[bavcol]

Hello everyone,

as a "round earther" i have to admit that the flat earth model with its theory of the sun hovering above the earths equator and around the north pole applies pretty good to what people experience in terms of daylength at the northern hemisphere.

But according to this model, shouldn't it be impossible that days can get longer than nights in the southern hemisphere? There are cities in South America, Africa and Australia as well, where the sun can be seen more than 14 hours a day in december. How is this possible? 

The flat earth model I am referring to:
http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif

[Lonesome Crow]

That model is a simple GIF merely designed to illustrate a concept. It doesn't accurately reflect the movements of the sun and the moon.

[bavcol]

That model is a simple GIF merely designed to illustrate a concept. It doesn't accurately reflect the movements of the sun and the moon.

For example in december, when the sun is rising in Chile, it can also be seen in Australia. At the same time it's night at the north pole. Where is the sun at this moment according to the flat earth model?

[Pongo]

This is an often asked question that I haven't answered copy/pasted in awhile.

As the sun circles above the flat earth it moves closer and further from the North Pole.  This explains the six months of day and night in the north.  To explain the six months of days and nights on the rim is a bit more involved.  As the sun journeys north and south, it also rises and falls so slightly it's nearly imperceivable.  In the North, the sun is at its closest to earth and in the South it's at its furthest.  Now, to explain how the sun can be seen from all of the rim at one time, simply take a look into your coffee cup:
http://www.saltire.com/HTML5/HTML5%20apps/Light%20and%20Reflections/Caustic.html

Just as light reflects around the entire rim of your drink, so it does around the rim of the earth.  I believe it's the firmament itself that reflects this light but others attribute it to how the light waves interact with with aether or even the ice wall itself.

[rabinoz]

This is an often asked question that I haven't answered copy/pasted in awhile.

As the sun circles above the flat earth it moves closer and further from the North Pole.  This explains the six months of day and night in the north.  To explain the six months of days and nights on the rim is a bit more involved.  As the sun journeys north and south, it also rises and falls so slightly it's nearly imperceivable.  In the North, the sun is at its closest to earth and in the South it's at its furthest.  Now, to explain how the sun can be seen from all of the rim at one time, simply take a look into your coffee cup:
http://www.saltire.com/HTML5/HTML5%20apps/Light%20and%20Reflections/Caustic.html

Just as light reflects around the entire rim of your drink, so it does around the rim of the earth.  I believe it's the firmament itself that reflects this light but others attribute it to how the light waves interact with with aether or even the ice wall itself.

Eureka! Now I see how all the earth is illuminated all the time! Oh, wait, it isn't - not by a long shot.
We do get reflected light from around the horizon! We get very direct light and right now a lot of heat from the sun.

Do you ever travel to other parts of the earth (like the southern hemisphere) and see that the behaviour of the sun is exactly the same as in the Northern Hemisphere - except for a swap of North for South.

You are really going to tell us that there is a highly reflective barrier all around the earth! 
Why didn't all the polar explorers, including Amundsen and Scott who actually got the pole, reported this?

In fact they used sightings of the elevation of the sun itself to find their location!

In Brisbane, Australia on the summer equinox,
we quite definitely have the rising around ESE, and that's no reflection, that is the sun itself.

[Pongo]

How do you know Amundsen and Scott made it to the South Pole? Did the people that tell you that the earth is round also tell you this?

[rabinoz]

How do you know Amundsen and Scott made it to the South Pole? Did the people that tell you that the earth is round also tell you this?

You do have a little evidence to the contrary!

And yes I have read Amundsen's and Scott's reports.  Sure, like everyone they could be lying too - even you!

Of course the deception to hide the earth's shape started when?
Must have been well before old Ptolemy's time and must have been in the Islamic world where modern geodetic is said to have started!

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Al-Biruni
Al-Biruni
Of the medieval Persian Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048) it is said:
"Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century. His Masudic canon contains a table giving the coordinates of six hundred places, almost all of which he had direct knowledge."

Yes, I know it's from that terrible Wikipedia!

And all the people actually visiting the South Pole are lying too.
By the way! If there really is no South Pole, and a big ice wall (that nobody has really seen - yes, I know Ross' reports of massive 50 m cliffs - er icebergs!)

why is there a Bi-Polar map in the Wiki and why is Tom Bishop "pushing" it? Hedging your bets I think it's called!

[Tom Bishop]

Pongo is right to question whether Scott and Amundsen truly visited the pole. The magnetic field lines are vertical in Antarctica and the compass does not work in that area.

[rabinoz]

Pongo is right to question whether Scott and Amundsen truly visited the pole. The magnetic field lines are vertical in Antarctica and the compass does not work in that area.

The magnetic field lines might be vertical right over the south magnetic pole, but not everywhere in Antarctica.

But you seem to have an obsession with the magnetic compass. They may have used one the early in the expedition,
but they had available an excellent natural compass! 
All they needed was the sun and and an accurate clock, and they had a 24 hour sun!

Of course the final pole location was performed using sun altitude measurements.
The description of this process makes fascinating reading in Amundsen's report.

[bavcol]

I don't want this thread to get distracted by theories about the south pole. To get back to the topic I want to raise some questions for Pongo.

Now, to explain how the sun can be seen from all of the rim at one time, simply take a look into your coffee cup:
http://www.saltire.com/HTML5/HTML5%20apps/Light%20and%20Reflections/Caustic.html

Just as light reflects around the entire rim of your drink, so it does around the rim of the earth.  I believe it's the firmament itself that reflects this light but others attribute it to how the light waves interact with with aether or even the ice wall itself.

In your coffee cup example the lightsource is placed outside of the coffee cup/flat earth. The flat earth society claims in their wiki that the lightsource/sun is hovering above the coffee cup/earth. This doesn't make sense to me.

Furthermore I am a bit confused  by the path the light of the sun takes in order to get to South America and Australia in the december. The path it has to take when beeing reflected by the rim at the "south pole wall" in order to get to South America/Australia is quite longer than the direct path to these destinations. According to the theory of the flat earth society the light of the sun can only travel a certain distance until it can't be seen anymore. The sunlight that is reflected at the rim shouldn't be seen at all because it is traveling longer than the sunlight directly pointing to these destinations and significantly longer than the sunlight directly pointing to the north pole (where the sun can't be seen at all in december). To get my point it may look at my attached illustration.

Or is there something I didn't understand about "the rim"?

[Pongo]

I don't want this thread to get distracted by theories about the south pole. To get back to the topic I want to raise some questions for Pongo.

Now, to explain how the sun can be seen from all of the rim at one time, simply take a look into your coffee cup:
http://www.saltire.com/HTML5/HTML5%20apps/Light%20and%20Reflections/Caustic.html

Just as light reflects around the entire rim of your drink, so it does around the rim of the earth.  I believe it's the firmament itself that reflects this light but others attribute it to how the light waves interact with with aether or even the ice wall itself.

In your coffee cup example the lightsource is placed outside of the coffee cup/flat earth. The flat earth society claims in their wiki that the lightsource/sun is hovering above the coffee cup/earth. This doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, the example isn't perfect. I didn't create the demonstration, I just found it when searching "caustic lighting". Ideally, if the circle was larger, you would be able to better see the effect.

Of course the deception to hide the earth's shape started when?
Must have been well before old Ptolemy's time and must have been in the Islamic world where modern geodetic is said to have started!

If I had a teacher that told me that an atom looks like a mini-solar system (neutrons and protons at the center orbited by electrons), he or she need not be a part a some grand conspiracy ranging back to the days of Antiquity; a conspiracy and cover-up layered in contrivances and prepared deceptions. He or she could simply be wrong.

Every time someone says that the world is round, it's not a telling sign that they are a card-carrying member of a conspiracy that has loomed over all of science and discovery since the dawn of time. It's much, much more likely that they are simply wrong.

[bavcol]

Yeah, but again Pongo: Why can't the sun be seen directly, but only the reflections of the sun? The reflections have to travel significantly longer.

[Tom Bishop]

The magnetic field lines might be vertical right over the south magnetic pole, but not everywhere in Antarctica.

Yes, the field lines are vertical everywhere in Antarctica. There is only a strip of land where the compass even works.

From your RE model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field



When you are in Antarcitca the magnetic compass needle attempts to align with the field lines and points down into the ground of its tray.

But you seem to have an obsession with the magnetic compass. They may have used one the early in the expedition,
but they had available an excellent natural compass! 
All they needed was the sun and and an accurate clock, and they had a 24 hour sun!

Of course the final pole location was performed using sun altitude measurements.
The description of this process makes fascinating reading in Amundsen's report.

So the only way they actually knew they were at the South Pole was by looking at the sun and assuming that they were on a Round Earth. Got it.

[rabinoz]

The magnetic field lines might be vertical right over the south magnetic pole, but not everywhere in Antarctica. Yes, the field lines are vertical everywhere in Antarctica. There is only a strip of land where the compass even works. When you are in Antarcitca the magnetic compass needle attempts to align with the field lines and points down into the ground of its tray.

From your RE model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Why do you choose a computer simulation of the field lies, and not give actual measurements? Yes, I know the answer to that - you like so many others choose to make the Globe model seem as ridiculous as possible.
Had you given actual figures you would have found that, while the inclination is very high[/b] and declinations very variable the magnetic is still a valuable navigation tool over much of Antarctica.
You really should take a look at : http://www.usap.gov/travelAndDeployment/documents/FieldManual-Chapt21AntarcticNavigation.pdf, where it says:

21.2 Magnetic Compasses
Magnetic compasses must be modified for use in polar latitudes by reweighting the needle. As the compass gets closer to the South Pole, the south-seeking end of the needle is pulled downward toward the earth and will drag on its enclosure unless the proper nonmagnetic counterweight (copper wire) is added to the northseeking
end.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Field parties may elect to travel by using a Grid North system (see the “Grid North” section), versus a magnetic or truenorth⁽¹⁾ system.

from: https://earthref.org/ERESE/projects/GOLF182/reports/report-compass-confusion.htm The following is from McMurdo Station, which is an extreme case, being relative close to the South Magnetic Pole. South magnetic pole    -64.5°N, 137.8°E Our location at the station    -77.8°N, 166.6°E Declination at McMurdo    About 144 degrees Inclination at McMurdo About -81 degrees Declination Declination is the angle between true north and the magnetic north at any given point on the globe. . . . . . . .  Here at McMurdo Station, we are located north of the geographic pole, but south of the magnetic pole! Our compass needles (before being corrected for the 144 degree declination) point to the south! Inclination Magnetic field lines near the equator point more or less horizontal, but by definition, magnetic field lines at the South Pole point vertical up (and vertical down at the North Pole).  . . . . . . . . . .  if we were to use that same compass in Antarctica, the north end of the compass needle becomes pinned up against the glass faceplate! This vertical component of the magnetic field is known as 'inclination'. Thankfully, the Berg Field Center at McMurdo Station supplies us with compasses that are specially weighted to offset this effect, that equates about -81 degrees.

Location of McMurdo Station

But you seem to have an obsession with the magnetic compass. They may have used one the early in the expedition,
but they had available an excellent natural compass! 
All they needed was the sun and and an accurate clock, and they had a 24 hour sun!
Of course the final pole location was performed using sun altitude measurements.
The description of this process makes fascinating reading in Amundsen's report.

So the only way they actually knew they were at the South Pole was by looking at the sun and assuming that they were on a Round Earth. Got it.

Well yes I got that long ago - took you a while⁽²⁾! But please tell me just how navigators from "time immemorial" have navigated the ocean!
The Vikings used the sun, and were reported to have been able to get a reasonable fix in even heavy overcast.
The early South Sea Islanders used the sun and stars (and clouds, birds, etc).
Captain and the earlier seafarers used the sun and stars (Celestial Navigation), though before the development of the Marine Chronometer Longitude was difficult to ascertain accurately! Look at all the early Spanish and Dutch wrecks on the Australian west coast, when the sailing directions from the Cape of Good hope were something like "Sail east for days, then take a hard left!".

Yes, whatever the shape of the earth there is a sun that shines very predictably on Antarctica and the South Pole.

⁽¹⁾ TrueNorth on the Antarctica grid system is defined as the 0° Longitude Line through Greenwich

⁽²⁾ If you don't see a need to admit to a South Pole, just why are you pushing the Bi-Polar Map, with its Celestial Gears.

[bavcol]

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory? 
Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia while, at the same time, it is night at the northpole?

And please stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole, you can open another thread to argue these issues.

[Thork]

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory? 
Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia

Why are you so sure you can? They are on opposite sides of the earth on a round earth too. The charts seem to suggest you made up that you can see the sun in both places at once.


How do you know you can see the sun in both places at once? Have you tested it yourself, or were you told that?

[Panzerfaust]

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory? 
Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia

Why are you so sure you can? They are on opposite sides of the earth on a round earth too. The charts seem to suggest you made up that you can see the sun in both places at once.


How do you know you can see the sun in both places at once? Have you tested it yourself, or were you told that?

I think it was a fair question bavcol asked, and I'd like to know how this works as well. In about 2 hours from now they can see 'a sun' in both Adelaide, Australia and Rio Grande Argentina. But who said that there is only one sun? Maybe we can assume that it's a two sun system (or maybe even more)?

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/adelaide
http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/rio-grande

[rabinoz]

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?  Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia while, at the same time, it is night at the north pole? And please stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole, you can open another thread to argue these issues. Why stop with "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?" Why not "How can the sun be seen 24 hours a day at both the North Pole and the South Pole on the same date?" No problem, it happens for a few days around every equinox! At the equinoxes the sun just skirts a little above the horizon all day at both poles. I do believe that "timeanddate.com" is so widely used that anyone seriously questioning its accuracy would be scorned. As for "Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?", probably, but they will completely ignore it, claim that there are really two suns (  with exactly the same sunspots patterns? ) claim we are lying or simply "prove it"!

Take a look at this day/night diagram: Day and Night World Map The map below shows the current position of the Sun and the Moon. It shows which parts of the Earth are in daylight and which are in night. UTC time = Monday, 21 March 2016 at 12:00:00 Noon. South Pole local time = Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 1:00:00 AM. From: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

BTW

You complain "stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole".
Last I heard the south pole was in the southern hemisphere and the thread is: "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?"

[Panzerfaust]

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?  Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia while, at the same time, it is night at the north pole? And please stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole, you can open another thread to argue these issues. Why stop with "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?" Why not "How can the sun be seen 24 hours a day at both the North Pole and the South Pole on the same date?" No problem, it happens for a few days around every equinox! At the equinoxes the sun just skirts a little above the horizon all day at both poles. I do believe that "timeanddate.com" is so widely used that anyone seriously questioning its accuracy would be scorned. As for "Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?", probably, but they will completely ignore it, claim that there are really two suns (  with exactly the same sunspots patterns? ) claim we are lying or simply "prove it"!

Take a look at this day/night diagram: Day and Night World Map The map below shows the current position of the Sun and the Moon. It shows which parts of the Earth are in daylight and which are in night. UTC time = Monday, 21 March 2016 at 12:00:00 Noon. South Pole local time = Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 1:00:00 AM. From: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

BTW

You complain "stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole".
Last I heard the south pole was in the southern hemisphere and the thread is: "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?"

Sorry bavcol and rabinoz,

I didn’t mean to derail the thread, but I thought the topic about “Sun in Rio Grande – dark in Europe – Sun in Adelaide – all at the same time” was relevant for the discussion.

I came here to seek independent information about the nature of our World, since I certainly don’t believe governmental institutions are independent.  So thanks to TFES for setting up the site!

However, I have been very disappointed with the quality level of the answers being posted here. I’m starting to doubt the independency and integrity of TFES. You are putting all freethinkers, like the 9/11 truthers, in an extremely bad light. Very convenient for the US government..

• Why is it that nobody from TFES exists in real life? All other truthers proudly stand behind their thinking.
  Who are sponsoring your activities?
  Why did Obama make ‘free commercial’ for TFES? Would have been more logical for him to just ignore you!?
  Why do you avoid reflecting on obvious observations and questions like the ones in this thread? Seems to me like you’re just working from a pre-made manuscript, and are not distracted by any input/insights/observations. Seems like it can’t be goofy enough.

Can TFES proof that you’re not just paid by the US government as an excuse to put all other freethinkers in the same nutcase basket as TFES? Are you professional trolls?

And now back to the question about how we can see the sun in South America and Australia (but not in Europe) at the same time? I would like to understand this better.

[Woody]

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?  Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia while, at the same time, it is night at the north pole? And please stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole, you can open another thread to argue these issues. Why stop with "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?" Why not "How can the sun be seen 24 hours a day at both the North Pole and the South Pole on the same date?" No problem, it happens for a few days around every equinox! At the equinoxes the sun just skirts a little above the horizon all day at both poles. I do believe that "timeanddate.com" is so widely used that anyone seriously questioning its accuracy would be scorned. As for "Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?", probably, but they will completely ignore it, claim that there are really two suns (  with exactly the same sunspots patterns? ) claim we are lying or simply "prove it"!

Take a look at this day/night diagram: Day and Night World Map The map below shows the current position of the Sun and the Moon. It shows which parts of the Earth are in daylight and which are in night. UTC time = Monday, 21 March 2016 at 12:00:00 Noon. South Pole local time = Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 1:00:00 AM. From: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

BTW

You complain "stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole".
Last I heard the south pole was in the southern hemisphere and the thread is: "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?"

Sorry bavcol and rabinoz,

I didn’t mean to derail the thread, but I thought the topic about “Sun in Rio Grande – dark in Europe – Sun in Adelaide – all at the same time” was relevant for the discussion.

I came here to seek independent information about the nature of our World, since I certainly don’t believe governmental institutions are independent.  So thanks to TFES for setting up the site!

However, I have been very disappointed with the quality level of the answers being posted here. I’m starting to doubt the independency and integrity of TFES. You are putting all freethinkers, like the 9/11 truthers, in an extremely bad light. Very convenient for the US government..

• Why is it that nobody from TFES exists in real life? All other truthers proudly stand behind their thinking.
  Who are sponsoring your activities?
  Why did Obama make ‘free commercial’ for TFES? Would have been more logical for him to just ignore you!?
  Why do you avoid reflecting on obvious observations and questions like the ones in this thread? Seems to me like you’re just working from a pre-made manuscript, and are not distracted by any input/insights/observations. Seems like it can’t be goofy enough.

Can TFES proof that you’re not just paid by the US government as an excuse to put all other freethinkers in the same nutcase basket as TFES? Are you professional trolls?

And now back to the question about how we can see the sun in South America and Australia (but not in Europe) at the same time? I would like to understand this better.

What I find odd is I can find evidence that they maybe misleading people intentionally, yet claim NASA and other space agencies are a conspiracy. 
It took me around 20 minutes of checking to find things they prominently display on their wiki being false or misleading.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.0

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4497.0

What I covered in those threads is the only information I was able to find so far I could verify. Everything else lacked enough information to check out for myself.

I do not really think it is intentional or they are guilty of what you suspect.  I personally think it is just a result of confirmation bias, selective ignorance and what ever drives them to have the need for the Earth to be flat.