Hey shills, i've destroyed your stupid RET theory many times so far,
Only in your dreams.
this is just another instance of the same kind. Why don't you show us any (i repeat : ANY) photographic evidence (which is not photoshoped) that Antarctica midnight sun appears due South?
You've seen it many times. You choose to deny it exists. That's
your problem, not ours.
Well, i mistakenly put the wrong (first) link in my previous post, sorry for that, we are going now to correct this error:
No worries. It happens. That's why I mentioned it.
1. Sunset at Browning peninsula -- date 15 March 2013 --Exact sunrise time : 6h : 18min -- Exact sunset ime : 19h : 14min --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-15-march-2013/4
<picture of sunset from Casey>
That's less than a week from the equinox! The Sun will be rising and setting almost due east and west at that time of year. What, exactly, do you think you're proving with these pictures?
2. Sunset at Casey station -- date 31 May 2013 -- Estimated time for Sunset at that date : Around 4 PM (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=3&year=2014)
That link is a great resource. Thanks! Bookmarked.
Those numbers in parentheses in the sunrise and sunset blocks in the table give the azimuth (direction: north is zero, due east, 90°, south 180°, west, 270°). For Mar 15 (Beware the Ides of March!) sunrise is 98° (8° south of due east) and sunset is 263° (7° south of due west), as expected. The little arrows depict (roughly) the direction toward sunrise and sunset on a Mercator-type map. Note that they are pointing right (east) and left (west) on the 15th.
http://i.imgur.com/Nts3gQX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Dr5Fkzs.jpg
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-31-may-2013/4
3. This is the date we are looking for : 6 January 2012:
MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :
--- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012
We are 66 degrees South latitude, and we don't see the sun at the horizon, it's just twilight, isn't it?
How is it obvious we're looking due north? At any rate, yes, it's twilight. According to the
January table on the website you refer us to, the Sun sets at 12:03 the morning of the 6th and again at 11:57 PM that evening, and rises again almost an hour and a half later in both cases, but
twilight lasts all night. On some nice day, go outside and, a few moments after sunset, look at the sky in directions other than where the Sun set. Nice bright blue sky, no? Getting outside and looking at reality instead of your computer screen will be good for you, too.
Perhaps more interesting, in that same table, look at the entry for Jan 3. This is the first day after the solstice that the sun sets. It lists sunset at 182° azimuth and sunrise, 14 minutes, later at 178°. 180° (due south) is midway between those. How 'bout that! The little arrows are pointing straight down (due south for all intents and purposes), too. This isn't photographic evidence, but a website you apparently trust says the Sun is due south at solar midnight (exactly 12 hours from solar noon) from Casey Station, Antarctica.
Now, see again this video: MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
The Sun is VERY, VERY, VERY (CLEARLY) ABOVE THE HORIZON!!!
According to the website
you cite, the Sun remains above the horizon for about three weeks at Casey, too. Do you have a point?
Even though Casey is outside the Antarctic Circle (by about
1/
4°) it still sees days without a sunset. This is because the Sun is larger than a point source (radius ~
1/
4° and the definition of sunset is when the top edge of the Sun drops below the horizon, so the center is actually about
1/
4° below it), and our old friend refraction makes objects near the horizon appear slightly higher than they actually are (by about
1/
2°), keeping the Sun visible when it "shouldn't" be geometrically.
Everything you have posted is routinely predicted using the oblate-spheroid-earth-with-atmosphere model, and, thus, supports that model since the predicted events are confirmed with high accuracy.
Everything.
On top of that :
Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.)
Look up information about "Rhumb Line Navigation" and get back to us. Using straight line approximations for curved lines makes navigation problems manageable with relatively straightforward math.
Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one.
Again, you confuse uninformed opinion with fact. Curved lines are often represented by straight lines. The accuracy of the representation depends on the amount of curvature and the number of straight-line segments used in the approximation. If the curve is slight, a single straight line may suffice, depending on the precision needed.
And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Opinions are not proof of anything.
"Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Armwaving. Who is "Mr. Proctor"? What does this person's opinion about something that has never been observed have to do with anything?
"Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe. [/i]
How so? Perhaps they didn't take a great-circle route. Do you think it's impossible to take a 1-mi (1.6 km) detour and end up a block away from your starting point?