Shifting Gears and the Bipolar Model

Hey, this question is for people who believe in / are working on the "Antarctica as a Continent" model where the sun, at the equinox, 'shifts gears' from the north pole to the south.

I'm assuming this happens when the sun transitions across the equator--that is, it passes 0° 00' latitude. The vernal equinox of 2015 happens at 10:39 PM UTC on 20 March. However, at that time, the sun is just south of Hawaii at 158° 26' West. On your map, that'd be around here:

Two hours later the sun is here:

My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?

It could quickly zip under the earth.

It could quickly zip under the earth.

Why would it randomly speed up while traveling under the earth?

It could quickly zip under the earth.

oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:

UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.

The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:37:13 PM

It could quickly zip under the earth.

oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:

UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.

The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.

Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 04, 2013, 01:40:59 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:37:13 PM

It could quickly zip under the earth.

oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:

UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.

The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.

Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.

It doesn't matter who subscribes to what if it is all false.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 04, 2013, 01:40:59 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:37:13 PM

It could quickly zip under the earth.

oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:

UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.

The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.

Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.

There really isn't an alternative.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:45:00 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on September 04, 2013, 01:40:59 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:37:13 PM

It could quickly zip under the earth.

oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:

UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.

The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.

Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.

It doesn't matter who subscribes to what if it is all false.

It is all false? You mean FE theory or?
If so, you don't know that for sure.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:45:00 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on September 04, 2013, 01:40:59 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:37:13 PM

It could quickly zip under the earth.

oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:

UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.

The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.

Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.

It doesn't matter who subscribes to what if it is all false.

Now now. Keep it nice.

Actually, I do know for sure. Look around on these forums. Especially the stuff that has been brought up in the last 2 or 3 days. Not acknowledging it at this point is just laughable. This is a lunatic forum. 

Actually, I do know for sure. Look around on these forums. Especially the stuff that has been brought up in the last 2 or 3 days. Not acknowledging it at this point is just laughable. This is a lunatic forum. 

You do have to admit that the quality of posts has gone seriously downhill lately. (Possibly EJ's fault?)

You do have to admit that the level of posting has gone seriously downhill lately. (Possibly EJ's fault?)

The level of posting has increased by the RE side while it has simultaneously gone down on the FE side. This is just in the upper fora though. Do you think it is just a coincidence that those same people who would be posting all suddenly seem to be posting exclusively to the lower fora?

I could be wrong but it seems to me that the only one with the balls to challenge stuff (especially some of Alex's posts) is Tom Bishop, but Tom too just disappears after he can't find anything else to go on.

I doubt that this is the first time this has happened. I'm sure smart RE'ers have been here before and the top FE'ers are probably efficient at making convincing arguments to usually get them to give up but I doubt that always happens and I don't doubt this is the first time they haven't had a leg to stand on. They'll just wait til we get bored and go back to our RE lives. Until then they'll wait below.

A lot of us FEers have retreated probably because this forum has quite a few noobs, some trolls, and it gets boring having the same questions/similar questions asked a lot.

A lot of us FEers have retreated probably because this forum has quite a few noobs, some trolls, and it gets boring having the same questions/similar questions asked a lot.

That's a convenient excuse. If that is true then attempt to contest one of the four newest posts in the debates section.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 02:20:07 PM

A lot of us FEers have retreated probably because this forum has quite a few noobs, some trolls, and it gets boring having the same questions/similar questions asked a lot.

That's a convenient excuse. If that is true then attempt to contest one of the four newest posts in the debates section.

That not my field. Sure, I can post in the upper fora, like I am now, but I am not to familiar with the math and science behind it all.

My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?

First of all, the flat earth is a disc, not a globe.  Secondly, some speculate that the higher dimensional aetherific warping of space-time near the edge of the disc causes the the rim to fold back onto itself in such a way that what seems like the western most point is actually connected to the eastern most point.  Sort of like how Pac Man can warp from one side of the maze to the other.  The 2D map looks flat, but a 5D or higher map would show the true nature of how the sun's path above earth is perfectly reasonable.

Hey, this question is for people who believe in / are working on the "Antarctica as a Continent" model where the sun, at the equinox, 'shifts gears' from the north pole to the south.

I'm assuming this happens when the sun transitions across the equator--that is, it passes 0° 00' latitude. The vernal equinox of 2015 happens at 10:39 PM UTC on 20 March. However, at that time, the sun is just south of Hawaii at 158° 26' West. On your map, that'd be around here:

Two hours later the sun is here:

My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?

Why do you assume that there is only one sun?  There is more than one planet.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on September 04, 2013, 09:35:40 AM

Hey, this question is for people who believe in / are working on the "Antarctica as a Continent" model where the sun, at the equinox, 'shifts gears' from the north pole to the south.

I'm assuming this happens when the sun transitions across the equator--that is, it passes 0° 00' latitude. The vernal equinox of 2015 happens at 10:39 PM UTC on 20 March. However, at that time, the sun is just south of Hawaii at 158° 26' West. On your map, that'd be around here:

Two hours later the sun is here:

My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?

Why do you assume that there is only one sun?  There is more than one planet.

Are you saying there is more than one sun?

Are you saying there is more than one sun?

No, but neither am I saying their isn't.  I'm just wondering why you are assuming such.  It's assumptions like these that plague round-earth science.  In flat-earth science we look at the evidence and make conclusions based on the facts.  We do not make assumptions then try and make the facts fit the conclusion.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 04, 2013, 07:01:00 PM

Are you saying there is more than one sun?

No, but neither am I saying their isn't.  I'm just wondering why you are assuming such.  It's assumptions like these that plague round-earth science.  In flat-earth science we look at the evidence and make conclusions based on the facts.  We do not make assumptions then try and make the facts fit the conclusion.

Well its actually a known fact... but go ahead with your blind skepticism. I'm not gonna entertain bull crap like this

We only see one sun so assuming that there are two is stupid.

We only see one sun so assuming that there are two is stupid.

This is a textbook example of the argument from ignorance.  It's a logical fallacy and while it does prove stupidity, I'm afraid you've hit an unintended target.

You look out your window and see a flat earth. You won't accept that the earth could be round. But when you look out your window and you see one sun you think it is possible that there are two. It makes no sense.

You look out your window and see a flat earth. You won't accept that the earth could be round. But when you look out your window and you see one sun you think it is possible that there are two. It makes no sense.

You're putting words in my mouth.  I can admit that the earth could be round.  It's called having a falsifiable claim.  If sufficient proof was presented to me I would have to change my views.  You only assume that I cannot change because you think that I've reached my stance on the wings of delusion and myth likely steeped in dogmatic religion.  The irony of course being that you're the one saturated with indoctrination so fully that you cannot even fathom the possibility of the world being anything but round.  This is called having an unfalsifiable view and is as unscientific as Jesus was white.

Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.

Quote from: REphoenix on September 04, 2013, 07:32:41 PM

You look out your window and see a flat earth. You won't accept that the earth could be round. But when you look out your window and you see one sun you think it is possible that there are two. It makes no sense.

You're putting words in my mouth.  I can admit that the earth could be round.  It's called having a falsifiable claim.  If sufficient proof was presented to me I would have to change my views.  You only assume that I cannot change because you think that I've reached my stance on the wings of delusion and myth likely steeped in dogmatic religion.  The irony of course being that you're the one saturated with indoctrination so fully that you cannot even fathom the possibility of the world being anything but round.  This is called having an unfalsifiable view and is as unscientific as Jesus was white.

And what do you call denial? Is intellectual dishonesty scientific? A conspiracy theory is likely in your view?

Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.

You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons.  First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory.  Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 04, 2013, 07:49:18 PM

Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.

You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons.  First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory.  Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.

The anelemma thread does demonstrate a spherical earth. If you can't wrap your mind around that then, well, shucks.

My follow-up comments in the Anelmma thread address Tom Bishop. I ask him to provide a model of the FE that can account for this phenomenon. Those comments are against his responses. Before that I made two long statements that state nothing but observational, verifiable proof that the earth is round that even you can check for yourself if you have a camera and one minute each day to take a picture for a year.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 04, 2013, 01:37:13 PM

It could quickly zip under the earth.

Why would it randomly speed up while traveling under the earth?

Because the earth is round