACC and spreading northeast from the Antarctic Peninsula, the gyre is an extended large cyclone. Where the northeastern end ends at 30°E, which is marked by the southward turn of the ACC, the northern part of the gyre spreads over the Southern Scotia Sea and goes northward to the South Sandwich Arc. Axis of the gyre is over the southern flanks of the South Scotia, America-Antarctic, and Southwest Indian Ridges.[1] In the southern part of the gyre, the westward return flow is about 66 sverdrup (Sv), while in the northern rim current, there is an eastward flow of 61 Sv.[2]


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

[/quotew

Let’s be real here for a moment. Neither you nor Jack Black know anything about the behaviour of ocean currents that’s not published and made available on public forums. Much of the data on Antarctic currents is  collected  from orbiting satellites measuring wave hieght and direction along with data from Argo. The very fact that this information is both collected and published makes a total mockery of the notion of an ice wall or a flat earth!
The information that is published about the oceans around Antarctica is done so for the continent as it’s currently known and not for sone mythical ice wall that would no doubt produce vastly different climatic conditions from the ones we currently experience.
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!