The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: JohnAdams1145 on February 09, 2018, 11:00:56 PM
-
As someone with basic knowledge in physics and maths, I didn't really understand the part where you talked about the coordinate system.
My knowledge is that you can choose ANY axis as x,y, or z, it really won't affect one's observation.
So, if the take the axis that this force (which funtions analogous to gravity), occurs in the z-axis (or x or y, doesn't really matter), then the other two axis are independent of whatever goes in the z-axis. Therefore, the air can still leak out.
Also, how exactly are they shielded?
Trolltrolls makes a good point.
The thread in "Planes running into the earth" in FE Q&A made me wonder something... The ice wall must be extremely tall, as we have observed that air exists (although sparsely ~5000 Pa) at a rather uniform density at high altitudes (20+ km). Otherwise, since UA (and gravity for that matter) exerts a compressive force on the air, which would leak out from the sides of the FE very quickly (try discharging even low pressure air into a vacuum -- it goes very fast).
The question is, if the ice wall is 20 km tall, and we live on a flat Earth, then surely we should be able to see it with telescopes, no? Also no materials known to man can build a structure 20 km tall, unless you just pile things in a mountain, in which case the base would be prohibitively large (just see how big the base of Mount Everest is, and I believe the base area is exponential to the height). That's a lot of ice.
-
Why would the base be exponential to the height? Why not linear?
By way of comparison, Olympus Mons is 20 km tall, and I think about 500 km across.
-
First off, what is the evidence that the ice wall exists? I think we should start from there. We can by that evidence infer or discover how tall it is and how wide the base is.
What is the evidence that the ice wall exists?
And while we are at that, what is the evidence of the dome? Does the dome start at the ice wall, after the ice wall, on the ice wall, is a part of the ice wall?
-
First off, what is the evidence that the ice wall exists? I think we should start from there. We can by that evidence infer or discover how tall it is and how wide the base is.
What is the evidence that the ice wall exists?
And while we are at that, what is the evidence of the dome? Does the dome start at the ice wall, after the ice wall, on the ice wall, is a part of the ice wall?
I think he's going for proof by contradiction.
-
Why would the base be exponential to the height? Why not linear?
By way of comparison, Olympus Mons is 20 km tall, and I think about 500 km across.
I'm not an expert in civil engineering, but I believe it's exponential because the parts on the bottom effectively need to support the entire building above; however, for solid structures I may be wrong.
Mars gravity is also 38% of that on Earth. The ice wall would have to be at least 1000 km thick. That's a tremendous amount of ice. Additionally, I'm fairly sure the pressures inside the wall would result in exotic new forms of water.
-
Why would the base be exponential to the height? Why not linear?
By way of comparison, Olympus Mons is 20 km tall, and I think about 500 km across.
I'm not an expert in civil engineering, but I believe it's exponential because the parts on the bottom effectively need to support the entire building above; however, for solid structures I may be wrong.
Mars gravity is also 38% of that on Earth. The ice wall would have to be at least 1000 km thick. That's a tremendous amount of ice. Additionally, I'm fairly sure the pressures inside the wall would result in exotic new forms of water.
My "why not linear" comment was misguided. What's happening is that you have a classic cube vs. square race going on, as in explanations for why an ant can't be 10 feet tall. You are right that eventually the cube will overtake the square. The question is when?
Mauna Kea exists on earth, and is 10km high. To get to 20km high, the base would have to cover 4x the area, and the mass would be 8x what it is, so it would double the pressure on the earth's surface. Is that too much? If a volcano grew too big would it sink through the crust or would it spread to a larger degree?
-
Why would the base be exponential to the height? Why not linear?
By way of comparison, Olympus Mons is 20 km tall, and I think about 500 km across.
I'm not an expert in civil engineering, but I believe it's exponential because the parts on the bottom effectively need to support the entire building above; however, for solid structures I may be wrong.
Mars gravity is also 38% of that on Earth. The ice wall would have to be at least 1000 km thick. That's a tremendous amount of ice. Additionally, I'm fairly sure the pressures inside the wall would result in exotic new forms of water.
My "why not linear" comment was misguided. What's happening is that you have a classic cube vs. square race going on, as in explanations for why an ant can't be 10 feet tall. You are right that eventually the cube will overtake the square. The question is when?
Mauna Kea exists on earth, and is 10km high. To get to 20km high, the base would have to cover 4x the area, and the mass would be 8x what it is, so it would double the pressure on the earth's surface. Is that too much? If a volcano grew too big would it sink through the crust or would it spread to a larger degree?
It would spread out over the crust, since rock is rather hard to compress (because Earth is spherical, it has nowhere better to go). Your comments have actually made me think of an even more fatal flaw in the Flat Earth hypothesis; because of the compressive forces involved, Earth should be thicker in the middle and thinner on the outside.
The real problem is that on a Flat Earth, one should very reasonably be able to see these structures, as well as measure the altitude changes near the edge.
-
While we're talking about the ice wall it occurs to me that flerfers should be very much concerned about Global Warming. It has been shown that glaciers the world over are receding, as are the polar ice caps. Given that the "ice wall" is composed of, well, ice, shouldn't global warming affect this hitherto unobserved structure to the same extent that it does other masses of ice? It I were a flerfer I should be quite concerned as, if the wall is diminished sufficiently we are, apparently, about to lose our atmosphere, followed by our oceans.
Why have I encountered no discussion on this topic on these Forums? Do flerfers consider Global Warming to be, as they do so many other phenomena, a hoax?
-
In some theories such as the Celestial Ocean Theory, I believe(Whoever created the theory, correct me if I'm wrong) the Ice Wall is made of the same material as planets, moons, and Libyan Desert Glass. In the other ones, I would guess that either
A) The Ice Wall is either tall enough or thick enough so that it wouldn't melt
or......
B) Global Warming is a hoax.
I seriously hope that I forgot about another possible answer that would keep the wall from melting, because these are both ridiculous ideas. Cartoon Characters could think of smarter theories.
-
As someone with basic knowledge in physics and maths, I didn't really understand the part where you talked about the coordinate system.
My knowledge is that you can choose ANY axis as x,y, or z, it really won't affect one's observation.
So, if the take the axis that this force (which funtions analogous to gravity), occurs in the z-axis (or x or y, doesn't really matter), then the other two axis are independent of whatever goes in the z-axis. Therefore, the air can still leak out.
Also, how exactly are they shielded?
Trolltrolls makes a good point.
The thread in "Planes running into the earth" in FE Q&A made me wonder something... The ice wall must be extremely tall, as we have observed that air exists (although sparsely ~5000 Pa) at a rather uniform density at high altitudes (20+ km). Otherwise, since UA (and gravity for that matter) exerts a compressive force on the air, which would leak out from the sides of the FE very quickly (try discharging even low pressure air into a vacuum -- it goes very fast).
The question is, if the ice wall is 20 km tall, and we live on a flat Earth, then surely we should be able to see it with telescopes, no? Also no materials known to man can build a structure 20 km tall, unless you just pile things in a mountain, in which case the base would be prohibitively large (just see how big the base of Mount Everest is, and I believe the base area is exponential to the height). That's a lot of ice.
Where do you come up with these outlandish figures?
-
While we're talking about the ice wall it occurs to me that flerfers should be very much concerned about Global Warming. It has been shown that glaciers the world over are receding, as are the polar ice caps. Given that the "ice wall" is composed of, well, ice, shouldn't global warming affect this hitherto unobserved structure to the same extent that it does other masses of ice? It I were a flerfer I should be quite concerned as, if the wall is diminished sufficiently we are, apparently, about to lose our atmosphere, followed by our oceans.
Why have I encountered no discussion on this topic on these Forums? Do flerfers consider Global Warming to be, as they do so many other phenomena, a hoax?
Actually, the same people promoting global warming are telling us to rest assured, confident the ice sheet in Antarctica is slowly growing...
-
While we're talking about the ice wall it occurs to me that flerfers should be very much concerned about Global Warming. It has been shown that glaciers the world over are receding, as are the polar ice caps. Given that the "ice wall" is composed of, well, ice, shouldn't global warming affect this hitherto unobserved structure to the same extent that it does other masses of ice? It I were a flerfer I should be quite concerned as, if the wall is diminished sufficiently we are, apparently, about to lose our atmosphere, followed by our oceans.
Why have I encountered no discussion on this topic on these Forums? Do flerfers consider Global Warming to be, as they do so many other phenomena, a hoax?
Actually, the same people promoting global warming are telling us to rest assured, confident the ice sheet in Antarctica is slowly growing...
Oh Please, PLEASE direct me to your source for that information. I would find it ever so comforting.
-
While we're talking about the ice wall it occurs to me that flerfers should be very much concerned about Global Warming. It has been shown that glaciers the world over are receding, as are the polar ice caps. Given that the "ice wall" is composed of, well, ice, shouldn't global warming affect this hitherto unobserved structure to the same extent that it does other masses of ice? It I were a flerfer I should be quite concerned as, if the wall is diminished sufficiently we are, apparently, about to lose our atmosphere, followed by our oceans.
Why have I encountered no discussion on this topic on these Forums? Do flerfers consider Global Warming to be, as they do so many other phenomena, a hoax?
Actually, the same people promoting global warming are telling us to rest assured, confident the ice sheet in Antarctica is slowly growing...
Oh Please, PLEASE direct me to your source for that information. I would find it ever so comforting.
Is your google broken?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ice+sheet+growth+in+antarctica&oq=Ice+sheet+growth+in+antarctica&aqs=chrome..69i57.15280j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Not only that, but wait for it...:
https://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+sea+ice+growing+at+fastest+rate+in+recorded+history&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje4oWsraXZAhWJ44MKHTfrBUgQ1QIImAEoAw&biw=1024&bih=715
People who continue to subscribe to the science promoting AGW or ACC are in fact helping to promote carbon taxes and have ZERO evidence the proposed solutions will work.
This type of behavior is all based on Malthusian economics and is anti - human.
-
Is your google broken?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ice+sheet+growth+in+antarctica&oq=Ice+sheet+growth+in+antarctica&aqs=chrome..69i57.15280j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Not only that, but wait for it...:
https://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+sea+ice+growing+at+fastest+rate+in+recorded+history&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje4oWsraXZAhWJ44MKHTfrBUgQ1QIImAEoAw&biw=1024&bih=715
RE-tards...I wish you guys would have been around when I was selling cars...
I would be on my yacht in Tahiti right now...LMMFAO!!!
You call FE the snake oil salesman...
You just want to promote carbon-based taxes...
Bunch of Malthusian human hating morans...
You're doing that thing again that landed you a ban last time around. Lay off personal attacks and stick to the arguments, please.
-
You're doing that thing again that landed you a ban last time around. Lay off personal attacks and stick to the arguments, please.
You are correct.
I apologize.
Allow me to EDIT my entire post.
Is that better?
Nothing personal, just the specific behavior...
-
Where do you come up with these outlandish figures?
Is your google broken?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=standard+atmosphere
-
Where do you come up with these outlandish figures?
Is your google broken?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=standard+atmosphere
Thank you for confirming you pulled the figures from the thin air.
-
The earth is covered by the vault of heaven ... the firmament.
The firmament is defined as a crystalline material that enshrines the earth.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2s0k8bo.png)
IE it keeps the air in. No need for a huge wall.
-
While we're talking about the ice wall it occurs to me that flerfers should be very much concerned about Global Warming. It has been shown that glaciers the world over are receding, as are the polar ice caps. Given that the "ice wall" is composed of, well, ice, shouldn't global warming affect this hitherto unobserved structure to the same extent that it does other masses of ice? It I were a flerfer I should be quite concerned as, if the wall is diminished sufficiently we are, apparently, about to lose our atmosphere, followed by our oceans.
Why have I encountered no discussion on this topic on these Forums? Do flerfers consider Global Warming to be, as they do so many other phenomena, a hoax?
Actually, the same people promoting global warming are telling us to rest assured, confident the ice sheet in Antarctica is slowly growing...
Oh Please, PLEASE direct me to your source for that information. I would find it ever so comforting.
Is your google broken?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ice+sheet+growth+in+antarctica&oq=Ice+sheet+growth+in+antarctica&aqs=chrome..69i57.15280j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Not only that, but wait for it...:
https://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+sea+ice+growing+at+fastest+rate+in+recorded+history&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje4oWsraXZAhWJ44MKHTfrBUgQ1QIImAEoAw&biw=1024&bih=715
People who continue to subscribe to the science promoting AGW or ACC are in fact helping to promote carbon taxes and have ZERO evidence the proposed solutions will work.
This type of behavior is all based on Malthusian economics and is anti - human.
Well, the first one I looked at was based entirely on NASA satellite data. We have to throw that one out as, as we all know, satellites are impossible.
I'll keep looking...
... a newer study, (2 years after the NASA study)admittedly based on satellite date, with the addition of mathematical models, has reached the opposite conclusion:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-growth-east-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
... in any event, I would suggest you do further research before dismissing global warming outright. Start here:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-antarctica-sea-ice-level-growing-while-arctic-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming
Google can find more if you're so inclined.
-
The earth is covered by the vault of heaven ... the firmament.
The firmament is defined as a crystalline material that enshrines the earth.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2s0k8bo.png)
IE it keeps the air in. No need for a huge wall.
But heaven only exists in religion. And not all religions. I propose that the Earth stands on an elephant!
Also, no proof, like the ice wall thing.
Also, makes even less sense.
-
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”
“Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,‟ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
-
The Challenger sailed as far north as Japan in the Pacific, and as far north as Halifax (and London, of course) in the Atlantic. This could hardly be called a circumnavigation of Antarctica for purposes of size comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Track_of_H.M.S._Challenger_Dec.r_1872_to_May_1876_-_UvA-BC_OTM_HB-KZL_62_04_07.jpg)
-
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”
“Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough,‟ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
Dear Mr. Sydney; Nowadays we actually circumnavigate Antartica for fun http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/
-
The firmament is defined as a crystalline material that enshrines the earth.
Where is that definition and what is your evidence for it existing?
-
The Challenger sailed as far north as Japan in the Pacific, and as far north as Halifax (and London, of course) in the Atlantic. This could hardly be called a circumnavigation of Antarctica for purposes of size comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Track_of_H.M.S._Challenger_Dec.r_1872_to_May_1876_-_UvA-BC_OTM_HB-KZL_62_04_07.jpg)
Fair enough. What about Captain Cook?
-
The Challenger sailed as far north as Japan in the Pacific, and as far north as Halifax (and London, of course) in the Atlantic. This could hardly be called a circumnavigation of Antarctica for purposes of size comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Track_of_H.M.S._Challenger_Dec.r_1872_to_May_1876_-_UvA-BC_OTM_HB-KZL_62_04_07.jpg)
Fair enough. What about Captain Cook?
Yes, what about Captain Cook? What did he prove? Since you prefer to use 17th and 18th centrury explorers to prove your standings, that actually paved the way for more recent conclusions, how about Ranulph Fiennes and Charles Burton? How do you expalin that? While you are at it; explain the rather long list of explorers since the 15th century that hav circumnavigated the globe.
-
Fair enough. What about Captain Cook?
This is not that difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_voyage_of_James_Cook
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cook%27sSecondVoyage53.png)
The voyage from London to Capetown and back is easily 15 to 20 thousand miles. He made a lap of almost the entire south pacific ocean which is likely about 20 thousand miles, plus a smaller lap in the southwest pacific.
Note also that if you are quoting a mileage for such a voyage, you are relying on round earth measurements made by the royal navy, which clearly work because the earth is round but for you to believe them should feel strange, right?
-
Sydney derailed this thread into an argument about whether the ice wall as presented in the AE map has been observed by certain explorers.
The initial question was how could an ice wall be so tall, be supported by a massive base, and completely invisible?
So far, the only logically tenable position has been given by Baby Thork, who says that there is a massive dome keeping the air in. Of course, this has its own problems, particularly of support (the dome has to be obscenely strong material), but does anyone else have an explanation?
-
The only two arguments I've seen which would kinda work in terms of the "atmoplane" leaking out into space are a physical dome or an infinite plane.
These are two FE models - it's weird how they can't agree about fundamental differences like this and don't see that as a problem.
A very tall wall would also work but the you'd surely be able to see it.
Would a dome need supporting if we pretend gravity doesn't exist (sorry, Cavendish)?
-
That would depend on how far the dome was from the Earth. If FE claims that amateur rockets have hit the dome, then clearly some form of gravitation (maybe due to UA) exists up there, since the rockets had to continually thrust to not drop like a rock.