RE: The final intractable problem for the Flat Earthers...24-hour sun at the South Pole.
& it is very cool to see you researching this topic more.
The 24 hour sun videos from Antarctica could be completely real, but proves nothing in my mind. It is one of those debunk proofs that relies on using the standard model as debunk proof which is illogical.
There exist many possible explanations for what is observed at Antarctica. If you try to make explanations adhere to a specific map or model we are told is correct then you aren’t going to see how many other possible explanations actually exist.
A small local sun orbiting over the northern hemisphere in our summer & shifting to orbit the southern in their summer is one of the best models I’ve seen, but the best video version I’ve seen of it can no longer be found for some odd reason. The orbit was based on actual patterns of electromagnetism that can be recreated & observed in real life & seemed highly accurate.
Another possible explanation is two suns. The sun does appear to be much smaller & more local than we are told so it is possible there could be two or more suns, and we could only see one at a time from where we are allowed to live.
I aim only to think logically about this topic, the two examples above our obviously not proof of anything, but they are possibilities of explanations outside of what is commonly taught or thought. There are clearly many more possibile explanations for what we see with our limited senses.
My mind cannot make any sense of a ball spinning at 1000mph at the equator & about 400mph where I live, slower as you go north, but there is no measurable or observable difference from spin anywhere on the planet. False physics that previously made sense only because someone told me it was so. When I think about my senses being accurate, & things being motionless & not curving it all makes easy logical sense. Perhaps I was hypnotized? It is a possibility
A good question to consider is why is Antarctica the coldest continent? It is the closest continent to the sun at any point in the year due to the tilt & orbit around the sun according to the standard model. Seems implausible, like so many other things taught in the mainstream model
Cs, gonna have to differ with you on this one, my friend. I don't think the 2-sun idea has any really merit, and I still do believe that a 24-hour polar sun at Antarctica would be absolute proof of the globe Earth--if that can be shown.
Peace, brother.
Thanks for the comment, as always!
Thoughtful disagreement is good. Without it we are just republicans or democrats or christians or atheists or flat earthers or ball believers doing divisive work for the big banks.
I think believing that any one thing is absolute proof of anything is flawed logic, we tend to stop using our imagination when we believe we know. I try to think in terms of probability & possibility.
I say keep striving to understand what model makes the most sense to you. But ask yourself if it makes sense because it is consistent with your physical experience & senses or because it fits the programmed mental framework that has been built in your brain from school physics & or the Bible. Impossible to know for sure, but is good for thinking logically imo
I love the way your phrase things, bro. You have a lovely, un-brainwashed mind.
Right now, I would say there is no way a person could be standing anywhere on a southern "wall" and see a Sun circle all the way around without going down-- when we know for a fact that happens (at the north pole, under either model)-- and; that this happening, also, to a person in the southern realms can mean anything other than that this person is on a globe. For me, this one is not a question of alternatives, as there are none that are plausible other than that that orb is circling you because you are in the middle of it's path.
I do believe it is at least 50-50 that we have never been beyond the firmament, that "space" beyond it is water-filled, (as the Bible claims) and that the Sun, moon and stars are all infinitesimally closer to us than standard celestial dynamic theory purports.
“there is no way a person could be standing anywhere on a southern "wall" and see a Sun circle all the way around without going down-- “
I think the Antarctic sun films are from a specific or maybe a few different places commonly visited in Antarctica. There’s nothing logical about it having to be visible the same way from every spot on a supposed ice wall, if there is one, nor does the ice wall have to exist at all for a plane model to be plausible.
The ice wall really has nothing to do with it in my mind. Could exist or not & Antarctica could still be its own continent independent of it.
I see it as being from one specific location so let’s consider all possibilities that could explain what was seen at that location. If the same phenomenon is recorded at the same time from a different location then we would have a lot more interesting evidence to think about.
I haven’t sought much new info on this subject in awhile. I found it to be the most triggering divisive subject I’ve ever talked to people about so figured my free time would be much better spent studying the economic systems of control. But, I’m happy to give my opinion when I see potential for open minded thought & discussion. I definitely do not believe I know anything for certain
"There’s nothing logical about it having to be visible the same way from every spot on a supposed ice wall, if there is one, nor does the ice wall have to exist at all for a plane model to be plausible."
Every spot on an ice wall surrounding a flat earth disc with a sun circling over the disc as commonly portrayed (and nothing else can explain night and day well on a flat disc with a single sun as described in the Bible) would be always:
A: See a sun that is always relatively low to the horizon, even in summer.
B: See a sun that comes into view, rising on one side of a roughly 120-degree maximum arc, and exiting below the horizon on the other end of said arc.
A Sun that circled all the way around a person positioned on an ice wall at the edge of a disc would not be able to do the other things it must do to be fulfilling the other known elements of sunlight and darkness we see throughout the world.
This is kind of fun, isn't it cs?
Trying to think philosophically logical is almost always fun for me.
I think you are setting unnecessary constraints on your theoretical model.
Why does an ice wall have to be included in your thought model, if we have no proof an ice wall even exists?
There could still be an Antarctic continent similar to what we are taught if it were a plane. False flat models are easy to disprove, but disproving one does not disprove all potential flat models. It is a very common debunk tactic that is very flawed. They tend to jump from disproving one questionably sane persons model to claiming the debunk disproves all other models ever.
If there were an Antarctic continent on a flat Earth, someone would have sailed/flown to the non-Antarctic ends of the Earth and taken pictures of whatever the ends look like by now.
Why does there have to be an end?
Is there an end to space?
How do you know there's no observable difference or even better, why do you know that there should be an observable difference?
If "they" can hypnotize you, why do you think they would chose to make it about such a mundane thing if not the most mundane, as it doesn't make sense to lie about "there's an infinity of stars and planets out there" or tp hide that"we live in a bubble" with it?
BTW, what would the cause of coriolis effect be if we are stationary?
Posted using Partiko Android
I claim to know nothing! But I do have force expectations based on my own experience. Not logical proof, opinion.
If it’s mundane why do you personally spend energy on it?
Where’s the proof of Coriolis?