The final intractable problem for the Flat Earthers...24-hour sun at the South Pole.

in informationwar •  6 years ago  (edited)

I've been taking a hard, hard look at the claims of the Flat Earthers on the internet the past couple of weeks, and I am amazed, really, at the case they've built for the flat Earth model. They have resolved to my satisfaction, a whole host of issues that can be explained (EXTREMELY STRANGELY AND ODDLY) equally well with both the globe and the flat Earth models.

Due to all the KNOWN and PROVEN NASA fakery, I'm even willing--until we get indisputable evidence otherwise--to concede that we currently have no slam-dunk proof of the Earth's curvature, which is the one issue I really had a problem with accepting at the start of my personal voyage of discovery. I can also say, as a Christian, that the Bible even leans towards some model that is NOT in line with currently accepted astronomical and cosmological theorems, especially regarding the possible existence of a hard or semi-hard "firmament" or barrier, that prevents space flight beyond low-Earth orbit.

All that having been said, in my mind, the argument really boils down to whether or not Antarctica is a continent or a ring around a flat Earth. I've never been to the South Pole, or anywhere near it (or even south of the equator) so I can't know for sure, but I do know that if The Antarctic has 24-hours of sunlight during the Summer, the same way that the Arctic does during their summer, that the Continent MUST BE a single solid, sea-surrounded land mass at the bottom of a globe, and NOT a ring of ice around a flat Earth.

The standard claim by the scientific community is that, indeed, Antarctica does have a 24-hour sun. See this video, for example:

If that is not faked, and it is indeed located anywhere on the great Southern land mass (for lack of a neutral term) then we live on a globe.

Can we tell for sure that it's in Antarctica. No.

Can we tell for sure that it is in Antarctica but faked. Maybe. I don't have the technology to do that analysis, but it sure looks real enough.

There are other videos that purport to show the 24-hour sun in Antarctica that are OPENLY CLAIMING to be showing the 24-hour sun, but that can be demonstrated to have flaws. Here are a couple examples:


(Warning this one is long and a bit repetitive.)

So, we have pretty good evidence that the 24-hour sun has been either faked or, poorly filmed, by authorities. BUT, we also do not have PROOF that the sun at 70+-degrees south latitude DOES NOT eventually go into a full-24-hour light cycle, ala the KNOWN cycle at the Northern latitudes.

To me, at this point in my search, I am going to default back to globular Earth--which does NOT mean that I buy the "millions of light years, and/or billions of years crap" of standard astronomy, geophysics, astrodynamics, quantum mechanics, and cosmology either.

Try this one on for size, boys and girls!

WHAT IF THE EARTH IS A SPINNING BALL (or a stationary ball, for that matter) with a firmament, and the Sun and stars (as Genesis Chapter one clearly states ) are IN THIS FIRMAMENT zone, neither above or below it.

Here is the Biblical reference:

"14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

It says those lights are IN the firmament, not ABOVE OR BELOW it. It says "IN" more than once, and in varying translations as well.

Food for thought, aye?

AND...I haven't decided on the geocentric v. heliocentric thing yet either. No need to really. Sufficient unto today are the current quandaries, for me anyway.

To me, BY FAR, the most fascinating thing about the whole debate is how many GOOD ANSWERS the Flat Earthers have for arguments that should be cut and dried, and not this intractable, 6000-year since the creation. Their long suit, IMHO, are the Southern hemisphere plane routes, disappearing GPS-tracking of southern flights, fake NASA images, and lack of proof of an expected 12,000-16,000 nautical-mile circumnavigation of Antarctica-- with all the known historical circumnavigations known to have been much, much longer than that.

This is by no means the end of the search for me. I am not at the end of the road, but this 24-hour sun thing needs to be PROVEN a hoax for me to flip 58-years of embedded belief, and I haven't been able to find proof of a hoax.

Carry on, fellow truth seekers. I ENCOURAGE SKEPTICISM about everything TPTB tell us, for sure, and have enormous respect for people who are even willing to question such long and closely-held beliefs as the shape of the Earth.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

& it is very cool to see you researching this topic more.

The 24 hour sun videos from Antarctica could be completely real, but proves nothing in my mind. It is one of those debunk proofs that relies on using the standard model as debunk proof which is illogical.

There exist many possible explanations for what is observed at Antarctica. If you try to make explanations adhere to a specific map or model we are told is correct then you aren’t going to see how many other possible explanations actually exist.

A small local sun orbiting over the northern hemisphere in our summer & shifting to orbit the southern in their summer is one of the best models I’ve seen, but the best video version I’ve seen of it can no longer be found for some odd reason. The orbit was based on actual patterns of electromagnetism that can be recreated & observed in real life & seemed highly accurate.

Another possible explanation is two suns. The sun does appear to be much smaller & more local than we are told so it is possible there could be two or more suns, and we could only see one at a time from where we are allowed to live.

I aim only to think logically about this topic, the two examples above our obviously not proof of anything, but they are possibilities of explanations outside of what is commonly taught or thought. There are clearly many more possibile explanations for what we see with our limited senses.

My mind cannot make any sense of a ball spinning at 1000mph at the equator & about 400mph where I live, slower as you go north, but there is no measurable or observable difference from spin anywhere on the planet. False physics that previously made sense only because someone told me it was so. When I think about my senses being accurate, & things being motionless & not curving it all makes easy logical sense. Perhaps I was hypnotized? It is a possibility

A good question to consider is why is Antarctica the coldest continent? It is the closest continent to the sun at any point in the year due to the tilt & orbit around the sun according to the standard model. Seems implausible, like so many other things taught in the mainstream model

Cs, gonna have to differ with you on this one, my friend. I don't think the 2-sun idea has any really merit, and I still do believe that a 24-hour polar sun at Antarctica would be absolute proof of the globe Earth--if that can be shown.

Peace, brother.

Thanks for the comment, as always!

Thoughtful disagreement is good. Without it we are just republicans or democrats or christians or atheists or flat earthers or ball believers doing divisive work for the big banks.

I think believing that any one thing is absolute proof of anything is flawed logic, we tend to stop using our imagination when we believe we know. I try to think in terms of probability & possibility.

I say keep striving to understand what model makes the most sense to you. But ask yourself if it makes sense because it is consistent with your physical experience & senses or because it fits the programmed mental framework that has been built in your brain from school physics & or the Bible. Impossible to know for sure, but is good for thinking logically imo

I love the way your phrase things, bro. You have a lovely, un-brainwashed mind.

Right now, I would say there is no way a person could be standing anywhere on a southern "wall" and see a Sun circle all the way around without going down-- when we know for a fact that happens (at the north pole, under either model)-- and; that this happening, also, to a person in the southern realms can mean anything other than that this person is on a globe. For me, this one is not a question of alternatives, as there are none that are plausible other than that that orb is circling you because you are in the middle of it's path.

I do believe it is at least 50-50 that we have never been beyond the firmament, that "space" beyond it is water-filled, (as the Bible claims) and that the Sun, moon and stars are all infinitesimally closer to us than standard celestial dynamic theory purports.

“there is no way a person could be standing anywhere on a southern "wall" and see a Sun circle all the way around without going down-- “

I think the Antarctic sun films are from a specific or maybe a few different places commonly visited in Antarctica. There’s nothing logical about it having to be visible the same way from every spot on a supposed ice wall, if there is one, nor does the ice wall have to exist at all for a plane model to be plausible.

The ice wall really has nothing to do with it in my mind. Could exist or not & Antarctica could still be its own continent independent of it.

I see it as being from one specific location so let’s consider all possibilities that could explain what was seen at that location. If the same phenomenon is recorded at the same time from a different location then we would have a lot more interesting evidence to think about.

I haven’t sought much new info on this subject in awhile. I found it to be the most triggering divisive subject I’ve ever talked to people about so figured my free time would be much better spent studying the economic systems of control. But, I’m happy to give my opinion when I see potential for open minded thought & discussion. I definitely do not believe I know anything for certain

"There’s nothing logical about it having to be visible the same way from every spot on a supposed ice wall, if there is one, nor does the ice wall have to exist at all for a plane model to be plausible."

Every spot on an ice wall surrounding a flat earth disc with a sun circling over the disc as commonly portrayed (and nothing else can explain night and day well on a flat disc with a single sun as described in the Bible) would be always:

A: See a sun that is always relatively low to the horizon, even in summer.

B: See a sun that comes into view, rising on one side of a roughly 120-degree maximum arc, and exiting below the horizon on the other end of said arc.

A Sun that circled all the way around a person positioned on an ice wall at the edge of a disc would not be able to do the other things it must do to be fulfilling the other known elements of sunlight and darkness we see throughout the world.

This is kind of fun, isn't it cs?

Trying to think philosophically logical is almost always fun for me.

I think you are setting unnecessary constraints on your theoretical model.

Why does an ice wall have to be included in your thought model, if we have no proof an ice wall even exists?

There could still be an Antarctic continent similar to what we are taught if it were a plane. False flat models are easy to disprove, but disproving one does not disprove all potential flat models. It is a very common debunk tactic that is very flawed. They tend to jump from disproving one questionably sane persons model to claiming the debunk disproves all other models ever.

If there were an Antarctic continent on a flat Earth, someone would have sailed/flown to the non-Antarctic ends of the Earth and taken pictures of whatever the ends look like by now.

How do you know there's no observable difference or even better, why do you know that there should be an observable difference?

If "they" can hypnotize you, why do you think they would chose to make it about such a mundane thing if not the most mundane, as it doesn't make sense to lie about "there's an infinity of stars and planets out there" or tp hide that"we live in a bubble" with it?

BTW, what would the cause of coriolis effect be if we are stationary?

Posted using Partiko Android

I claim to know nothing! But I do have force expectations based on my own experience. Not logical proof, opinion.

If it’s mundane why do you personally spend energy on it?

Where’s the proof of Coriolis?

Loading...

We have over 190 moons in our solar system. Voyager one and two sent back data on them in the 70's, we've had satellites around the moon mapping it, on venus and mars.

Posted using Partiko Android

You're pointing to fake videos of Antarctica as something pointing toward a flat Earth, but fake videos about something don't tell you anything about it other than fakes have been created.
You're also pointing at the bible as a source of information and logic, but it has been proved to be wrong (and fake). Sure, the bible might have truth in it as well as all the lies and confabulations, but why not look to books that aren't known to be full of falsehoods, like physics texts? At least if something in a physics text falls out of favour, it doesn't appear in the next version. The bible continues to tell its lies, inaccuracies, and fables as "the truth", and people like yourself are mentioning it in otherwise fact-based discussions as though it has any merit.
I'm not sure your quest for the truth will go far until you abandon the known lies and focus on things that haven't been proven wrong.

The Bible & physics textbooks are equally flawed in my view, both controlled by flawed humans with agendas, but one has had much better PR than the other lately.

Seems logical to me that education has always been gatekept by people like this 👇

9C5FB93E-BBFF-4C3D-AF2C-025C87339902.jpeg

The bible and physics textooks are both written by people. Physics textbooks are edited as new information comes in. The bible claims to have had the truth all along, but has been proved wrong over and over and over. There's almost nothing in the bible that hasn't been falsified, and what's left doesn't provide any clue as to the shape of this planet (or any others).
To throw science out as "human", "flawed", or "full of agendas" is to show you don't know what science is. It isn't a body of knowledge, it's a way of thinking about life and our experience. It's the best way we have of understanding reality, always improving, never stagnating, never mired in dogma, our holdout against the ravages of ignorance and superstition.
Gatekeepers, sure. But I've actually DONE science, myself. I went above the gatekeeper's heads and saw the data, did the calculations, measured gravity and time and the distance to the sun. It's real, even if you don't understand it. Just like the code in blockchain. I don't understand it, but I have programmer buddies who do, and they tell me it's legit. Are they gatekeeping the truth from us? Maybe. We could spend a couple years teaching ourselves programming, and figure it out ourselves, kinda like how I taught myself about science and math.

Pretty sure the Bible has also been remixed quite a few times.

Science can never be separate from human flaw. There are always humans doing & interpreting the science, subject to all of the same flaws & imperfections as other humans.

I have found there is a big gap between the propagandized ideals of science & the actual practice. Especially at the top of the most grand science organizations, where the most politically intelligent become the most powerful.

Does this 👇

“it's a way of thinking about life and our experience. It's the best way we have of understanding reality, always improving, never stagnating, never mired in dogma, our holdout against the ravages of ignorance and superstition.”

Match this 👇

“I've actually DONE science, myself. I went above the gatekeeper's heads and saw the data, did the calculations, measured gravity and time and the distance to the sun. It's real, even if you don't understand it. “

Does the scientific mindset say I proved it so it must be true? Or does the scientific mindset continually welcome new information to challenge what was previously thought of as true?

No, the bible can't be edited when things are found to be wrong. Why would you claim that? My point is that the bible claims to be true, but has been found false, while science never claimed to be true, only to be the best possible current understanding, always changing as new info comes in.

I'm not sure what the second half of your comment was about, sorry.

A great book on the topic is by Carl Sagan, called "The Demon-Haunted World". I just finished Orwell's '1984', and next I'm going to re-read the above. Carl foresaw this when he wrote it in the 90s, pretty much right down to the conversation we're having now. :(

I don’t think a book can claim itself to be true, only the people selling it can do that.

The bible based on my understanding has been edited & translated & massaged to fit the times or propaganda needs of the individual publisher many times over

76342F41-9C21-48C9-A121-37AFEC48AD3D.jpeg

The second 1/2 of my comment was really meant to ask if science should be closed or open minded?

& should we as individuals be closed or open minded about our own personal science?

I don't know, but what I do know is you aren't serious about getting to the bottom of this, and I only have so much time in a day.

Was definitely serious, just trying to think logically about things.

Wouldn’t set out to waste your time or mine 👍

Living in New Zealand - the last stop before Antarctica - I know that lots of people here have been there (yes I have spoken to some of them) - and it is a continent...

I think so, too. What do they say to convince you of that fact though?

Well one of my friends worked on a base there for three months as a cook and massage therapist, and she was hanging out with the researchers every day - they are constantly mapping the place.

Has she specifically mentioned the sun circling the horizon and never going down, or was she not there at the right time of year for that (purportedly late October to March)?

No she didn't mention that - I think she was there at that time though.

There are a lot of people down there over summer

Yea..there are so few that talk about the circling sun on-line (or in Youtubes) that I can find. I wonder if they are under orders not to talk about certain things, and just take it to an extreme.

We do have slam dunk proof of the earth's curvature. The evidence of our own eyes. You can see the curvature on a body of water, it is very clear, real and obvious at a distance of even 8 km. If you doubt this, I invite you on my boat on the Arrow Lakes in BC and you can observe it yourself with a basic pair of binoculars. When the beach is visible on the top deck, but not on the bottom, everything else being equal...well, perspective is not to blame.

I live on a 30-mile chain of lakes. I don't see it. Binoculars help.

Peace.

The higher you go, the farther you see is what your expirement shows. You have to get up really really hi to see curve according to Neal DeGrasse....

Not true in the example I presented. I'm not seeing any farther, I am actually seeing something that was blocked by the body of water when observing from a lower vantage point. I can't see any farther no matter how high I try to climb, there is a mountain as an immediate backdrop. If you were there, you wouldn't be squirming around intellectually with this. It's incontrovertible, sorry. The earth's surface has curvature.

Try looking down a long flat road standing up vs face near the ground. As you move lower towards the ground you see less & less of the distant road. The change in what can you see is due to perspective, not curvature.

There has been many detailed curvature tests over bodies of water & a lot of debate as to what they show. Look up what others have done to show curvature or lack of curvature, if you’re curious, but look up both sides as they tend to both suffer strongly from confirmation bias.

The earth may or may not have curvature but would not be provable by the type of test you described.

Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here