*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2017, 03:38:02 AM »
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
Where is it?

I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ, wiki, and searching the forum. It's obvious you don't have a grasp on the concept, yet you don't mind displaying your ignorance and complaining about it.

The first  sign that the wiki, the FAQ or the other boards don't stand up to scrutiny, the Flat Earth proponents respond with "well I don't believe what it says there anyway"

You can't have it both ways.

I believe that junker instructed you to those sources to get a better a grasp on the basic concepts, so that you can better debate with us, not to believe it.

geckothegeek

Re: The Wall
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2017, 03:39:13 AM »
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
The Horizon, as brought up by gecko, is in fact perfectly in line with this - With no horizon, the wall should be clearly visible in clear condiitons from the outer latitudes. The atmosphere's transparency or lack thereof would mean the horizon would fade out to nothing before we could ever observe a meeting point between earth and sky. Since this is not the case, the wall should be visible on the horizon.

Where is it?

Here is my analysis of "The Wall".
Since this is the "Debate" section of this forum, it should be open for debate.
In the first place, there is no debate. The earth is a globe.
Antarctica has been explored, surveyed and mapped. It is definitely not a wall but a continent.
The existance of the wall seems to stem from the belief that the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection is the map of a flat earth.
But this is a two-dimensional map of a three-dimensional object.....the globe.
It is not an accurate map of a flat earth.
Due to the extreme distortion south of the equator, inherent with this projection of the globe, Antarctica is shown as a ring aound the perimeter of this map.
If this ring was a wall which really existed , survey ships would have mapped it as a solid ring around the perimeter of a flat disc, and would be about 80,000 miles in length.
But this has never been done.
These survey ships could have sailed off shore, close enough to the wall to observe it without it being obscured by any "atmoplanic" effects of fog or haze.
But this has never been done.
If this wall really existed it would seem that the only place where a horizon -  in the definition of where earth and sky appear to meet - would be where the flat earth and the sky meet -  if the sky is sort of a dome over the flat disc. In other words, the horizon on a flat earth would be only at the wall, where the bottom of the dome meets the top of the wall.

This is my analysis is why I believe the ice wall is non-existant and just imaginary or the result of faulty reasoning from the interpretation of the Unipolar Azimuthal Projection of the globe.
This may seem a bit lengthy, but I will just present this as my idea as to why "The Wall" is just one more flaw in the  idea of a flat, disc shaped earth.
I'll just leave it up for debate.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 03:45:45 AM by geckothegeek »

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2017, 07:51:05 AM »
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
Where is it?

I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ, wiki, and searching the forum. It's obvious you don't have a grasp on the concept, yet you don't mind displaying your ignorance and complaining about it.

The first  sign that the wiki, the FAQ or the other boards don't stand up to scrutiny, the Flat Earth proponents respond with "well I don't believe what it says there anyway"

You can't have it both ways.

I believe that junker instructed you to those sources to get a better a grasp on the basic concepts, so that you can better debate with us, not to believe it.

These "basic concepts" don't form the basis of any consistent set of Flat Earth theories, so only those that subscribe to those beliefs demand prior knowledge.
As has been stated, even theorists forming models on those concepts, when challenged, will renounce them without a second thought.
So I'd much rather get an objective view of what the community thinks is going on rather than turning to a central repository of facts proposed by people who don't represent the community's views.

Isn't that what the whole "don't resort to appeals to authority" defense is for in the Flat Earth theory? Free thinking and not submitting oneself to a dogma?

So if we could get back on track, why don't you tell us about the wall, Tom?
As a former resident of the southern hemisphere, I'd love to hear what you have to say about a place I've lived my whole life.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2017, 07:09:00 PM »
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 07:15:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2017, 07:34:55 PM »
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

Except for the coastline segments that have no ice.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/soils-and-landscapes/antarctic-soils

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2017, 08:29:11 PM »
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

And the fact that the bipolar model necessitates the sun taking a figure 8 path to fit observed fact is... an inconvenience?
It still doesn't explain why it is unobservable from, well, anywhere. At all.
Or is that because of the guards?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2017, 08:42:25 PM »
Except for the coastline segments that have no ice.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/soils-and-landscapes/antarctic-soils

It says in the very first sentence of that link that those types of coasts are not the norm.

There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

And the fact that the bipolar model necessitates the sun taking a figure 8 path to fit observed fact is... an inconvenience?

I find the figure 8 path to be very convenient. The figure 8 shape is also seen in the sun'a analemma.

Quote
It still doesn't explain why it is unobservable from, well, anywhere. At all.
Or is that because of the guards?

What do you mean that the Ice Wall is unobserved? Tourists see it all the time when they go sightseeing to Antarctica. It's a wall at the coast.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 08:59:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2017, 08:44:41 PM »
Except for the coastline segments that have no ice.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/soils-and-landscapes/antarctic-soils

It says in the very first sentence of the link that those types of coast are not the norm.
So what is the norm?

Quote
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

And the fact that the bipolar model necessitates the sun taking a figure 8 path to fit observed fact is... an inconvenience?
It still doesn't explain why it is unobservable from, well, anywhere. At all.
Or is that because of the guards?

I find the figure 8 path to be very convenient. The figure 8 shape is also seen in the sun'a analemma.

The analemma is measured over the course of a whole year - the figure 8 needed to explain the bipolar model is traced over a single day.
The two have exactly nothing to do with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2017, 08:56:27 PM »
So what is the norm?

Read the wiki article I linked. There is a source at the bottom which shows that there are walls of ice which comprise 95% of encounters of the Antarctic coast by frequency.

Quote
The analemma is measured over the course of a whole year - the figure 8 needed to explain the bipolar model is traced over a single day.
The two have exactly nothing to do with each other.

That is not correct, it wouldn't make figure 8's every day under that model. In the Bi-Polar model the sun makes North-South and South-North movements between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It would be circling the Northern Hemiplane for part of the year when it is warm in the North and cold in the South, and then it would switch gears and circle the Southern Hemiplane for the remainder of the year when it is cold in the North and warm in the South. The figure 8 takes place over the course of the year, just like in the sun's analemma.

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2017, 09:14:34 PM »
So what is the norm?

Read the wiki article I linked. There is a source at the bottom which shows that there are walls of ice which comprise 95% of encounters of the Antarctic coast by frequency.

Quote
The analemma is measured over the course of a whole year - the figure 8 needed to explain the bipolar model is traced over a single day.
The two have exactly nothing to do with each other.

That is not correct, it wouldn't make figure 8's every day under that model. In the Bi-Polar model the sun makes North-South and South-North movements between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It would be circling the Northern Hemiplane for part of the year when it is warm in the North and cold in the South, and then it would switch gears and circle the Southern Hemiplane for the remainder of the year when it is cold in the North and warm in the South. The figure 8 takes place over the course of the year, just like in the sun's analemma.

So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.

Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.

It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively.

I... I don't even. I just can't. If it weren't so painful it would be funny.
Do you read your posts aloud before sending them? You probably should. A pen and paper might help too so you can draw some diagrams of the ridiculous claims made by your models.

The motion of the sun is the single greatest hole in the Flat Earth theory and your attempts to plug it are only making it exponentially larger with every post.

Incidentally, those walls of ice encountered at the Antarctic coast are the Antarctic fucking coast, not some unsubstantiated ice wall that has never been measured, circumnavigated or even witnessed. As soon as someone has been around the whole thing and confirmed that it is the contiguous ring of ice, then as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is complete fantasy.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2017, 09:17:41 PM »
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.

Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.

It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively.

I... I don't even. I just can't. If it weren't so painful it would be funny.
Do you read your posts aloud before sending them? You probably should. A pen and paper might help too so you can draw some diagrams of the ridiculous claims made by your models.

The motion of the sun is the single greatest hole in the Flat Earth theory and your attempts to plug it are only making it exponentially larger with every post.

If you wish to talk about this I would suggest making a thread on the subject. I would prefer not to go off topic.

Quote
Incidentally, those walls of ice encountered at the Antarctic coast are the Antarctic fucking coast, not some unsubstantiated ice wall that has never been measured, circumnavigated or even witnessed. As soon as someone has been around the whole thing and confirmed that it is the contiguous ring of ice, then as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is complete fantasy.

Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2017, 09:25:09 PM »


Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.

And brought back nothing in the way of actual proof, didn't go all the way around or try and go over it.
On top of that, not a single record exists of a pilot, navigator or even an amateur or proponent of the ice wall theory ever going there after this initial claim.

There. Is. No. Proof.
If there is, submit it.
Photography, ice samples, a single even vaguely accurate map of what it actually looks like instead of a polar projection of the Antarctic coast wrapped around a circle.
No single modern explorer with the wonders of technology given to us has ever substantiated the Ice Wall theory, no matter which side of the debate they are on.

It is fantasy.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2017, 09:32:33 PM »


Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.

And brought back nothing in the way of actual proof, didn't go all the way around or try and go over it.
On top of that, not a single record exists of a pilot, navigator or even an amateur or proponent of the ice wall theory ever going there after this initial claim.

There. Is. No. Proof.
If there is, submit it.
Photography, ice samples, a single even vaguely accurate map of what it actually looks like instead of a polar projection of the Antarctic coast wrapped around a circle.
No single modern explorer with the wonders of technology given to us has ever substantiated the Ice Wall theory, no matter which side of the debate they are on.

It is fantasy.

You're calling British naval officer and Round Earth believer, Sir James Clark Ross, a liar now?  :-\

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2017, 09:47:38 PM »


Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.

And brought back nothing in the way of actual proof, didn't go all the way around or try and go over it.
On top of that, not a single record exists of a pilot, navigator or even an amateur or proponent of the ice wall theory ever going there after this initial claim.

There. Is. No. Proof.
If there is, submit it.
Photography, ice samples, a single even vaguely accurate map of what it actually looks like instead of a polar projection of the Antarctic coast wrapped around a circle.
No single modern explorer with the wonders of technology given to us has ever substantiated the Ice Wall theory, no matter which side of the debate they are on.

It is fantasy.

You're calling British naval officer and Round Earth believer, Sir James Clark Ross, a liar now?  :-\

No, I'm calling the claim of Sir Ross (1800-1862) of an ice wall a baseless and absurd - considering the fact that he made said claim nearly 200 years ago, I'd expect the the following leaps in exploration and technology should be given somewhat more credence.
What's more, the "wall" he was describing is the Ross Ice Shelf - a small part of the Antarctic continent that he said prevented further travel south. It is not a gargantuan wall of ice around the whole planet.

Where is the proof, Tom? Remember that thing that I said before you deflected the direct question and leapt on the one thing you could defend?
Where. Is. Your. Proof?

Re: The Wall
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2017, 12:08:17 PM »
Lol this is what you started a thread over? Really Novarus?

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2017, 06:14:21 PM »
Lol this is what you started a thread over? Really Novarus?

Really, disputeone - there are a few things that are common to most Flat Earth theories that have little to no basis in fact:
The sun is always above the Earth
The southern sky at night is just a view of the same stars from the outer disc
The world is surrounded by an insurmountable wall of ice

Now, not all theories involve these things, but many of them do not plug any or all of these holes and I'm trying to find out what the actual view of the community on these issues.
Especially since any repository of information on these subjects (wiki, FAQ, E:NaG, other users) is immediately abandoned when they don't stand up to scrutiny.

These claims need to be defended or they need to be removed from the models. Simple as that.

geckothegeek

Re: The Wall
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2017, 03:30:52 AM »
If you would remove these claims you would destroy the FES.

geckothegeek

Re: The Wall
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2017, 04:02:27 PM »
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

There are Ice Shelfs along the coast of Antarcita but they are not continuous walls.
The Unipolar and Bipolar maps are not accurate "flat earth maps" . They are just common projections made from the globe. Both have distortions in some areas. An accurate flat earth map has never been produced.

totallackey

Re: The Wall
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2017, 04:37:29 PM »

No, I'm calling the claim of Sir Ross (1800-1862) of an ice wall a baseless and absurd - considering the fact that he made said claim nearly 200 years ago, I'd expect the the following leaps in exploration and technology should be given somewhat more credence.
Why, because you lost your binky?
What's more, the "wall" he was describing is the Ross Ice Shelf - a small part of the Antarctic continent that he said prevented further travel south. It is not a gargantuan wall of ice around the whole planet.[/quote]
You have actually been to the Ross ICe Shelf and witnessed it live and in living color?

Where is the proof, Tom? Remember that thing that I said before you deflected the direct question and leapt on the one thing you could defend?
Where. Is. Your. Proof?
Lol this is what you started a thread over? Really Novarus?

LOST BINKIES ARE A BITCH.

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: The Wall
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2017, 07:51:59 PM »
Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.

So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.