Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Iceman

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Projects / Changes to the Ice Wall page on the wiki
« on: August 11, 2021, 08:36:55 PM »
As the wiki is variably described in the fora as a compilation of data and arguments that underpin FET based on a collection of scholarly sources, I thought I'd take up a recommendation to make some suggestions on ways to improve the page on the ice wall.

In general: many more sources are required, the page should be better organized to separate information on the known physical characteristics of the wall with theorized conjecture of what may lie beyond it on earth's vast plane, it is striking that descriptions stop after James Ross' first(?) account, there are several inconsistencies between this page and others (isostasy and mountains and volcanoes pages), and several terms are misused.

Citation needed for source of footage

First paragraph:
The first few sentences are, in essence, all dopplegangers of each other. Would it not be simpler to write something that encompasses those ideas into one? ‘the ice wall is a series of massive walls of ice that surrounds/forms most of the coast of Antarctica, rising vertically from the ocean 150 feet (50m) and extending to depths of several hundred metres or more’

Mentioned search for south magnetic pole; this concept should be tidied up later in article

Quote from James Clark Ross:
Citation is needed for source of quote.

indicates the ice wall is not the edge of the known/knowable world
the intensely bright sky beyond it (the ice wall) but too plainly indicated the great distance to which it reached southward
this last part of the quote also suggests that all that region beyond the ice wall should be something TFES concerns itself with, as is laid out in the introductory sentence
the area which the light from the sun affects

Citation is needed for the quote.

Ross vainly searched for passage through a southern sea but failed.  But he wasn’t the last to try to find the south magnetic pole or explore the continent, something any discerning reader of the page should pick up on. More recent explorers have ventured inland, using modes of transportation suitable for land travel – Carl Anton Larsen became the first to ski on the Antarctica in 1892-1893, the Belgians were the first to overwinter in Antarctica in 1897-1899, Robert Falcon Scott reached 82degS during the Discovery expedition 1901-1904; and after a decade of intense exploration by many countries, Prof. Edgeworth David reached the south magnetic pole on Jan 16, 1909 (full list provided here:

This brings things back to south magnetic pole mentioned in paragraph 2. Why is Ross’ account of his journey to be held as truth, but none of the subsequent accounts, whose leads actually planned for terrestrial travel and harsh winter conditions. In modern times, multiple countries have established research stations, like the Amundsen-Scott station at the south pole.

beyond the ice wall is anyone’s guess.
This statement is contradictory to the evidence provided in the page’s lone scholarly source, Drewry (1983)’s compilation. While the book is not available online, but can be ordered for 59 pounds (in 1983), a book review by C. Lorius from the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de l’Environment in Grenoble indicates in includes radio echo sounding data for ‘about half of Antarctica’, which build upon classical techniques like seismic studies, and other recent developments like Landsat satellite Imagery. Basic data are summarized in a series of maps featuring surface and bedrock topography, ice sheet thickness, residual magnetic field, and internal layering of the ice sheet (find full review here: If Drewry’s compilation includes all those data sets, and those data are inherently supported in the wiki, then they should be useful in ascertaining the nature of the ice wall, including the source(s) of ice that create it. Take for instance Siegert et al. 2005’s paper on Radio echo sounding data covering the entire region between the Ronne and Ross ice shelves, which passes by the south pole (DOI: 10.1002/esp.1238).

all we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail
antarctica is absolutely one of the least hospitable regions on earth.

Has there ever been a hurricane there?

I would point to research station live streams, the results from atmospheric observation stations and other observatories, as well as the accounts (and crappy selfies) from travellers that collectively indicate that it’s not exactly desolate, given that several tens of thousands of tourists visit every year (, including many who go swimming – if I had $75K I’d be there in a heart beat, but that’s unfortunately neither here nor there.

human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice
there is no context for this quote. We’re only left to assume it’s another excerpt from James Clark Ross, but that should be clarified and cited.

 as alluded to earlier, human ingress has never really been stopped by a 150-foot wall, unless you’re stuck in a boat.


Photo caption:
add in-text citation to Drewry 1983

1st paragraph:
Most of the ice wall (51%) is grounded, not floating ice, according to the table provided in following section

Suggest an alternate formulation of next sentence: ‘Ice wall is formed from and fed by glaciers extending northward from areas lying at higher elevations than the ice wall observed at the southern shoreline of the southern Ocean.
Even without going beyond the ice wall, physical laws indicate there must be a driving force to induce northward flow of ice, which can only be achieved by having the ice sourced at higher elevations. Happy to provide general sources for that, but it’s really just a matter of agreeing that water doesn’t flow uphill.

Not a critical point at all, but it’s not the presence or strength of currents that controls whether the ice wall will be grounded or occur as a floating ice shelf. And actually, its ice dynamics and meltwater drainage that exerts a strong control on local ocean currents. It’s more about interactions between ice flux and basin geometry (shape, bed gradients, bathymetry), but it’s at least partially fair to say that warm ocean currents can undercut the ice wall, which leads to instability and can promote enhanced calving rates (the primary fear regarding future global warming triggering enhanced calving and accelerating sea level rise)

Citation needed to explain the ‘series of ice walls’ and presence of Transantarctic mountain Ranges.

Would recommend also linking these to the Wiki page on mountains and volcanoes, but it’s unclear what type of FE mountains the Transantarctic range is (citation needed), or how it relates to the wiki-postulated subduction zone beneath the ice wall on the volcanoes page. A recent open access paper in Earth-Science Reviews may be of use (

Citation needed for figures on magnitude of isotatic depression.

Suggestion of isostatic depression of bedrock beneath the ice wall is at odds with views covered on isostasy page.

Citation needed on Ice streams (recommend Bennett 2002; Livingstone et al 2012; or

Ice streams do not ‘flow through’ the ice wall, the ice wall forms along the calving margin of ice streams

General comment - this paragraph should have its own subheading so it is not confused with the description of the nature of the ice wall. Nothing is this paragraph is about the formation of the ice wall.

What is the basis for proposing temperatures may approach absolute zero south of the ice wall?

Why is it assumed to be pitch black when Ross’ account and the video provided at the top of the page all indicate the entire (visible) region is affected by sunlight?

Recommend expanding on the concept of “vast plane of unknown diameter” to distance the views promoted here with the more fringe(?) views of the ice wall as the ‘edge’ or part of the dome, etc. these views create a physical impossibility in this region given that the ice flowing northward to create the ice walls require a source area (discussed above and in references provided)

Ignoring all data collected by man and machine after 1983 is anything BUT “current”.
The percentages of coastal types are not a ‘frequency’.

Flat Earth Theory / Isostasy
« on: May 04, 2021, 04:20:17 PM »
The wiki page on isostasy  includes several problems.  Given it’s (perceived) purpose to validate the arguments against RE gravity it’s worth exploring some of these.

First, the opening sentence is a mischaracterization:
Isostasy is a concept in the(sic) Geology invoked to explain why the Earth’s structures do not behave in accordance to Gravity(sic), which states that greater mass should have greater attraction.
This is portrayed as a statement of fact, when the reality is that Isostacy is a concept that was developed to explain the equal (iso) balance (stasis) of earth’s surface and upper crust resting above the more ductile mantle.

Mainstream definitions and descriptions of isostasy provide a better sense of the concept:

From Joseph A. DiPietro in “Geology and Landscape Evolution 2nd edition:
Isostasy is the rising and settling of a portion of the Earth’s lithosphere when weight is removed or added in order to maintain equilibrium between buoyancy forces that push the lithosphere upward and gravity forces that pull the lithosphere downward
From Wikipedia:
Isostasy or isostatic equilibrium is the state of gravitational equilibrium between Earth’s crust and mantle such that the crust “floats” at an elevation that depends on its thickness and density.

The introduction continues with further misconceptions, stating:
It is expected that there should be a greater gravitational attraction from mountains than from hills, plateaus, and oceans, since mountains are more massive, yet ‘gravity’ readings do not reflect this.
Here it’s entirely unclear who expects that, or why it would be expected. The reason regional gravity measurements do not reflect that is explained by isostacy (and is illustrated by the figure of ‘inverse mountains’ lower on the wiki page.  Essentially, mountains are commonly composed of thick accumulations (tens of km locally) of low density rocks. The weight of these low-density rocks depresses the boundary with the underlying high-density mantle rocks, which then extend for ~2900 km down into Earth’s interior. The depression of the contact is what creates the overall mass-deficit in mountainous regions which produces the reduced gravity signal.

From Karner and Watts (1983): “gravity anomalies and flexure of the lithosphere at mountain ranges”:
The Bouguer gravity anomaly over the Himalayan, Alpine, and Appalachian mountains is characterized by a generally asymmetric gravity “low”, which spans the mountains and associated foreland basins. The minimum of the gravity “low” is generally systematically displaced from the region of greatest topographic relief and shows no obvious relationship to surface geology. In addition, the Alps and Appalachians are associated with a generally symmetric gravity “high” that is unrelated to the topographic relief. Together the gravity low and high form a characteristic positive‐negative anomaly “couple”.

The arguments against Isostasy in the Wiki revolve around the comments by two geologists. The first is an exploration geologist from Australia, Louis Hissink, provides a discussion against gravity and isostasy, stemming from some anomalous downhole geophysical data readings. It’s unclear what downhole tools were used, or how the results were anomalous, so it’s impossible (I would argue not relevant) to discuss the merits of the origins for his skepticism, but the central points he brings up demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concept of isostacy as a whole. After claiming parts of plate tectonic theory do not support the theory of gravity, he continues:
Because of this manner of thinking, which leads to the illogical scenario of low density rocks floating in a more dense substrate, ice caps are believed to depress the crust underneath them, and when the ice melts, the crust re-adjusts by expanding upwards … but just how a rock of density 1 kg/M^3(sic) can sink into crust of density 2.7 kg/M^3(sic) is explained by the principle of isostasy. This assertion is simply crazy – logical but crazy and came about from misinterpreting the earlier surveying data where the plumbline did not deflect as expected from calculations compensating for the mass of the adjacent mountain.
It’s unclear exactly what is ‘crazy’ about isostasy. There is nothing illogical about the scenario of low density material floating in more dense substrate. Take a bucket of water (1 g/cm3), filled to the brim, and place it on a scale. Now place large block of ice (0.9g/cm3) into the bucket. A large volume of water will spill out, the ice will partially float in the bucket, with the highest point of ice rising above the rim of the bucket, and the resulting mass of the bucket-water-ice block will be lower than with just water – isostasy in a bucket!

Hissink mentions crustal emergence around the Baltic Sea and in Canada as proof of glacial isostasy. And it’s worth expanding on glacial isostatic rebound for two reasons: first, regions in Canada and the Baltic experiencing high rates of glacial isostatic rebound are tectonically stable, limiting the potential influence of modern plate tectonic forces on the data; and second glaciers are great, and the deposits they left behind give a great opportunity to explore some fundamental concepts.

“water always finds its level” is a line that is read throughout this site, because it’s true! The fun part is that in basins affected by isostatic adjustment, ‘level’ is not static. We know the Great Lakes are ‘level’ currently, but the shorelines of lakes that occupied the Great Lakes basins in the past rise towards the North and northeast, on exponential curves! The elevations of the shoreline of Glacial Lake Algonquin rises from Below modern water surface elevations of Lake Michigan-Huron(176m asl) in the south, to greater than 375 m asl north and northeast of Georgian Bay.

Here’s a paper that looks and past and recent uplift across the Great Lakes region:  - note that the rate of uplift decreases over time and the total magnitude increases toward the N-NE, such that older lakes are more tilted (because ‘level’ has been changed so much from subsequent isostatic adjustment). Critically, modern GPS data and water level gauges show ongoing adjustments, in line with the warping of paleo-lake shorelines:

modern water level gauge data and uplift modelling in Great lakes

GPS data showing vertical and horizontal movement across US, Canada, and parts of Greenland

Demonstrating the case for glacioisostasy places the discussion of isostasy relative to mountains and ocean trenches into a clearer space by demonstrating the physical, measurable effects of loading huge volumes of low-density material (ice) onto more dense material (crustal rocks and sediments). It is an excellent analog for the mountains (low density rocks in earth’s upper crust) overlying and depressing denser mantle rock – just like the block of ice in a bucket of water.

In the wiki article on isostasy, David Pratt provides additional comments on perceived ‘discrepancies’. These are again based on poor understanding of what is ‘expected’  for gravitational attraction above mountains and continents compared to low-lying areas. A quote from Physicist Maurice Allais is provided to characterize isostasy as a ‘pseudoexplanation’, but a link to ref [15] is not provided in the page’s footnotes. Pratt’s section is concluded with an argument from incredulity asking why positive gravity anomalies can occur in some areas with vertical tectonic movements.

The wiki page then discusses an excerpt from an article in the Journal of the Geological Society of India (vol. 58, Nov 2001). I don’t have access to the full article, but it does appear as though the article’s authors are suggesting the issue arises from conflicting datums, and they begin to propose an answer to the perceived conflict between negative and positive gravity anomalies, which
may be overcome by applying free air correction factor to all the anomalies for a constant height, in the free air, as in the case of airborne surveys.
The alternative explanation that concludes the Wiki page on isostasy leads the reader to oft-discussed gravimeter-seismometer arguments, which I will not repeat here.

It’s worth noting that other parts of the FES wiki – see the Ice wall page – do support the idea that ice in Antarctic outlet glaciers and ice streams does depress the underlying crust there.

Who cares? Isostasy is a minor detail and doesn’t actually say anything about the shape of the earth.

It IS, though, an important part of our understanding of geological processes and of regional variations in the strength of gravitational attraction by the Earth. Dismissal of gravity as a viable theory, partially based on the perceived flaws between observed gravity signals and what is ‘expected’ along major geological features at surface is a common folly here. The Wiki article does not provide any real evidence refuting the theory of isostasy. Therefore, the observation that the strength of earth’s gravity vary by location remains valid. This is an observation that creates significant issues for FET’s equivalency-based arguments against gravity, i.e. that what we ‘feel’ as Earth’s gravity accelerating us downward could equally be described as the Earth accelerating us upward. Until UA can account for local and regional variations in observed gravitational attraction, it can’t be viewed as a viable alternative to RE gravity.

Flat Earth Community / Great pics of ISS
« on: April 11, 2021, 02:42:20 AM »
Stumbled across these pics on reddit today

Pretty awesome shots of the ISS transiting a crescent moon in the early a.m. :o

Flat Earth Theory / The ice wall - data support and
« on: January 25, 2021, 02:07:45 AM »
Going through the wiki articles for the Ice Wall and isostasy, there are some issues that jump out.

A reference to Drewry et al's 1983 compilation is made to point out that only 5%of Antarctica's coastline is rocky. This is a fantastic compilation that was well received by peers at the time. It seems to form the basis to quantify arguments that the ice wall is an insurmountable feature that meets you at the Antarctic coast.  But the Drewry compilation also included data for ~50% of the entire Antarctic continent, including ice surface elevation, thickness and bedrock elevation, measured through airborne Radio echo sounding. Much of this information is actually contained within the table provided, as it's the best way we were able to discern whether an ice mass was floating or grounded. If the Drewry compilation is good enough to prove the ice wall's existence and characteristics, then the other data that went into that table must also be evaluated. This is contrary to the claim on the page that "no one knows what lies far beyond the ice wall"

The page on the ice wall also cites Jamea Ross' testimony. And he wrote detailed accounts of his expeditions so why shouldn't it be included. But then why dont FEW authors accept the accounts of more recent experts who have travelled to (and collected data) well within the interior of the continent beyond the ice wall? Lake Vostok, for example is very intensively studied and is located over 1000 km from the nearest coastline.

The page on the ice wall mentions how the sheer weight of ice is enough to depress bedrock; a wonderful - and accurate - contradiction to the claims on the isostasy page, which relies heavily on the opinions of just two geologists, who have provided some interesting alternate theories to our reality.

Out of curiosity, does FES support the electric universe theory espoused by Hissink, or the aetherometry concepts provided by Pratt (

Even though Trump is to blame for what happened, I figured I'd start a separate thread because I'm curious about where you see last week's shenanigans falling on the spectrum of protest - coup.

I have a hard time viewing it as an attempt at a full blown government overthrow because, for the most part, it was just a bunch of angry, misinformed, and thankfully unorganized, group of far right republicans and full-on racists. On the other hand, they stormed the Capitol while lawmakers were performing arguably their most important duty within the american democratic process. I cant help but feel like if the people who stormed the building had breached the floor before lawmakers and the electoral votes had been evacuated, this would be a very different story, one that would likely still be developing.

Most(?) People went there to protest, but in my mind any breaching the capitol is guilty of a crime. And the fact is that hundreds or thousands of the attendees came equipped and ready/hoping for violent clashes with police and or lawmakers - pipe bombs, blades, bats, combat gear, zip ties, nooses - shows how close things came, especially with the ridiculous unpreparedness of the capitol police.

The one bright side to all this is that, provided there isnt a round two on or around inauguration day, this can be used to highlight the strength -not the weakness - of american democracy. Not many countries can withstand an assault on the heart of their democratic institutions and be essentially back to business the next day.

The ugly side is plain to see, with 5 people dead, and the intensifying of rhetoric and calls to action for a second event in the near future...

Any thoughts on the discovery of months of data breaches by sophisticated and coordinated hackers... US government agencies and private companies compromised, as yet there is little sense of even the magnitude of data that has been accessed and/or stolen because hackers hid their presence so well.

CNN and I think BBC are tentatively reporting a Russian connection, but haven't provided anything of substance to back it up.

The articles I've been able to find all lack any real insights and the whole story isnt really taking off in Main Stream feeds.

Anyone else have any better links?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / My Philosophy on beer...
« on: November 21, 2020, 07:05:13 PM »
it's good.

I'll also take any recommendations for tasty IPAs

Flat Earth Theory / Gyroscopes - science and applications
« on: November 19, 2020, 07:55:55 PM »
Gyros have come up a lot in several different topics in the FE Theory board so I figured I'd make a topic here to discuss the application of gyros to the discussion of the shape of the earth, as well as any issues anyone has with the science that underpins their use.

I've seen numerous examples from people on both side of the debate attempting to use gyros to validate claims so I figured a one-stop shop for all things gyro-related might be worthwhile.

I'll start: the gyro mounted within early Russian rockets caused it to accidentally trigger the emergency ejection of the crew module 27 minutes after a failed launch attempt, where the rocket never left the launch pad. The rotation of the earth made it appear as if the rocket was off course compared to it's intended trajectory of it had actually launched.

Flat Earth Theory / Moon tilt illusion
« on: October 31, 2020, 04:27:29 PM »
Reading some of the back-and-forth in the sunsets in EA thread, I started getting confused about possible light ray paths from the sun to the moon then back down to an observer on earth at around sunset. In my mind, surely the high incidence angle of light hitting the moon before it begins its path toward observers on earth would have an effect on the nature and timing of moon rise and set, because the distance between the sun and moon change in FET over the course of the lunar cycle. This is argued to be the cause for the lunar phases, which makes sense, at least on its own.

This brought me to look at explanations for the lunar phases and the moon tilt illusion on the wiki. EA is invoked to explain the different apparent angle of the moon's illuminated side to the apparent position of the sun. The illuminated side of the moon consistently points up and away from the apparent position of the sun. 

What's not explained clearly (to me at least) is why the illuminated side of the moon would be pointed upward if the light that contacts the moon would, under EA hypothesis, be incident from the underside due to upward curvature of the suns rays away from earth's surface.

Thanks for any clarification.

Flat Earth Theory / Low earth orbits, vs. Sun and moon
« on: October 20, 2020, 01:07:58 PM »
Just came across this video that shows the orbital path of the ISS in both sphere and flat earth models.

***recommend muting volume so you dont have to hear the ridiculous added sound effects***

It's a pretty cool animation no matter how you look at it!

The downside is that it doesnt show day/night cycles along with the orbital path.

Curious if anyone has tried to model/visualize ISS paths with sun and moon path throughout the seasons?

Flat Earth Theory / Sunsets in EA
« on: October 16, 2020, 01:40:39 AM »
So I understand the argument for EA influencing the apparent azimuth of the sun as it sets or rises, and how it accounts for an observer on the ground seeing the clouds illuminated from below.

But for a second observer, located above the clouds, how does EA account for what both of them see? Why doesnt the second observer, above cloud deck, see the sun anymore? Does the bending of light from EA apply to both observers simultaneously?

Flat Earth Community / Pre-NASA space conspiracy
« on: September 23, 2020, 09:17:02 PM »

In the historical figures section on the wiki, a long quote is given from Winship, where he delivers a scathing review of his contemporary astronomers in 1899.

I tried reading further, but theres not a lot of discussion about the motives or reasons for the doubt of the shape of the earth and findings of astronomers until the space flight era. These more modern reasons I can totally understand. There is a valid argument that having dominance in space provides geopolitical power (the US has absolutely achieved that).

I'll stay completely out of the thread after this question, I'm just trying to understand more about the origins of the skepticism surrounding pre-NASA astronomy and the shape of the earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 09, 2020, 07:11:38 PM »
The gravity vs. Upward acceleration/ equivalency principle arguments are an interesting set of discussions. They commonly quote the constant value of 9.8 m/s2 for g. This is true enough for our every day lives.

The problem is that Earth's gravity is nowhere near that uniform once to start using more sensitive instruments in different areas - i.e. the significant digits after 9.8 become significant to the discussion. Gravitational strength varies based on a number of regional factors, like your latitude (because of the earth's rotation, you weigh very slightly less at the equator than you do at the poles, even though you're at a greater distance to the center of the earth).

Ignoring large regional effects, local variations in earth's gravity occur over as little as tens of meters! And in mapping out these changes, weve been able to discover geologic features like buried mineral deposits, oil and gas reservoirs, and buried bedrock valleys that may host large aquifers capable of supplying groundwater for large municipalities. (e.g. Greenhouse and Williams, 1986. A gravity survey of the Dundas buried valley west of Copetown, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.23: 110-114 available free online)

Aside from the multi-billion dollar applications of gravity for exploration, understanding temporal variations in earth's gravity is becoming increasingly effective. The GRACE satellite system can now detect tiny changes in gravitational strength that relate to changes in water and ice storage on land on seasonal and multi-year timescales. These help measure climate change impacts and long-term over use of major aquifer systems that are causing subsidence problems in many cities (examples in California and Arizona are widespread in google searches )

How do these measured changes in local acceleration due to gravity fit within a FE framework? The UA would induce an apparent acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 uniformly across earth's plane, and the equivalency principle is really only valid for local reference frames and cannot account for these local variations.

Flat Earth Theory / Antarctic fossil finds
« on: September 09, 2020, 05:06:31 PM »
Hundreds of fossils have been recovered from various parts of Antarctica. These range from plants, sea creatures, large reptiles and dinosaurs, to coal beds. In particular, large reptile fossils (Lystrosaurus) that date back to the Triassic Period can be found across the interior of the continent, and are also found in bands across southern India, Africa, and South America. *there is an excellent page outlining lots of these on the Geological Society's website, and hundreds of images, journal articles, and news reports can be found by a quick search on google and/or researchgate.

These fossils, the wide variety of rocks which contain them, and the additional older igneous and metamorphic rocks underlying those, demonstrate that the Antarctic continent has a dynamic geologic past. They provide evidence for long-term plate tectonics, by suggesting it was once connected to parts of the other continents mentioned above, and that the climate in the area was warm enough for large reptiles to live (unlike the modern tundra environment we know today, now that it is located at the south pole).

How do these observations of fossil abundances and diversity within the rocks of the Antarctic continent fit within a flat earth framework, where the leading views (monopole model) advocate that Antarctica  is an unknown part of the earth surrounded by an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?

Italics added to correct an originally misquoted statement.

Flat Earth Theory / Tsunami travel times across Pacific Ocean
« on: August 23, 2020, 03:48:01 PM »
Another geology question to toss out there:

Published arrival times of tsunami waves across the Pacific Ocean appear to be consistent with distances between shores portrayed on map projections within a Round Earth framework.

When a seismic event occurs, we can triangulate its epicenter through analysis of the arrival times of the different types of seismic waves recorded at seismometers at different locations on earth. From there, arrival times of tsunami waves have historically been recorded by analysis of tide gauge data at various coastal locations around the Pacific. Tsunami waves travel at ~500 mph, depending on water depth; with the waves traveling faster in deeper water than shallow water. This causes the waves to 'pile up' when they approach shorelines, increasing their height, and leading to destruction of life and property on land.
For more detailed descriptions and sources, go to the USGS, NOAA, or BGS websites, or there are many available research papers available through Researchgate.

The image below shows two separate data sets (very crudely) plotted on a standard FE map (I had to crop out big areas to get it u der max file size for display here). The first, coloured dots, are derived from this map of travel times from a 1975 tsunami originated at Hawaii (data from The source location is shown with purple dot, 5-hour travel times in red, 10-hour times in yellow, and 15-hour times in green. I decided not to drawn lines to connect those locations (as is done in the linked map for a RE).

The second set of data shows the Chilean mega thrust earthquake of 1960. The pink lines connect the source, near Santiago, to the American coast near Los Angeles and to the Northeastern New Zealand coast. Both of these locations reported tsunami wave arrivals after 14 hours.

Can someone explain these observations?

Flat Earth Investigations / Weather balloon from Antarctica
« on: August 20, 2020, 11:12:45 PM »
Hey, I have a decent idea for a couple simple investigations that can be turned into an effective test.

First, crowd-fund a leading FE-er to take the chartered flight to the south pole, where they get to spend 5-6 days there trying around, and would have free time to conduct some basic studies (magnetic inclination and declination mapping as an example)

Second option: convince one of the many agencies operating in antarctica, that they should install a camera and livestream the ascent from any one of the dozens of weather balloon launches. This would (depending on cloud cover) effectively show the shape of the Antarctic continent, one way or the other.

Chartered trips to the south pole are just over 50k USD. I'm not sure what the costs of adding a video stream to a weather balloon launch would be.

*I am a glacial geologist who specializes in reconstruction of past glacial processes. I will not claim to be an expert in geologic knowledge beyond that. Looking to better understand the principles of FE theory as part of ongoing scientific questioning. I have many questions about FE, but many are partially addressed in the FAQ and or the wiki, so I want to address some of the shortcomings of FET, namely its avoidance of explanations of geologic phenomena. Thanks in advance for any clarifications you can provide on any of the queries below. I appreciate it!

1.     Is there an estimate of the age of the earth in flat earth hypotheses? I have not seen any. This is more a point of curiosity for me, but it would hold implications for evaluating other aspects of the theory against potential bodies empirical evidence.

2.     How are earthquakes and volcanoes explained within a flat earth paradigm? Again, more curiosity than anything, but these are major phenomena that require explanation in any worldview.

3.     Though I am admittedly skeptical of the FE model’s ability to account for changes in day/night and seasons, larger scale climate variations are not discussed within a FE framework. A very basic but fundamental question to ask would be what is the cause(s) of past ice ages and interglacials in the recent geologic past (either the last interglacial to glacial maximum from 115 000 – 25 000 years ago, or the last deglaciation from 20 000 – 12 000 years ago, or even the Medieval Warm Period and/or Little Ice Age conditions that exhibited major climate changes over large parts of the earth?

4.     Antarctica. (this will be a longer one, fair warning.) Glaciers and ice sheets are intensely complicated features, but they can be effectively simplified as large masses of frozen water that move/flow due to the influence of gravity. I will grant that they could move under the influence of any force that exhibits a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 (i.e. UA explanation offered in the FE wiki), given our inability to differentiate those two possibilities within a closed reference frame. The problem lies in glacier mechanics and mass balance, but we don’t need to go into detail; simply put, glaciers flow ‘downhill’ melting or calving into the sea at their downstream end. For a glacier/ice sheet to survive over millennia, mass must be added in the upflow regions in the form of precipitation.

a.     If Antarctica is just a wall of ice (and mountains?) that rims the earth, as depicted in the more common FE maps and theories, where are they flowing from? That is, where is ice being added to the wall of ice to counteract the melting and calving observed along the margins of Antarctica?

b.     If mass is being added upflow, that would mean it is being added closer to the edge of the disk. The downward acceleration that drives glacier motion (either gravity or UA, as discussed above), would also cause the ice sheet to flow not only towards the inner part of the disk, where it meets the oceans, but also towards to outer parts of the disk (the mechanism here is the same for all large ice sheets and ice caps, Greenland ice sheet would be the best analogue). If this is true, then ice would eventually flow either off the edge of the earth (which is likely no happening, because this would cause rapid acceleration of the ice flow velocity, initiating broad ice streams that would effectively ‘steal’ ice from the catchment areas flowing towards the oceans within the disk (google ice stream piracy, or check out a paper by Matthew Bennett, 2003: ice streams as the arteries of an ice sheet).

c.     Many people have been to Antarctica, including several personal friends of mine (these are limited to cruises and research missions that visited the margins of the continent). I have seen videos and hundreds of photos of the different stages of the trip. I have personally been offered a position to visit the continent as part of a graduate field course, but I was unable to make it work because of financial and time constraints. Many other people have flown to (and in some cases, skied to) the south pole. There is a permanent research station at the south pole, and many past travelers have documents their experience in detail. There is a 24-hour live stream offered by the US Antarctic program – you can check sunrise and set times and compare them to predictions made by round earth (though, technically, there’s just 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness, but the angle of the sun in the sky/glow beneath the spring and fall will be informative in developing/evaluating theories). You can even apply to be a volunteer and work on different research bases in Antarctica! 😊

d.     How do the transantarctic Mountains and the nearly 100 documented volcanoes fit within the icewall paradigm of flat earth (this assumes the monopole version that appears to be more commonly promoted as opposed to the dipole version which was advocated following increased Antarctic exploration in the early 1900’s, according to the FE wiki). In the round earth paradigm, these mountains form a significant topographic divide which helps promote the divergence of flow at the interior of the ice sheet outward in both directions to the east Antarctic and west Antarctic ice sheets.

e.     How does liquid water get to the base of the Antarctic ice sheet? And why does it flow towards the oceans? If the ice was simply a wall that holds the oceans in place, as promoted by FE, any documented water should be flowing from the oceans, beneath the ice, towards the interior of the ice sheet/outwards towards the edge of the disk, however far that may be. This flow should be controlled by differences in hydraulic head (think pressure) from sea level to the base of the Antarctic ice sheet, which is in many areas 800 - 1500 m below sea level, even along its margins. If the ice was holding the oceans on the surface of the disk, there would be a head differential promoting water flow outward toward the disk margins, rather than from the ice into the oceans.

Pages: [1]