The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cikljamas on February 25, 2016, 07:11:40 AM

Title: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on February 25, 2016, 07:11:40 AM
I HATE TO DO THIS (since this is not in favor of Flat Earth Theory), BUT I HAVE TO do that no matter what consequences might follow from this :

QUESTION :

How did they know?

Appropriate since it's the centennial of Amundsen's arrival...

First, how did Amundsen know he'd reached the south pole? As you describe, the magnetic pole is far away so a magnetic compass wouldn't help. I looked up gyro compass but it doesn't seem to imply it was used to navigate to either pole (doesn't mention being used by Peary, Scott or Amundsen) and it was a fairly new gadget in 1911, by the sound of it. And Scott must have used the same method or trusted that Amundsen's flag was on the right spot.

Second, by what "time zone" (they had been in use for a couple of decades by 1911) did Amundsen run his expedition? New Zealand time? December 14 by his time, but still December 13 by the western hemisphere time zones.

Third, how did these early explorers navigate back out to the coast without getting lost? I'd expect the wind to obscure their footprints, so did they leave sticks in the ice every few miles and watch for them? Are there distinctive landmarks... or is the mountain range they crossed visible at the pole?

ANSWER :

In terms of knowing whether you're at the south pole, with 1911 technology, I think the best bet would be looking at the angle of the sun. When you are at the exact South Pole, the sun's height above the horizon doesn't change throughout the day, since you are at the exact axis of rotation (well, there would be tiny motion due to the seasons, but very small). So you could measure the angle of the sun above the horizon several times a day, and when you get the same measure each time, voila!

Using such a technique, Amundsen's team of expert navigators took repeated rounds of measurement, getting a little closer to the pole each time. While there is always uncertainty in any scientific measurement, upon his return, he submitted his data for verification and the conclusion was that he had gotten within half a mile of the actual geographic south pole. Not bad!

WIKI :

On 8 December the Norwegians passed Shackleton's Farthest South record of 88° 23′.[132] As they neared the pole, they looked for any break in the landscape that might indicate another expedition had got there ahead of them. While camped on 12 December they were momentarily alarmed by a black object that appeared on the horizon, but this proved to be their own dogs' droppings off in the distance, magnified by mirage.[133] Next day they camped at 89° 45′ S, 15 nautical miles (28 km) from the pole.[134] On the following day, 14 December 1911, with the concurrence of his comrades Amundsen travelled in front of the sledges, and at around 3 pm the party reached the vicinity of the South Pole.[135] They planted the Norwegian flag and named the polar plateau "King Haakon VII's Plateau".[136] Amundsen later reflected on the irony of his achievement: "Never has a man achieved a goal so diametrically opposed to his wishes. The area around the North Pole—devil take it—had fascinated me since childhood, and now here I was at the South Pole. Could anything be more crazy?"[137]

For the next three days the men worked to fix the exact position of the pole; after the conflicting and disputed claims of Cook and Peary in the north, Amundsen wanted to leave unmistakable markers for Scott.[138] After taking several sextant readings at different times of day, Bjaaland, Wisting and Hassel skied out in different directions to "box" the pole; Amundsen reasoned that at least one of them would cross the exact point.[139] Finally the party pitched a tent, which they called Polheim, as near as possible to the actual pole as they could calculate by their observations. In the tent Amundsen left equipment for Scott, and a letter addressed to King Haakon which he requested Scott to deliver.[139]
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: 29silhouette on February 25, 2016, 10:13:04 AM
2. I would think they used whatever timezone they were in when they arrived at the coast. 
3. Perhaps they navigated using the same method they used to reach the pole.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: FalseProphet on February 25, 2016, 10:39:58 AM
Iguess they used a sextant. It is easy to determine your latitude.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Sailor on February 25, 2016, 01:55:39 PM
A sextant cannot be used on land, the sea horizon is needed tot determineren the single.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 25, 2016, 02:14:00 PM
A sextant cannot be used on land, the sea horizon is needed tot determineren the single.

Not necessarily.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant#Anatomy
An artificial horizon is useful when the horizon is invisible, as occurs in fog, on moonless nights, in a calm, when sighting through a window or on land surrounded by trees or buildings. Professional sextants can mount an artificial horizon in place of the horizon-mirror assembly. An artificial horizon is usually a mirror that views a fluid-filled tube with a bubble.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on February 25, 2016, 03:31:58 PM
Iguess they used a sextant. It is easy to determine your latitude.
No need to guess, go read all about it! Yes, Amundsen did use sextants and Scott used theodolites, which are more accurate, but heavier than sextants.

As noted elsewhere, on land a sextant can use a reflective artificial horizon, which doubles the angle read.

Best read up on it yourself in http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html (http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html). Here is a little bit:
Quote from: Amundsen's original South Pole Station
Roald Amundsen arrived in the general vicinity of Pole on the afternoon of 14 December 1911, traveling from grid south (he was using the local time of Framheim, which would have been approximately GMT-11; some accounts, including Amundsen's original field notes, use time on the west side of the Date Line which Scott was using, this would make the date 15 December). When their sledge meters indicated they should be at the right place, they stopped at the location marked "Sledge" on the map at right (from The South Pole) to determine their position more accurately from sun shots.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on February 26, 2016, 06:13:39 AM
1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!
2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
IF THE EARTH IS ROUND, THEN IT'S ROUNDNESS DICTATES THE VALUES OF THE HEIGHT ANGLES OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : SUN'S RAYS HAVE TO BE PARALLEL, AND IF THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN THE SUN WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 3 000 000 MILES (AS COPERNICUS ESTIMATED)...
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up! In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : (http://)

On top of that :

A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : (http://)

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : (http://)

A-3) THE FINAL BLOW : (http://)

A-4)  STAR-TRAILS argument (against the rotation of the earth) : (http://)

A-5) THE SUN : (http://)

B) Can anyone disprove RAIL GUN argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - THE FINAL NAIL IN RE COFFIN : (http://)

C) Can anyone disprove UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS argument (against the curvature of the earth)?
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 1 : (http://)
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 2 : (http://)

D) Can you disprove GYRO argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : (http://)

E) Can anyone disprove that all the water on the earth always finds it's own LEVEL?
F) Can you disprove that there are no adjustments for the curvature of the earth when building canals, bridges, tunnels, railways etc...?

G) Can you disprove that if the earth rotated we would never be able to reach any eastern destination by flying in a direction (WEST-EAST) of the supposed rotation of the earth because the rotation of the earth would be faster than most airplanes? Can you disprove that aviation wouldn't work on a spinning globe? - Flat Earth - AVIATION & SEA LEVEL - part II : (http://)

H) Can you disprove that the horizon is always flat no matter how high we fly? - FLAT EARTH VIEW FROM 317 000  FEET - 96 KM (NASA FOOTAGE) : (http://)

I) Can you disprove that rocket men (Don Quixote) don't take into account the rotation of the earth hypothesis or the supposed curvature of the earth when lunching long range missiles?
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 1 : (http://)
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 2 : (http://)

J) Can you disprove ALBATROS ARITHMETIC argument (Mutiny on the Bounty)? - (http://)

K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: 29silhouette on February 26, 2016, 09:57:20 AM
In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : (http://)
It's not a "hotspot", it's a reflection, and I see you don't realize the difference between jumping around with the camera in a hallway vs the balloon being somewhat stationary and simply aiming around.  I also see you haven't figured out how to add text to an image and make it readable.  Add in someone else playing with angles, with no explanation of what they're doing, so long as they come up with a number you're looking for.  You have no proof here Cikl.

Quote
On top of that :
I take it you don't like the way your thread is going, so (as usual) you're going to derail it with multiple pointless arguments.

Quote
A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : (http://)

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : (http://)

A-3) THE FINAL BLOW : (http://)

A-4)  STAR-TRAILS argument (against the rotation of the earth) : (http://)

A-5) THE SUN : (http://)



1.  Your zigzag bull-mess has been proven false already.
2.  see above
3.  I didn't watch this yet.
4.  Proven false.  You don't understand the differences in time-lapse, long exposure, and image stacking.
5.  It remains the same size between noon and sunset (with the exception of severe smoke or dust conditions).  Use a #12-14 welding lens or telescope sun filter instead of some idiot's footage of it going behind more pollution, clouds, and overexposed settings.

Not much point in going over anything else.  You usually don't read and comprehend replies anyway.

One tip however regarding your videos.... pick "a" subject, make the text readable when added to images, get to the point.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on February 26, 2016, 10:21:28 AM
One tip however regarding your videos.... pick "a" subject, make the text readable when added to images, get to the point.

My point is this : put your money on the table or just shut up! (regarding ZIGZAG argument)
As for the final answer regarding the shape of the earth i still think that the earth is flat or flattish (and i can stand for that with 98 % certainty), but until i am not 100 % sure, i won't bet on it. As for the immobility of the earth issue i am 100 % sure that the earth is stationary, and i am ready to bet on that (anytime) with you or with anyone else in the world. So what is going to be, will you shut up already or you will put your money on the table?
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 26, 2016, 12:18:54 PM
Oh, dear... after that first post, which was factually correct and reasonably coherent, I see the ol' zig-zag and geocentric-universe-static-flat-earth nonsense again.

Well, welcome back, anyway, cikljamas.

1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!
Being convinced you're right and actually being right are entirely different things.

Quote
2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round
Very true, although saying there are  "some" reasons is very much an understatement.

Quote
but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
IF THE EARTH IS ROUND, THEN IT'S ROUNDNESS DICTATES THE VALUES OF THE HEIGHT ANGLES OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : SUN'S RAYS HAVE TO BE PARALLEL, AND IF THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN THE SUN WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 3 000 000 MILES (AS COPERNICUS ESTIMATED)...
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h.
Well, there's another possibility: the Earth is spinning and, in this system, the Sun would only have to complete one full circle around the Earth YEARLY. In that case, the orbital speed of the Sun (using your numbers) would be "only" 3,582 km/hr. Not that this really makes any difference.

Further, the spinning Earth also explains nicely the observed cosine of latitude term when reconciling observed variations of the strength of gravity at Earth's surface. The sheer variety of different types of observations, all elegantly explained by the simple conclusion that the globe is spinning, is what makes that such a compelling conclusion. The assumption that the Earth is entirely static and the entire Universe whirls around it may be comforting to you, but, as you see, quickly produces many difficult-to-accept results.

Quote
In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up!
By George, he's got it!! It makes much more sense for the Earth to be orbiting around the Sun than the other way around. That (and other reasons) is why the Geocentric model has fallen completely out of favor (except for a few people with suspect reasoning skillz on the fringe).

Quote
In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : (http://)
Once again, since these things end up as a complete waste of time, can you just spell out your argument without making another useless youtube video?

Quote
On top of that :

A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : (http://)

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : (http://)
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c90/sc4087/Notthisagain.jpg)

Most recently on the whole zig-zag nonsense:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1720290;topicseen#msg1720290 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1720290;topicseen#msg1720290)

Follow the thread backwards for more.

Quote
<lots 'n' lots of more o' the same as always>
Can you please describe at least the gist of the videos here? I've found without exception that the youtube links you post are a complete waste of time.

Quote
K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).
I can't argue with this. The Earth is obviously spherical; what you conclude from that vis-à-vis God and the Bible is your own business.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2016, 04:40:43 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . stacks of biased inflammatory material . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).
I will try to tackle bits of it, but
why not go make a thread with this topic, instead of starting with a completely unrelated one.

So, on with the Motley, as they say in the classics:
In you (K) you claim "NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC)"

Well I guess you have set yourself against 99% of Christians (though admittedly many do not question either way).

You would, I think, have consider the site url=http://creation.com/[/url] to be a very conservative group, yet in
 http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism (http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism) they say:

Quote from: Jerry Bergman
The flat-earth myth and creationism
The idea that Christians once commonly believed in a flat earth for theological reasons is a myth. The story was invented to promote the claim that Christians have widely resisted scientific advancement due to doctrinal constraints. A major motivating factor behind propagating this myth has been to bolster the Darwinian worldview and to further the goal of displacing the biblical worldview. No evidence exists to support the common claim that scientists were once persecuted for opposing the flat-earth belief or advocating the spherical earth view, which has been commonly accepted for millennia.

Your saying that you "HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC)"
shows the type of person you are and NOTHING about you material.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on February 26, 2016, 06:01:14 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D) Can you disprove GYRO argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : (http://)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes, easily! It's just long and tedious.
The whole video is too much for one post, but I will simply state this:
The Toy Gyroscopes (even the aircraft ones) are simply NOT stable enough to show the rotation of the earth! More on this later.

I will comment on the Aircraft Attitude Indicator and Gyroscopic Compasses here.
By the way there are now "ring laser gyroscopes" that can easily measure the earth's rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser#Practical_rings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser#Practical_rings) (I used Wiki for a low level discussion!)
Quote
Currently ring lasers are used most frequently as gyroscopes (ring laser gyroscope; (figure 2)) in moving vessels like cars, ships, planes, and missiles. The world's largest ring lasers can detect details of the Earth's rotation.
It really would be a good idea for you to learn about your topics before spouting forth!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on February 27, 2016, 04:57:44 AM
The concept is NOT that the earth is Flat per se....BUT that it is laid out in a horizontal plane & NOT in a sphere. ( Heliocentric ) Of course the earth has elevation etc ( mountains ) ....but WHEN ANY demonstrations of proving a natural curvature of the earth ( by lining up points of reference - and in doing so - IF the earth was a sphere, ANY absolute straight line - would by using common sense, show natural drop off curvature - ( Earth radius of 3,959 mi) - == Natural Drop off to accomodate the earths curvature would be approx over a distance of 10 miles = 66 feet - rising exponentially 1000ft over a distance of 40 miles - This has NEVER been proved to happen in any test ( building railway lines - Canals etc - ALL have been built NEVER having to take the Earths curvature into consideration - as it doesnt exist. We live on a flat plane - not on a spinning ball.

But any way I don"t ignore the physics, Science, or the geometry. I don't ignore God either.

Isaiah 44:24 ..... I AM THE LORD who made all things,who alone stretched out the heavens,who "spread abroad" the earth by Myself.

Definition of spread abroad = Flatten

Genesis 1: 16 .... God made "two" lights the sun, and the moon and

Joshua 10:12 .... God stopped those two lights, and thousands reported it Not just in the Bible either..all the ancient cultures recorded the event.

The Reason it takes 3 years and over 50,000 miles to Circumnavigate Antarctica? Job 26:10....He hath COMPASSED the Waters with BOUNDS, until the Day and Night come to an END.......... there are over 50 verses referring to the sun's Circuit. (Still, Stable, Immovable)

1st Chronicles 16:30 ..... The world also shall be stable, That it Not Be Moved.

Psalm 96:10 ...... The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.

Psalm 93:1 .... The world also is established that IT CANNOT BE MOVED. Not spinning, not orbiting, not on an imaginary axes just because 500 million men say so. God says it Shall Not EVER Move.

But as Jesus said , wisdom of this world is foolishness. (http://)

Believe what ever you want.. But . He is watching, Ezekiel 1: 25, 26 .. look up and wave.

IF YOU NEED MORE EVIDENCE JUST ASK AND YOU WILL GET IT!!!

UNTIL YOU ASK FOR MORE FLAT-EARTH-BIBLICAL EVIDECE READ THIS, ALSO:

All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.


It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.

Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over!

READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413)

ON TOP OF THAT - FROM BOOK OF ENOCH :

18:2   I saw the cornerstone of the earth; I saw the four winds which bear the earth as well as the firmament of heaven.
18:3   I saw how the winds ride the heights of heaven and stand between heaven and earth: These are the very pillars of heaven.
18:4   I saw the winds which turn the heaven and cause the star to set -the sun as well as all the stars.
18:12   And on top of that pit I saw a place without the heavenly firmament above it or earthly foundation under it or water. There was nothing on it -not even birds -but it was a desolate and terrible place.
18:14   Then the malak said to me, “This place is the ultimate end of heaven and earth.

IN ADDITION :

CALVIN & LUTHER - QUOTES : http://i.imgur.com/HCH4g4N.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/HCH4g4N.jpg)
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on February 27, 2016, 05:10:35 AM
Read this correspondence :

---"In fact, didn't he prove that the earth rotated via the gyroscope??"

MY ANSWER :
---No, he didn't : Flat Earth and the Gyroscope Myth (by Rob Durham) - MIRROR : (http://)

Gyroscope doesn't know the curve of any kind (of any degree)!!! - This is really strong argument in favor of Flat Earth, and amazingly Round Earthers have been using one similar fraudulent experiment (Foucault's pendulum), and even Foucault's another invention (a gyrosope) more than 150 years in order to prove that the earth rotates... Well, we have silenced them for good (using their own weapon)

You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica) but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours. It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.
Many "astronomers" cite the Foucault pendulum experiment that was carried out in Paris in 1851 as PROOF that the earth turns. It's a pity that the NASA space program has not provided them with more recent proof.
READ MORE (you really shouldn't skip this !!!) : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881)
FOURTHLY : How come they cite the FOUCAULT PENDULUM EXPERIMENT as PROOF that the earth turns INSTEAD OF one another FOUCAULT's EXPERIMENT (A GYRO EXPERIMENT) which allegedly provided us with another proof that the earth turns on it's axis?

ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075)

ZIGZAG argument video : (http://)
STAR TRAILS argument video : (http://)

If the axis of the gyroscope changes its orientation to the earths surface as time goes on, the earth is most likely rotating. If the axis changes 90 degrees in 6 hours, the globe earth advocates should throw a celebration party, they have very strong evidence. But, if within that 6 hours, there is no significant change, the globe earth advocates have no choice but to give it up, or form a blind faith based religion called Globism. However, the reverse is true for flat earth advocates. What a simple but powerful evidence for one or the other.

The spinning rotor remains in it's original attitude while the gimbals and base move around it. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! This is the proof in itself that gravitation doesn't exist. So, if gravitation doesn't exist someone has to explain the mechanics (or/and the principle) of "Artificial Horizon" "adjustments" (for a supposed curvature of the earth)...The truth is that there are no adjustments in relation to the supposed curvature of the earth, because the earth is flat, otherwise we should forget about perfect functioning of today's very-frequent air traffic, super sonic jets and an aviation as a whole...

1. The best proof that the so called "Earth Rate Correction" is a notorious hoax is the ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT that the earth is at rest. I repeat : ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT!!!

2. The true (hidden) meaning (which is of a great importance regarding the essence of our discussion) of "a cross check procedure" in an airplanes is this : All the instruments which pilots use for their (blind) orientation in the cockpit of an airplane are totally independent devices, so that they can rely on other instruments in the case of emergency (if certain failure in functioning of any particular instrument in the cockpit of an airplane occurred)!

3. If the earth were a globe VSI data would NEVER match Artificial Horizon indications!!! In a very short period of time (within a few seconds - depending on the speed of the aircraft) any attempt to fly STRAIGHT AND LEVEL would be obstructed in a following manner : Artificial Horizon would permanently indicate that an aircraft is climbing up, although VSI would never show any change at all, since there would be no difference in air pressure while aircraft SOMEHOW manages to maintain the same altitude!!! In other words Artificial Horizon would be of no use whatsoever!!!

4. IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a gyroscope is set SPINNING ON THE EQUATOR with its spinning axis horizontal in an EAST and WEST direction it will appear to make one revolution a day about an axis at right angles to the spinning axis.

At the end of 12 hours the gyroscope would appear to have reversed ends, though actually it would continue to point just as it did at the start, only the earth would have made a half revolution.

Also, IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a spinning gyroscope WERE CARRIED AROUND the earth along a north and south meridian, passing over the two poles, it would constantly change its angle so that the horizontal spinning axis would always be at right angles to a vertical line from the earth's center.

Had heliocentrist's claim(s) been right they would have demonstrated a long ago A GYRO PROOF for the rotation of the earth by performing an experiment which we could call : "A GYROSCOPE AT THE EQUATOR experiment". Quite suitable name for such a decisive proof for the alleged rotation of the earth (wouldn't you say?) : http://i.imgur.com/ovEAXPW.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/ovEAXPW.jpg)

I am absolutely sure that they would have
even installed at the EQUATOR(long time ago)
one big gyroscope made out of pure gold
which would  permanently (EVERY DAY)
make one revolution a day about an axis
at right angles to the spinning axis of
the spinning earth-globe, so that everyone
in the world can visit (at least once
in his/her lifetime) HC sanctum where
such a perfect proof  for the rotation of the
earth hypothesis would be at disposition
24 hours a day to every single flat earther
who would ever dare to doubt that the
earth spins like a hell since the first day
of creation.

THE FLAT EARTH - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : (http://)

Ibrahim Muñoz
I used to run tests on gyros for the C-5 and C-141 airplanes in the military. The tests usually ran for 4 hours. I had to make sure it could stay precise an all the axes. (Pitch Yaw and Roll) there was only one allowance made for the rotation of the earth. 15 degrees for every hour. Now this only affects the heading in terms of longitude position . But , there was NEVER I mean NEVER any mention or allowance for pitch or altitude adjustment for the curvature of the earth. If a plane is going 500 MPH, after a1/2 an hour it would have traveled 250 miles. That means the plane would be 7.89 miles higher. Those gyros are very sensitive and precise. This is proof the earth is flat. For me that is the final nail in the coffin for round earth?


Ibrahim Muñoz
+Rab Downunder The gyros I worked on were in a vacuum case and they sat on a fixed place in the plane. There was nothing to correct except for the 15 degrees per hour of the earths supposed "rotation". This is related to longitude position or East west movement in relation to magnetic north. For coordinated turns and smooth flight , accelerometers are used. But these do not affect the gyro. So, as far as I remember, the gyro did not receive any correction for the curvature of the earth.?

Ecco Sabanovic
..all i can say is that, i have performed similar tests with gyro, aligned north/south and left spinning on my work desk(electrically powered) from 7AM to 3PM..no offset at all on gimbal..so if earth is spinning, offset should be visible..tests performed in Singapore which is basically equator, so if earth is indeed spinning, offset should be easy visible in 8 hr of gyro spinning here..?

********************************************

600 mph / 60 min = 10 miles/min = 66,6 feet/min = 1,11 feet/ sec = 0,33 m/sec
1500 mph (MACH 2) / 60 min = 25 miles/min = 416 feet/min = 6,9 feet/sec = 2,1 m/sec
5250 mph (MACH 7) / 60 min = 87.5 miles/min = 5104 feet/min = 85 feet/sec = 25.7 m/sec

So, i repeat the question : Now, tell me JUST HOW SLOW erection mechanism acts in an aircrafts which fly at such speeds?

The only way how erection mechanisms could produce any result whatsoever would be if the speed of their reaction were instantaneous. Flying at speed MACH 2 we would gain altitude = 6,9 feet PER SECOND!!! Flying at speed MACH 7 we would gain altitude = 447 feet PER SECOND!!! Don't you realise that there is no time for even VERY FAST reaction of your erection mechanism, let alone VERY SLOW reaction of the same mechanism!!! 447 feet PER SECOND!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! YOUR ARGUMENTATION IS HILARIOUS!!! The only way how your argumentation could have any sense at all would be if you could (inter)change the meanings of the words VERY SLOW & INSTANTANEOUS!!!

If i could give you an advice it would be something like this : Just stop embarrassing yourself more than you already did!

ICE WALL : (http://)
**********************************************************

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, you climb up 126 meters every minute, now your erection mechanism SLOWLY (within minutes) reacts and compensates the difference in altitude, but while your erection mechanism does what it allegedly does you again and again (after every single SLOW adjustment) climb up next 126 meters. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what? If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilots in X-15 aircraft have managed not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?
ON TOP OF THAT :  How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?
*******************************************************************************

You are dodging all of my VERY IMPORTANT questions (unlike my questions, your questions are really funny and naive, and you know that for example your last question was : "When you jump up, why do you come down?" lol ...you see, there is a big difference between my questions and your questions, you can't deny that, can you?) So i am going to repeat my VERY IMPORTANT questions once again:

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, after 1 min you climb up 126 meters per minute, now your erection mechanism SLOWLY reacts and compensates this difference in altitude, but while your erection mechanism does what it does you climb up next 126 meters again. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already.

1. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what?

2. If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilot in X-15 aircraft manages not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?

3. How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?

4. How about attitude indicators embedded in i-phones, how come that these indicators perfectly match those attitude indicators equipped with erection mechanisms?

5. Artificial horizon was invented in 1929. by Jimmy Doolittle, and the first mention of a so called "erection mechanisms" took place at the end of the WWII...So, how artificial horizons had worked before someone came up with this idea?

6. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! Now, if we set one gyro without erection mechanism in an airplane next to standard attitude indicator built-in the cockpit of an airplane and performed an experiment like this : (http://) ,should we (according to you) expect any discrepancy on the display of these two pretty different devices no matter how long our experiment lasts and how far we fly while conducting our experiment?

**************************************************************

 blk jet 1 month ago
When i started my 25 year USAF career, I was an Automated Flight Control Systems Specialist (autopilot). The system had a pitch up command for coordinated turns so that when the aircraft banked and the wings lost lift the resulting altitude loss could be prevented. There was also pitch up and down commands for terrain following, but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth. If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature. I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?

blk jet 9 minutes ago
+odiupicku I don't think he will answer your questions. I worked on C-141, A-10, A-7, F-117, F-16, and B-1B aircraft as well as trained on F-111 and B-52 systems. None of those aircraft had ANY pitch down commands to account for the curvature of the earth. None, Not a single one.?
Title: Re: HOW AMUNDSEN KNEW HE WAS ON THE SOUTH POLE?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 27, 2016, 10:46:24 AM
<So many words. So few facts.>
What do you think any of this has to do with how Amundsen navigated to and located the South Pole?

Reply is split into two parts to keep the post size [more] manageable.

Quote
Read this correspondence :

---"In fact, didn't he prove that the earth rotated via the gyroscope??"

MY ANSWER :
---No, he didn't : Flat Earth and the Gyroscope Myth (by Rob Durham) - MIRROR : (http://)
Can you please make your arguments here instead of only pointing to inane youtube postings with "here... watch this"?

Quote
Gyroscope doesn't know the curve of any kind (of any degree)!!!
This much is true. So?

Quote
This is really strong argument in favor of Flat Earth
How does that follow? If it "doesn't know" about curvature at all, how can it provide anything meaningful about it?

Quote
and amazingly Round Earthers have been using one similar fraudulent experiment (Foucault's pendulum), and even Foucault's another invention (a gyrosope) more than 150 years in order to prove that the earth rotates... Well, we have silenced them for good (using their own weapon)
Something more than an empty boast about this might make it more convincing. First, it needs to be at least plausible.

Quote
You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica) but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours.
The Britannica is an excellent general-purpose encyclopedia; it's not the "final authority on all scientific matters". 

More about "proof" in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof).

Quote
It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.
The scientific community values models that make sense, are internally consistent, explain observations well, and produce verifiable predictions. If they're also elegant they're even more convincing. Actively pushing an obviously flawed and complicated model that still doesn't adequately explain what we see every day, much less make useful predictions, in favor of a model that is much simpler, better explains everything, and makes useful and verifiable predictions, would cast your reasoning skills into doubt - for good reason.

Quote
Many "astronomers" cite the Foucault pendulum experiment that was carried out in Paris in 1851 as PROOF[It's evidence, not proof] that the earth turns. It's a pity that the NASA space program has not provided them with more recent proof[citation needed, but see the above about proof].
READ MORE (you really shouldn't skip this !!!) : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659881#msg1659881)
FOURTHLY : How come they cite the FOUCAULT PENDULUM EXPERIMENT as PROOFevidence that the earth turns INSTEAD OF one another FOUCAULT's EXPERIMENT (A GYRO EXPERIMENT) which allegedly provided us with another proof that the earth turns on it's axis?

ALL YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED ROTATION OF THE EARTH : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1673075#msg1673075)

ZIGZAG argument video : (http://)
I'll save you the search for the answer to this. The link to this video was first posted almost half a year ago by you in a thread called "ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1718935#msg1718935)". Ironically, despite the rather bombastic title (even using all-caps), every point in that "argument" was easily and thoroughly refuted. Enjoy the trip down memory lane if you forgot you already tried that.

Quote
STAR TRAILS argument video : (http://)
I'll save you the search for the answer to this; it's in the same thread as the above.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1719316#msg1719316 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64517.msg1719316#msg1719316)

Quote
If the axis of the gyroscope changes its orientation to the earths surface as time goes on, the earth is most likely rotating. If the axis changes 90 degrees in 6 hours, the globe earth advocates should throw a celebration party, they have very strong evidence. But, if within that 6 hours, there is no significant change, the globe earth advocates have no choice but to give it up, or form a blind faith based religion called Globism. However, the reverse is true for flat earth advocates. What a simple but powerful evidence for one or the other.

The spinning rotor remains in it's original attitude while the gimbals and base move around it. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!!
So it does show the Earth is spinning. Is that your point?

Quote
This is the proof in itself that gravitation doesn't exist. [???] So, if gravitation doesn't exist someone has to explain the mechanics (or/and the principle) of "Artificial Horizon" "adjustments" (for a supposed curvature of the earth)...
"If gravitation doesn't exist". Unfortunately (for you) it does exist, so there is no need to explain any of that beyond what is already available.

Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 27, 2016, 10:55:35 AM
Continued...

The truth is that there are no adjustments in relation to the supposed curvature of the earth, because the earth is flat, otherwise we should forget about perfect functioning of today's very-frequent air traffic, super sonic jets and an aviation as a whole...
What adjustments do you think should be necessary? You do realize that elevation (or altitude) is measured with respect to a curved datum, don't you?

Quote
1. The best proof that the so called "Earth Rate Correction" is a notorious hoax ...
???
Quote
... is the ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT that the earth is at rest. I repeat : ABSOLUTELY PROVEN FACT!!!
Only in your mind.

Quote
2. The true (hidden) meaning (which is of a great importance regarding the essence of our discussion) of "a cross check procedure" in an airplanes is this : All the instruments which pilots use for their (blind) orientation in the cockpit of an airplane are totally independent devices, so that they can rely on other instruments in the case of emergency (if certain failure in functioning of any particular instrument in the cockpit of an airplane occurred)!

3. If the earth were a globe VSI data would NEVER match Artificial Horizon indications!!! In a very short period of time (within a few seconds - depending on the speed of the aircraft) any attempt to fly STRAIGHT AND LEVEL would be obstructed in a following manner : Artificial Horizon would permanently indicate that an aircraft is climbing up, although VSI would never show any change at all, since there would be no difference in air pressure while aircraft SOMEHOW manages to maintain the same altitude!!! In other words Artificial Horizon would be of no use whatsoever!!!
Don't be so sure about that. Are you a pilot or avionics tech? How familiar with these instruments and how they work are you?

Quote
4. IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a gyroscope is set SPINNING ON THE EQUATOR with its spinning axis horizontal in an EAST and WEST direction it will appear to make one revolution a day about an axis at right angles to the spinning axis.

At the end of 12 hours the gyroscope would appear to have reversed ends, though actually it would continue to point just as it did at the start, only the earth would have made a half revolution.

Also, IF THE EARTH WERE A SPINNING GLOBE & if a spinning gyroscope WERE CARRIED AROUND the earth along a north and south meridian, passing over the two poles, it would constantly change its angle so that the horizontal spinning axis would always be at right angles to a vertical line from the earth's center.

Had heliocentrist's claim(s) been right they would have demonstrated a long ago A GYRO PROOF for the rotation of the earth
And you would happily ignore it, as you're doing now.

In the meantime, maybe you could do it yourself... How to track the Earth’s rotation with a PlayStation Move controller (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-02/23/playstation-move-hack). You don't even need to be at the Equator!

Quote
by performing an experiment which we could call : "A GYROSCOPE AT THE EQUATOR experiment". Quite suitable name for such a decisive proof for the alleged rotation of the earth (wouldn't you say?) : http://i.imgur.com/ovEAXPW.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/ovEAXPW.jpg)

I am absolutely sure that they would have
even installed at the EQUATOR(long time ago)
one big gyroscope made out of pure gold
which would  permanently (EVERY DAY)
make one revolution a day about an axis
at right angles to the spinning axis of
the spinning earth-globe, so that everyone
in the world can visit (at least once
in his/her lifetime) HC sanctum where
such a perfect proof  for the rotation of the
earth hypothesis would be at disposition
24 hours a day to every single flat earther
who would ever dare to doubt that the
earth spins like a hell since the first day
of creation.

THE FLAT EARTH - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : (http://)
Why bother? That might be an interesting display but it would be expensive to build and to maintain, and for 99.999...% of the literate population, no further evidence is needed. For the handful of others, no evidence is sufficient. Remember the mantra of the flat earth proponent when presented with obvious evidence that he's wrong? "It's fake."

Quote
Ibrahim Muñoz
I used to run tests on gyros for the C-5 and C-141 airplanes in the military. The tests usually ran for 4 hours. I had to make sure it could stay precise an all the axes. (Pitch Yaw and Roll) there was only one allowance made for the rotation of the earth. 15 degrees for every hour. Now this only affects the heading in terms of longitude position . But , there was NEVER I mean NEVER any mention or allowance for pitch or altitude adjustment for the curvature of the earth. If a plane is going 500 MPH, after a1/2 an hour it would have traveled 250 miles. That means the plane would be 7.89 miles higher. Those gyros are very sensitive and precise. This is proof the earth is flat. For me that is the final nail in the coffin for round earth?
It's far more likely proof that whoever made this statement doesn't know all the details how these systems work and what they do.

Quote
Ibrahim Muñoz
+Rab Downunder The gyros I worked on were in a vacuum case and they sat on a fixed place in the plane. There was nothing to correct except for the 15 degrees per hour of the earths supposed "rotation". This is related to longitude position or East west movement in relation to magnetic north. For coordinated turns and smooth flight , accelerometers are used. But these do not affect the gyro. So, as far as I remember, the gyro did not receive any correction for the curvature of the earth.?
So longitude is measured with respect to magnetic north? This may be a inadvertent error by the author, or it may reveal a deeper lack of understanding of navigation in general.

Quote
Ecco Sabanovic
..all i can say is that, i have performed similar tests with gyro, aligned north/south and left spinning on my work desk(electrically powered) from 7AM to 3PM..no offset at all on gimbal..so if earth is spinning, offset should be visible..tests performed in Singapore which is basically equator, so if earth is indeed spinning, offset should be easy visible in 8 hr of gyro spinning here..?
Not if it's aligned north and south. Oops...

Quote
600 mph / 60 min = 10 miles/min = 66,6 feet/min = 1,11 feet/ sec = 0,33 m/sec
1500 mph (MACH 2) / 60 min = 25 miles/min = 416 feet/min = 6,9 feet/sec = 2,1 m/sec
5250 mph (MACH 7) / 60 min = 87.5 miles/min = 5104 feet/min = 85 feet/sec = 25.7 m/sec

So, i repeat the question : Now, tell me JUST HOW SLOW erection mechanism acts in an aircrafts which fly at such speeds?
Dunno. How about looking it up and telling us. Meanwhile, do you know what instrument the "erection mechanism" is used for? You seem confused about this.

Quote
The only way how erection mechanisms could produce any result whatsoever would be if the speed of their reaction were instantaneous[citation needed]
. Flying at speed MACH 2 we would gain altitude = 6,9 feet PER SECOND!!! Flying at speed MACH 7 we would gain altitude = 447 feet PER SECOND!!! Don't you realise that there is no time for even VERY FAST reaction of your erection mechanism, let alone VERY SLOW reaction of the same mechanism!!!
Yep... you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote
447 feet PER SECOND!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! YOUR ARGUMENTATION IS HILARIOUS!!! The only way how your argumentation could have any sense at all would be if you could (inter)change the meanings of the words VERY SLOW & INSTANTANEOUS!!!
Calm down.

Your argument might have merit if the "erection mechanism" applied to the Variometer (Vertical Speed Indicator) instead of the Attitude Indicator (artificial horizon). Oops... I gave the answer away.  :-[

Quote
If i could give you an advice it would be something like this : Just stop embarrassing yourself more than you already did!
Right back atcha!!

Quote
ICE WALL : (http://)
**********************************************************

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, you climb up 126 meters every minute, now your erection mechanism SLOWLY (within minutes) reacts and compensates the difference in altitude, but while your erection mechanism does what it allegedly does you again and again (after every single SLOW adjustment) climb up next 126 meters. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what? If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilots in X-15 aircraft have managed not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?
ON TOP OF THAT :  How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?
*******************************************************************************

You are dodging all of my VERY IMPORTANT questions (unlike my questions, your questions are really funny and naive, and you know that for example your last question was : "When you jump up, why do you come down?" lol ...you see, there is a big difference between my questions and your questions, you can't deny that, can you?) So i am going to repeat my VERY IMPORTANT questions once again:

If you fly at the speed MACH 2, after 1 min you climb up 126 meters per minute [not if you're maintaining altitude], now your erection mechanism SLOWLY reacts and compensates this difference in altitude[citation needed]
, but while your erection mechanism does what it does you climb up next 126 meters again[citation needed]. So, every minute you are 126 meters higher in the sky and your VSI has gone crazy already[citation needed].

1. So, are you trying to say that your erection mechanism reacts instantly or what?
I'm saying "what?"

But wait... you knew all along that the AI was corrected for curvature. So why did you assert this earlier in your post?

Quote
any attempt to fly STRAIGHT AND LEVEL would be obstructed in a following manner : Artificial Horizon would permanently indicate that an aircraft is climbing up, although VSI would never show any change at all, since there would be no difference in air pressure while aircraft SOMEHOW manages to maintain the same altitude!!! In other words Artificial Horizon would be of no use whatsoever!!!
You might look more credible if you kept your story straight.[nb]Having a credible story to start with would be an even bigger help to your cred.[/nb]

Quote
2. If you fly at the speed MACH 7 you climb up 1546 meters (5104 feet) per minute, so even if it were true what you claim can you explain to us how pilot in X-15 aircraft manages not to fly off into space while flying at the speed MACH 7?
By maintaining the desired altitude profile.

Quote
3. How attitude indicator knows how fast you fly?
It doesn't. It doesn't need to.

Quote
4. How about attitude indicators embedded in i-phones, how come that these indicators perfectly match those attitude indicators equipped with erection mechanisms[citation needed]?

5. Artificial horizon was invented in 1929. by Jimmy Doolittle, and the first mention of a so called "erection mechanisms" took place at the end of the WWII...So, how artificial horizons had worked before someone came up with this idea?
That might be interesting to look up. Why don't you do so and report back. Be advised that a lot of such developments before and during the war were secret, so no mention of them until after the end of hostilities isn't terribly surprising and by no means indicates that nobody had the idea before they were publicized.

At least you're associating it with the correct instrument now.

Quote
6. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! Now, if we set one gyro without erection mechanism in an airplane next to standard attitude indicator built-in the cockpit of an airplane and performed an experiment like this : (http://) ,should we (according to you) expect any discrepancy on the display of these two pretty different devices no matter how long our experiment lasts and how far we fly while conducting our experiment?
Ideally, I would expect so. Could that possibly be why they aren't used this way?

Quote
blk jet 1 month ago
When i started my 25 year USAF career, I was an Automated Flight Control Systems Specialist (autopilot). The system had a pitch up command for coordinated turns so that when the aircraft banked and the wings lost lift the resulting altitude loss could be prevented. There was also pitch up and down commands for terrain following, but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth. If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature. I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?

blk jet 9 minutes ago
+odiupicku I don't think he will answer your questions. I worked on C-141, A-10, A-7, F-117, F-16, and B-1B aircraft as well as trained on F-111 and B-52 systems. None of those aircraft had ANY pitch down commands to account for the curvature of the earth. None, Not a single one.?
None are needed if maintaining altitude is the goal. In level flight Otto[nb]"Otto Pilot"... get it?[/nb] monitors the altimeter (or maybe VSI, or both) and adjusts as needed.
 
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: sokarul on February 27, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!
2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
IF THE EARTH IS ROUND, THEN IT'S ROUNDNESS DICTATES THE VALUES OF THE HEIGHT ANGLES OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : SUN'S RAYS HAVE TO BE PARALLEL, AND IF THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN THE SUN WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 3 000 000 MILES (AS COPERNICUS ESTIMATED)...
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up! In my newest flat-earth video i have elaborated this issue : (http://)

On top of that :

A-1) First of all, for those who still doubt that HC model is wrong : FLAT EARTH ZIGZAG REVISITED : (http://)

A-2) ZIGZAG DEFENSE - 1 000 000 $ CHALLENGE : (http://)

A-3) THE FINAL BLOW : (http://)

A-4)  STAR-TRAILS argument (against the rotation of the earth) : (http://)

A-5) THE SUN : (http://)

B) Can anyone disprove RAIL GUN argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - THE FINAL NAIL IN RE COFFIN : (http://)

C) Can anyone disprove UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS argument (against the curvature of the earth)?
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 1 : (http://)
UNBELIEVABLE HORIZONS 2 : (http://)

D) Can you disprove GYRO argument (against the rotation of the earth and against the curvature of the earth)? - A GYRO AT THE EQUATOR : (http://)

E) Can anyone disprove that all the water on the earth always finds it's own LEVEL?
F) Can you disprove that there are no adjustments for the curvature of the earth when building canals, bridges, tunnels, railways etc...?

G) Can you disprove that if the earth rotated we would never be able to reach any eastern destination by flying in a direction (WEST-EAST) of the supposed rotation of the earth because the rotation of the earth would be faster than most airplanes? Can you disprove that aviation wouldn't work on a spinning globe? - Flat Earth - AVIATION & SEA LEVEL - part II : (http://)

H) Can you disprove that the horizon is always flat no matter how high we fly? - FLAT EARTH VIEW FROM 317 000  FEET - 96 KM (NASA FOOTAGE) : (http://)

I) Can you disprove that rocket men (Don Quixote) don't take into account the rotation of the earth hypothesis or the supposed curvature of the earth when lunching long range missiles?
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 1 : (http://)
FLAT EARTH - ASTONISHING CONFESSIONS 2 : (http://)

J) Can you disprove ALBATROS ARITHMETIC argument (Mutiny on the Bounty)? - (http://)

K) IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT BIBLE IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC WORD OF GOD (BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FLATLY FLAT EARTH BOOK - I CAN PROVE IT WITHIN ONE SECOND), NOT ONLY THAT, IF THE EARTH IS ROUND THEN I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT GOD IS INSANE PERSON (MANIAC).

Still a know nothing fool I see.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: 29silhouette on February 27, 2016, 06:19:35 PM

My point is this : put your money on the table or just shut up! (regarding ZIGZAG argument)
As for the final answer regarding the shape of the earth i still think that the earth is flat or flattish (and i can stand for that with 98 % certainty), but until i am not 100 % sure, i won't bet on it. As for the immobility of the earth issue i am 100 % sure that the earth is stationary, and i am ready to bet on that (anytime) with you or with anyone else in the world. So what is going to be, will you shut up already or you will put your money on the table?


Bet?  I could, but why?  You obviously didn't read and/or comprehend past posts showing the flaws with your zigzag argument, why would you start doing so when money is involved?  We already know your history.  You have called others here liars in the past, but When I posted inquiring about your intentional distortion of the FE map that you were repeatedly posting, and stated that your silence would bring us to question your level of integrity, you remained silent.  That being said, why even bother betting?

Now then, you would have to prove the sun is very close to a globe Earth and not 93million miles away from a globe Earth. 

One of your videos showed a bunch of stuff being done on some graphic software that resulted in the sun being about 260,000 miles away, with no explanation about what was being done,  but even that close I don't feel there would be a zigzag effect within the arctic circle as you describe (I would have to work it out on a diagram) because as the person/camera turns to face the sun, they would still be rotating the entire time with the horizon moving across their field of view, and the horizon is only a few miles away.

(not my video.  This too is a bit on the long side, I would have explained it in a couple minutes.  Anyway, just skip to about 3:20) Zigzag debunked.
(http://)

'fixed' version of one of your diagrams
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/hrzn_zpsgcohetj4.jpg)

So, once again, there would be no zigzag on a globe Earth.

*edited to fix embedding.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on February 28, 2016, 06:57:19 AM
29silhouette, this objection would make sense only (i repeat : ONLY) if our hypothetical observer were centered on the very axis of a spherical rotating body (globe). I have explained that many times in my various ZIGZAG videos published on my primary youtube channel as well as in some additional ZIGZAG informative videos which i have published on my secondary youtube channel ( (http://)). So, i will repeat once more just for you : HAVE IN MIND THAT OUR HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER (OF NON-EXISTING ZIGZAG PHENOMENA) IS PLACED AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE (WHICH CIRCUMFERENCE IS MORE THAN DOZEN THOUSAND MILES), HE IS NOT CENTERED DIRECTLY AT THE NORTH POLE!!!!!!!!! So, your objection amounts to nothing! Well, after we have settled this matter i have something very interesting for you (you can consider this as a gift) :
1. FLIGHT PATHS EXPLAINED : (http://)
2. BALLOON SUCCESS : (http://)
Although, as i said before : there are some serious ASTRONOMICAL reasons which compel us to think that the earth is spherically shaped :
LEMAIRE CHANNEL - 23 DECEMBER 2015 - VIDEO 2 : (http://)
There must be some way out of this conundrum....
In addition : have you forgotten all these facts : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902)
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 28, 2016, 09:42:48 AM
29silhouette, this objection would make sense only (i repeat : ONLY) if our hypothetical observer were centered on the very axis of a spherical rotating body (globe). I have explained that many times in my various ZIGZAG videos published on my primary youtube channel as well as in some additional ZIGZAG informative videos which i have published on my secondary youtube channel ( (http://)). So, i will repeat once more just for you : HAVE IN MIND THAT OUR HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER (OF NON-EXISTING ZIGZAG PHENOMENA) IS PLACED AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE (WHICH CIRCUMFERENCE IS MORE THAN DOZEN THOUSAND MILES), HE IS NOT CENTERED DIRECTLY AT THE NORTH POLE!!!!!!!!! So, your objection amounts to nothing!

cikljamas, we've been over this before. You're describing parallax. The amount of parallax you see depends on two factors: 1) the length of the baseline, and 2) the distance to the object you're observing.

In the case you describe, the baseline is the diameter of the Arctic Circle; call it 3200 miles. You are ignoring the distance to the Sun, which is about 93 million miles. Using these numbers, solar parallax would be about tan-1 (3200 mi / 93,000,000 mi) = .0020°, over a 12-hour period. The maximum apparent motion of the Sun due to this parallax is at local solar noon (and midnight), and the rate is 0.00026° / hour. The rotation rate of the Earth is 15° / hour, more than 50,000 times greater than the maximum rate of change of parallax. Ergo, there is no "zig-zag" due to the circumstance you describe. Instead, the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky speeds up and slows down by less than 0.002% through the day; it would not change direction, or even come close to stopping.

Can we please move on now?
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on February 28, 2016, 11:59:15 AM
Alpha, this is the message which i have sent to one confused guy who had had some problems with discerning right from wrong (in the context of bogus "small-parallax" objection) :

1. You would make 360, not the sun, the sun wouldn't move, AND THE APPARENT MOTION OF THE SUN WOULD ZIGGING AND ZAGGING, MAKING PARALLAX (A LOOP) IN THE SKY!!! You can clearly see that loop in Rory's newest interpretation/defence of my ZIGZAG argument, and i have shown the same loop in my FIRST ZIGZAG VIDEO which i have uploaded on JANUARY 30. 2015. Watch : (http://)  How do you  manage not to see/understand something so simple?

2. We can obscure our orientation points (our entire environment) and we will be still able to say (very easily) from which side to which side the sun goes in the sky. Do you agree? And you know why? Because the sun makes HUGE turn in the sky! And you know why? Because the sun is very close to the earth and because the sun is very small in comparison to the earth!

3. When we go to the LEFT (and the sun goes to the RIGHT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT will go to the RIGHT, also! On the other hand when we go to the RIGHT (and the sun goes to the LEFT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT  will go to the LEFT, also. THE SHADOWS TELL US THE TRUTH, ANYWAY,  IN ANY CASE, IN BOTH MODELS!

4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn&#39;t, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg)

Imagine that you observe the motion of the shadow of some object on the spinning round earth, during your LEFT to RIGHT translation (with respect to the sun) the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction, and vice versa, while you go RIGHT to LEFT the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction (LEFT to RIGHT).

So, an attempt of refutation on the basis of so called "small parallax" "counter-argument" is totally bogus and erroneous!

5. Should i repeat this once more : if you chose to try to refute my ZIGZAG argument on the basis of the "small parallax" attempt of evasion, you would instantly have to discard heliocentric explanation for the mechanics of changes (the alleged rotation of the earth) of the suns (EAST-WEST) position in the sky during the first half (12 hours) of the Polar Day. The same mechanic has to be applied during the second half of the Polar Day (WEST-EAST). HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAN AVOID APPLYING THE SAME ALLEGED MECHANIC (HELIOCENTRIC CAUSE) OF SUN'S TRANSLATION IN THE SKY DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE POLAR DAY? HOW???

Alpha, i know that you are not so confused like that guy to whom i have sent above message, you are an ordinary-profesional liar. So, i have posted these words for the victims of your deliberate lies, for those who are still confused reading your disgusting, deliberate lies, not for you! Goodby!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: 29silhouette on February 28, 2016, 12:42:10 PM
29silhouette, this objection would make sense only (i repeat : ONLY) if our hypothetical observer were centered on the very axis of a spherical rotating body (globe). I have explained that many times in my various ZIGZAG videos published on my primary youtube channel as well as in some additional ZIGZAG informative videos which i have published on my secondary youtube channel ( (http://)).
Once again, this video is depicting a small sun roughly 3,000 miles away from the arctic circle.  How far away is the sun in RET?  93million miles.

Quote
So, i will repeat once more just for you : HAVE IN MIND THAT OUR HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER (OF NON-EXISTING ZIGZAG PHENOMENA) IS PLACED AT THE EDGE OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE (WHICH CIRCUMFERENCE IS MORE THAN DOZEN THOUSAND MILES), HE IS NOT CENTERED DIRECTLY AT THE NORTH POLE!!!!!!!!! So, your objection amounts to nothing!
The arctic circle has a diameter of about 3200 miles.  Throughout the day that means 1600 miles to either side of the pole.  Rather simple geometry means my objection (and everyone else's) explains why there would be no zigzag with the sun distance as dictated with a globe Earth.

Quote
Well, after we have settled this matter i have something very interesting for you (you can consider this as a gift) :
1. FLIGHT PATHS EXPLAINED : (http://)
So you're saying Earth is flat and square?  Locations in far northern latitudes and far southern latitudes are much bigger than what is known in reality?  And how does a aircraft fly off one end of the Earth and appear on the other end?

Quote
2. BALLOON SUCCESS : (http://)
And?  The center of the frame is aimed above the horizon.  Wide angle lenses make the horizon look convex when aimed low, and concave when aimed high.  The amount varies.

Quote
Although, as i said before : there are some serious ASTRONOMICAL reasons which compel us to think that the earth is spherically shaped :
Quite a few, yes, I agree.

Quote
LEMAIRE CHANNEL - 23 DECEMBER 2015 - VIDEO 2 : (http://)
There must be some way out of this conundrum....
Lemaire channel.  Beautifle place.  What about it.

Quote
In addition : have you forgotten all these facts : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902)
So start a thread on them again.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: 29silhouette on February 28, 2016, 12:54:06 PM
4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn&#39;t, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg)
Now label the latitude line the observe is at, and add in the circumference of the horizon around the observer.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 28, 2016, 09:07:18 PM
Alpha, this is the message which i have sent to one confused guy who had had some problems with discerning right from wrong (in the context of bogus "small-parallax" objection) :
Quote
bogus "small-parallax" objection
How big do you think the parallax is? Care to show your math?

Quote
1. You would make 360, not the sun, the sun wouldn't move, AND THE APPARENT MOTION OF THE SUN WOULD ZIGGING AND ZAGGING, MAKING PARALLAX (A LOOP) IN THE SKY!!! You can clearly see that loop in Rory's newest interpretation/defence of my ZIGZAG argument, and i have shown the same loop in my FIRST ZIGZAG VIDEO which i have uploaded on JANUARY 30. 2015. Watch : (http://)  How do you  manage not to see/understand something so simple?
I'll agree that it's a video. Nice fade-to-white transition each time you reverse the video. It has a nice piano score, too[nb]Do you have rights to distribute that music? Is it under copyright? Just wondering.[/nb].

Otherwise, it's just an unsubstantiated and incorrect visualization of "this is what I think it should look like if the earth were rotating." You never explain why the Sun would stop moving left-to-right and start moving right to left, and vice-versa, while facing it. Can you explain your reasoning? It's obvious to me that you are absolutely befuddled by this, but maybe you can clarify to others the source of your confusion, too.

Quote
2. We can obscure our orientation points (our entire environment) and we will be still able to say (very easily) from which side to which side the sun goes in the sky. Do you agree? And you know why?
Yes! To both. Thanks for asking.

Quote
Because the sun makes HUGE turn in the sky! And you know why?
Yes! I's because the Sun is far away and the Earth is rotating.

Quote
Because the sun is very close to the earth and because the sun is very small in comparison to the earth!
No. That's not it. Why do you think so?

Quote
3. When we go to the LEFT (and the sun goes to the RIGHT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT will go to the RIGHT, also!
Uh... no. This is easy to see if you will actually get away from you computer and go outside and look at the real world for a few hours. Sick a nearly vertical stake in the ground, stand (or sit) and watch the sun move to the right from east to west (presuming you're still in a mid-northern latitude) and watch the shadow move to the left, from west to east. If you'll actually watch, instead of just doing idle speculation, you will see that you're wrong.

Quote
On the other hand when we go to the RIGHT (and the sun goes to the LEFT) the shadows of our CLOSE ENVIRONMENT  will go to the LEFT, also. THE SHADOWS TELL US THE TRUTH, ANYWAY,  IN ANY CASE, IN BOTH MODELS!
Southern hemisphere? Still works. You're still wrong.

Quote
4. Now, imagine that the Sun is so far away and so big as heliocentrists claim that it is, and that the Earth is so much smaller than the sun (as they claim that it is) so that the whole earth is engulfed/covered in/with one single beam of the Sun. Would this make any difference in relation to the core of my ZIGZAG argument? No, it wouldn&#39;t, watch : http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/XCMoZk5.jpg)
Since the core of your zig-zag argument is a nearby sun, yes it would, whether I watch the video or not.

Can you tell me something about that video that will pique my interest? Is it any more informative than any of your other videos[nb]History suggests not, but sell me.[/nb]? Does it at least have a nice soundtrack[nb]Of secondary importance (to me, but perhaps not to the rights owner), do you have the rights to any soundtrack in this video?[/nb]? How long is it?

Quote
Imagine that you observe the motion of the shadow of some object on the spinning round earth, during your LEFT to RIGHT translation (with respect to the sun) the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction, and vice versa, while you go RIGHT to LEFT the shadow would go in the same direction, and the apparent motion of the sun would be in an opposite direction (LEFT to RIGHT).
The short answer is that my translation with respect to (wrt) the Sun is insignificant because the Sun is much (tens of thousands times) further than the translation. It's my rotation wrt the Sun that matters.

Quote
So, an attempt of refutation on the basis of so called "small parallax" "counter-argument" is totally bogus and erroneous!
Nope. The translation is small because of the distances involved. The only way around this is to demonstrate convincingly that the Sun is much closer to the Earth than it actually is[nb]Good luck with that![/nb].

Quote
5. Should i repeat this once more : if you [choose] to try to refute my ZIGZAG argument on the basis of the "small parallax" attempt of evasion[?], you would instantly have to discard heliocentric explanation for the mechanics of changes (the alleged rotation of the earth) of the suns (EAST-WEST) position in the sky during the first half (12 hours) of the Polar Day. The same mechanic has to be applied during the second half of the Polar Day (WEST-EAST). HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAN AVOID APPLYING THE SAME ALLEGED MECHANIC (HELIOCENTRIC CAUSE) OF SUN'S TRANSLATION IN THE SKY DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE POLAR DAY? HOW???
No need to avoid applying either. They are both simply too small to be noticed. How hard is this to understand?

You still haven't shown why solar parallax would amount to significantly more than a very tiny fraction of a degree[nb]Please don't confuse an uninformed opinion or wishful thinking with meaningful measurements. I'm interested in facts, not useless "what ifs" contrary to well-confirmed evidence.[/nb]. How about doing that before proceeding any further?

Quote
Alpha, i know that you are not so confused like that guy to whom i have sent above message, you are an ordinary-profesional liar. So, i have posted these words for the victims of your deliberate lies, for those who are still confused reading your disgusting, deliberate lies, not for you! Goodby!
Does this mean that you're reduced to ad-hom attacks again. Do you have no real arguments? It seems you don't.

You still haven't explained how any of this related to "How Amunesden [sic] knew he was on the south pole". That's the topic the thread started out about, remember? You should, you started the thread.
 
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 01, 2016, 07:05:01 AM
Why i can't find at least one authentic video from the South Pole which clearly shows that the sun retains the same angle on the horizon throughout at least 6 hours during southern summer solstice?
However, I have easily found northern-summer-solstice video that has been taken at the North Pole : SUN TRACKING NORTH POLE : (http://)

Is there anyone who can provide for us video like this one (above) that has been taken from the South Pole? It should be much easier to find such a "South Pole" video since we have at least one station and many web cams at the South Pole, which is not the case at the North Pole...
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2016, 07:36:30 AM
Why i can't find at least one authentic video from the South Pole which clearly shows that the sun retains the same angle on the horizon throughout at least 6 hours during southern summer solstice?
However, I have easily found northern-summer-solstice video that has been taken at the North Pole : SUN TRACKING NORTH POLE : (http://)

Is there anyone who can provide for us video like this one (above) that has been taken from the South Pole?

This was easy to find. It shows the Sun itself for about four hours and shadows with constant length for a full day.
(http://). Not the solstice, but it doesn't need to be.

Quote
It should be much easier to find such a "South Pole" video since we have at least one station and many web cams at the South Pole, which is not the case at the North Pole...

Maybe, maybe not. Most of the people making it to the North Pole are tourists; making tourist videos is what they do. Most of the people at the South pole are working; they have other responsibilities.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 01, 2016, 08:24:38 AM
After all these years you can't find anything better than that old garbage photomontage?
How convenient this is...
Same with CGI photos of the "ball-earth" from "space"....Thousands satellites in an alleged orbit around the earth, but still NOT SINGLE ONE authentic photo of the earth from space? LoL...LoL...Lol:::
How about Gyro at the Equator experiment?
How about Gyro experiment flying in a direction NORTH - SOUTH?
How about ONE SINGLE authentic proof of the curvature of the earth in the manner of Bedford Level Experiment?
How about high-altitude balloon footage proof of the curvature of the earth?
How about the RAIL GUN argument?
How about anything AT ALL?

How about the fact that FLAT EARTH COMMUNITY have provided for us ALL of the above enumerated KINDS of proofs (except the photograph of the earth from space taken from non-existing satellites) - (Only the results of ALL these proofs are conclusively IN FAVOR OF the FLAT EARTH THEORY!!!!!!!) ???
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2016, 09:32:23 AM
After all these years you can't find anything better than that old garbage photomontage?
You asked for a video, I provided a video. Sorry you don't like it.

Can't you do anything better than simply declaring something that clearly shows you're wrong is fake?

Quote
How convenient this is...
Same with CGI photos of the "ball-earth" from "space"....Thousands satellites in an alleged orbit around the earth, but still NOT SINGLE ONE authentic photo of the earth from space? LoL...LoL...Lol:::
Again...

Can't you do anything better than simply declaring something that clearly shows you're wrong is fake?

Quote
How about Gyro at the Equator experiment?
What about it? Have you tried the gyro experiment I provided for you (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-02/23/playstation-move-hack) in this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66009.msg1762838;topicseen#msg1762838) from a few days ago?

Quote
How about Gyro experiment flying in a direction NORTH - SOUTH?
What about it?

Quote
How about ONE SINGLE authentic proof of the curvature of the earth in the manner of Bedford Level Experiment?
Like the repeat of the BLE by a competent surveyor, which shows the expected curvature? There you go. Let me guess... "it's fake!"

Quote
How about high-altitude balloon footage proof of the curvature of the earth?
Yes, how about it? Cool, huh? Let me guess... "it's fake!"

Quote
How about the RAIL GUN argument?
Remind me what that is, again, please.

Quote
How about anything AT ALL?
See the above.

You can do your own experiments by looking over a large body of water and seeing a sharp horizon, or watching a sunset or any number of other easy-to-see phenomena. Those do require you to venture out into the real world, however, so they may be unappealing to you.

Quote
How about the fact that FLAT EARTH COMMUNITY have provided for us ALL of the above enumerated KINDS of proofs[citation needed] (except the photograph of the earth from space taken from non-existing satellites) - (Only the results of ALL these proofs are conclusively IN FAVOR OF the FLAT EARTH THEORY!!!!!!!) ???
I haven't seen anything convincing at all yet. If you have something, let's see it!

You never did say what any of this has to do with Amundsen? Don't you remember? That's what you started this thread to discuss.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 01, 2016, 10:12:36 AM
Read.
Carefully.
Do scientists claim that there are two magnetic poles? Okay, well then someone should be able to provide evidence of a compass that points South. EVERY single compass points North. There's a reason why, look into the real meaning behind Mercator and the magnetic mountain. The distorted focus and dissonance is a result of the incorrect focus on the Antarctic, we should be looking at the North "pole".

One guy posted this question :

We've been studying magnetism in fifth grade. We want to know what will happen if you bring a compass to the South Pole. We think the needle will rotate 360 degrees multiple times because when you are at the South Pole you can go any direction and still be going north.

Another guy gave him this answer :

But what this means for your question is that if I had a compass here at the geographic south pole, the back part of the needle would point in the direction of the magnetic south pole, and the front part of the needle will point towards the magnetic north pole. Even if I spin around, the needle will always stay pointed in the same direction.

Guess what...This answer is wrong...Geometrically impossible!!! Isn't it?
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2016, 12:05:36 PM
Read.
Carefully.

O.
K.

Quote
Do scientists claim that there are two magnetic poles?

Yes. In fact, they do more than claim it - they also demonstrate it.

Quote
Okay, well then someone should be able to provide evidence of a compass that points South. EVERY single compass points North.

Seriously? Look at the end of the compass needle that's not pointing toward magnetic north. That end is pointing toward magnetic south. How could you not notice this? Have you ever used a compass?

Quote
There's a reason why, look into the real meaning behind Mercator and the magnetic mountain. The distorted focus and dissonance is a result of the incorrect focus on the Antarctic, we should be looking at the North "pole".

I've carefully read that several times. It still makes no sense. What are you talking about?

Please.
Write.
Carefully.

Quote
One guy posted this question :

We've been studying magnetism in fifth grade. We want to know what will happen if you bring a compass to the South Pole. We think the needle will rotate 360 degrees multiple times because when you are at the South Pole you can go any direction and still be going north.

Another guy gave him this answer :

But what this means for your question is that if I had a compass here at the geographic south pole, the back part of the needle would point in the direction of the magnetic south pole, and the front part of the needle will point towards the magnetic north pole. Even if I spin around, the needle will always stay pointed in the same direction.

Guess what...This answer is wrong...Geometrically impossible!!! Isn't it?

No. It's quite correct.

Did you know that the magnetic poles are not in the same places as the geographic poles?
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on March 01, 2016, 02:18:36 PM
Read.
Carefully.
Do scientists claim that there are two magnetic poles? Okay, well then someone should be able to provide evidence of a compass that points South. EVERY single compass points North. There's a reason why, look into the real meaning behind Mercator and the magnetic mountain. The distorted focus and dissonance is a result of the incorrect focus on the Antarctic, we should be looking at the North "pole".
Every compass points south! Every magnet we know (so far) has two poles that we choose to call North (or North-seeking) and South (or South-Seeking).

Quote from: cikljamas
One guy posted this question :
We've been studying magnetism in fifth grade. We want to know what will happen if you bring a compass to the South Pole. We think the needle will rotate 360 degrees multiple times because when you are at the South Pole you can go any direction and still be going north.
The magnetic compass will operate reasonably well at the Geographic Pole since the location of the South Magnetic Pole in 2016 will be 64.245° S and 136.419° E. from : http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/poles/SP.xy (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/poles/SP.xy)
The South Magnetic Pole is not even within the Antarctic Circle. And Magnetic Compasses are routinely used for navigation around Antarctica!

Quote from: cikljamas
Another guy gave him this answer :

But what this means for your question is that if I had a compass here at the geographic south pole, the back part of the needle would point in the direction of the magnetic south pole, and the front part of the needle will point towards the magnetic north pole. Even if I spin around, the needle will always stay pointed in the same direction.

Guess what...This answer is wrong...Geometrically impossible!!! Isn't it?
The guys answer is close to being correct! And you are talking absolute rubbish.
Especially as the Magnetic South Pole is not even close to the Geographic South Pole.
On March 1 2016 the Declination and Inclination at the South Geographic Pole are:  D = -30.212 deg I = -72.233 deg.
You can look it all up at http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/geomag/agrfform.jsp (http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/geomag/agrfform.jsp)
I wish you would stop talking through you hat about subjects you know nothing about!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 01, 2016, 02:59:21 PM
I don't have to explain why it is geometrically absolutely impossible to draw a straight line (ON THE FLAT EARTH MAP) between two magnetic poles and then try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (flat earth geometry) situation.

On the other hand, if we presumed that the earth is round then we would have to face this problem :

Maybe the best way to illustrate why above explanation is erroneous (even if we took into account a globe-earth assumption) would be like this :

(http://i.imgur.com/yNRmRMB.jpg)

I have designated our hypothetical position at the edge of Antarctica continent. Now, try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (round earth geometry) situation, and tell me how one end of the compass needle can  point towards the north magnetic pole while in the same time another end of the compass needle points towards the south magnetic pole...
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2016, 04:13:24 PM
I don't have to explain why it is geometrically absolutely impossible to draw a straight line (ON THE FLAT EARTH MAP) between two magnetic poles and then try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (flat earth geometry) situation.
That goes without saying. It's "geometrically absolutely impossible to draw a straight line" on something that doesn't exist. "The flat-earth map" doesn't exist. Because the earth isn't flat.

Quote
On the other hand, if we presumed that the earth is round then we would have to face this problem :

Maybe the best way to illustrate why above explanation is erroneous (even if we took into account a globe-earth assumption) would be like this :

http://i.imgur.com/yNRmRMB.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/yNRmRMB.jpg)

I have designated our hypothetical position at the edge of Antarctica continent. Now, try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (round earth geometry) situation, and tell me how one end of the compass needle can  point towards the north magnetic pole while in the same time another end of the compass needle points towards the south magnetic pole...

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/SouthPolarCompass_zpsvugicgig.png)

The white end points toward the South Magnetic Pole, red end points toward the North Magnetic Pole about halfway around the world away.

Any questions?
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 01, 2016, 05:39:53 PM

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/SouthPolarCompass_zpsvugicgig.png)

The white end points toward the South Magnetic Pole, red end points toward the North Magnetic Pole about halfway around the world away.

Any questions?

Where is North now :

(http://i.imgur.com/kvGhyzs.jpg)

Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2016, 06:06:04 PM
Where is North now :

http://i.imgur.com/kvGhyzs.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/kvGhyzs.jpg)
Magnetic north is the opposite direction as magnetic south. Same as always. Is this really that hard to understand?

Note that this location has close to, or exactly, 180° magnetic declination. This means that magnetic north is true south, and magnetic south is true north. This happens whenever you're directly between the magnetic and the geographic poles.

[Edit] Remove unnecessary newline.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 02, 2016, 08:03:06 AM
1. So, looking from our new position which i designated in the picture below, magnetic south is to the true WEST, and magnetic north is to the true NORTH, how can you justify such a ludicrous geometry which doesn't exist in reality :

(http://i.imgur.com/xnj0xhO.jpg)

2. I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. SEE PHOTO : http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17050-north-south.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17050-north-south.html)
Quote

 
Quote
I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..."

He's wrong. It points North EVERYWHERE. As others mentioned, it might be pointing DOWN at the South MAGNETIC Pole (not the Geographic Pole) but it will ALWAYS point towards the North MAGNETIC Pole.

3.
Quote
Quote
Originally Posted by Trail Bandit View Post
I have no idea how explorers, sailors, or anybody else found their way around before the days of radio, inertial, and GPS reference systems when there could be weeks or months when the sun and stars were not visible.

Overcast skies were not the only hindrance to celestial navigation but the persistence of the weather often revealed something about their location. Accurate time is essential to most of the navigation resources in the heavens.

Their power of perception probably rivaled that of birds, insects, fish and animals. I wonder which I'd prefer, the power of their perception or the power of today's technology.

Still, lots of ships were lost at sea or grounded but even today's technology hasn't prevented that.

Shackleton's
800 mile sea jouney for survival is a more contemporary example of remarkable celestial navigation with little more than primitive methods.

4. Henry Worsley, soldier and Antarctic adventurer, died on January 24th, aged 55
Feb 6th 2016 | From the print edition

THE compass did not belong to him. But when he felt it in his trouser pocket—and with every stride of his skis over the Antarctic ice, he felt it—it powered him on. When the light was flat, crevasses lurking and nothing before him but “white darkness”, he remained aware of it, his silent companion. If team morale was low in the tent in the evenings, with socks drying at head-height and the winds hurling outside, he would pass it round. It was not much bigger than an old penny, but alive, spinning and jittering, as excited as he was to be so close to the South Pole. For it had been there before, a century earlier. Inside the lid the owner had scratched his initials: EHS, for Ernest Henry Shackleton.

On his three expeditions to Antarctica, in 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2015-16, Henry Worsley went equipped with GPS, video cameras, satellite phones, solar panels, energy bars. No item was more important than the compass. It accompanied him physically only on his first trip, a centenary recreation of Shackleton’s march towards the Pole in 1908-09 which, at 88.23ºS, he had been forced to abandon for weakness and lack of food. On that journey Colonel Worsley took the compass into Shackleton’s hut, from which the trek had started, placing it back among the blankets, boots and golden-syrup tins all perfectly preserved by the dry polar air; and he later also placed it ceremonially at the South Pole, completing what Shackleton had always hoped to do.

Yet there was a Shackleton compass in his head in any case.

The Antarctic, though, turned on him as fiercely as it had ever turned on them. Whiteouts blinded him. Storms kept him pinned in his tent. The sheer scale of the challenge began to daunt him. Day by day, his audio diary for his website stayed chirpy; but the selfies showed a face increasingly exhausted. Eventually, like Shackleton with his “astonishing decision” at 88.23ºS, he had to admit he had “shot his bolt” and, 30 miles from success, could not go on. Unlike his hero, he left it too late, and died in a Chilean hospital.

In a whiteout, he radioed on Day 24, “one’s head is always bent downwards in reverence to the compass.” It might have been his epitaph.
READ MORE : http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21690006-henry-worsley-soldier-and-antarctic-adventurer-died-january-24th-aged-55-shackletons (http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21690006-henry-worsley-soldier-and-antarctic-adventurer-died-january-24th-aged-55-shackletons)


Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 02, 2016, 09:14:07 AM
1. So, looking from our new position which i designated in the picture below, magnetic south is to the true WEST, and magnetic north is to the true NORTH, how can you justify such a ludicrous geometry which doesn't exist in reality :

http://i.imgur.com/xnj0xhO.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/xnj0xhO.jpg)
Your drawings are wrong. They don't accurately depict reality.

Quote
2. I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer. SEE PHOTO : http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17050-north-south.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17050-north-south.html)
"Just got back"? Your post makes it sound like you were doing these things recently, which is incorrect on two counts: it's not you, and this was years ago. That paragraph is copy-pasted from a post containing a copy-paste from someone else's even earlier narrative. If you're quoting from some other source, make it clear that it's a quote, please. Just putting quote marks around the copied text would be helpful.

At any rate, the Main Field Declination in eastern Tierra del Fuego is about 12° E according to the WMM (pdf) (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMM2015/WMM2015_D_MERC.pdf) - that means that magnetic north is about 12° east of true north, so I'd expect the compass needles to point close to true north. It might have been nice if the photographer had aligned the compass bodies and dials with true north before taking the picture, but apparently they're in some random orientation. He probably doesn't know how to use an orienteering compass.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..."

He's wrong. It points North EVERYWHERE. As others mentioned, it might be pointing DOWN at the South MAGNETIC Pole (not the Geographic Pole) but it will ALWAYS point towards the North MAGNETIC Pole.
That depends on whether you mean magnetic north or true north. Magnetic compasses always point toward magnetic north[nb]Well, almost always... as noted, right over a pole will have the needle trying to stand on end.[/nb], but sometimes, near the magnetic poles, magnetic north is in a wildly different direction than true north; in some places it is 180° off!

Quote
<somewhat interesting but irrelevant rambling>

4. Henry Worsley, soldier and Antarctic adventurer, died on January 24th, aged 55
...
On his three expeditions to Antarctica, in 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2015-16, Henry Worsley went equipped with GPS, video cameras, satellite phones, solar panels, energy bars. No item was more important than the compass.
...
Yeah. Shackleton's compass was important to Worsley for inspiration, not navigation. Read the text you quoted.
 
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on March 02, 2016, 03:07:35 PM
I don't have to explain why it is geometrically absolutely impossible to draw a straight line (ON THE FLAT EARTH MAP) between two magnetic poles and then try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (flat earth geometry) situation.

On the other hand, if we presumed that the earth is round then we would have to face this problem :
Maybe the best way to illustrate why above explanation is erroneous (even if we took into account a globe-earth assumption) would be like this :
(we are sick of this picture by not)
I have designated our hypothetical position at the edge of Antarctica continent. Now, try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (round earth geometry) situation, and tell me how one end of the compass needle can  point towards the north magnetic pole while in the same time another end of the compass needle points towards the south magnetic pole...
Back earlier, you posted:
Quote from: cikljamas
Another guy gave him this answer :

But what this means for your question is that if I had a compass here at the geographic south pole, the back part of the needle would point in the direction of the magnetic south pole, and the front part of the needle will point towards the magnetic north pole. Even if I spin around, the needle will always stay pointed in the same direction.

Guess what...This answer is wrong...Geometrically impossible!!![1] Isn't it?
and I replied:
Quote
The guys answer is close to being correct! And you are talking absolute rubbish.
Especially as the Magnetic South Pole is not even close to the Geographic South Pole.
On March 1 2016 the Declination and Inclination at the South Geographic Pole are:  D = -30.212 deg I = -72.233 deg.
You can look it all up at
Then you go on about geometrical impossiblity, etc, etc. Well "technically", a straight line from the South Magnetic Pole to the North Magnetic Pole is through the globe, but we all know that a compass needle does not point "from one pole to the other", but aligns itself to the local magnetic field.
And, when we say the compass points to the North Magnetic Pole we do mean along the surface of the earth.
Of course, the field is hardly anywhere horizontal and especially near the magnetic poles has a large inclination which (on better compasses) is compensated by weighting the appropriate end.

Now, the question asked was: "if I had a compass here at the geographic south pole, the back part of the needle would point in the direction of the magnetic south pole, and the front part of the needle will point towards the magnetic north pole. Even if I spin around, the needle will always stay pointed in the same direction."
And I answered that this answer was close, and it is!
Take a look at the diagram on the right showing the South Magnetic Pole, South Geographic Pole and the direction a compass needle would point right at South Geographic Pole. Note that here the declination is -30.2° and the inclination is = -72.2°. At the South Pole, by convention geographic north is taken along the "Prime Meridian", so the compass points about 30° west of that, but still towards the North Magnetic Pole! (which is fairly close to the North Geographic Pole). The other end (south seeking end) of the needle can be seen to point fairly closely to the South Magnetic Pole. So, the original statement is quite close.
All these are along the surface of the globe as any reasonable person would expect.
Mind you a compass needle free to rotate in a vertical plane as well would point upwards at 72°. There are compasses designed to measure the inclination.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Compass%20Direction%20at%20South%20Pole_zps0tjhpjkp.png)

[1] Do you see where you are so wrong yet?
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: 29silhouette on March 02, 2016, 06:05:21 PM
Cikljamas, do you completely understand and comprehend the concept and difference between GRID cardinal directions and MAGNETIC cardinal directions?
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 03, 2016, 04:46:07 AM
Do i see where i am wrong? No, i don't see where i am wrong. Do you see where you are wrong?

Watch once more - OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME :

I REPEAT :  So, looking from our new position which i designated in the picture below, magnetic south is to the true WEST, and magnetic north is to the true NORTH, how can you justify such a ludicrous geometry which doesn't exist in reality :

(http://i.imgur.com/xnj0xhO.jpg)

There are three possibilities :
1. There is only one true magnetic pole on the flat earth (North Pole) - i vote for this option
2. There are two magnetic poles on the flat earth - in this case every single point on the outer edge of the earth ("Antarctica") is South magnetic Pole. (this option can't be geometrically conciliated with RE claim according which only ONE SINGLE point (small region) in the vicinity of Antarctica represents/is South magnetic Pole.
3. There are two magnetic poles on the round earth and the shortest connection between these two poles is a straight line which goes through the center of the earth. In my illustration above i have demonstrated why this option is not geometrically consistent and sustainable.

(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on March 03, 2016, 05:10:37 AM
Do i see where i am wrong? No, i don't see where i am wrong. Do you see where you are wrong?

Watch once more - OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME :

I REPEAT :  So, looking from our new position which i designated in the picture below, magnetic south is to the true WEST, and magnetic north is to the true NORTH, how can you justify such a ludicrous geometry which doesn't exist in reality :
(http://i.imgur.com/xnj0xhO.jpg)
There are three possibilities :
1. There is only one true magnetic pole on the flat earth (North Pole) - i vote for this option
2. There are two magnetic poles on the flat earth - in this case every single point on the outer edge of the earth ("Antarctica") is South magnetic Pole. (this option can't be geometrically conciliated with RE claim according which only ONE SINGLE point (small region) in the vicinity of Antarctica represents/is South magnetic Pole.
3. There are two magnetic poles on the round earth and the shortest connection between these two poles is a straight line which goes through the center of the earth. In my illustration above i have demonstrated why this option is not geometrically consistent and sustainable.
"OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME", sure they are open, now open up you closed mind a little!

1. There are NO known magnets with only ONE pole! If you have found one, front up for your Nobel Prize in Physics.
2. A magnet like this is possible, but as you say simply does not fit with the two magnetic poles we know are there.
3. Sure: "There are two magnetic poles on the round earth and the shortest connection between these two poles is a straight line which goes through the center of the earth", but whatever is the great significance of "the shortest connection between these two poles"? - NONE at ALL!

So (3) is "true", but is of absolutely no significance.

The earth's "magnet" is roughly like a big bar magnet, and a compass does not simply "point to the north pole", but aligns itself to the local field lines and there is absolutely no significance to "the shortest connection between these two poles" so I cannot comprehend why you are raving over it so much.

We live on the surface of the earth (in case you had not noticed!) and on the surface the compass needle does not simply "point to the north pole", it ALIGNS itself to (the horizontal component of) the local field lines.

Yes, I'm repeating myself, in the hopes that in just might sink in - but I won't hold my breath.

So quit harping on the line between the poles - it means NOTHING!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 03, 2016, 07:26:24 AM
If you were placed at the position designated in a diagram above and if one end of your compass needle pointed towards north magnetic pole, then other end of your compass needle would point in a direction which is under 90 DEGR. angle in relation to the alleged position of the South magnetic Pole.

So, when you say : ----- "So quit harping on the line between the poles - it means NOTHING!" ----- it amounts to NOTHING (sane and meaningful)!

When you say : ----- The earth's "magnet" is roughly like a big bar magnet, and a compass does not simply "point to the north pole", but aligns itself to the local field line ----- it amounts to NOTHING again, because you have to face the same problem which i have pointed out which is this : the direction (to the North magnetic Pole) in which one end of compass needle points is completely in discordance with the position of the alleged South magnetic Pole, that is to say : in discordance with alleged field line (which depends on the alleged position of the South magnetic Pole) which is designated on the left side of my illustration!!!

As for this sentence of yours : ------ 1. There are NO known magnets with only ONE pole! If you have found one, front up for your Nobel Prize in Physics.------ i didn't say that ONLY TRUE magnetic pole (North magnetic Pole) doesn't have it's opposite side, only i didn't specify where it's other side is located. But you could assume that other side of the North magnetic Pole is located directly bellow (who knows how deep under the ground-since human beings didn't EVER reach deeper than 12 km ( (http://))) the surface point at which we designate North magnetic Pole on our maps.

How come you haven't referred to this :

(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 03, 2016, 09:59:34 AM
Do i see where i am wrong? No, i don't see where i am wrong.
Then allow me to help.

In your illustrations below, you draw a red arrow from the point marked "OUR NEW POSITION!!!", essentially due west, toward the South Magnetic Pole (SMP). You also draw a series of short red arrows pointing north along the 180° meridian (the Antimeridian). Further, there are a bunch of straight red and green arrows radiating from the vicinity of the SMP. Why the different colors? Are these supposed to represent the geomagnetic field lines? If so, they would curve (unless the SMP was centered on your projection, which it isn't[nb]This also assumes that the geomagnetic field is centered and a uniform dipole field, neither of which are strictly true, but for this discussion we can presume the difference is irrelevant.[/nb]). See how all the meridian lines and the Equator - all great circles - curve? Your radiating lines should do the same if they represent great circles. At any rate, that northward-pointing set of arrows, if it represents the direction of the north-seeking end of the compass needle, would point in the opposite direction of the red arrow pointing toward the SMP, in the direction between the lower two green arrows.

Quote
Do you see where you are wrong?
No. I hope you see where you are now.

Quote
Watch once more - OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME :

I REPEAT :  So, looking from our new position which i designated in the picture below, magnetic south is to the true WEST, and magnetic north is to the true NORTH, how can you justify such a ludicrous geometry which doesn't exist in reality :

(http://i.imgur.com/xnj0xhO.jpg)
No. You drew it that way, but your drawing is wrong, that's all. The arbitrary north-pointing set of arrows is meaningless, so the "ludicrous geometry" you assert simply doesn't exist. Do you see why now?

Quote
There are three at least four possibilities :
1. There is only one true magnetic pole on the flat earth (North Pole) - i vote for this option
2. There are two magnetic poles on the flat earth - in this case every single point on the outer edge of the earth ("Antarctica") is South magnetic Pole. (this option can't be geometrically conciliated with RE claim according which only ONE SINGLE point (small region) in the vicinity of Antarctica represents/is South magnetic Pole.
3. There are two magnetic poles on the round earth and the shortest connection between these two poles is a straight line which goes through the center of the earth. In my illustration above i have demonstrated why this option is not geometrically consistent and sustainable.
4. The interior of the Earth acts, in general, like a bar magnet approximately centered in the Earth and approximately aligned with the axis of spin. Compass needles on or near the surface of the Earth align with the dipole field lines.

Declaring that there are three possibilities doesn't mean there really are exactly three possibilities, as I hope you can now see. You omitted the one that most closely describes what we see.

Quote
http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)
You already used that image almost a year and a half ago (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641991#msg1641991). It's still wrong.
 
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 03, 2016, 02:40:05 PM
Quote
Watch once more - OPEN YOUR EYES THIS TIME :

I REPEAT :  So, looking from our new position which i designated in the picture below, magnetic south is to the true WEST, and magnetic north is to the true NORTH, how can you justify such a ludicrous geometry which doesn't exist in reality :

(http://i.imgur.com/xnj0xhO.jpg)
No. You drew it that way, but your drawing is wrong, that's all. The arbitrary north-pointing set of arrows is meaningless, so the "ludicrous geometry" you assert simply doesn't exist. Do you see why now?

The ludicrous geometry exists, does this illustration fit your needs :

(http://i.imgur.com/3PBnizs.jpg)
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 03, 2016, 03:05:00 PM
The ludicrous geometry exists, does this illustration fit your needs :

(http://i.imgur.com/3PBnizs.jpg)
Closer, but why are there three arrows pointing away from the two positions you have picked? A compass needle is a straight line with two ends, not three.

Why not a green arrow pointing toward the SMP and another arrow pointing in the opposite direction, away from it, and get rid of the two green arrows at each location pointing toward geographic north and another, apparently random, direction?

At the locations you picked, geographic north is very different than magnetic north, and magnetic compass needles point toward the magnetic, not geographic poles.

Also note that, technically, in this illustration, the arrows representing the compass needle should be aligned tangent to the curved line traced by the red arrows through each point, not directly toward (and away from) the SMP, but the difference is relatively small.

[Edit] fix typo
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 03, 2016, 03:27:49 PM
At the locations you picked, geographic north is very different than magnetic north, and magnetic compass needles point toward the magnetic, not geographic poles.

Prove it!

Also note that, technically, in this illustration, the arrows representing the compass needle should be aligned tangent to the curved line traced by the red arrows through each point, not directly toward (and away from) the SMP, but the difference is relatively small.

The difference is not small, because at the locations which i picked (and at many other locations which i haven't picked so far, but which i could pick as well) compass needle can't point towards both (one of which is only ALLEGED one (south magnetic pole)) magnetic poles SIMULTANEOUSLY!!! - That's the whole point : it's geometrically impossible! Deal with it!

If you were right, compass wouldn't work at half (at least) locations along the Antarctic circle! Show me AT LEAST ONE SINGLE AUTHENTIC TESTIMONY OF THAT KIND!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 03, 2016, 07:16:58 PM
At the locations you picked, geographic north is very different than magnetic north, and magnetic compass needles point toward the magnetic, not geographic poles.

Prove it!
Proof? (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof)

Here's some evidence:

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/WMM2015-Dec-S_zpsxbwdsohx.png)

Red contours indicate magnetic north is east of true north by the indicated number of degrees; roughly 70° on the case of Antarctic circle and Antimeridian. Blue contours indicate that magnetic north is west of true north; roughly 80° at 100° E and north of the Antarctic circle.

[Edit to add] This figure is from https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/DoDWMM.shtml (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/DoDWMM.shtml). More specifically the zip file containing the complete pdf map set (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMM2015/WMMMaps2015.zip).

Quote
Also note that, technically, in this illustration, the arrows representing the compass needle should be aligned tangent to the curved line traced by the red arrows through each point, not directly toward (and away from) the SMP, but the difference is relatively small.
Those declinations match pretty well with "tangent to the curved line traced by the red arrows" in your figure. Given the freehand nature of that drawing, well done!

Quote
The difference is not small, because at the locations which i picked (and at many other locations which i haven't picked so far, but which i could pick as well)
True. I certainly wouldn't call 70° and 80° of difference "small". If you look at how tightly those contours in the WMM map are packed, you will see the differences vary rapidly and greatly.

Quote
compass needle can't point towards both (one of which is only ALLEGED one (south magnetic pole)) magnetic poles SIMULTANEOUSLY!!! - That's the whole point : it's geometrically impossible!
Prove it!  ;)

Quote
Deal with it!
Done, and done!

Quote
If you were right, compass wouldn't work at half (at least) locations along the Antarctic circle!
It's much worse than that!! On the Antarctic Circle, a magnetic compass will fail to indicate true north by from as little as 0° (that means there is no error at all) at around 30° W longitude, to up to 180° (that means it's exactly wrong!) somewhere between 135° and 140° E longitude. It will point within 20° of true north only about 1/9 of the way around that Antarctic circle!

Quote
Show me AT LEAST ONE SINGLE AUTHENTIC TESTIMONY OF THAT KIND!
OK. Since you asked:

4. Henry Worsley, soldier and Antarctic adventurer, died on January 24th, aged 55
Feb 6th 2016 | From the print edition

THE compass did not belong to him. But when he felt it in his trouser pocket—and with every stride of his skis over the Antarctic ice, he felt it—it powered him on. When the light was flat, crevasses lurking and nothing before him but “white darkness”, he remained aware of it, his silent companion. If team morale was low in the tent in the evenings, with socks drying at head-height and the winds hurling outside, he would pass it round. It was not much bigger than an old penny, but alive, spinning and jittering, as excited as he was to be so close to the South Pole. For it had been there before, a century earlier. Inside the lid the owner had scratched his initials: EHS, for Ernest Henry Shackleton
[Emphasis on the "spinning" part added]

Do you deny that this is authentic? Let me remind you that you were the one who first posted this.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: cikljamas on March 04, 2016, 02:37:57 PM
Alpha, your diagram doesn't prove anything (it's just one of those stupid cgi photos).
You should better ask yourself why Amundsen never reported any problems with their 4 compasses? :

(http://i.imgur.com/0lMlk9z.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/QuQBkaL.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/RiH92uX.jpg)
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/50640494480332347739.jpg)

It remains me to Van Allen Belt issue and Alan Bean's (astronaut) stupid answer : "They haven't been discovered yet!" , with which stupid sentence he thought that he could have explained away how they managed to avoid any problems with radiation when passing through that belt...lol...

Another interesting thing is this :

(http://i.imgur.com/lQAfOOi.jpg)

Normally, geographers label Antarctica by East and West. West is on the normal left half of a map with the Peninsula at 10:00 and McMurdo at 6:00. However some journeys to the south pole seem to start at 12:00. NONE seem to originate from 12:00 to 6:00 considering Antarctica as a clock circle.

On top of that :

The Marie Byrdland area is absolutely studded with GPS and other types of radar stations :

(http://i.imgur.com/pokMXwB.jpg)

Now why should that be? I'm of the opinion that GPS is not a satellite system- just another type of radar. But look at the number of radar installations all over Byrdland. What's going on here? And why are there none on the other side? They say they're measuring earth tremors. But is that a cover story? Is this part of a massive security system to keep out intruders? Sophisticated burgle alarms? Motion detectors for people rather than earthquakes?

In addition :

(http://i.imgur.com/aCHAH2L.jpg)

Admiral Byrd statement video and analysis : (http://)
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on March 04, 2016, 03:46:19 PM
Alpha, your diagram doesn't prove anything (it's just one of those stupid cgi photos).
I never claim any of this stuff "proves" anything. It does emphasize what you said earlier, though, so I thought you'd appreciate that. Oh, well.

What about the "whichey-way" (triad) compass points on your earlier image (http://i.imgur.com/3PBnizs.jpg)? Did you ever say what those were about?

Quote
You should better ask yourself why Amundsen never reported any problems with their 4 compasses? :

http://i.imgur.com/0lMlk9z.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/0lMlk9z.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/QuQBkaL.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/QuQBkaL.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/RiH92uX.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/RiH92uX.jpg)
http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/50640494480332347739.jpg (http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/50640494480332347739.jpg)
Based on your underlines in the text, he mentions having them, and examining them occasionally. The only time he specifically says they would have been good to take (because if you're simply trying to retrace a route, it doesn't matter if they are pointing near true or not... you just follow the opposite direction back) they were "unsuitable". That sounds like a problem to me.

Quote
It remains me to Van Allen Belt issue and Alan Bean's (astronaut) stupid answer : "They haven't been discovered yet!" , with which stupid sentence he thought that he could have explained away how they managed to avoid any problems with radiation when passing through that belt...lol...
What? What does that have to do with Amundsen and navigating to the South Pole?

Quote
Another interesting thing is this :

http://i.imgur.com/lQAfOOi.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/lQAfOOi.jpg)
That's a really crummy image of the map. At any rate, Amundsen approached the pole from the opposite side of the Ross Ice Shelf from Ross Island (where McMurdo Station[USA] and Scott Base[NZ] are now). If you compare the heavy black lines on the upper image with the location of McMurdo on the better, lower, map, you can see that. Scott set out from Ross Island, and Shackleton had his base there, too. The original author doesn't know what he's talking about. And, no. McMurdo Station is not a military base. The NY Air National Guard (ANG) provides aircraft logistics (the US Navy did when I was there decades ago) and there are some ANG pilots and support personnel there, but McMurdo Station is open. It's populated mostly by scientists and support contractors.

Quote
Normally, geographers label Antarctica by East and West. West is on the normal left half of a map with the Peninsula at 10:00 and McMurdo at 6:00. However some journeys to the south pole seem to start at 12:00. NONE seem to originate from 12:00 to 6:00 considering Antarctica as a clock circle.

On top of that :

The Marie Byrdland area is absolutely studded with GPS and other types of radar [?] stations :

http://i.imgur.com/pokMXwB.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/pokMXwB.jpg)

Now why should that be? I'm of the opinion that GPS is not a satellite system- just another type of radar.
That may be your opinion, but it's wrong.

Quote
But look at the number of radar installations all over Byrdland.
There are none on your map.

Quote
What's going on here? And why are there none on the other side? They say they're measuring earth tremors. But is that a cover story? Is this part of a massive security system to keep out intruders? Sophisticated burgle alarms? Motion detectors for people rather than earthquakes?
Nothing more than the usual conspiracy claptrap. Nothing to see here, folks... move on.

Quote
In addition :

http://i.imgur.com/aCHAH2L.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/aCHAH2L.jpg)
Why did so many of the early expeditions to the Pole start out from the Ross Sea? Look how much closer the coast is to the pole there? Plus, more of the trip is at near sea-level elevation, where it's warmer and easier to work. Simple, really. Most of East Antarctica is at quite high elevation and is still difficult to get to and live on. Sorry it's pure practicality and not something more sinister.

Quote
Admiral Byrd statement video and analysis : (http://)
Is that the video where he talks about unexplored areas "beyond the pole"? That's already been addressed elsewhere, but I don't have time to find it for you right now. Maybe you could use the site search for the ID code.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Enika on March 09, 2016, 11:42:33 AM
Please if you wouldn't mind, do a research on Admiral Richard Byrd. He went to the South Pole, because he was a naval officer certainly with an authorization, otherwise the US government would have not permitted him to do so. Basically if anyone approaches Antarctica there are US and other countries ships guarding the territory as he said.
His diary was found after his death and it contained the following:
"We are crossing over the small mountain range and still proceeding northward as best as can be ascertained. Beyond the mountain range is what appears to be a valley with a small river or stream running through the center portion. There should be no green valley below! Something is definitely wrong and abnormal here! We should be over Ice and Snow! To the portside are great forests growing on the mountain slopes. Our navigation Instruments are still spinning, the gyroscope is oscillating back and forth!"
There is a lot more information regarding the case which you could easily access on the net.
Now I don't know, because I can not know, if all this is a machinated thing since he had an interview, and then his diary was published. If it was in the interests of our governments for the information to not leak out, because they want to keep us manipulated, it is highly probable that the story is faked. And with this in mind, I wonder how all of our debates over conspiracies are allowed to happen in such easily accessible ways.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Hagglund on March 19, 2016, 12:24:29 AM


Is there anyone who can provide for us video like this one (above) that has been taken from the South Pole? It should be much easier to find such a "South Pole" video since we have at least one station and many web cams at the South Pole, which is not the case at the North Pole...

It's not as easy as you might think to take long time lapse videos at the south pole. To begin with you'd need to manufacture your own camera rotation device as well as find a way of attaching an external power supply so that the -50 temps didn't drain the battery too fast. Also, scientists and other base staff are limited in their luggage allowance to flights to the south pole, so packing a heap of specialist camera equipment is not really an option for them. Just because your new phone may have a time lapse app doesn't mean that you can just slap it down in the snow at the south pole and make quality sun following time lapses!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Hagglund on March 19, 2016, 03:36:56 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/yNRmRMB.jpg)

I have designated our hypothetical position at the edge of Antarctica continent. Now, try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (round earth geometry) situation, and tell me how one end of the compass needle can  point towards the north magnetic pole while in the same time another end of the compass needle points towards the south magnetic pole...

Not sure if you're still interested in this question, but if you are I might be able to help you. You're trying to visualise how you can have a straight line from the magnetic south pole to the magnetic north pole, even if you're geographically west of it, right? This is a good question and took me a few minutes of drawing lines on an orange to work it out. I'm not sure if I can explain it in words, but you can do it for yourself if you'd like. Take a sphere, an orange works pretty well, use the natural axis on the orange as north and south magnetic poles. Using your map, add Antarctica and the geographic south pole. No matter where you position yourself in relation to the south pole, you can draw a straight line from it, through your position to the north magnetic pole, and it will also be the shortest distance from your position to the north magnetic pole.

This appears counterintuitive, but, to my surprise, it works really well!

This is a fun forum, if you keep asking the right questions you can learn a lot!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Inkey on March 19, 2016, 05:06:37 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/yNRmRMB.jpg)

I have designated our hypothetical position at the edge of Antarctica continent. Now, try to apply above given scenario-answer to this (round earth geometry) situation, and tell me how one end of the compass needle can  point towards the north magnetic pole while in the same time another end of the compass needle points towards the south magnetic pole...

Not sure if you're still interested in this question, but if you are I might be able to help you. You're trying to visualise how you can have a straight line from the magnetic south pole to the magnetic north pole, even if you're geographically west of it, right? This is a good question and took me a few minutes of drawing lines on an orange to work it out. I'm not sure if I can explain it in words, but you can do it for yourself if you'd like. Take a sphere, an orange works pretty well, use the natural axis on the orange as north and south magnetic poles. Using your map, add Antarctica and the geographic south pole. No matter where you position yourself in relation to the south pole, you can draw a straight line from it, through your position to the north magnetic pole, and it will also be the shortest distance from your position to the north magnetic pole.

This appears counterintuitive, but, to my surprise, it works really well!

This is a fun forum, if you keep asking the right questions you can learn a lot!

Not to defend cikljamas but he has a point on this one. Drawing a line on an orange would make sense if the magnetic north and south poles were on exact opposite sides. Unfortunately they are not, and they are constantly moving to boot. Using the map he has as a reference, drawing a line straight from the south pole through what he marked as our position, you will end up several hundred miles from the actual position of the other magnetic pole. I made a quick image to demonstrate.

(http://i.imgur.com/cKtC6C3.gif)

As you can see the point on the exact opposite side from the South magnetic pole is in greenland some where. I didn't draw the line all the way to it, but you can clearly see that it doesn't touch the North magnetic pole. I also just realized he and I have labeled the magnetic poles backwards, the South magnetic pole is actually in the north and vise versa.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: RA1 on July 27, 2016, 03:06:11 PM
Amundsen reached the South pole on December 14, 1911.  His expedition used typical marine sextants and mercury artificial horizons (on land we use a dish of water or levelled "first surface" mirrors.  Observations of the Sun began on the 15th 1911 and were taken every hour- which could be done since at that latitude (being about a week or so before summer) the sun never set.

To avoid the doubt about reaching the geographic South Pole that troubled Peary (first to the North Pole), Amundsen's group "boxed in" the pole by traversing about 10 miles on either side of the estimated pole and taking observations (of the sun) from those points.  Their reasoning was this- a sextant, at best, can only get you within 1 nm (1 nautical mile which equals 1 minute of arc) of your actual position so if they walked over the snow and ice in 3 points 90° apart from the route they followed to the pole then one the men would certainly have walked over the geographic South Pole.

You can read the evaluation of Amundsen's sun observations here;

https://thenauticalalmanac.com/1911%20Nautical%20Almanac.pdf (https://thenauticalalmanac.com/1911%20Nautical%20Almanac.pdf)

Look at page 4 of the 1911 Nautical Almanac



Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: wise on January 29, 2017, 11:55:24 PM
He wasn't.

Compass is showing only one direction in amundsen: "still south". Amundsen is an Any trivial place in the world.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: southern hemispherer on January 30, 2017, 12:21:32 AM
It would have helped if Amundsen (not Amunsden) had arrived at the South Pole when it was not 24 hours of daylight for the 6 month summer period (which is impossible to explain on any other model), then he could have seen that the South Celestial Pole was perfectly 90 degrees above him. It was left to times when more accurate measurements could be made to adjust the actual south pole to its current position, but the first ones there did a remarkable job with the tools they had.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2017, 12:41:13 AM
He wasn't.
Compass is showing only one direction in amundsen: "still south". Amundsen is an Any trivial place in the world.
Mr İntikam please learn something about the topic before you post your usual rubbish!

What do you mean by "He wasn't"? That is quite incorrect!

True, the magnetic  compass is of very limited value near the South Pole,
      but as the previous poster told you, Amundsen used sextants to make sun sightings so that he knew when he was at the South Pole.

You might read Seale_J_Sup.Proj.pdf (http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/GCAS_3/Seale_J_Sup.Proj.pdf) and learn what navigation instruments Amundsen used.

Amundsen knew when he reached the South Pole.

Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: wise on January 30, 2017, 12:46:35 AM
Fuckinoz is on my ignore list who is continuesly swearing me. I hope he wasn't quoted from me. I don't give a second chance to whores.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: wise on January 30, 2017, 12:48:55 AM
It would have helped if Amundsen (not Amunsden) had arrived at the South Pole when it was not 24 hours of daylight for the 6 month summer period (which is impossible to explain on any other model), then he could have seen that the South Celestial Pole was perfectly 90 degrees above him. It was left to times when more accurate measurements could be made to adjust the actual south pole to its current position, but the first ones there did a remarkable job with the tools they had.

They did nothing. Also today, there is no compass measurement shows that point as a poll. Compass is still showing anywhere else  as  south at there point. So Amunsden and his team were a liar, and the others too.

I'm asking that, if that point is a pole, where is the compass experiment? Why isin't there at least one compass measurement at there. Shame on you, because of you join to the same lie!
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: southern hemispherer on January 30, 2017, 12:59:16 AM
It would have helped if Amundsen (not Amunsden) had arrived at the South Pole when it was not 24 hours of daylight for the 6 month summer period (which is impossible to explain on any other model), then he could have seen that the South Celestial Pole was perfectly 90 degrees above him. It was left to times when more accurate measurements could be made to adjust the actual south pole to its current position, but the first ones there did a remarkable job with the tools they had.

They did nothing. Also today, there is no compass measurement shows that point as a poll. Compass is still showing anywhere else  as  south at there point. So Amunsden and his team were a liar, and the others too.

I'm asking that, if that point is a pole, where is the compass experiment? Why isin't there at least one compass measurement at there. Shame on you, because of you join to the same lie!

Intikam, look up geographical South Pole (not Poll) and magnetic South Pole. The first is fixed and is always right under the celestial south stars, the other one wanders due to the change in earth's magnetic fields.
 
Here is what Amundsen could have seen if he was at the South Pole over a 24 hour time lapse period in its nighttime. (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208/Startrails24Schwartz800.jpg)

Now try to see this anywhere else on earth, since at the North Pole there are no buildings for reference. (Hey, I smell a NASA CGI hoax reply, because reasons i.e. we can't explain this)
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2017, 01:33:57 AM
It would have helped if Amundsen (not Amunsden) had arrived at the South Pole when it was not 24 hours of daylight for the 6 month summer period (which is impossible to explain on any other model), then he could have seen that the South Celestial Pole was perfectly 90 degrees above him. It was left to times when more accurate measurements could be made to adjust the actual south pole to its current position, but the first ones there did a remarkable job with the tools they had.

They did nothing. Also today, there is no compass measurement shows that point as a poll. Compass is still showing anywhere else  as  south at there point. So Amunsden and his team were a liar, and the others too.

I'm asking that, if that point is a pole, where is the compass experiment? Why isin't there at least one compass measurement at there. Shame on you, because of you join to the same lie!
You are the liar here.
A magnetic compass will point roughly  to the magnetic south pole, not the geographic one.
Other types are capable of showing the true bearing to the south pole based upon rotation.

But like always, that is just irrelevant crap, as there are other ways to determine their location relative to the south pole, such as the motion of stars, including the sun.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2017, 02:38:20 AM
It would have helped if Amundsen (not Amunsden) had arrived at the South Pole when it was not 24 hours of daylight for the 6 month summer period (which is impossible to explain on any other model), then he could have seen that the South Celestial Pole was perfectly 90 degrees above him. It was left to times when more accurate measurements could be made to adjust the actual south pole to its current position, but the first ones there did a remarkable job with the tools they had.

They did nothing. Also today, there is no compass measurement shows that point as a poll. Compass is still showing anywhere else  as  south at there point. So Amunsden and his team were a liar, and the others too.

I'm asking that, if that point is a pole, where is the compass experiment? Why isin't there at least one compass measurement at there. Shame on you, because of you join to the same lie!
Please understand you stupid ignorant spoiled brat. Amundsen did not determine that he was at the South Pole using a compass.

If you had bothered to read what has been written in
Amundsen reached the South pole on December 14, 1911.  His expedition used typical marine sextants and mercury artificial horizons (on land we use a dish of water or levelled "first surface" mirrors.  Observations of the Sun began on the 15th 1911 and were taken every hour- which could be done since at that latitude (being about a week or so before summer) the sun never set.
you would have learned that Amundsen used marine sextants and mercury artificial horizons to determine the location of the South Pole.

But, know-it-all İntikam never bothers reading what others say.

So Amunsden and his team were NOT liars.  You Mr İntikam are the shameless liar here.
Title: Re: How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 30, 2017, 07:37:02 AM
Here is what Amundsen could have seen if he was at the South Pole over a 24 hour time lapse period in its nighttime. (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208/Startrails24Schwartz800.jpg)

Now try to see this anywhere else on earth, since at the North Pole there are no buildings for reference. (Hey, I smell a NASA CGI hoax reply, because reasons i.e. we can't explain this)

That's a cool picture! Thanks for finding it.

It's easy to see that this is the south pole, not the north pole. If it were the north pole we would see Polaris making a tiny, fairly bright circle at the center, but we don't. If it were the north pole we wouldn't see Sirius making the large, very bright circle near the edge, nor Canopus' bright circle about midway between Sirius and the pole, but we do.