[Basil270]

I’ve been trying to familiarize myself with the Flat Earth Theory. I read the bit on the wiki about he Ice Wall, but I must say that it did not completely convince me.

One of the things I’m trying to understand is:

According to the theory and the maps, if I am walking along the coast of Antarctica and want to go around it, depending on which direction I’m going the sea would either be on my left and the landmass on my right (and I would be slowly making left turns) or the sea would be on my right and the landmass on my left (and I would slowly be making right turns).

However, practically speaking, when the sea is on my right I am slowly making turns left, and so on.

How would this be explained?

On another topic; what would be considered viable evidence the Earth is spherical?

[Dr David Thork]

Antarctica is huge. If you walk East, the sea is going to be on your right whether the continent wraps left into a contained continent or right to encompass the earth. And you aren't going to be able to tell from photos much less being there, which one of the two it is. It would be like trying to guess Africa was a continent from waking along the Mediterranean side

Well ancient people had no inclination of how the earth might look from one coastline and neither would you.



Being as YOU have never been to Antarctica, let alone walked all the way around it, what is there for me to explain?

[QED]

Antarctica is huge. If you walk East, the sea is going to be on your right whether the continent wraps left into a contained continent or right to encompass the earth. And you aren't going to be able to tell from photos much less being there, which one of the two it is. It would be like trying to guess Africa was a continent from waking along the Mediterranean side

Well ancient people had no inclination of how the earth might look from one coastline and neither would you.



Being as YOU have never been to Antarctica, let alone walked all the way around it, what is there for me to explain?

I find this argumentation odd. YOU have never walked around any continent, I presume. So by what justification can you display a map which depicts continental borders? This is cherry-picking information.

There is a great deal for you to explain. You are participating in the logical fallacy of the "shifting of the burden of proof." Evidence exists to support the RE model. This is a positive claim for which there is support. You have proposed an alternate claim: namely, the FE model. Hence, the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence for this positive claim. Please do so. Until you do so successfully, the null hypothesis remains.

[Dr David Thork]

If you are just going to pat the ball back without adding any further info, I'll pat it back.

The earth looks flat. Intuitively it feels flat. It is you with the wild claim that it might be a ball, contrary to all evidence provided by ones own senses. Very ancient people's assumed the earth flat based on personal experience of earth. They didn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be a ball. Ask a caveman in 10,000 BC and he's going to tell you the earth is a giant plane.

So when personal experience tells one the earth is flat, and you come with the bold claim it is not, it is you with the burden of proof at your feet.

You have this ridiculous notion that walking around something the size of a continent, you'd have an idea what shape that continent is.

Below is a map of North America from 1545, after the worlds best explorers have sailed around it and actually tried mapping it.



So how close are you going to be to guessing Antarctica's shape with a gentle stroll around its shoreline?

[Tumeni]

The earth looks flat. Intuitively it feels flat. It is you with the wild claim that it might be a ball, contrary to all evidence provided by ones own senses.

A microwave oven looks empty. Intuitively, there's nothing in there. My senses can't detect anything by looking at it, listening to it, smelling it. But there's definitely something there which will cook my hand if I try to touch it. So at least three of my senses would let me down here.

Chernobyl looks empty. Intuitively, there's no radioactivity there. My senses can't detect anything by looking at it, listening to it, smelling it. But there's definitely something there which will irradiate me if I walk through it. So, again, at least three of my senses would let me down until it was too late.

Your senses can let you down in so many similar ways.

Below is a map of North America from 1545, after the worlds best explorers have sailed around it and actually tried mapping it.

img  So how close are you going to be to guessing Antarctica's shape with a gentle stroll around its shoreline?

Yes, but we've moved on since then. If you strolled around with some modern-day mapping tools....

[Dr David Thork]

Yes, but we've moved on since then. If you strolled around with some modern-day mapping tools....

The OP asserts that should they make this hypothetical walk (I'm not sure anyone in the history of mankind has), that they would notice the general direction that they are going.

However, practically speaking, when the sea is on my right I am slowly making turns left, and so on.

I'm refuting this as nonsense. You'd have no idea as you walked along up spurs, down valleys, in and out, left and right ... your sense of direction with no points of reference other than the sea and snow would be useless. As the early map makers found.

Now you are saying, well what if you made the journey with theodolites and mapping tools and carefully plotted it all out. Well have you done this? Has the OP done this? The OP is saying surely I'd notice ... well neither he, nor I, nor anyone here, nor anyone you've ever met has done it ... so its a moot point.

[Cartoon_JR]

Yes, but we've moved on since then. If you strolled around with some modern-day mapping tools....

The OP asserts that should they make this hypothetical walk (I'm not sure anyone in the history of mankind has), that they would notice the general direction that they are going.

However, practically speaking, when the sea is on my right I am slowly making turns left, and so on.

I'm refuting this as nonsense. You'd have no idea as you walked along up spurs, down valleys, in and out, left and right ... your sense of direction with no points of reference other than the sea and snow would be useless. As the early map makers found.

Now you are saying, well what if you made the journey with theodolites and mapping tools and carefully plotted it all out. Well have you done this? Has the OP done this? The OP is saying surely I'd notice ... well neither he, nor I, nor anyone here, nor anyone you've ever met has done it ... so its a moot point.

Imagine this, It will make the OP's theory clearer.

Imagine you are on an island. You head up to it's shore and start walking to the right, the ocean will be on your right hand side and the island will be on the left hand side. The OP says that if we continue to walk around the island we will not hit a wall because the island is surrounded by water from all sides.

It is the same thing with Antarctica. it is a continent that is surrounded by water. Therefor making the Ice Wall theory invalid.

If the Earth is flat  then where are it's borders? are they in the sea?

There are no borders because the earth is a sphere. I can give you a lot of  examples.

[Dr David Thork]

Imagine?

What do you mean imagine? Is your imagination empirical evidence? A thought experiment where you set the rules to be so that earth is round, isn't much of a though experiment.

Imagine Mars is full of little green men. Now tell me that there is no life on Mars.

[QED]

Imagine?

What do you mean imagine? Is your imagination empirical evidence? A thought experiment where you set the rules to be so that earth is round, isn't much of a though experiment.

Imagine Mars is full of little green men. Now tell me that there is no life on Mars.

I LOL'ed with your Mars example. Not in a way that is mocking, mind you, but in a honest way that appreciates the point you are making.

I think it is well stated.

Any positive claim has a burden of proof. If I want to claim the Earth is round, then I have a burden to prove it. If I want to claim the Earth is flat, then I have a burden to prove that. The evidence must then be in proportion to the size of the claim. What I mean is this: suppose I told you that my name is David. You will probably believe that without much evidence. David is a known name, and many folks are named this. You may not bet you LIFE on it being true...but you might take my word for it. Suppose, however, that I say my name is Qjksoauhjfrtpa9ehfszEADKLUhfawkdf. THAT is a bit of a bigger claim! You might ask for some ID before you believed it!

So, I guess the point I am making is that it isn't fair. FEers have a harder job than REers, because FEers have a bigger claim -- they must content with an entire field of experimentally proven evidence which validates RET. Hence, FEers in fact have a higher burden of proof needed to support the larger claim. That is not easy on you all, and I am beginning to realize that and cultivate compassion for it.

Please do let me know if I might help.

[timterroo]

I’ve been trying to familiarize myself with the Flat Earth Theory. I read the bit on the wiki about he Ice Wall, but I must say that it did not completely convince me.

One of the things I’m trying to understand is:

According to the theory and the maps, if I am walking along the coast of Antarctica and want to go around it, depending on which direction I’m going the sea would either be on my left and the landmass on my right (and I would be slowly making left turns) or the sea would be on my right and the landmass on my left (and I would slowly be making right turns).

However, practically speaking, when the sea is on my right I am slowly making turns left, and so on.

How would this be explained?

On another topic; what would be considered viable evidence the Earth is spherical?

The big question about the Ice Wall, and I believe also the "Elephant in the room", is what happens when you get to the edge of the ice wall? I have not found in the wiki's here anything that addresses this question. In fact, the wiki seems to deny that anyone has been to antarctica.

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally.

Plenty of scientists, military, and civilians have been to antarctica. There is a small village established where some people live year-round. I have an uncle who has been to antarctica. Is it fair to say that explorers have been far enough inland to have made it as far as the edge? Or, are we just going to assume nobody has gone to the edge, and nobody ever will, so FET isn't concerned with it?

[DocHolliday]

The Earth is huge. If you walk across it, it will appear to be flat to you because of the enormity of the sphere of the earth. And you aren't going to be able to tell from photos much less being there that it is round until you get to a great enough height.

Fixed that for you.

Odd how you don't see the irony of your argument.

[Cartoon_JR]

Imagine?

What do you mean imagine? Is your imagination empirical evidence? A thought experiment where you set the rules to be so that earth is round, isn't much of a though experiment.

Imagine Mars is full of little green men. Now tell me that there is no life on Mars.

Ok then. If you want an experiment, then the experiment is what you get.

Go to any lake and start walking alongside it. Eventually, you will do a complete turnaround it. If the lake was Antarctica then that is exactly what is going to happen.

( this is not a proof that the earth is flat or a sphere, it is just to clarify the OP's question

[Dr Van Nostrand]

I've seen some ice walls and I've seen pictures of ice walls posted by the FE community.

I've never seen a picture of 'THE' ice wall.



Of course, the FET answer is, :How can you prove it's not 'THE' ice wall you see in the picture? (Answer: how can you prove it is?)

[Bad Puppy]

I've seen some ice walls and I've seen pictures of ice walls posted by the FE community.

I've never seen a picture of 'THE' ice wall.



Of course, the FET answer is, :How can you prove it's not 'THE' ice wall you see in the picture? (Answer: how can you prove it is?)

I, too would love to see a photograph of THE ice wall.

[QED]

I've seen some ice walls and I've seen pictures of ice walls posted by the FE community.

I've never seen a picture of 'THE' ice wall.



Of course, the FET answer is, :How can you prove it's not 'THE' ice wall you see in the picture? (Answer: how can you prove it is?)

I, too would love to see a photograph of THE ice wall.

The burden of proof always lies with the positive claim. Stating an ice wall exists, from a scientific point of view, requires evidence.

I look forward to that evidence.

[Bad Puppy]

I've seen some ice walls and I've seen pictures of ice walls posted by the FE community.

I've never seen a picture of 'THE' ice wall.



Of course, the FET answer is, :How can you prove it's not 'THE' ice wall you see in the picture? (Answer: how can you prove it is?)

I, too would love to see a photograph of THE ice wall.

The burden of proof always lies with the positive claim. Stating an ice wall exists, from a scientific point of view, requires evidence.

I look forward to that evidence.

Yeah.  Me, too.  Whoever wrote this in the wiki has a wonderful imagination.

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally.

How do you guys know?  If no present human experience can reply, where is your source, evidence, proof of snow, hail, "howling" winds, etc.?  Who are the "some" who believe it stretches forever eternally?  How can the Zetetic Council accept this definition if it has not been directly observed?