We're all accustomed to the notion of "midnight sun," or the fact that the sun does not set during specific times of the year in multiple, far-northern latitude cities. Because of the common location where midnight sun occurs (again, far-northern latitude), the phenomenon is compatible with both the accepted globe earth model and the flat earth theory.
However, I watched a YouTube video that demonstrated the midnight sun in Antarctica, which would of course blast flat earth theory into the high heavens. That's because in the flat earth theory, Antarctica doesn't exist as we think it does; it's an ice wall surrounding the circular "plate" of the earth. Thus, an Antarctic base would be in a fixed position relative to the sun, making the flat earth theory impossible.
Many anti-flat earthers have rejoiced at this video, and I can certainly understand their happiness (to an extent, anyways).
But I thought to myself: would the Antarctic midnight sun prove the accepted globe earth model?
Strange question, isn't it? Here's the explanation of the northern midnight sun phenomenon by ScienceABC.com:
The implication, of course, is that when the earth orbits to the other side of the sun, the Antarctic region is lit up, as follows:
Makes sense, right?
Here's the problem:
This Violates Newton's Theory of Gravity
According to gravitational theory, the earth is always tilted towards the sun, not just due to the sun's gravitational force, but also due to all the other celestial bodies in the universe.
Here's what the picture should look like based on our accepted theory of gravity:
We know that this is the correct model assuming that the theory of gravity is correct because our earth's north pole has a gravitational attraction towards Polaris, or the North Star:
This has to be the only scientific explanation of the heliocentric model because otherwise, if the Antarctic phenomenon is real -- that is, the earth's south pole tilts towards the sun -- what happens to the North Star?
The North Star is always visible north of the equator -- that's why sailors used it to navigate during ancient times. But during the supposed Antarctic midnight sun, the North Star would have to move dramatically, which we know it does not:
Geocentric Model Back in the Game
The funny thing is, the only way the Antarctic midnight sun phenomenon could be legitimate -- using the assumed establishment science -- is if the sun moved around the earth.
Yes folks...we're talking about the return of the geocentric model!
So while Antarctic midnight sun may have killed the flat earth theory, it definitively crucified the heliocentric model.
By the way, heliocentric is merely an upper class, scientific term for "sun worship" -- ie. centered around the sun. You know this as Satanism, and in subtle details, such as the Roman Catholic elites deceiving mainstream Christianity that the Sabbath is on a SUNday. But I digress...
In my opinion, it was far better for establishment science to denounce the Antarctic midnight sun video as fake -- they have a LOT more to lose than the flat earthers.
I LOVE it! When something is impossible to model accurately that something most likely does not exist. Like trying to make a model of eclipses that work with the mainstream view of the solar system. Most of them completely change the scale or use a geocentric model to try to explain eclipses.
Seems like a lot of good new information coming out lately, more and more people are starting to think logically about the world around them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is as dumb as the flat earth nonsense.
First off: "According to gravitational theory, the earth is always tilted towards the sun,..."
This is incorrect. This violates Newton's first law of motion.
Second: A lot of your images rely on parallax to "demonstrate" your assertions, vis a vis your comments on Polaris. Your image is so far out of scale it's ridiculous. the earth is 193 million miles to the sun, while Polaris is 430 light years away, or about 2,580,000,000 million miles away.
You're images show Polaris to be 2-3 times the distance from earth than the sun, but if you want your scale to be correct Polaris needs to be 13.35 million times as far. At those relative distances, parallax is imperceptible.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for your comment. I was hoping that someone would clarify how the 24-hour Antarctic sun would work. However, in this case, you just argued nothing. Let me explain.
First, I'd recommend not using pejoratives to rebut, particularly for a scientific argument. It gives the perception that you're angry or emotional about the subject, and heightened emotions, as you probably know, reduce our ability to think rationally.
As for your citation of Newton's first law, this is the basis by which the established, mainstream scientific community has determined Earth's rotational axis. Celestial objects move the way they do because of Newton's first law, unless acted upon by an external force. Thus, if the earth has a rotational axis of 23.5 degrees (according to the website I linked in the original post), it will always have that rotational axis unless acted upon by an external force.
To your other point, my images do NOT rely on parallax; where did you get that assumption? And of course the image is not to scale...LOL! Nice strawman argument, though!
But seriously, let's try to stay focused here -- Polaris stays fixed to our northern axis. Yes, it has its own, small motion, but for all practical intents and purposes, it is a symbol of constancy; therefore, people throughout history have used it to navigate.
My point refers to the position of Polaris, as I mentioned in my original post:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit