The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: ElizaP on July 09, 2017, 07:57:11 PM
-
Hi, new hear. Have been hearing about this idea for awhile, and some of it makes sense. I have some problem with the wall, lol. I don't understand what it is: is it like an actual wall that someone built? Or is it just the frozen edge? I know that pictures aren't counted as proof on this forum but is there a picture of the wall? My bf thinks I'm nuts, but I'm really curious.
-
Hi, new hear. Have been hearing about this idea for awhile, and some of it makes sense. I have some problem with the wall, lol. I don't understand what it is: is it like an actual wall that someone built? Or is it just the frozen edge? I know that pictures aren't counted as proof on this forum but is there a picture of the wall? My bf thinks I'm nuts, but I'm really curious.
Welcome to the den of craziness! I kid, I kid. Somewhat. But the generally accepted idea is that what Round Earth calls Antarctica, is actually a wall of ice around the outside of the disc. A lot of basic information is contained within the sites wiki (located here (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki)) and is a great place to begin learning a bit more if you're curious about this sites presented model of a Flat Earth.
-
Thanks for the response, I wasn't expecting something so soon. lol
I read that, so no one built it right? It's not like that Thrones show, it's just like a really long high glacier?
-
The Ice Wall is the coast of Antarctica, which has naturally formed 150 foot tall walls of ice along its coast; massive glaciers which are known as ice shelves (if resting on water) or ice walls (if resting on land). These walls of ice at the Antarctic coast also exist in the Round Earth model.
-
The Ice Wall is the coast of Antarctica, which has naturally formed 150 foot tall walls of ice along its coast; massive glaciers which are known as ice shelves (if resting on water) or ice walls (if resting on land). These walls of ice at the Antarctic coast also exist in the Round Earth model.
What is the length of the wall?
-
So, I guess I'm just curious, lol, because I've read a bunch of things on this site and have gotten confused. Some of the stuff contradicts the other stuff. How do we know its 150' tall, or is that like an average? Why does the ice shelf/wall only form around the rim? I'm guessing by the silence that there's no pictures. I tried googling it, but I only got game of thrones images or obviously glaciers. thnx for responding.
-
Pictures... Let me get that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+wall+antarctica&tbm=isch (https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+wall+antarctica&tbm=isch)
-
But that's what I'm talking about in my last post. Those are obviously glaciers, in some of them you can see both edges. I guess I understand your point :), that could be a wall, but I guess I just need more proof for this ice wall thing? Did the giant chunk that broke off (from the news today I don't know when it happened) come from the wall? Is climate change a problem for the flat earth?
-
Pictures... Let me get that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+wall+antarctica&tbm=isch (https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+wall+antarctica&tbm=isch)
Oh - but no! Surely not?
So let's look at the first image from that search (it's also on the Wiki here at tfes.org) :
(http://img.epochtimes.com/i6/708110110071820.jpg)
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall. It takes a little more digging to discover that not only is this NOT a photo of any kind of ice wall - it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart. It was an astounding 3,100 square kilometers in area at the outset - and the last large piece of it was last spotted floating just off the coast of New Zealand in 2006.
(http://legacy.sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/icy-ecosystems/sci-media/images/b15a-iceberg/21436-6-eng-NZ/B15A-iceberg_full_size_landscape.jpg)
It took me all of four minutes to find this out...yet hundreds upon hundreds of Flat Earther's posted this as a true photo of the ice cliff...you can find the photo right here on this website - titled "The Ice Wall surrounds 95% of the Antarctic coast" :
http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
...and they complain about NASA faking images??!
This is no more a photo of the great ice wall than "the blue marble" is a photo of the Earth.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
-
Hey guys! A bit of info about me. I'm a fun-loving 30 year old gal just looking for a little fun. I have a heavenly body and jesus is my saviour. Oh, this is christianmingle.com? Oops! Silly me. Anybody down for some fun. ;)
SUPER SORRY THAT WAS MY INAProPRIATE FREND
-
Hey guys! A bit of info about me. I'm a fun-loving 30 year old gal just looking for a little fun. I have a heavenly body and jesus is my saviour. Oh, this is christianmingle.com? Oops! Silly me. Anybody down for some fun. ;)
SUPER SORRY THAT WAS MY INAProPRIATE FREND
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
What is the definition of THE Ice Wall? According to Bishop any iceberg is THE ice wall.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake". It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.
Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!
I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.
Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake". It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.
Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!
I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.
Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!
That would really depend whether Iceberg B-15A was run aground on November 15th, 2000, the date the picture was taken according to the exif data. If it was run aground or touching the coast in any manner then it can be classified as the coast of Antarctica. According to the wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_B-15) the Iceberg B-15 started cracking/calving in 2000, but B-15A isn't mentioned as drifting away until November 2003. The high altitude picture you provided was taken in 2006.
Since it appears that the Iceberg was still touching Antarctica at the time the picture was taken, the picture stays.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake". It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.
Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!
I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.
Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!
That would really depend whether Iceberg B-15A was run aground on November 15th, 2000, the date the picture was taken according to the exif data. If it was run aground or touching the coast in any manner then it can be classified as the coast of Antarctica. According to the wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_B-15) the Iceberg B-15 started cracking/calving in 2000, but B-15A isn't mentioned as drifting away until November 2003. The high altitude picture you provided was taken in 2006.
Since it appears that the Iceberg was still touching Antarctica at the time the picture was taken, the picture stays.
How does any of what you said refute the fact that this floating iceberg is not even remotely an indication of some kind of "huge" 150 foot wall keeping us from finding out the earth is flat?
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake". It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.
Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!
I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.
Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!
That would really depend whether Iceberg B-15A was run aground on November 15th, 2000, the date the picture was taken according to the exif data. If it was run aground or touching the coast in any manner then it can be classified as the coast of Antarctica. According to the wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_B-15) the Iceberg B-15 started cracking/calving in 2000, but B-15A isn't mentioned as drifting away until November 2003. The high altitude picture you provided was taken in 2006.
Since it appears that the Iceberg was still touching Antarctica at the time the picture was taken, the picture stays.
How does any of what you said refute the fact that this floating iceberg is not even remotely an indication of some kind of "huge" 150 foot wall keeping us from finding out the earth is flat?
The bottom line is :
By the usual flat earth definition the so-called ice wall would have to be a continuous wall of ice, 150 feet in height, with a circumference of about 78,000 miles around the rim or edge of the so-called flat earth.
But all of this is false for the reasons stated.
Antarctica is not "The Rim Continent."
It is shown this way because of the distortion on the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection-of the globe.
Antarctica is a continent which has been surveyed, mapped and photographed.
The circumference or coast line of Antarctica is only 11,000 miles.
There is no flat earth map.
The earth is not flat.
The earth is a globe.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.
But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???
That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.
If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)
-
Gecko, hi, original poster here. Where did you get that circumference number from? I feel like I have to constantly say this: but seriously asking, seriously curious. lol.
-
Gecko, hi, original poster here. Where did you get that circumference number from? I feel like I have to constantly say this: but seriously asking, seriously curious. lol.
FE will probably come up with a different number but this is the way I did it.:
I estimated the diameter of the flat earth as being about 25,000 miles.
The "c" (circumference of a circle) is the product of "d" (the diameter) times "pi" (3.141519.....)
They have carried "pi" out to several hundred numbers but have not come up with an exact number.
But 3.14 or 22/7 is usually considered close enough for all practical purposes.
I don't have symbols for the Greek Alphabet on my Nook keyboard so I just had to spell "pi" and show its numerical value.
c=(pi) d
Incidentally the word "Alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Greek Alphabet : Alpha and Beta.
So 25,000 miles times 3.14 equals about 78,000 miles
It would be interesting too see what the FES has to say on the subject. They will probably say it is false because I have been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" because I learned this from a textbook and didn't do it myself. Welcome to the wonderful world of the FES !
P.S. The diameter of the real word is about 8,000 miles and the circumference is about 25,000 miles. The real world is a globe of course .
-
Gecko, hi, original poster here. Where did you get that circumference number from? I feel like I have to constantly say this: but seriously asking, seriously curious. lol.
FE will probably come up with a different number but this is the way I did it.:
I estimated the diameter of the flat earth as being about 25,000 miles.
The "c" (circumference of a circle) is the product of "d" (the diameter) times "pi" (3.141519.....)
They have carried "pi" out to several hundred numbers but have not come up with an exact number.
But 3.14 or 22/7 is usually considered close enough for all practical purposes.
I don't have symbols for the Greek Alphabet on my Nook keyboard so I just had to spell "pi" and show its numerical value.
c=(pi) d
Incidentally the word "Alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Greek Alphabet : Alpha and Beta.
So 25,000 miles times 3.14 equals about 78,000 miles
It would be interesting too see what the FES has to say on the subject. They will probably say it is false because I have been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" because I learned this from a textbook and didn't do it myself. Welcome to the wonderful world of the FES !
P.S. The diameter of the real word is about 8,000 miles and the circumference is about 25,000 miles. The real world is a globe of course .
Gecko, let's be fair, surface distance from north pole to south is half circumference of the globe, so while fe 'maps' show that distance as nearly the radius of the earth disc, thus making the wall nearly the circumference, your figures are still based on a globe converted to a disk. Unfortunately for the fe model, using shadow measurements to a low sun they still come up with 25k mile circumference based on 12,250 equator (fe wiki forms section). So presuming your figures for the antarctic survey are correct and well documented in a way that is irrefutable, fe still has many thousands of miles to account for.
-
Well.....FE can juggle figures anyway they want to make them come out any way they want them, to.
My apologies, but I was in the U.S. Navy (you know they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course) and worked in areas such as radar and the spacing of microwave relay stations which are all based on the earth being a globe (which are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course.)
So I'm just a hopeless case in not knowing how to make things work on a flat earth, so I guess I'll just have to keep them working according to a round earth until I know better. :-(
C'est la vie !
-
Gecko, hi, original poster here. Where did you get that circumference number from? I feel like I have to constantly say this: but seriously asking, seriously curious. lol.
FE will probably come up with a different number but this is the way I did it.:
I estimated the diameter of the flat earth as being about 25,000 miles.
The "c" (circumference of a circle) is the product of "d" (the diameter) times "pi" (3.141519.....)
They have carried "pi" out to several hundred numbers but have not come up with an exact number.
But 3.14 or 22/7 is usually considered close enough for all practical purposes.
I don't have symbols for the Greek Alphabet on my Nook keyboard so I just had to spell "pi" and show its numerical value.
c=(pi) d
Incidentally the word "Alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Greek Alphabet : Alpha and Beta.
So 25,000 miles times 3.14 equals about 78,000 miles
It would be interesting too see what the FES has to say on the subject. They will probably say it is false because I have been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" because I learned this from a textbook and didn't do it myself. Welcome to the wonderful world of the FES !
P.S. The diameter of the real word is about 8,000 miles and the circumference is about 25,000 miles. The real world is a globe of course .
Gecko, let's be fair, surface distance from north pole to south is half circumference of the globe, so while fe 'maps' show that distance as nearly the radius of the earth disc, thus making the wall nearly the circumference, your figures are still based on a globe converted to a disk. Unfortunately for the fe model, using shadow measurements to a low sun they still come up with 25k mile circumference based on 12,250 equator (fe wiki forms section). So presuming your figures for the antarctic survey are correct and well documented in a way that is irrefutable, fe still has many thousands of miles to account for.
How did they come up with a 12,250 mile equator ?
If I use the 12,250 mile equator, I come up with 38,465 miles for the circumference of the ice wall ?
But due to a lack of a flat earth map without distortion I find it difficult to determine the circumference of the ice wall.
If I adjust the diameter of the flat earth map from the inner side to inner side of the ice wall (where ocean meets ice wall) to 4 inches that gives the circumference of the inner side of the ice wall as 12.56 inches. But if I should know for certain the diameter of this circle in miles and by what scale to use I could determine the circumference of the ice wall. Perhaps there is a simple solution and the circumference of ice wall should be known to The Flat Earth Society. As has been stated so many times, we do know the coastline of the Continent of Antarctica is about 11,000 miles. The lack of an accurate map is one of the greatest shortcomings of the idea of a flat earth.
-
How did they come up with a 12,250 mile equator ?
If I use the 12,250 mile equator, I come up with 38,465 miles for the circumference of the ice wall ?
But due to a lack of a flat earth map without distortion I find it difficult to determine the circumference of the ice wall.
If I adjust the diameter of the flat earth map from the inner side to inner side of the ice wall (where ocean meets ice wall) to 4 inches that gives the circumference of the inner side of the ice wall as 12.56 inches. But if I should know for certain the diameter of this circle in miles and by what scale to use I could determine the circumference of the ice wall. Perhaps there is a simple solution and the circumference of ice wall should be known to The Flat Earth Society. As has been stated so many times, we do know the coastline of the Continent of Antarctica is about 11,000 miles. The lack of an accurate map is one of the greatest shortcomings of the idea of a flat earth.
I went back and reread that wiki entry. 1st, I was wrong. They did say 25k miles diameter of 'known' flat earth based upon Erosthenes work. There is a serious flaw in logic that could ever assume that the circumference of a disk that large could resemble the data we have of the southern reaches of that disk (areas we refer to as the southern hemisphere). You had the calculations right.
Edit: sidenote, the southern hemisphere distortion due to this effect would also seriously throw off calculations about light refraction since distance from sunrise to sunset along any southern longitude is so much greater than northern equivalent longitudes especially the farther south you go.
-
Well.....FE can juggle figures anyway they want to make them come out any way they want them, to.
My apologies, but I was in the U.S. Navy (you know they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course) and worked in areas such as radar and the spacing of microwave relay stations which are all based on the earth being a globe (which are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course.)
So I'm just a hopeless case in not knowing how to make things work on a flat earth, so I guess I'll just have to keep them working according to a round earth until I know better. :-(
C'est la vie !
I was in the Navy as well. The conspiracy ran so deep as to be included in both our over the horizon calculations as well as earth rotation calculations for fire control solutions. It's a good thing we did not need to be very accurate with our projectiles or those parts of the calculations would have really thrown off our large projectile delivery to target!
-
Well.....FE can juggle figures anyway they want to make them come out any way they want them, to.
My apologies, but I was in the U.S. Navy (you know they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course) and worked in areas such as radar and the spacing of microwave relay stations which are all based on the earth being a globe (which are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course.)
So I'm just a hopeless case in not knowing how to make things work on a flat earth, so I guess I'll just have to keep them working according to a round earth until I know better. :-(
C'est la vie !
I was in the Navy as well. The conspiracy ran so deep as to be included in both our over the horizon calculations as well as earth rotation calculations for fire control solutions. It's a good thing we did not need to be very accurate with our projectiles or those parts of the calculations would have really thrown off our large projectile delivery to target!
Did you ever see a Navy Manual For Lookouts which has a chart for estimating the distant to the horizon according to the height of the observer above the level of the sea ?
Flat Earth would say :
"It is not accurate because it is based on assuming that there is a curvature of the earth because it assumes that the earth is a globe. The Navy should discard this manual and replace it with a flat earth manual because there is no curvature on a flat earth.The Navy Manual is obviously full of lies and was written by members of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat."
At least that is my guess as to what they might say about a Manual For Lookouts with those charts and figures. LOL.
One of my assignments as an ET in the Navy was on a shipboard surface search radar. If the earth was flat it could theoretically have had an infinite range. But as it was its range was limited to the distance to the horizon, which in turn was limited by the height of the antenna because of the curvature earth - the earth being a globe . If the earth was flat they could have put the antenna on a lot shorter mast and saved the Navy some money !
-
Gecko. I get your assessments: I was a math major originally. However why did you estimate the diameter?
-
Gecko. I get your assessments: I was a math major originally. However why did you estimate the diameter?
Just a guess. I figured that if you cut up the globe and laid it flat, the diameter of the flat earth would be the distance from the ice wall on one side of the disc to the ice wall on the opposite side of the disc. No math involved.
Really, in all reality (which is something that doesn't seem to be in the flat earth vocabulary or dictionary) that ice wall and the horizon (or lack of both for lack of evidence for both )seem to be (in the words of another poster of this forums) "Nails in the flat earth coffin." They're not nails ! They're spikes ! ;D
-
Hi, new hear. Have been hearing about this idea for awhile, and some of it makes sense. I have some problem with the wall, lol. I don't understand what it is: is it like an actual wall that someone built? Or is it just the frozen edge? I know that pictures aren't counted as proof on this forum but is there a picture of the wall? My bf thinks I'm nuts, but I'm really curious.
There are also some flat earthers who say that the Bipolar Projection is the flat earth map of the world.
That map shows Antarctica as a Continent.
The ice wall is not shown, but the ocean does not overflow over the edge because the water in the ocean freezes and causes an ice dam because it is so cold because it is so far from the sun at the edge of the flat earth.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.
But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???
That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.
If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)
The iceberg was part of the coastline when the picture was taken. It is a proof that there are walls of ice at the Antarctic coast. Nowhere in this thread or on this site has it been used as proof for anything more.
If you guys actually want to talk about the length of Antarctica, maybe you should start starting threads about that and stop starting topics about the existence of ice walls at its coast, because that is the topic that is going to be discussed and responded to.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.
But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???
That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.
If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)
The iceberg was part of the coastline when the picture was taken. It is a proof that there are walls of ice at the Antarctic coast. Nowhere in this thread or on this site has it been used as proof for anything more.
If you guys actually want to talk about the length of Antarctica, maybe you should start starting threads about that and stop starting topics about the existence of ice walls at its coast, because that is the topic that is going to be discussed and responded to.
I fail to see why this has any thing to with the so-called "ice wall"....or reality for that matter.
There is absolutely no proof of it, while the size and shape of Antarctica are known. Antartica as a continent is fact ; the ice wall is nothing but fiction.....as well as the whole flat earth flat earth fantasy.
Bottom line: Where is there any proof of an ice wall or a flat earth ?
If anyone wants to engage in this disussion, you are welcome to it. I'm leaving.
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.
But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???
That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.
If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)
The iceberg was part of the coastline when the picture was taken. It is a proof that there are walls of ice at the Antarctic coast. Nowhere in this thread or on this site has it been used as proof for anything more.
If you guys actually want to talk about the length of Antarctica, maybe you should start starting threads about that and stop starting topics about the existence of ice walls at its coast, because that is the topic that is going to be discussed and responded to.
Once more !
There are several ice shelfs on the coast of Antarctica, but they are not a continuous ice wall.
Antarctica is an island continent and not a "rim continent."
And finally there is no such thing as an ice wall.
And there is no such thing as a flat earth.
But no matter how many facts you may post, flat earthers are just going to deny them any way.
So........What's the use ?
You just have to take this flat earth stuff like this.:
If the earth was flat, this is the way some people might think it might be....however weird that might be ! LOL !
-
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
Tom, I thought you subscribed to the "Antarctica-is-a-continent-not-an-ice-wall" FE hypothesis? I've even seen you recently deride another member for challenging the ice wall model, including asking him "who said that?" [about Antarctica being a continent - as if you had never even heard of the hypothesis]? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways. In another post, you referred to this image as your preferred model, in reference to your "Celestial Gears" model:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/c/c2/Altmap.png/400px-Altmap.png)
So what's your real position? Is Antarctica a wall that encloses the world, or a continent that doesn't? It doesn't seem like it can be both, unless you have some slippery, hand-wavy non-answer for that too.
-
My comment you quoted describing the Antarctic coast is not incompatible with that model.
-
My comment you quoted describing the Antarctic coast is not incompatible with that model.
Did I miss something but has Tom Bishop said anything coherent about THE WALL ?
-
My comment you quoted describing the Antarctic coast is not incompatible with that model.
So first you said (my emphases),
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
We all know that in the context of Flat Earth dogma, the phrase "ice wall" is a very specific keyword imbued with at least a decade of meaning. Your idol Rowbotham even made that very clear, and nary a discussion goes by without mentioning it. In this context, the meaning is very clear you were clearly invoking the "Ice Wall Theory". (Or deploying what you though was a "clever" trap, as I've seen you try to do pretty much at least once per thread for a decade.) A[N] (singular) ice wall at THE (singular) Antarctic coast.
Then you said,
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
Well surprise, surprise. You didn't mean the Ice Wall at all, but just some random glaciers, ice shelves, etc. along a ordinary continent with a regular continent coastline. Huh, didn't see that coming. ::)
Pure 100% intellectual dishonesty/troll behavior.
And now your newest comment (top quote), you throw up your hands and say, "what, me? how did I get that wrong, after cleverly playing both sides of the fence on an internet forum"?
You and I - and everyone else reading - know that's BS.
-
Actually I have only maintained in this thread that the ice wall features claimed for the Antarctic coast actually do exist, and it is the length of Antarctica which is in question, not the fact that there are walls of ice there.
-
Pictures... Let me get that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+wall+antarctica&tbm=isch (https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+wall+antarctica&tbm=isch)
Umm, try some reality instead. https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctic+shoreline&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiowqfxk6jVAhULgLwKHWrADw0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1600&bih=703&dpr=1
-
Actually I have only maintained in this thread that the ice wall features claimed for the Antarctic coast actually do exist, and it is the length of Antarctica which is in question, not the fact that there are walls of ice there.
Ummmm.........Try some reality.
We do know this.:
Antarctica is a continent, not some rim of ice.
The length of the coastline of Antarctica is approximately 11,000 miles.
There are numerous ice shelfs along the coast of Antarctica.(Call them "ice walls" if you will.)
These ice shelfs are not continuous, but separated along the coast.
There is evidence of all of this in surveys, maps and photographs.
The so-called ice wall is just the way Antarctica is shown , a result of distortion on the Unipolar Equidistant Projection of the globe.
The earth is a globe.
The flat earth fantasy of the ice wall simply does not exist.
The only thing we know about the ice wall is from the writings of Rowbotham.
It would have to be a continuous ring around a flat earth, 150 feet high, with a circumference of approximately 78,000 miles."Beyond which, there is total darkness, freezing temperatures, snow, ice and howling winds." (That might not be the exact quote, but the gist of it. LOL)
-
Actually I have only maintained in this thread that the ice wall features claimed for the Antarctic coast actually do exist, and it is the length of Antarctica which is in question, not the fact that there are walls of ice there.
Of course - you are completely innocent, and completely intellectually honest. My mistake, reading "sentences" and stuff.
-
Actually I have only maintained in this thread that the ice wall features claimed for the Antarctic coast actually do exist, and it is the length of Antarctica which is in question, not the fact that there are walls of ice there.
Of course - you are completely innocent, and completely intellectually honest. My mistake, reading "sentences" and stuff.
Of course, Tom Bishop is right as long as he admits there are parts of several non-continuous ice walls (notice plural) on the Antarctic coast, but wrong if he claims there is one continuous ice wall (notice singular) around the entire Antarctic coast.
-
Actually I have only maintained in this thread that the ice wall features claimed for the Antarctic coast actually do exist, and it is the length of Antarctica which is in question, not the fact that there are walls of ice there.
Ummmm.........Try some reality.
We do know this.:
Antarctica is a continent, not some rim of ice.
The length of the coastline of Antarctica is approximately 11,000 miles.
There are numerous ice shelfs along the coast of Antarctica.(Call them "ice walls" if you will.)
These ice shelfs are not continuous, but separated along the coast.
There is evidence of all of this in surveys, maps and photographs.
The so-called ice wall is just the way Antarctica is shown , a result of distortion on the Unipolar Equidistant Projection of the globe.
The earth is a globe.
The flat earth fantasy of the ice wall simply does not exist.
The only thing we know about the ice wall is from the writings of Rowbotham.
It would have to be a continuous ring around a flat earth, 150 feet high, with a circumference of approximately 78,000 miles.
Tom does apparently now believe in the bi-polar/antarctica-as-a-continent model. (Which he didn't always, but kudos I guess for him being able to change his own mind.) My only issue was the cute little word-games he thinks are so clever. First he clearly, concisely, and tersely referenced the ice wall model ("The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?"). If you didn't actually know his stance on Antarctica, you'd be tempted to bite. Then he "innocently" flipped the script and did a "gotcha" on TomInAustin.
And like always before, I remember why I've left this forum maybe five times before over ten years: because of pedantic, intellectually dishonest intellectual cowards like Tom. Pretty much just Tom.
(And I also junker, I think - who may be one of Tom's old online cohorts who used to go by a different username. If I'm not mistaken [and I could easily be], junker used to be a roundy who came here for fun debates; then turned "FE" for the self-admitted thrills of it...then I think actually bought into it and became an insufferable, pedantic troll. With ban powers. Maybe. I could be mistaken. I'm hoping that bringing this up might trigger others' memories and recollections.)
I can't imagine how anyone could claim to be "happy", pulling bullshit stunts like Tom, every post, every...freaking...day...(it seems)...for >=ten years. I would have committed suicide a long time ago. What a sad, pathetic little existence he must surely lead. His are the childish, clever tactics of an intellectual coward. And sweet jesus, tedious. Like I said - not fun anymore.
I don't even get how FE'ers can stand it. There's no discussion. No debate. No intellectual stimulation. Not a chance of making legitimate intellectual challenges, with honest, stimulating back-and-forth. Not a shred of a chance that any FE'er will every say, "huh, good point maybe I should rethink that aspect". When's the last time you heard Tom say that? (That did actually happen occasionally ten years ago. Maybe not with Tom, but with other, curious, intellectually honest FE'ers.)
This is an FE-run forum. They make the rules, they set the tone. Tom and junkie are big parts of setting that tone. If they set a tone of engaged, non-pedantic, intellectually honest debate - they could actually stand to win over converts. Not many, I'm sure - it's getting harder and harder to win over hearts and minds for any cause - but infinitely more converts than zero.
(I for one love the idea of a flat earth and conspiracy on a scale never before dreamed of in the history of mankind. I would lose my mind in the best way possible if it were sufficiently proven true, and I could think of dozens of ways I could be convinced.)
Their tone sucks, is depressing and combative, and I can't understand why they even bother. They just want it to be an echo chamber I guess, and bully away dissent. So, once again, I'll be done again soon if not now, for like the fifth time over double that many years. Just as well I suppose, as a single parent (I wasn't before), I can't afford the colossal time sink I've allowed this to become. I hope to god I remember why I should never go back, the next time I'm shocked to learn, "that's STILL a thing!?".
-
Actually I have only maintained in this thread that the ice wall features claimed for the Antarctic coast actually do exist, and it is the length of Antarctica which is in question, not the fact that there are walls of ice there.
Ummm........Are you saying that the length of Antarctica is in question ? Are you repeating that old flat earth word called "fake" that all the surveys, maps and aerial photographs of Antarctica are "fakes" ?
-
Actually I have only maintained in this thread that the ice wall features claimed for the Antarctic coast actually do exist, and it is the length of Antarctica which is in question, not the fact that there are walls of ice there.
Ummmm.........Try some reality.
We do know this.:
Antarctica is a continent, not some rim of ice.
The length of the coastline of Antarctica is approximately 11,000 miles.
There are numerous ice shelfs along the coast of Antarctica.(Call them "ice walls" if you will.)
These ice shelfs are not continuous, but separated along the coast.
There is evidence of all of this in surveys, maps and photographs.
The so-called ice wall is just the way Antarctica is shown , a result of distortion on the Unipolar Equidistant Projection of the globe.
The earth is a globe.
The flat earth fantasy of the ice wall simply does not exist.
The only thing we know about the ice wall is from the writings of Rowbotham.
It would have to be a continuous ring around a flat earth, 150 feet high, with a circumference of approximately 78,000 miles.
Tom does apparently now believe in the bi-polar/antarctica-as-a-continent model. (Which he didn't always, but kudos I guess for him being able to change his own mind.) My only issue was the cute little word-games he thinks are so clever. First he clearly, concisely, and tersely referenced the ice wall model ("The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?"). If you didn't actually know his stance on Antarctica, you'd be tempted to bite. Then he "innocently" flipped the script and did a "gotcha" on TomInAustin.
And like always before, I remember why I've left this forum maybe five times before over ten years: because of pedantic, intellectually dishonest intellectual cowards like Tom. Pretty much just Tom.
(And I also junker, I think - who may be one of Tom's old online cohorts who used to go by a different username. If I'm not mistaken [and I could easily be], junker used to be a roundy who came here for fun debates; then turned "FE" for the self-admitted thrills of it...then I think actually bought into it and became an insufferable, pedantic troll. With ban powers. Maybe. I could be mistaken. I'm hoping that bringing this up might trigger others' memories and recollections.)
I can't imagine how anyone could claim to be "happy", pulling bullshit stunts like Tom, every post, every...freaking...day...(it seems)...for >=ten years. I would have committed suicide a long time ago. What a sad, pathetic little existence he must surely lead. His are the childish, clever tactics of an intellectual coward. And sweet jesus, tedious. Like I said - not fun anymore.
I don't even get how FE'ers can stand it. There's no discussion. No debate. No intellectual stimulation. Not a chance of making legitimate intellectual challenges, with honest, stimulating back-and-forth. Not a shred of a chance that any FE'er will every say, "huh, good point maybe I should rethink that aspect". When's the last time you heard Tom say that? (That did actually happen occasionally ten years ago. Maybe not with Tom, but with other, curious, intellectually honest FE'ers.)
This is an FE-run forum. They make the rules, they set the tone. Tom and junkie are big parts of setting that tone. If they set a tone of engaged, non-pedantic, intellectually honest debate - they could actually stand to win over converts. Not many, I'm sure - it's getting harder and harder to win over hearts and minds for any cause - but infinitely more converts than zero.
(I for one love the idea of a flat earth and conspiracy on a scale never before dreamed of in the history of mankind. I would lose my mind in the best way possible if it were sufficiently proven true, and I could think of dozens of ways I could be convinced.)
Their tone sucks, is depressing and combative, and I can't understand why they even bother. They just want it to be an echo chamber I guess, and bully away dissent. So, once again, I'll be done again soon if not now, for like the fifth time over double that many years. Just as well I suppose, as a single parent (I wasn't before), I can't afford the colossal time sink I've allowed this to become. I hope to god I remember why I should never go back, the next time I'm shocked to learn, "that's STILL a thing!?".
Like you, I have been tempted to leave this forum several times because it got so bad. But I keep coming back because I find some sensible, factual things to post. The temptation is just too great ! LOL.