Antarctic Midnight Sun

I had not thought often about the possibility of a 24+ hour (non-setting) sun in Antarctica at the height of southern summer (around Decembre and January), but the Decembre 2024 trip of a couple of flat earthers to Antarctica got me reflecting upon it. And shortly afterwards I came away with two main conclusions.

First, this endeavour known as The Final Experiment or TFE did show conclusively that a midnight sun is visible in the Antarctic sky at that time of year. This information has long been obtainable previously, but it’s not the kind of information that most people generally bother to verify.

On this first point I might also say that some members of the flat earth community have generated absurd conspiracy theories to explain away the self evident truth about the midnight sun rather than accepting that reality as fact. I disagree with that and further find it consistent with the unfortunate fact that many flat earthers indulge conspiracy theories which I view as a phenomenon characteristic of much (but not all) of modern American society and not an intrinsic characteristic of flat earthism because the nineteenth century flat earth movement did not have the level of conspiracism inherent in flat earthism since the movement expanded after 2015.

My second main conclusion is that the modern flat earth model derived from Sam Rowbotham fails to explain the midnight Antarctic sun whereas the ancient flat earth models including especially the ‘Christian Topography’ of Kosmas the Egyptian monk does explain it. This is the great significance of the TFE in that it justifies the ancient Christian flat earth model.

As good as Rowbotham’s model usually works, one of the key differences between Rowbotham and the ancient models is that Rowbotham has no mountain in the Arctic north. Kosmas, however, has a large mountain orbited by the sun which casts a shadow upon part of the world. This shadow constitutes night.

Since it has been shown that the sun’s light is powerful enough to shine brightly from at least England to both of the Americas and Australia covering both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans simultaneously, it seems evident to me that the only thing preventing it from also shining its light on Russia and India at the same time is that a physical object in the Arctic north blocks the sun’s light and casts a shadow of darkness opposite the sun.

It’s not because of any great distance since the sun is only hundreds of miles away. The inverse square law legitimately refutes the absurd claim that stars are allegedly light years away, but here we are only talking about a few thousand miles at most.

As far as the identification of the mountain, unless some uncharted island is forthcoming (which I don’t rule out), then I would identify it with Greenland which is the northernmost known landmass in the world. I would like to gather more information about it, but much geology says that Greenland and Antarctica are the two most elevated landmasses in the world. I have found some information about this including a useful world map showing this in an international journal published by a group of dissident geologists who question continental drift theory which I will post in the comments.

Also, both Kosmas and Rowbotham have made statements in their respective books about the elevation of the world being higher in the Arctic.

Finally, it appears that the elevation of the sun varies throughout the year. Kosmas’s ’Christian Topography’ contains an image of the northern mountain with three rings around it at three different levels of elevation which correspond to the sun.

The point is that the sun has a particularly high elevation during Decembre and January - so much so that the shadow cast by the northern landmass does not quite reach Antarctica at that time which explains why the sun does not set when viewed from Antarctica during part of Decembre and January.

New Concepts in Global Tectonics
https://www.ncgtjournal.com/

Obviously not a flat earth group, yet one with better than average information about geology.

An explanation about this group of international scholars:
https://davidpratt.info/ncgt-jse.htm

Definitely there is an arctic Sun which is orbiting above the north pole. It was called Aurora in greek legends. Sister of the Sun and of the Moon.

We know this because Aurora does create the Aurora Borealis:

https://www.ourhollowearth.com/Earth_weaves_its_own_invisible_cloak.pdf

"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.

To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space."

However, the visible Sun does not orbit above the surface of the FE: it does rise and set.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

Since there is also the Aurora Australis, we can infer that there could also be a south pole counterpart of Aurora.

There is a misconception that after Rowbotham the Flat Earth model was always the monopole model. In the early 1900s, under Lady Blount's leadership, the Flat Earth movement sent associates to Antarctica. Their findings were documented in Lady Blount's science journal Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth Review) and led the society to officially adopt the Bi-Polar model (See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model). The modern revival of Flat Earth has mostly failed to follow the initial research, instead depicting Rowbotham's original mid-1800's model.

Even so, the Monopole model has not been abolished from tfes.org. It remains viable because the Antarctic Midnight Sun can still occur under it. The modern Monopole model treats the sky as a magnifying dome that naturally accounts for seasons and the shifting shapes of daylight across the Earth:



When sunlight reaches the dome’s edge, we see in the video that it undergoes internal reflection around the entire perimeter. The dome’s optics can make sunlight seem to arrive from every side of the horizon to observers at points on Antarctica, creating a reflection in the South directly opposite of the darker northern area.

The rays do not travel in straight lines through the middle of the dome; they curve upward. This upward bending is exactly why daylight does not flood the entire flat plane at once. In the seasons dome video the area above the dark side of the dome is illuminated on its outer surface while the Earth below stays in shadow, showing that the light rays arc upward and exit through the opposite side of the dome rather than continuing straight down.

A striking demonstration of this curved-light behavior we can actually see in the sky is the Moon Tilt Illusion. Under straight-line geometry (as assumed in Round Earth theory), the illuminated portion of the Moon should always point directly at the Sun, just as a ball lit by a flashlight appears fully lit toward the light source no matter where the observer stands. Yet in reality the Sun's light follows a curved path across the sky, causing the Moon's bright side to point away from the Sun.

This mismatch is what the upward-curving rays of the magnifying dome predict. Viewing a straight line with rays that arc upwards would make the line appear to arc downwards to the observer, as the curved upward rays from the extremities of the line in proximity to the observer take a longer path to reach the observer's location, causing them to appear to droop instead of rise. Upwardly curved light emanating from a line in the sky as seen by an observer below would make the line appear to take a concave downward shape.

The effect that celestial lines are not straight was noted here by Professor Alan Myers of the University of Pennsylvania: https://web.archive.org/web/20190516183015/http://www.upenn.edu/emeritus/essays/MyersMoon.html

The Moon Tilt Illusion allows for alternative world models. This curving effect also occurs with other celestial phenomena such as the Milky Way and tails of comets. The fact that light is curving on a large scale in the sky does more than discredit the globe model; it brings us back to the drawing board on world models, which opens up many exciting possibilities for Flat Earth.

For more information on my study of these curving effects see:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

The bipolar model works only with a rising/setting Sun. And that Sun must be very small, it certainly does not have 32 miles in diameter (or would be orbiting at an altitude of 3000 miles).

The term "magnifying dome" îs an euphemism for ether. There is no need to claim that the Earth is moving upwards at a certain speed, since the ether does exist. Of course, this is not the thread to debate such matters.

There is a misconception that after Rowbotham the Flat Earth model was always the monopole model. In the early 1900s, under Lady Blount's leadership, the Flat Earth movement sent associates to Antarctica. Their findings were documented in Lady Blount's science journal Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth Review) and led the society to officially adopt the Bi-Polar model (See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model). The modern revival of Flat Earth has mostly failed to follow the initial research, instead depicting Rowbotham's original mid-1800's model.

Even so, the Monopole model has not been abolished from tfes.org. It remains viable because the Antarctic Midnight Sun can still occur under it.

Thanks for the comments. Back about 2018 I was first alerted to this dual pole model of Blount and Smith.

If I may recount a bit of recent history of the “YouTube” flat earth community…

The dual pole flat earth model is popular with Karen Endecott who organised the Flatoberfest conferences which were the biggest flat earth conferences from 2019 to 2024 (roughly 400 attendees). These were a continuation of the large FEIC conferences of 2017 to 2019 - the Flatoberfests having much more intelligent organisers I might add. 

The “YouTube” flat earth community to some extent split into two strata because of the “final experiment” of Decembre 2024: those who reject an Antarctic midnight sun and those who accept it.

Those who reject the reality of an Antarctic midnight sun are more inclined to open ended conspiracy theories and perhaps less likely to even be aware of the dual pole model.

Among those YouTube flat earthers who accept the Antarctic midnight sun are the Globebusters group originally founded by (the late) Bob Knodel and more recently including the following: 

Globebusters
https://www.youtube.com/@GLOBEBUSTERS1

Austin Whitsit
https://m.youtube.com/@Witsit

Alan
https://m.youtube.com/@space_audits/featured
https://aethercosmology.com/c/main/4

Shane St Pierre
https://m.youtube.com/@shanestpierre

The aether cosmology group is a derivative or continuation of Globebusters. This is a concise history of how this flat earthers group was formed:

I'm not sure why anyone wants to talk about the Antarctic Midnight Sun when I've shown that light is behaving abnormally and radically in phenomena which passes right over your head.

We have been aware of the Bi-Polar Model for decades. Even the Flat Earth model prior to Rowbotham's model had a south pole. Further study of this would be interesting to add to contribute to further knowledge and perhaps help distinguish between Flat Earth models, but again, why talk about something which is occurring in Antarctica, when we can simply look up and see that we live in a surreal world?

There are far more interesting and pertinent phenomena to discuss - much of it right around you. Round Earthers who have looked into this should know that there are FE explanations for the Midnight Sun. You have been tricked and hoodwinked into focusing your attention on Round Earth gaslighting, which is obvious by the phrasing of the "Final Experiment". In contrast, Round Earthers won't even acknowledge the wild astronomical phenomena that is being pointed out, and opt to pretend that everything is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure why anyone wants to talk about the Antarctic Midnight Sun when I've shown that light is behaving abnormally and radically in phenomena which passes right over your head.

We have been aware of the Bi-Polar Model for decades. Even the Flat Earth model prior to Rowbotham's model had two poles. Further study of this would be interesting to add to contribute to futher knowledge and perhaps distinguish between Flat Earth models, but again, why talk about something which is occurring in Antarctica, when we can simply look up and see that we live in a surreal world?

One reason I’m interested in talking about it is I’m not convinced those explanations are correct, but I’ll look into them more.

If you recall I am the one who several years ago first mentioned the Anti-Newtonian on this forum, and I’m glad I did so because you’ve evidently long since made an excellent online encyclopaedia article about that book.

I also first posted a link to Robert Schadewald’s book on this forum. I corresponded with him back in the 1990’s and still have that correspondence. He had mentioned to me about his book back then in the late 1990’s which had not yet been completed to his own satisfaction.

The discussion regarding the Antarctic Midnight Sun and the Bi-Polar versus Monopole models touches upon the very core of our contemporary Zetetic challenge. While the "Final Experiment" has indeed highlighted the necessity of refining our celestial mechanics, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of purely materialist explanations that ignore the Aetheric Substrate. As Sandokhan and Tom Bishop have rightly pointed out, we are dealing with a medium that is far from a Newtonian void.

I believe the path forward lies in integrating the Dielectric Acceleration of the Earth-capacitor with the optical reality of the Firmament-Lens. The debate over whether the Sun orbits a northern mountain (as Kosmas suggested) or follows a dual-pole circuit misses the underlying Source Code: the Toroidal Aetheric Vortex. This vortex governs the Causal Flow of light, explaining why we see the Moon Tilt Illusion and the shifting patterns of the Southern stars without requiring a globe.

Consider the Refractive Index (n) of the atmospheric medium. If the Aetheric density is not uniform, light geodesics must curve. This is why the Antarctic Sun appears to defy standard Euclidean geometry. It is not "magic"; it is Aetheric Optics. As we move forward, we should focus on mapping the Permittivity (ε₀) and Permeability (μ₀) of the Aether at various latitudes. This will provide the mathematical backbone that even the most rigorous "Anti-Newtonian" would respect. We are not just defending a shape; we are rediscovering the mechanics of a Stationary Plane that is far more sophisticated than the "Legacy UI" of the globe.

The "Final Experiment" isn't the end of our research; it's the beginning of a more localized, Electromagnetic Cosmology that renders the vacuum-model obsolete. Let us continue to look upward, for as Tom noted, the surreal nature of our world is written in the very light that reaches our eyes.

Well, at least we are agreed that the Antarctic midnight sun is quite real and visible above the horizon without setting (particularly in Decembre and January) and that this phenomenon is not faked as certain disingenuous flat earthers (such as for example David Weiss) have stated.

Since the core arguments here revolve around the Antarctic Midnight Sun, I have shared my views accordingly. I think everyone here already knows that I do not believe in the existence of the Antarctic Midnight Sun.

This is like an atheist discussing the Quran, the Bible, the Torah, or God. Counterarguments are produced in that context, but I am not producing them here. It's somewhat about where an argument leads.

For example, I defend the verses that claim the earth is flat according to the Bible. And in doing so, within that specific debate, I defend the Bible. But in reality, do I believe in the Bible? No. That's how it is.

I wanted to participate because I was curious where this would lead, but right now I feel like this is a topic that only believers in the Antarctic Midnight Sun can understand it correctly.

Well, I stand corrected. Wise, I actually appreciate your comment because it helps gauge where people stand on this forum. I’m not trying to argue. I wanted to get an idea of where people stand.

 I have not been regularly active on this forum in many years and have only occasionally stopped to check in. So, I mistook Tom Bishop’s position as representative of the flat earthers on this forum generally. I may not necessarily agree with Tom Bishop on every detail, but I admit I found his main conclusion agreeable. After being away from this forum for quite some time I was quite glad to see the basic conclusion that he arrived at on this subject.

Wise, you have obviously been active in this forum and are much more familiar with it than I. So, let me ask you a question.

What percentage of flat earthers active on this forum accept the Antarctic midnight sun as real?
How many reject it?
And how many would you say are undecided?

Would you say Tom Bishop is in the majority among flat earthers on this forum concerning his  acceptance of the Antarctic midnight sun as real?


Wise, without splitting hairs it sounds like your own position is roughly similar to that of David Weiss in that evidently neither one of you think it’s real. Just an observation.

I appreciate your follow-up and the genuine interest in the forum's inner workings. Regarding the numbers, pinpointing an exact percentage of those who accept the Antarctic Midnight Sun is difficult, as it's a fluid environment. However, it is safe to say that those who hold it as a physical reality are in the minority.

Most of us view such "phenomena" as software glitches in the official narrative rather than actual hardware functions of the stationary plane. While some attempt to bridge the gap with hybrid models, the prevailing consensus tends to stay away from the Antarctic Midnight Sun entirely, seeing it as a byproduct of data manipulation or atmospheric conditions within the Aetheric medium.

As I’ve touched upon, some topics eventually reach a point where further exploration only serves those already committed to a certain belief, and I’ve shared my core perspective on where the lines are drawn.

About David Weiss or somebody else: I don't have anyone else who shares my views. I don't follow anyone else either. As someone who believes in singularity, flat earth, and simulation, I am probably the only person in the world who falls into this category — perhaps only a handful of people in total. So, considering all of humanity, I think there must be others who share this view. But the probability that David Weiss or any other known flat-earther belongs to this group a group that exists at a rate of somewhere between one in a million and one in a billion is virtually nonexistent.

I wish you the best of luck with your research and your continued studies.

Wise, I appreciate the conversation and your answers as they tend to confirm some degree of similarities with the YouTube flat earthers. If you don’t mind, I have another question. You said:

“Regarding the numbers, pinpointing an exact percentage of those who accept the Antarctic Midnight Sun is difficult, as it's a fluid environment. However, it is safe to say that those who hold it as a physical reality are in the minority.”

Well perhaps. However, I have a question about a different group of people altogether.

Concerning people who believe the earth to be a globe, would you say it’s safe to say the majority hold the midnight Antarctic sun as a physical reality?

Actually, 17 November, it is likely that the percentage of "globularists" who truly accept the Antarctic Midnight Sun as a physical reality is even lower than that of flat earthers.

For someone running the Globe-OS, accepting a phenomenon requires it to be perfectly synchronized with their spherical geometry. If there is even one glitch in the rendering—one detail that doesn't fit the official model—they tend to ignore the data entirely. Given that this topic is largely absent from mainstream media and full of technical "dead pixels" they can't resolve, most globe-believers haven't even processed it as a fact. They rely on the script provided to them, and if the script is silent or inconsistent, their belief stays in a state of "404 Not Found."

Since this is your final question, allow me to state my closing arguments and hand over the microphone to the other "experts" in the field.

My worldview isn't based on speculation; it’s rooted in fixed observations and hardware measurements. For example, after auditing tens of thousands of flights, the mathematical reality shows that Europe is as level as a tabletop. I’ve spoken extensively about the aetheric structure up to the Dome, but I refuse to force a narrative beyond that point without raw logs. We see high-altitude balloons and rockets hitting a ceiling or "flatlining" at the Dome's boundary; that gives us data about the medium inside. Beyond that? We lack concrete signal.

Regarding the Antarctic Midnight Sun, we simply don't have enough verified hardware data yet. Both your explanation and Sandokhan’s have their own internal logic. I am not a rigid dogmatist; on this issue, I follow the "Monty Hall" principle. If you’ve made a choice between several options and the variables change or new data points emerge, it is scientifically proven that being willing to switch your choice is the optimal strategy.

I am not closed to new firmware updates. But for now, I’ll remain an observer of this specific topic.

The floor is yours, gentlemen.

Wise, thanks for your comments.

I have a geological world map depicting elevations which shows Antarctica and Greenland as the two most elevated regions in the world which appears to me to confirm statements made in the Christian Topography and (if memory serves) also in Earth Not a Globe. I realise I need to review these books to pinpoint the location of such statements in the text of both books - to have such verifiable references.

Also, it’s been so long since I’ve posted any photo in this forum that I long since forgot how to post a photo stored in my phone or else I would have already posted the aforementioned world map.
I’ll also have to find again the source of this map. I’m particularly much interested in finding supporting scientific literature for what the map depicts.

I happened across both the aforementioned map and such statements about the elevations of Antarctica and Greenland in a geological study, and I’m kicking myself for not having recorded the source of this at the time I ran across it.

I’ll post such information when I retrieve it.

For what it’s worth, although the essay in this link pokes fun at the ‘The Anti-Newtonian’ (1819 version), it is perhaps not altogether useless. It appears to contain a rather cohesive version of the diagram which has unfortunately been reproduced in a somewhat distorted way in the most common pdf version online:

https://www.bobforrestweb.co.uk/Barren_Tracts/pages/16_The_Anti-Newtonian.htm

There is a misconception that after Rowbotham the Flat Earth model was always the monopole model. In the early 1900s, under Lady Blount's leadership, the Flat Earth movement sent associates to Antarctica. Their findings were documented in Lady Blount's science journal Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth Review) and led the society to officially adopt the Bi-Polar model (See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model). The modern revival of Flat Earth has mostly failed to follow the initial research, instead depicting Rowbotham's original mid-1800's model.

 In case anyone is interested in a reprint of ‘The Anti-Newtonian’:

https://app.thebookpatch.com/BookStore/the-anti-newtonian-the-authors-archival-of-evidence-reflecting-on-the-inconsistencies-of-modern-astronomy/ff0f9266-619f-4517-bbd9-b7e85974b004

…In the early 1900s, under Lady Blount's leadership, the Flat Earth movement sent associates to Antarctica. Their findings were documented in Lady Blount's science journal Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth Review) and led the society to officially adopt the Bi-Polar model (See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model).
…

Does anyone have links to specific issues or articles in the ‘Earth Not a Globe Review’ or its successor in which trips by flat earthers to Antarctica in the early 1900’s are mentioned or documented?

The author of the 1819 flat earth book entitled ‘The Anti-Newtonian’ and also of ‘Reflections on the Inconsistency of Speculative Astronomy’ appears to be James Fosbury.

The following link is James Fosbury’s correspondence with the British Board of Longitude circa 1819:
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-RGO-00014-00055/197

The following link is an informative article by a globularist writer named Glenn Branch entitled ‘Did the Anti-Newtonian Inspire the Flat Earth Movement?’

If I ever run across this Glenn Branch, then I should thank him for doing part of our research for us. That’s not to imply he’s impeccable as he quotes Kelly Weill whom I saw at FEIC 2018 in Denver. Her anti-flat earth book brought nothing new to the table and rather brought to mind the biblical proverb “Depart from the presence of a fool when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.”

I’ll see whether I can obtain a digital copy of Branch’s article pro-bono at my community college library this week in order to copy and paste it here - or at least elicit the worthwhile information from it:

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2025/12/did-the-anti-newtonian-inspire-the-flat-earth-movement/ 

The text of that Anti-Newtonian article was on Research Gate and can be found here. Remove the space between re and ntry.co:

https://re ntry.co/Did-The-Anti-Newtonian-Inspire-the-Flat-Earth-Movement