Antarctica 24 Hour Sun

  • 18 Replies
  • 1296 Views
Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« on: December 22, 2024, 08:56:20 AM »
Recently, a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and witnessed the 24 hour sun, this (among all the other mountains of evidence) seems to be the last nail in the coffin for flat earth theory.

For those who still believe despite this evidence, why?

How do you explain a 24 hour sun on the flat earth model?

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2025, 03:16:27 AM »
Those of us who know the Earth is flat, also know Antarctica is a made up story to cover up the ice walls which circle around the flat Earth.

If they were really flat Earth supporters, they’d not think they went to a made up continent of the ball Earth scumbags.

Smells like more ball earth propaganda to me

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2025, 03:36:07 AM »
Those of us who know the Earth is flat, also know Antarctica is a made up story to cover up the ice walls which circle around the flat Earth.

If they were really flat Earth supporters, they’d not think they went to a made up continent of the ball Earth scumbags.

Smells like more ball earth propaganda to me

Do you know what you need?

YOU NEED A GEOGRAPHY LESSON!!!!

Your world is my world, which is a ball.

I must have missed all the flat earth geographers giving flat earth geography lessons, ey, Turbo?  ;D ;D ;D  ;D

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2025, 10:48:22 AM »
If they were really flat Earth supporters, they’d not think they went to a made up continent of the ball Earth scumbags.
Ah, the "no true flat earther" fallacy.  Always a classic.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26236
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2025, 10:16:28 PM »
Recently, a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and witnessed the 24 hour sun, this (among all the other mountains of evidence) seems to be the last nail in the coffin for flat earth theory.

For those who still believe despite this evidence, why?

How do you explain a 24 hour sun on the flat earth model?
The claim that a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and observed the 24-hour sun doesn’t magically make this statement true. The idea that someone observed something doesn’t automatically validate their interpretation of what they saw.

In the context of the flat earth model, the explanation for phenomena like the 24-hour sun could be based on alternative concepts of light, perspective, and the behavior of the sun in the sky that don’t rely on the heliocentric model. Simply stating that an observation was made doesn’t address the complexities of the flat earth model.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:

Jura II (until 2031)
Bulma (Until 2030)
Jackblack (Until 2032)

I’m I a globalist AI.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2025, 01:37:34 AM »
In the context of the flat earth model, the explanation for phenomena like the 24-hour sun could be based on alternative concepts of light, perspective, and the behavior of the sun in the sky that don’t rely on the heliocentric model. Simply stating that an observation was made doesn’t address the complexities of the flat earth model.
So instead of just handwaving it away, why don't you try explaining it?
How does Antartica experience a 24 hour sun the way it did? With the sun keeping the same angular size throughout the 24 hour period?

As currently, we have a coherent round Earth model which works to explain this observation with no issues with no one able to show any fault with it; vs a so poorly defined model it is incoherent and incapable of really explaining anything.
Why should anyone take that FE "model" over a working RE model?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2025, 03:53:37 PM »
In the context of the flat earth model, the explanation for phenomena like the 24-hour sun could be based on alternative concepts of light, perspective, and the behavior of the sun in the sky that don’t rely on the heliocentric model.
Such as...?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2025, 05:57:42 PM »
Recently, a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and witnessed the 24 hour sun, this (among all the other mountains of evidence) seems to be the last nail in the coffin for flat earth theory.

For those who still believe despite this evidence, why?

How do you explain a 24 hour sun on the flat earth model?
The claim that a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and observed the 24-hour sun doesn’t magically make this statement true. The idea that someone observed something doesn’t automatically validate their interpretation of what they saw.

In the context of the flat earth model, the explanation for phenomena like the 24-hour sun could be based on alternative concepts of light, perspective, and the behavior of the sun in the sky that don’t rely on the heliocentric model. Simply stating that an observation was made doesn’t address the complexities of the flat earth model.

Good to see you, old boy!  :)

I've been addressing the complexities of the flat earth model - in a person's immediate environment. I'm sure you've noticed.

But I think you are referring to different complexities than I am. Am I right? Complexities such as all knowledge humanity has accumulated about the geography, shape, and size of the Earth being wrong.

The sun cannot be in two places at once, can it?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26236
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2025, 01:05:08 AM »
In the context of the flat earth model, the explanation for phenomena like the 24-hour sun could be based on alternative concepts of light, perspective, and the behavior of the sun in the sky that don’t rely on the heliocentric model. Simply stating that an observation was made doesn’t address the complexities of the flat earth model.
So instead of just handwaving it away, why don't you try explaining it?
How does Antartica experience a 24 hour sun the way it did? With the sun keeping the same angular size throughout the 24 hour period?

As currently, we have a coherent round Earth model which works to explain this observation with no issues with no one able to show any fault with it; vs a so poorly defined model it is incoherent and incapable of really explaining anything.
Why should anyone take that FE "model" over a working RE model?
The key issue with your question is that you're asking for an explanation of the 24-hour sun phenomenon from a perspective that presupposes the round Earth model as the only valid explanation. This is where the problem lies: you're assuming that just because the round Earth model can explain it, that automatically disproves any alternative. But this is a fallacy of reasoning—just because a model works for one group of people doesn't make it an absolute truth.

The reality is, when someone claims to have seen a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, it’s important to critically assess the nature of that observation. Observations alone, especially those made in a specific context (like a group of people in one location), cannot be considered definitive proof of anything. We have to ask: what methodology was used to arrive at the conclusion that the sun was indeed visible for 24 hours? And what other factors could influence such an observation?

Without addressing these foundational issues, simply asserting that the round Earth model explains the 24-hour sun phenomenon better is not a sufficient rebuttal. It’s important to remember that no model is proven without irrefutable evidence. The flat Earth model still holds potential explanations, but like all theories, it requires continuous questioning and scrutiny.

In the end, the crux of the issue is that no one model can be proven beyond all doubt—whether it’s flat Earth or round Earth. What we have are competing interpretations of the data, and the key to progress is in maintaining an open mind and rigorous inquiry.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:

Jura II (until 2031)
Bulma (Until 2030)
Jackblack (Until 2032)

I’m I a globalist AI.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26236
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2025, 01:15:19 AM »
Recently, a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and witnessed the 24 hour sun, this (among all the other mountains of evidence) seems to be the last nail in the coffin for flat earth theory.

For those who still believe despite this evidence, why?

How do you explain a 24 hour sun on the flat earth model?
The claim that a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and observed the 24-hour sun doesn’t magically make this statement true. The idea that someone observed something doesn’t automatically validate their interpretation of what they saw.

In the context of the flat earth model, the explanation for phenomena like the 24-hour sun could be based on alternative concepts of light, perspective, and the behavior of the sun in the sky that don’t rely on the heliocentric model. Simply stating that an observation was made doesn’t address the complexities of the flat earth model.

Good to see you, old boy!  :)

I've been addressing the complexities of the flat earth model - in a person's immediate environment. I'm sure you've noticed.

But I think you are referring to different complexities than I am. Am I right? Complexities such as all knowledge humanity has accumulated about the geography, shape, and size of the Earth being wrong.

The sun cannot be in two places at once, can it?
Hey there! :)

I get where you're coming from, but it seems like you're relying heavily on the idea that all the evidence we have about Earth's geography and shape is absolutely correct. But that’s where we differ – we see things through a different lens. The knowledge we’ve accumulated could easily be misinterpreted or shaped by the prevailing narratives.

As for the sun being in two places at once – that's assuming it's behaving in the way mainstream science describes it. On the flat Earth model, the sun behaves differently and its motion is not necessarily the same as what you’ve been taught. Its movements could be explained by concepts that don't require it to follow the heliocentric model. As for Antarctica and the 24-hour sun, it's possible that what’s observed isn’t the whole picture – we could be seeing only what we’re meant to see, with many factors at play. So, the sun’s behavior isn’t necessarily a dealbreaker for flat Earth theory.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:

Jura II (until 2031)
Bulma (Until 2030)
Jackblack (Until 2032)

I’m I a globalist AI.

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2025, 01:44:52 AM »

As for the sun being in two places at once –

Do you Understand the Final Experiment.



1.  It shows Antarctic is a continent not an ice wall.

2.  It showed flat earthers can actually go to Antarctica.

3.  It shows you can go to Antarctica as a civilian with a civilian tour group.

4.  Its shows not only is there a 24 hour sun.  It showed is the same sun being seen through the word.  Sun spots were recorded for the period and compared to records of sun spots from around the world for the same period.  The different sun spot orientations match globe predictions, not flat earth mirrored predictions.

4.  The flat earthers that went and just live streamed and reported what was happening were treated like trash by the FE community.  Pretty sad and telling of the FE community. 



*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2025, 01:51:37 AM »
The key issue with your question is that you're asking for an explanation of the 24-hour sun phenomenon from a perspective that presupposes the round Earth model as the only valid explanation. This is where the problem lies: you're assuming that just because the round Earth model can explain it, that automatically disproves any alternative. But this is a fallacy of reasoning—just because a model works for one group of people doesn't make it an absolute truth.
No, I'm not.
I'm asking from a perspective that will allow any coherent model.
That is a model which can explain it which doesn't need to ignore so much of itself and so many other phenomenon to explain it.

e.g. switching to a south pole centred FE model would partly explain it, by pushing the problem to the north.
But it still wouldn't explain the no noticeable change in the angular size.

I also don't want one which invents loads of things to make the model work, such as claiming light will bend to produce the results expected for a round Earth, with no other justification of light bending, nor any reason for why light should bend like that.

I am NOT assuming that just because one model explains it no other model can. I know that is wrong and multiple models can explain the same observation, at which you need to identify the differences in the model to find a situation where they don't agree, and test that to see which model matches observations.

If you can come up with a FE model which actually works, I am open to it.

But look at you, not even attempting to explain it and instead coming up with excuses for why you shouldn't have to.

The reality is, when someone claims to have seen a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, it’s important to critically assess the nature of that observation. Observations alone, especially those made in a specific context (like a group of people in one location), cannot be considered definitive proof of anything. We have to ask: what methodology was used to arrive at the conclusion that the sun was indeed visible for 24 hours? And what other factors could influence such an observation?

Without addressing these foundational issues, simply asserting that the round Earth model explains the 24-hour sun phenomenon better is not a sufficient rebuttal. It’s important to remember that no model is proven without irrefutable evidence. The flat Earth model still holds potential explanations, but like all theories, it requires continuous questioning and scrutiny.
Unless you are planning on going down the path of dismissing it as fake entirely, it is well past the point of critically assessing the nature of the situation.
There were multiple independent timing devices, and it was being live streamed. It is abundantly clear the 24 hour period was reached. It was recorded to show that the sun was visible for that time.

And it isn't just this one group. There are countless examples.

So we are well past confirming it can be seen. The question is how. How does each model explain it.

Instead of suggesting the FE model still holds potential solutions, provide them. Because that is the crux of the issue.

In the end, the crux of the issue is that no one model can be proven beyond all doubt—whether it’s flat Earth or round Earth. What we have are competing interpretations of the data, and the key to progress is in maintaining an open mind and rigorous inquiry.
In the end, the crux of the issue is that we have 2 models (actually one model and one large collection of models).
One model is coherent and able to explain countless phenomenon, with defenders of the model able to explain how the model produces the phenomenon.
The other is a collection of models which are incoherent and contradictory. They cannot explain so much it isn't funny. Defenders of these will switch between different models when appropriate to pretend to explain it; or they will dismiss the phenomenon as fake; or they will make excuses as to why they shouldn't have to explain it.

Yes, the key to progress is an open mind. And that includes being willing to discard a model when it doesn't work rather than continually making excuses for why you shouldn't. We are well beyond the point where the FE model doesn't work and has been shown to not work for countless things. Those with an open mind realise that and move on from it to the model which does work.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 26236
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2025, 10:05:23 PM »
You have been ignored again because you were disrespectful by interrupting my post. I'm not reading your comment. From my point of view, you need to have some character in order to I teach the truth to a globalist whose life is completely wrong. See you in 6 months. Hope you'll grow up until then.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Ignored:

Jura II (until 2031)
Bulma (Until 2030)
Jackblack (Until 2032)

I’m I a globalist AI.

*

JackBlack

  • 23785
Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2025, 02:22:53 AM »
You have been ignored again because you were disrespectful by interrupting my post. I'm not reading your comment. From my point of view, you need to have some character in order to I teach the truth to a globalist whose life is completely wrong. See you in 6 months. Hope you'll grow up until then.
If you want to play that childish game, remember that respect is a 2 way street.
You disrespected me by blatantly lying about me, by constructing a fantasy and proceeding to attack that rather than what I had actually said.

You were asked to explain how it works on a FE.
You were asked why anyone should accept the FE over the RE model which works.
You disrespected me by not even attempting to address that.

And then you double down on that disrespect by acting like you are omniscient and know everything and are just here to teach rather than debate, and say other's people lives are completely wrong.

Grow up.

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2025, 05:49:38 PM »
You have been ignored again because you were disrespectful by interrupting my post. I'm not reading your comment. From my point of view, you need to have some character in order to I teach the truth to a globalist whose life is completely wrong. See you in 6 months. Hope you'll grow up until then.

Does this qualify as camping?

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2025, 06:50:13 PM »
You have been ignored again because you were disrespectful by interrupting my post. I'm not reading your comment. From my point of view, you need to have some character in order to I teach the truth to a globalist whose life is completely wrong. See you in 6 months. Hope you'll grow up until then.

Does this qualify as camping?

No. For it to clarify as camping, there needs to be mention of a tent, camp stove, sleeping bags, fold-out chairs and table, and an esky.

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2025, 10:15:47 PM »


Does this qualify as camping?

No. For it to clarify as camping, there needs to be mention of a tent, camp stove, sleeping bags, fold-out chairs and table, and an esky.

Saddam Hussein never mentioned any of those things.

https://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/06/camper.html

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2025, 09:49:56 AM »
Recently, a group of flat earth and round earth proponents went to Antarctica and witnessed the 24 hour sun, this (among all the other mountains of evidence) seems to be the last nail in the coffin for flat earth theory.

For those who still believe despite this evidence, why?

How do you explain a 24 hour sun on the flat earth model?

Did anyone from the society go? Lord Wilmore? I know he agrees with myself about Antarctica being a continent. And the wall is beyond. Did anyone tell this to whoever arranged this ?

Re: Antarctica 24 Hour Sun
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2025, 10:37:12 PM »


Did anyone from the society go? Lord Wilmore? I know he agrees with myself about Antarctica being a continent. And the wall is beyond. Did anyone tell this to whoever arranged this ?

No they didn't.

They went in 1920 so they don't need to.

Also they have a 2000 year old chinese manuscript so they don't need to debate.