Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Antarctica - continent or ice wall?
« on: November 01, 2020, 07:09:32 PM »
I've read the Wiki's, I've searched older posts, and I still don't have what I would call a reasonable explanation.  Rather than drag up old posts that may have gone off-topic, I've created a new one.  Hope it's OK, and this time it’s posted in the correct forum Pete.  Was a genuine mistake and could easily have been moved instead of just locked...

Assuming a traditional flat Earth "monopole" mode

Based on the Earth's accepted diameter of 25,000 miles, the ice wall must have a perimeter in excess of 70,000 miles.  I say in excess of, because the width of the ice wall would have a direct impact on that coastline (and of course the area):
  • At an ice wall width of 5 miles (a reasonable minimum based on viewing distance on a clear day if you could stand on the edge of it) you get a perimeter of approximately 78,500 miles.
  • At an ice wall width of 1150 miles (a reasonable maximum as approximated using the the standard monopole flat Earth map for relative dimensions) you get a perimeter of approximately 71,300 miles.
The coastline of Antarctica has been scientifically measured (multiple times, different people, different methods, similar results) at approximately 11,000 miles, with a modern perimeter measurement including the ice shelf of around 33,000 miles.  This represents, at the worst case, something like a 45,500 mile discrepancy that the traditional flat Earth model does not (yet) account for. 

Furthermore, the measured area of Antarctica is approximately 5.5 million square miles (with land variance in accordance with the above).  Based on those two ice wall width estimates above, you end up with areas of 400 thousand square miles and 86 million square miles respectively.  Both are in wild disagreement with what we actually measure, so how wide is the ice wall?  If the width of the ice wall was 70 miles, that would give you an area of roughly 5.5 million square miles which correlates with what we measure in reality.  But, it leaves the issue of a 78,000 mile perimeter unexplained.

In reality, both FET and RET seem to agree that this icy region exists - we've seen it, we know it's there.  However, in monopolar FET it's something that cannot be accessed, the unknown lies beyond it, and it remains unexplained.  In RET, it's just another continent like any other with a known size and shape, just colder than most.  People have traversed it and visited it, so I fail to see how its physical presence and form can be refuted.

Assuming a flat Earth "bi-polar" model

The fact that this even needs to exist, along with the many other traditional monopole maps, is reason enough to raise question.  But anyway...

According to the bi-polar model, Antarctica is indeed a continent, but this seems to fly in the face of monopole FET and even RET.  At least with the monopole model, if you can start out at the North Pole it doesn't matter which way you face before you start moving, you'll always end up at Antarctica if you keep going in a straight line.  In the bi-polar model, you'll only encounter Antarctica if you happen to be facing towards it.  If you did encounter Antarctica and then kept going, you'd encounter a 3rd icy region:

An 'Ice Wall' still exists in this model, but it is not Antarctica. It is assumed that beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.

I'm not really questioning this particular model one way or the other, but am really just interested to know what people think about the theory, especially those who are invested in traditional FET and the standard monopole model.  It just seems too far removed from observation compared to both FET and RET.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"