Antarctica Can Not Have 24 hour Daylight on the Flat Earth Model

I am new to this movement, I stumbled upon it on Youtube a few weeks ago. I am receptive to all the principals of flat earth but need someone to explain to me how antarctica can experience long periods of constant daylight like the arctic experiences. I can see how antarctica can experience long periods of darkness when the sun moves to it northern most point but if antarctica circles the outer edge of earth it can not possibly be all daylight at the same time nor can any one part of it remain light for an extended period. I understand antarctica experiences periods of up to 100 days contant daylight.

Here is a good video that might answer your question, by Mark Sargent (Flat Earth Clues)  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Aman68 on November 11, 2015, 03:29:21 AM

The sun, whatever it is, is really, really high up (of course!) but when it is far enough away it appears to us to set below the horizon.

  Do you know that entire FET stands on the shoulders of one and only observation - I go out and see that the earth is flat, so it must be flat. There is nothing more. Its basically statement that what I see is what I see and what I see is true. So, if you say that you see the sun go below the horizon then it must go below horizon, that means underground. You can't say that earth is flat because it appears to be flat but if the sun appears to be go below horizon then its actually not going below horizon. If you say that then you put under suspicion FET itself.

Zork, You are wrong because I do use my own powers of observation, I rely on them more than what I read! If the clouds statement was not enough for you to get it then I will use planes. When a plane is viewed from far off it appears lower in the sky, when it is directly above it appears high. Another analogy is those alleged chemtrails, where I live I observe them across the full length of the sky from horizon to horizon, touching both horizons at points where the plane comes into view and where it flys out of view. These planes do not change their altitude, the further they are away, the lower they appear from where we stand observing. the sun does not set below the ground just because it appears to, it is a distance thing and only a distance thing. This is not hard to understand! I do not believe the sun changes its altitude, or that the earth is a ball (anymore) The trolls make it easier for me because I wonder why they're here and why are they so threatened and why they will stop at nothing to make flat earth go away. sokarul tells me that im wrong all the time but never corrects me because he is not talking to me, he is talking to all the doubters who are still on the fence, deciding which way to jump, that is the purpose of trolls and why they are here.

Quote from: zork on November 11, 2015, 06:51:11 AM

Quote from: Aman68 on November 11, 2015, 03:29:21 AM

The sun, whatever it is, is really, really high up (of course!) but when it is far enough away it appears to us to set below the horizon.

  Do you know that entire FET stands on the shoulders of one and only observation - I go out and see that the earth is flat, so it must be flat. There is nothing more. Its basically statement that what I see is what I see and what I see is true. So, if you say that you see the sun go below the horizon then it must go below horizon, that means underground. You can't say that earth is flat because it appears to be flat but if the sun appears to be go below horizon then its actually not going below horizon. If you say that then you put under suspicion FET itself.

Zork, You are wrong because I do use my own powers of observation, I rely on them more than what I read! If the clouds statement was not enough for you to get it then I will use planes. When a plane is viewed from far off it appears lower in the sky, when it is directly above it appears high. Another analogy is those alleged chemtrails, where I live I observe them across the full length of the sky from horizon to horizon, touching both horizons at points where the plane comes into view and where it flys out of view. These planes do not change their altitude, the further they are away, the lower they appear from where we stand observing. the sun does not set below the ground just because it appears to, it is a distance thing and only a distance thing. This is not hard to understand! I do not believe the sun changes its altitude, or that the earth is a ball (anymore) The trolls make it easier for me because I wonder why they're here and why are they so threatened and why they will stop at nothing to make flat earth go away. sokarul tells me that im wrong all the time but never corrects me because he is not talking to me, he is talking to all the doubters who are still on the fence, deciding which way to jump, that is the purpose of trolls and why they are here.

Just provide a diagram.  And then explain sunset times at different locations.

Quote from: zork on November 11, 2015, 06:51:11 AM

Quote from: Aman68 on November 11, 2015, 03:29:21 AM

The sun, whatever it is, is really, really high up (of course!) but when it is far enough away it appears to us to set below the horizon.

  Do you know that entire FET stands on the shoulders of one and only observation - I go out and see that the earth is flat, so it must be flat. There is nothing more. Its basically statement that what I see is what I see and what I see is true. So, if you say that you see the sun go below the horizon then it must go below horizon, that means underground. You can't say that earth is flat because it appears to be flat but if the sun appears to be go below horizon then its actually not going below horizon. If you say that then you put under suspicion FET itself.

Zork, You are wrong because I do use my own powers of observation, I rely on them more than what I read! If the clouds statement was not enough for you to get it then I will use planes. When a plane is viewed from far off it appears lower in the sky, when it is directly above it appears high. Another analogy is those alleged chemtrails, where I live I observe them across the full length of the sky from horizon to horizon, touching both horizons at points where the plane comes into view and where it flys out of view. These planes do not change their altitude, the further they are away, the lower they appear from where we stand observing. the sun does not set below the ground just because it appears to, it is a distance thing and only a distance thing. This is not hard to understand! I do not believe the sun changes its altitude, or that the earth is a ball (anymore) The trolls make it easier for me because I wonder why they're here and why are they so threatened and why they will stop at nothing to make flat earth go away. sokarul tells me that im wrong all the time but never corrects me because he is not talking to me, he is talking to all the doubters who are still on the fence, deciding which way to jump, that is the purpose of trolls and why they are here.

  It's not about believing if earth is flat or round. Its about the thing on what entire FET stands. And that is - Earth is flat because the Earth appears to be flat when I go out and observe the Earth. Or is it not? I dare you to bring out any other observation or experiment which can conclusively show that the Earth is in its entirety in flat shape and not in any other shape.
 And that is why its double standards and hypocrisy to say that even when sun appears to go below horizon (that means underground) it really doesn't go there. Thing is, on the FET model the things are as they appear to be, not something else which they do not appear to be. Otherwise, if you claim that sun appears to go underground but in reality doesn't go there then how can earth be flat just because it appears to be flat? Maybe its also in some other shape which it doesn't appear to be.

Quote from: zork on November 11, 2015, 06:51:11 AM

Quote from: Aman68 on November 11, 2015, 03:29:21 AM

The sun, whatever it is, is really, really high up (of course!) but when it is far enough away it appears to us to set below the horizon.

  Do you know that entire FET stands on the shoulders of one and only observation - I go out and see that the earth is flat, so it must be flat. There is nothing more. Its basically statement that what I see is what I see and what I see is true. So, if you say that you see the sun go below the horizon then it must go below horizon, that means underground. You can't say that earth is flat because it appears to be flat but if the sun appears to be go below horizon then its actually not going below horizon. If you say that then you put under suspicion FET itself.

Zork, You are wrong because I do use my own powers of observation, I rely on them more than what I read! If the clouds statement was not enough for you to get it then I will use planes. When a plane is viewed from far off it appears lower in the sky, when it is directly above it appears high. Another analogy is those alleged chemtrails, where I live I observe them across the full length of the sky from horizon to horizon, touching both horizons at points where the plane comes into view and where it flys out of view. These planes do not change their altitude, the further they are away, the lower they appear from where we stand observing. the sun does not set below the ground just because it appears to, it is a distance thing and only a distance thing. This is not hard to understand! I do not believe the sun changes its altitude, or that the earth is a ball (anymore) The trolls make it easier for me because I wonder why they're here and why are they so threatened and why they will stop at nothing to make flat earth go away. sokarul tells me that im wrong all the time but never corrects me because he is not talking to me, he is talking to all the doubters who are still on the fence, deciding which way to jump, that is the purpose of trolls and why they are here.

If the sun sets because it is far away, why does it not shrink like all other objects that are far away?

  Do you know that entire FET stands on the shoulders of one and only observation - I go out and see that the earth is flat, so it must be flat. There is nothing more. Its basically statement that what I see is what I see and what I see is true. So, if you say that you see the sun go below the horizon then it must go below horizon, that means underground. You can't say that earth is flat because it appears to be flat but if the sun appears to be go below horizon then its actually not going below horizon. If you say that then you put under suspicion FET itself.

Meh.  How about we stop using dishonest terminology that has been pounded into our heads by the shills? 

We can stop saying: "The sun sets in the West." if we want. 
We can start saying:  "The sun turns clock-wise looking down." instead. 

Meh.  How about we stop using dishonest terminology that has been pounded into our heads by the shills? 

We can stop saying: "The sun sets in the West." if we want. 
We can start saying:  "The sun turns clock-wise looking down." instead.

Because if you look west in the late afternoon, you will notice the sun goes down, or more commonly referred to as "setting" - an accurate depiction to what people all over the world actually see.

Have you ever seen the sun turning clock-wise looking down at it?

If the sun sets because it is far away, why does it not shrink like all other objects that are far away?


Mainframes, another one comment troll. We do not know the reality of the sun because it is beyond our understanding, RE's obediently follow the doctrine of the new world religion, science! My guess! on the sun being larger when it sets is because we are viewing it through a much lower level of atmosphere than when we view it closer, yet apparently higher, above us. My logic on why the sun sets low is sound, many other objects obey the same laws as I have clearly explained above. I take the attention from the trolls as a compliment because they only jump in when they are required to jump in, dictated by their agenda and loyalties.


I wish to jump back to the original purpose of this thread, being the antarctic summer period. The 24hr antarctic sun is impossible under certain FE models, this is clearly apparent, but I have very graciously been taught the DE theory by JRoweSkeptic and the 24hr antarctic sun is possible under his theory, it is a very scientific theory that is fairly difficult to grasp by an elementary science mind but he explains it fairly simply and only provides the basics of this model. I can not go as far as saying that this is the truth but it is most definitely food for thought and if nothing else it helps break you away from the physics/astronomy based methods of deception that has seized the minds and imaginations of many generations up to now.


Charming Anarchist, thanks for your support on my threads, I see similarities in our ways of thinking, congratulations to you for seeing through the bullshit. Nothing is as we are told!

Quote from: zork on November 12, 2015, 03:44:57 AM

  Do you know that entire FET stands on the shoulders of one and only observation - I go out and see that the earth is flat, so it must be flat. There is nothing more. Its basically statement that what I see is what I see and what I see is true. So, if you say that you see the sun go below the horizon then it must go below horizon, that means underground. You can't say that earth is flat because it appears to be flat but if the sun appears to be go below horizon then its actually not going below horizon. If you say that then you put under suspicion FET itself.

Meh.  How about we stop using dishonest terminology that has been pounded into our heads by the shills? 

We can stop saying: "The sun sets in the West." if we want. 
We can start saying:  "The sun turns clock-wise looking down." instead.

  What is your point? I should just reject all observations that hint round earth, accept without questioning and with no evidence that earth is flat and start devising theories which have no conclusive support from any observable evidence/phenomenon? Kind of hard to do if you are person who thinks for himself a little and has his own opinions. So, if you really want that I throw out all what is pounded into my head then give me a reason, bring out observation that conclusively shows that the shape of earth is flat. Or some bunch of observations that you can combine and say that hey, they really show that the shape of earth is flat.

What is your point?

To lead intelligent, honest and honorable away from the traps of shills and to recognize the hypnotic tricks employed by disinformation trolls.   
Saying "The sun sets...." when the sun does NOT set is a trick. 

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2015, 06:25:03 AM

What is your point?

To lead intelligent, honest and honorable away from the traps of shills and to recognize the hypnotic tricks employed by disinformation trolls.   
Saying "The sun sets...." when the sun does NOT set is a trick.

So, your way to lead people away from traps is arguing semantics instead of providing some evidences or observable facts? Okay, bring out your definitions and real information. I am willing to listen. But you must understand that if you assume intelligence then you can't hope that person blindly accepts everything you say. There will be  questions and doubts.

Saying "The sun sets...." when the sun does NOT set is a trick.

Wait, what?  Are you saying that the Sun does not set?  When was the last time you have been outside?  Sunsets happen every day.

So, your way to lead people away from traps is arguing semantics instead of providing some evidences or observable facts?

No. 

This is another topic with one think in mind "give us Sun motion model that is able to predict sunrise and sunset for every place on FE model". 

We have working one, that use RE... but I didnt saw any FE model. Give us one!!!!
Here is an example of RE sunset calculation: http://www.had2know.com/society/sunrise-sunset-time-calculator-formula.html
(this model calculates sunset and sunrise with the idea that Sun goes under horizont and the Earth is a ball ).


If there is just "its obvious"  or "is fake" a.s.o. we cannot go anywhere in thousand years. Just give FE sun motion model and we will calculate if north pole may see extended periods of daylight. And we may compare results from model with real world!

The current dual earth model explains this.

http://i.imgur.com/pdccjGl.png

This flat Earth map satisfies most of the things mentioned here. The land masses are proper shape and placement looks to be right for mileage. The sun can light it normally. You can sail around it. The outside ring is now the north pole area. This makes the ocean a big lake. The data for the north pole is missing in my file, so the outer ring is not quite right. I will look at it later.

This is just shifting the problems, that the southern hemisphere poses to the "regular" FE map to the northern hemisphere by making the south pole the center ... I didn't know that the direct path between US and India is crossing the Antarctic ...

It does not look like what you think it is if you are using the ball theory sphere as a model.

I use the picture that you claim is a realistic flat earth map ...

... where I identify America in the upper part, Asia in the lower part, and Antarctica in between ...

... where Australia is placed right between America and Japan ... I must have misunderstood a lot of what happened in WW2 ...

... so what does not look like I think it does?

But maybe, just maybe, projecting this data onto a sphere would help ...

That is a very interesting flat earth map ronxyz. It's like the reverse of the commonly published one. Have you looked into DE where 2 plains exist and crossing between them is unnoticeable to our perception, it also answers several questions such as stars being different in southern and northern hemi's, midnight sun on both arctic and antarctic regions.

Soulblood, I did not say it was THE world map, just that some of the conditions are met with that view. It is a fact that what the world looks like it is not public knowledge. Your suggestion of putting it on a sphere is supposed to help how?  Which ball view should I use as there is no official proven version. The ball people have a new shape of the world ever few years.
Thanks for the heads up on the Duel Earth I will have a look.

Quote from: MettaKail on November 16, 2015, 03:52:03 PM

The current dual earth model explains this.

http://i.imgur.com/pdccjGl.png

Except this relies on completely unproven Aether that does what?  Yes bends light exactly the right amount to make the day and night lengths the same as in the MUCH simpler rotating Globe Earth.

That is not the DE model, that's a bastardization invented by a REer troll incapable of addressing the model, and so resorting to cheap discrediting. Mettakail may be an alt, or just another troll, you can ignore him.

Thanks for the clarification on that JRoweSkeptic, I was wonder what that was.

I lived in Alaska for 8 years and during the summer we would get the midnight sun where it's 24 hour daylight. How is that possible with a flat earth?

Easy, some of the sun light makes it there for 24 hours. Why do you say it is impossible. If light is there then it must be possible. There is no question the Earth is a flat plane. How it looks and what form is not known. Maybe you could be the first to figure it out.

It makes me really sad, that no one have FE sunset calculation, because it then may explain where the hell is the Sun. (it is phenomena seen almost everyday and yet you cannot predict that without using RE model )...

The last picture (sun and the shaft) given me another check.
I take this FLAT EARTH PICTURE (I think its not fake):
http://www.insidecaledon.com/caledon/200911680-toronto-downtown-skyline-from-caledon/

Toronto tower is 553 meters (+- 0,34miles) high and the photo is taken from 40 miles distance.

According to photo If you see Toronto tower from 40 miles away so much above horizon, you must from the same point using the same camera see the Sun at the same high above horizon if the  Sun is 352 955 miles away!!!!!  (calculated using trigonometry and The Sun 3000 miles above ground )
(please dont speak about how high horizont on the picture is for now... the tower touches clouds, clouds are above horizont on this picture for sure. Higher you draw the horizon from the picture, more problem it makes, because the distance to the sun goes to milions miles.

This result is wrong for sure... I think its because it counts with photons going straight. To make it working on FE model, photons from Sun must somehow be curved to look like they are touching "Toronto tower high" far earlier and its not question of perspective (they must be curved whatever the actual distance of the Sun from Flat Earth is). If thats true and sunset is based on some bending, thats solves the "wrong 352 000 miles distance".

But on what is the bending based?

If the bending is based on atmosphere, and sun is actually higher then we see it, means that higher in atmosphere we are, more dense atmosphere is because of nature of what we see if we look into water (in oposit situation, when higher density of atmosphere is near the earth the sun looks higher then it actually is, so this is not the case).

That does not sound too intuitive, because I was told and FE people experiments confirm that: higher I'm, the atmosphere is less dense.

So its not about atmosphere, because atmosphere actually acts in oposit way (yeah, btw please dont use this to support RE model, that the atmosphere actually bends photons the way they look like going forward near the surface... that will not be nice ). ... is there any other power that forces photons to bend from earth? It must bend them near the surface of the Earth (to see sunset), this explains lighted clouds after sunset or Burj Khalifa Sunset:   " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">  (higher part of that building is lighted by sun, but lower not)

That explains why we dont see the sun much smaller when it travels the sky too... because it is actually not that far from us


So its possible explanation. And well... I feel it comming.... almost enlighten now... if we can calculate the sunset times from RE model it means that the "not yet known force" bends light such a way that bending diameter is 12 000 km (because of the formula that successfully calculate the location of sun on the sky).


Soooo I hope you FE evangelists congratulate me, because actually I helped you with FE model to move a century forward...

We just need to find that force, we know properties of it. This should not be a big problem because it must be strong force, stronger then anything we know yet ... you know still bend a light is easier then bend a rock without falling from that rock (i may bend a light easily using fiber optic cable   ) ... oh maybe it actually will be problem... because you need money to experiment with "light bending field".


Well there is still a problem with distances on north hemisphere and with daylight on Antarctica. And yes... we have the problem, that we actually need to see this bending on "laser tests" across the lake too... but who cares, if we have force to bend a light, we may have force to bend a space too.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe


And we may say that sun photons are not the same protons that human made things produce... so our protons don't bend the same way as sun or moon protons

Its easy then to succeed with FE model, just bend the light and space then the Earth is flat just all other things may bend

On the flat Earth plane, which I am positive of, the models of the sun traveling in a circle at 4000 miles or so seems to almost be workable. The part I wonder about is the mechanism that could make a light source about 32 miles across precisely make the same circuit over and over. It clearly would not be considered an orbit for what physical laws would sustain it. Must there be some mechanism that allows it within the known laws? Making a new special force just to move the light source around would be the last choice I would make. So we are left with using the known forces of nature. If I was going to make something similar I would project conjoining energy beams from a central location. The result could be a plasma sphere that is precisely controlled. The northern lights may be remnants of this. Clues may be in the hot spot seen under the sun, something a sun millions of miles away would not have. The hot spot, the obvious angular refraction of it's light and the shadows cast. The energy bands of the device emits likely also telling clues. Other things likely. It may be able to be deciphered after the clues are closely examined.

ronxyz, What are your thoughts on the sun being a reflection of the molten metal core that produces the magnetic pole center.

Aman68, That would certainly kill two birds with one stone. The magnetic center and a light source. I have to give it some thought. Iron alone would not give the full spectrum of light that is being emitted. It would have to be phased in some way. May be doable. If the iron mass was rotating and osculating it's period and sustainability would be of long duration, which fits. Even just being there it could still be used artificially I suppose. Neat idea.

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2015, 08:31:08 AM

So, your way to lead people away from traps is arguing semantics instead of providing some evidences or observable facts?

No.

  If it is not then why do you argue about semantics. You kind of contradict yourself right now.