why I think the Earth is flat

It's a plane, not a planet! 

Now I have only begun to study this topic, and largely, I'm going by instinct.

One scientific proof that you'll immediately scorn, I presume, is the sideways look at a moving ship. It's in Rowbotham. He stretched a rope across two poles near a shore, and watched a ship out at sea numerous miles away, moving parallel to shore. He says the ship didn't change in altitude, despite the fact that over the curvature that should have been represented by the length of the rope, projected out to where the ship was, would have meant that the ship should rise and fall again.

I think, in general, that it is more beautiful for the world to be flat. Therefore it is probably true.

I find that there is a tremendous difficulty in clarifying the matter one way or the other. Many discussions are held, and people seem to feel that if the matter isn't clear, then spherical-earth wins. But if it isn't clear, it isn't clear. A bad argument is only that.

It may be that we're not given to know.

There are too many problems with the science of spherical-earth theory. Why shouldn't gravity within particles cancel out gravity within equal-and-opposite particles? I understand the concept that gravity keeps us all together, but why shouldn't a cannonball shot upwards come down in a different spot? It just seems like it really should. It's amazing that airplanes don't have funny problems with the multiple movements of the earth. But again that's gravity for you.

And I am also that beast, the Biblical literalist. Until recently I didn't think anything of the flat earth, but what the hell? Why can't it be flat? Maybe it is. I don't want to discuss the Bible much because it's not the place, and any discussion would sound like Bible-thumping, something I always hated before I took it seriously. So no panic. But the Bible is incredibly prescient when you know how to read it. There is no other set of books that could come anywhere near to it, if one wanted to argue that it's a matter of twisting this and special-pleading that.

Rowbotham and Scott claim that concentrated Moonlight doesn't add up to Sunlight in its effects. But the Moon is supposedly reflected Sunlight. There are other aspects of Moonlight that they mention, for example, it is visible during some lunar eclipses, suggesting that the Moon emits its own light. I always wonder if people are joking around here when they mention Moonlight's effects, but, I do know that people who work with flower essences believe that Moonlight and Sunlight are two different entities.

The science of spherical earth theory was clearly brought forward as a theory, but now it is taught as fact with no counter. This matches a pattern I look for: an idea taught without the contrary idea being permitted mention. I have long known to suspect that pattern as prima facie evidence of error. Not a proof, but noteworthy.

I'm supposed to be 'used' to rotating and gyrating at huge speeds, but I don't buy it. Even going steadily in the car, I feel the motion. So the theory then has to be that the earth's movement is unbelievably perfect. Okay, that's the theory. I still don't buy it.

In many cases people are trying to reason back to earth by something they think they observe about something going on outside/above it. These proofs don't convince me of much, because they typically assume what is not proven: this is begging the question.

In sum, I think that spherical earth theory is prone to imaginary systems that are less necessary than their adherents believe.

My two cents! 

It's a plane, not a planet! 

Now I have only begun to study this topic, and largely, I'm going by instinct.

One scientific proof that you'll immediately scorn, I presume, is the sideways look at a moving ship. It's in Rowbotham. He stretched a rope across two poles near a shore, and watched a ship out at sea numerous miles away, moving parallel to shore. He says the ship didn't change in altitude, despite the fact that over the curvature that should have been represented by the length of the rope, projected out to where the ship was, would have meant that the ship should rise and fall again.

Rowbotham is known to not have documented his experiments very well. ENaG is also not peer-reviewed. He makes plenty of claims in his "theories" that do not stand up to scrutiny, often failing at simple concepts like the laws of motion.

I think, in general, that it is more beautiful for the world to be flat. Therefore it is probably true.

I think that the world would be more beautiful if there were world peace. Unfortunately world peace is not true.
An explanation does not have to be "beautiful" or "eloquent" for it to be true, even though a spherical Earth is, indeed, more beautiful, seeing as a sphere is the most energy efficient shape.

I find that there is a tremendous difficulty in clarifying the matter one way or the other. Many discussions are held, and people seem to feel that if the matter isn't clear, then spherical-earth wins. But if it isn't clear, it isn't clear. A bad argument is only that.

It may be that we're not given to know.

It is often (almost always) that is is only unclear to the FES. I have no problem understanding reality on a spherical Earth.

There are too many problems with the science of spherical-earth theory. Why shouldn't gravity within particles cancel out gravity within equal-and-opposite particles? I understand the concept that gravity keeps us all together, but why shouldn't a cannonball shot upwards come down in a different spot? It just seems like it really should. It's amazing that airplanes don't have funny problems with the multiple movements of the earth. But again that's gravity for you.

Gravity is attractive, not repulsive. It wouldn't make sense if the gravitational forces canceled out.
As far as the cannonball goes, it does change in horizontal position slightly. You do not perceive a large change, however, due to it already having an initial velocity in the horizontal direction.

And I am also that beast, the Biblical literalist. Until recently I didn't think anything of the flat earth, but what the hell? Why can't it be flat? Maybe it is. I don't want to discuss the Bible much because it's not the place, and any discussion would sound like Bible-thumping, something I always hated before I took it seriously. So no panic. But the Bible is incredibly prescient when you know how to read it. There is no other set of books that could come anywhere near to it, if one wanted to argue that it's a matter of twisting this and special-pleading that.

It cannot be flat if observations do not match up with what you would see on a flat Earth. We observe phenomenon that work perfectly with a spherical Earth and cannot occur with a flat one.

Rowbotham and Scott claim that concentrated Moonlight doesn't add up to Sunlight in its effects. But the Moon is supposedly reflected Sunlight. There are other aspects of Moonlight that they mention, for example, it is visible during some lunar eclipses, suggesting that the Moon emits its own light. I always wonder if people are joking around here when they mention Moonlight's effects, but, I do know that people who work with flower essences believe that Moonlight and Sunlight are two different entities.

I would rather accept the well-known properties of the Sun and Moon from experts in the field of astronomy/optics than a poorly created hypothesis. The Sun-Earth-Moon system also never really produces a perfect line, so I would expect some sunlight to reflect off the moon. I don't have too much information about the phenomenon, however, so don't take my word about this.

The science of spherical earth theory was clearly brought forward as a theory, but now it is taught as fact with no counter. This matches a pattern I look for: an idea taught without the contrary idea being permitted mention. I have long known to suspect that pattern as prima facie evidence of error. Not a proof, but noteworthy.

We originally thought that the Earth was flat, some 2000+ years ago. Our ancestors realized that it was spherical and, after testing and experimentation, proved that it was. A scientific theory actually is the highest place an idea can be in science. They describe the world around us.

I'm supposed to be 'used' to rotating and gyrating at huge speeds, but I don't buy it. Even going steadily in the car, I feel the motion. So the theory then has to be that the earth's movement is unbelievably perfect. Okay, that's the theory. I still don't buy it.

You don't have to worry about the tangential velocity, just the rotational period. We could be spinning at a million miles per hour and that wouldn't matter if it took 24 hours to do so (the Earth would be much larger as a consequence). You also can look to the Foucault Pendulum for proof that the Earth is rotating.

In many cases people are trying to reason back to earth by something they think they observe about something going on outside/above it. These proofs don't convince me of much, because they typically assume what is not proven: this is begging the question.

In sum, I think that spherical earth theory is prone to imaginary systems that are less necessary than their adherents believe.

My two cents! 

The good thing about science is that you do not need to believe in it for it to be true!

Nice OP.

I've done a thread on the differences between moonlight and sunlight before but I can't find it. In essence moonlight has a colour temperature of about 4100 Kelvins and Sunlight has a colour temperature of around 5500-6000 Kelvins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

There is also a difference in wavelengths and a different spectral composition.





It can be scientifically measured as not being the same light.

Nice OP.

I've done a thread on the differences between moonlight and sunlight before but I can't find it. In essence moonlight has a colour temperature of about 4100 Kelvins and Sunlight has a colour temperature of around 5500-6000 Kelvins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

There is also a difference in wavelengths and a different spectral composition.





It can be scientifically measured as not being the same light.

If you shine a torch at a sheet of white paper, you'll get the same kind of results: the reflected light from the paper will not have the same characteristics as the torch light. This does not mean that the paper creates it's own light.

Is thork showing his intelligence again? Oh dear.

Quote from: Thork on May 07, 2013, 02:43:12 AM

Nice OP.

I've done a thread on the differences between moonlight and sunlight before but I can't find it. In essence moonlight has a colour temperature of about 4100 Kelvins and Sunlight has a colour temperature of around 5500-6000 Kelvins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

There is also a difference in wavelengths and a different spectral composition.





It can be scientifically measured as not being the same light.

If you shine a torch at a sheet of white paper, you'll get the same kind of results: the reflected light from the paper will not have the same characteristics as the torch light. This does not mean that the paper creates it's own light.

But how do you KNOW the paper doesn't make its own light?

Is thork showing his intelligence again? Oh dear.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 07, 2013, 03:25:59 AM

Quote from: Thork on May 07, 2013, 02:43:12 AM

Nice OP.

I've done a thread on the differences between moonlight and sunlight before but I can't find it. In essence moonlight has a colour temperature of about 4100 Kelvins and Sunlight has a colour temperature of around 5500-6000 Kelvins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

There is also a difference in wavelengths and a different spectral composition.





It can be scientifically measured as not being the same light.

If you shine a torch at a sheet of white paper, you'll get the same kind of results: the reflected light from the paper will not have the same characteristics as the torch light. This does not mean that the paper creates it's own light.

But how do you KNOW the paper doesn't make its own light?

Exactly. Can you prove there are no microscopic, bioluminescent shrimp involved?

Quote from: darknavyseal on May 07, 2013, 11:33:54 AM

Is thork showing his intelligence again? Oh dear.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 07, 2013, 03:25:59 AM

Quote from: Thork on May 07, 2013, 02:43:12 AM

Nice OP.

I've done a thread on the differences between moonlight and sunlight before but I can't find it. In essence moonlight has a colour temperature of about 4100 Kelvins and Sunlight has a colour temperature of around 5500-6000 Kelvins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

There is also a difference in wavelengths and a different spectral composition.





It can be scientifically measured as not being the same light.

If you shine a torch at a sheet of white paper, you'll get the same kind of results: the reflected light from the paper will not have the same characteristics as the torch light. This does not mean that the paper creates it's own light.

But how do you KNOW the paper doesn't make its own light?

Exactly. Can you prove there are no microscopic, bioluminescent shrimp involved?

Well, if there are, they must only start glowing when the torch is shone on the paper, because that paper sure doesn't light up by itself!

the point is, if moonlight shares no characteristics with sunlight, how can you claim its the same light? Its not scientifically demonstrable.

the point is, if moonlight shares no characteristics with sunlight, how can you claim its the same light? Its not scientifically demonstrable.

You can claim that iff there is a space flight conspiracy, which is less demonstrable.  If there is not space flight conspiracy the whole thing is eminently demonstrable by simple billiardsesque physics.  So, since most REers here claim there is no space conspiracy, due to lack of conclusive evidence, it is simple to show that the sun's light is reflecting off the moon.

It's a plane, not a planet! 

Now I have only begun to study this topic, and largely, I'm going by instinct.

One scientific proof that you'll immediately scorn, I presume, is the sideways look at a moving ship. It's in Rowbotham. He stretched a rope across two poles near a shore, and watched a ship out at sea numerous miles away, moving parallel to shore. He says the ship didn't change in altitude, despite the fact that over the curvature that should have been represented by the length of the rope, projected out to where the ship was, would have meant that the ship should rise and fall again.

If you would take a rope around the earth, you would need a rope of a 40,075 km. In those 40,075 km the earth make a complete circle of 360 degrees. This means that for every degree the earth's surface 'drops' you would have to travel 111,32 km. Now of course it is a curve, so divide 1 degree by 111,32 km. That means for every 1 km the earth's surface drops  0,0089 degrees. Now on a set square you can see the degrees from 0 to 180 degrees. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/ARISTO-GEO_DREIECK_1550_indiziert_transparent.png/800px-ARISTO-GEO_DREIECK_1550_indiziert_transparent.png

Now the space between two lines is 1 degree. Travel 111,32 km and you will drop that much. Travel another 111,32 km and you will go the next line (2 degrees), continue untill you traveled all the way around the world, covering 40,075km. After you have traveled 40,075 km you will also see you came to the same place as you started.

Now to see a ship rise and fall again over a horizontal line from left to right is nearly impossible. You only see about 12 km at maximum. So in those 12 km the ship would only gone up for 12 km  x 0,0089 degrees  = 0,1068 degrees. That is only about 1/10 of the space between those two lines. If you would divide the space between those degree lines in two, it is already very very tiny. Divide it by two again and you have 0,25 degrees. Divide it once more and you have 0,125 degrees. Roughly the amount the ship goes up. You see the space that is left is a very very very very tiny space. It is hard to tell if the ship has moved up that much on the line. The line has to be perfectly stable, your head has to be perfectly still and stationary along the line to see the difference.

It is not suprising that the experiment did not show the ship go up and down when observing it along a line from left to right, since it involves such a tiny, tiny change. The change however is more visible when a ship is sailing towards you. You will first see its heighest point before seeing the rest of the hull.

Thanks for all the great discussion.

Even if gravity is 'attractive', the bits on opposite ends of something ought to cancel each others' attractiveness.

Energy efficiency is theoretical and is not always beautiful.

I think pendulums are probably responding to celestial movements, or are influenced by magnetic meridians.

It should be fairly easy to get Moonlight to behave as Sunlight, if it is really the same stuff. If it is reflected, of course some of the spectrum would be absorbed, but it should still be quite similar.

I also like the argument that twilight is shorter, and summer nights colder, in NZ, than in England. England is between 50 and 60 degrees latitude north, while New Zealand is about 35-45 degrees south. The results with length of twilight and temperature suggest that the Sun is going faster in its southerly course, and seem inconsistent with a spherical earth. But, I haven't looked at actual temperature and twilight statistics. I read this in either Scott or Rowbotham.

Perhaps local climate has something to do with NZs differing temperatures?  Not all climate is due to longitude and latitude.

The closer you get to the poles, the longer twilight lasts for. At the equator (or, at least, in the tropics) twilight is very short. As for the climate, Rama Set makes a good point. There are other influences on local climates.

Even if gravity is 'attractive', the bits on opposite ends of something ought to cancel each others' attractiveness.

If you mean that they cancel out halfway between, since they're both pulling in opposite directions, the theory goes that you'd be about right! If you moved away from the midpoint, the gravity of the closer bit would pull you toward it.

Here's a clumsy text diagram:

a-----b-----c   b is equally attracted to a and c, so feels no net force

x--y--------z   y is closer to x than z, so feels a proportionally larger force from x, with a net resultant force pulling it toward x.

I think pendulums are probably responding to celestial movements, or are influenced by magnetic meridians.

The pendulum is a bit of a tricky experiment to conduct, but it does give consistent results when set up well. Your idea has merit, though it does seem more likely that the official explanation is the right one.

It should be fairly easy to get Moonlight to behave as Sunlight, if it is really the same stuff. If it is reflected, of course some of the spectrum would be absorbed, but it should still be quite similar.

It must be remembered that the moon is not a perfect reflector, it absorbs a lot of light, and scatters the reflected light.

Back to the paper analogy: if you shine a torch (or better yet, a halogen lamp) directly on your hand, it feels warm. If you shine it on a sheet of paper (or a bed sheet) and stand in the reflected light, the warmth is greatly diminished, and the colour of the light is influenced by the colour of the sheet. The only time you're going to get reflected light with the same characteristics as the source light is when you use a mirror, and even then the reflected light won't quite have the same characteristics.

Continue your study odes, and do your own experiments whenever you can! Oh, and if you've never been flying, I highly recommend it! Even if it doesn't give you much information on the shape of the earth, it's good fun.

the point is, if moonlight shares no characteristics with sunlight, how can you claim its the same light? Its not scientifically demonstrable.

Science. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

I'm a bachelor in physics.

Don't involve black body radiation unless you know what it means.

I'm a bachelor in physics.

Try a dating website.

Don't involve black body radiation unless you know what it means.

Are you being deliberately racist?

Instead of trying to insist how smart you are and desperately grasping for an argument from authority, how about you actually read and understand the objection lodged? If the light is different by every quantifiable measure, (wavelength, colour temperature, hue, intensity, spectral composition etc) how can anyone have ever proved that it is the same light? The answer is they have not. It is an assumption based on the silly Copernican model.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 08, 2013, 01:08:37 PM

I'm a bachelor in physics.

Try a dating website.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.

How is saying "black body radiation" racist? Again, you just show how much 'knowledge' you have on topic. Using 'Copernican model' as phrase is also silly.

How about you actually study some math, then you can figure out how stuff works all by yourself.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 08, 2013, 01:08:37 PM

I'm a bachelor in physics.

Try a dating website.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 08, 2013, 01:08:37 PM

Don't involve black body radiation unless you know what it means.

Are you being deliberately racist?

Instead of trying to insist how smart you are and desperately grasping for an argument from authority, how about you actually read and understand the objection lodged? If the light is different by every quantifiable measure, (wavelength, colour temperature, hue, intensity, spectral composition etc) how can anyone have ever proved that it is the same light? The answer is they have not. It is an assumption based on the silly Copernican model.

The point is that just because moonlight and sunlight are different, it doesn't mean that the Moon's light doesn't come from the Sun.

Has anyone ever tried to prove that moonlight originates from the Sun just by analyzing the moonlight itself? I've never heard of this but if you have please let me know about it. It would be difficult, especially since moonlight is also partly composed of reflected light from the Earth and stars.

Anyway, we don't need to rely on analysis of the Moon's light to know that it's reflected from the Sun. There are many other good reasons we know this, which I won't bore you with again.

How about you actually study some math

I laughed when I read this. What does that even mean?

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 08, 2013, 01:34:29 PM

How about you actually study some math

I laughed when I read this. What does that even mean?

That's just good advice in general. Some of us here need lessons in math more than others though. 

How about you actually study some math, then you can figure out how stuff works all by yourself.

I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering. How much more study of maths would you suggest I need?

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 08, 2013, 01:34:29 PM

How about you actually study some math, then you can figure out how stuff works all by yourself.

I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering. How much more study of maths would you suggest I need?

I have a degree in Teaching Science to Flat Earthers. I suggest you start with the basics. 

The closer you get to the poles, the longer twilight lasts for. At the equator (or, at least, in the tropics) twilight is very short.

That doesn't square with the observation that twilight is longer for England, because England is between 50 and 60 degrees north, while New Zealand is between 35 and 45 south. That said, I haven't looked up any corroborating data. EDIT to say OH, DUH! Now I see what you mean. Still, it's just more ambiguity.

Getting back to the general listing of reasons, I also like the idea that airplanes don't have to descend x-thousands of feet per minute to travel. I see the argument that the earth is curved with gravitational pull from a theoretical center answers that, by making a curved line seem straight. But I still think that a plane would have to correct course. It just makes more sense. Also, I think that if the earth were rotating and so-and-so many thousand miles an hour, the form of travel would be to go up and hover and come down again. Again, the theory is that bodies don't leave the influence of gravity, but it just seems that so much depends on gravity, and that it really shouldn't be hard to defeat gravity. The nature of travel seems more in tune with flat, motionless earth. Gravity is so extremely important for spherical-earth theory and all the supposed facts about astronomy.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 07, 2013, 06:49:40 PM

The closer you get to the poles, the longer twilight lasts for. At the equator (or, at least, in the tropics) twilight is very short.

That doesn't square with the observation that twilight is longer for England, because England is between 50 and 60 degrees north, while New Zealand is between 35 and 45 south. That said, I haven't looked up any corroborating data. EDIT to say OH, DUH! Now I see what you mean. Still, it's just more ambiguity.

Getting back to the general listing of reasons, I also like the idea that airplanes don't have to descend x-thousands of feet per minute to travel. I see the argument that the earth is curved with gravitational pull from a theoretical center answers that, by making a curved line seem straight. But I still think that a plane would have to correct course. It just makes more sense. Also, I think that if the earth were rotating and so-and-so many thousand miles an hour, the form of travel would be to go up and hover and come down again. Again, the theory is that bodies don't leave the influence of gravity, but it just seems that so much depends on gravity, and that it really shouldn't be hard to defeat gravity. The nature of travel seems more in tune with flat, motionless earth. Gravity is so extremely important for spherical-earth theory and all the supposed facts about astronomy.

Everything is rotating along with the Earth within the atmosphere.  Which is why you don't feel any rotation at all.  So if you just hovered, the air moving along with the ground would pull you along with it.  You'd probably see some drift counter to the rotation, but this would be indiscernible from drift from wind and air currents.  Planes do not have to drop an additional distance in order to land because they travel with a height relative to sea level.  So if it is 30,000 ft above sea level at x location, and it does not ascend or descend, then the physics behind flight would maintain the curved flight path  which appears as a straight line as it follows the curvature of the Earth and the plane would continue to be 30,000 ft above sea level at x location plus y miles.

The key is the realization that the atmosphere is rotating along with the Earth, at basically the same rotational velocity.  Once you grasp this concept, a lot of things, such as air travel, become much more clear.

Relative to a tangential path, a plane in constantly descending, albeit at a rate of only 8cm per km (roughly). Relative to the earth though, it maintains altitude. You've given me an idea though: a plane travelling east may well experience a little less induced drag than one flying west, as its higher angular speed around the earths centre would generate a tiny bit more centripetal acceleration in opposition to gravity. I'll do some maths on that when I get back home and show what the (theoretical) difference would be.

A spherical-gravitational reason why planes don't 'descend' thousands of feet per minute of flying would be that the engine behaves consistent with the measurement equipment (altimeter) which is responding to gravitational pull, probably(?). Obviously a pilot could put more acceleration into the engines, and change the direction of the flaps. So it's a perfect case of ambiguity. The thing would function perfectly either way.

Other things I like:

I think the arguments about seeing lighthouses are pretty convincing. You'd have to attribute long-distance views to refraction I guess.

I am also convinced by southern travel problems, the general opacity of travel in that region, its rarity, the confusions, and the unlikelihood of normal people being able to get any clarity at all. And has anyone even faked south-pole overflight, with video?

Here's a bit more about moonlight. It seems to lower temperatures.



I've seen this in several sources. The Lancet article was from the 1840s or 1850s.

A spherical-gravitational reason why planes don't 'descend' thousands of feet per minute of flying would be that the engine behaves consistent with the measurement equipment (altimeter) which is responding to gravitational pull, probably(?). Obviously a pilot could put more acceleration into the engines, and change the direction of the flaps. So it's a perfect case of ambiguity. The thing would function perfectly either way.

A plane's tendency to maintain a consistent altitude over the ground has a lot to do with the physics of flight (which I have studied at length, but it's too detailed for here, so I can only recommend looking into it for yourself!) As you say though, this is not proof either way, it would work just fine with any earth model.

Other things I like:

I think the arguments about seeing lighthouses are pretty convincing. You'd have to attribute long-distance views to refraction I guess.

Refraction, the altitude of the lighthouse, the altitude of the observer, atmospheric conditions... take all these into account before drawing a conclusion.

I am also convinced by southern travel problems, the general opacity of travel in that region, its rarity, the confusions, and the unlikelihood of normal people being able to get any clarity at all. And has anyone even faked south-pole overflight, with video?

How far South are we talking? As I've said in another thread, I've traveled across Australia, and indications are that the earth is probably spherical.

Here's a bit more about moonlight. It seems to lower temperatures.



I've seen this in several sources. The Lancet article was from the 1840s or 1850s.

I'd like to see this experiment in detail, it could be very interesting! Found any links for it yet?

the point is, if moonlight shares no characteristics with sunlight, how can you claim its the same light? Its not scientifically demonstrable.

Sorry I wasn't the nicest person in my two posts back there. I will stop that now.

The point is, like you showed in that link, both the Sun and the Moon have a spectrum very close to that of a black body radiator, but as far as I know their color temperature is pretty much the same. The Moon has a very low albedo, kind of like asphalt, so it reflects very little of the Sun's light. The spectrum can tell you that the light comes from the Sun; if it didn't, the Moon would need to have a surface temperature of 4-5000K to emit it.

Also, from the phases of the Moon and lunar eclipses, it can be seen that the Moon does not produce light of its own.

As a technicality to add, the light itself that reaches your eyes is definitely not the same light that comes from the Sun, if you think about light as photons. When sunlight reflects off the surface of the Moon, all photons are absorbed by the surface, and "reflected" photons are emitted (less of them, because of the albedo) that match the absorbed photon's frequency, or is slightly offset, depending on surface atomic reactions.

Similarly, photons travelling in air or another medium that is not vacuum, are constantly being absorbed by the medium, and re-emitted. This is the reason why light travels slower than the speed of light in a medium. The photons themselves MUST travel at the speed of light, they cannot be slowed down. But their absorption and re-emission in the medium takes some time during which they aren't travelling because they don't exist. Therefore on a larger scale, a pulse of light takes more to reach a destination than it would if it were travelling at c.

I am also convinced by southern travel problems, the general opacity of travel in that region, its rarity, the confusions, and the unlikelihood of normal people being able to get any clarity at all. And has anyone even faked south-pole overflight, with video?

I searched around a bit and found a few links worth looking at:

South pole tourism flights

A discussion on commercial flights over/near the South pole

The first South pole overflight

One scientific proof that you'll immediately scorn, I presume, is the sideways look at a moving ship. It's in Rowbotham. He stretched a rope across two poles near a shore, and watched a ship out at sea numerous miles away, moving parallel to shore. He says the ship didn't change in altitude, despite the fact that over the curvature that should have been represented by the length of the rope, projected out to where the ship was, would have meant that the ship should rise and fall again.

This is one more case where Rowbotham lets his fraudulent tendencies come out to the light.

You cannot see a rope from much farther than a kilometer with any kind of telescope with a lens diameter of 5 inches or so. Rowbotham was lying if he said he saw a rope from numerous miles away. This phenomenon is called diffraction and there is no possible technological breakthrough that will solve it, ever, if you are watching the rope with visible light. You can research Airy Disk if you want more information.

A one centimeter wide rope will be totally invisible for any 5 inch (0.12 meter) telescope at these distances. Using Airy's formula with a blue-green light wavelength of 600 nanometers, sin(theta)= 600×10⁻⁹÷0.12×1.22 = 0.0000061 and theta = 0.0000061. This means that you would have, at the theoretical limit, the possibility of seeing a 6 millimeter wide rope of the correct color at one kilometer. The real limit, with a real telescope and less than perfect colors, is about four times that, or a 2.4 cm wide rope at one kilometer. And Rowbotham is saying he saw a rope at several miles away!