[Pete Svarrior]

It's good to see that every prediction I've made in May turned out to be exactly correct. Imagine how much real-world good these guys could have done with the money instead.

[mahogany]

It's good to see that every prediction I've made in May turned out to be exactly correct. Imagine how much real-world good these guys could have done with the money instead.

You aren't unique or special in your prediction that this Antarctic trip would not end up really moving the needle in terms of RE theory or FE theory, and that a conspiracy or a scam would be assigned as a reason to invalidate the experience.

I predicted the same in this thread on June 1 and I believe most RE'ers and FE'ers knew the same would happen.

With respect to Tom continuing to bring up the desktop magnifying dome experiment (in his above recent post) to explain how a 24 hour sun could be visible at any location on the flat Earth Antarctic ice wall ring, this continues to be a very sloppy conclusion or use of evidence. As I've said before, our atmosphere isn't made of solid glass and so using a solid piece of magnifying glass to simulate our atmosphere is by no means a valid approach. As I've also said before, it would be like a Round Earther launching a model rocket in their backyard and saying that such a "desktop" experiment can be used to explain how rockets work in a vacuum. I'm intrigued as to why there continues to be such a low bar or standard in the use of this magnifying dome.

[Action80]

It's good to see that every prediction I've made in May turned out to be exactly correct.

You aren't unique or special...I predicted the same in this thread on June 1 and I believe most RE'ers and FE'ers knew the same would happen.

So, you didn't really predict anything.

You just wrote, "I agree with Pete," and thought that agreement (not a prediction) was an EARTh-SHAKING PRONOUNCEMENT, worthy of another post.

[RonJ]

It looks like at least one of the flat earthers has wised up after his trip to Antartica. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/flat-earth-youtuber-admits-mistake-after-trip-to-antarctica/ar-AA1wdgmr?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=2f464ac6c6fe460fa2b66903f8cf103a&ei=10
Perhaps he can use this publicity to enhance his flat earth channel and stack up even more viewers. 

Now the flat earth community will have to concoct an even more comprehensive bendy light theory to explain what was seen and documented.  Maybe this site will have to bring back the dome.  That should be interesting.  I can see the next 'final experiment' where someone organizes a trip to space. Of course, that has already been done but there wasn't any real flat earth involvement.   Just look up the trip taken by Dude Perfect who now is an official astronaut.  Who should be nominated for such a trip?

[mahogany]

It's good to see that every prediction I've made in May turned out to be exactly correct.

You aren't unique or special...I predicted the same in this thread on June 1 and I believe most RE'ers and FE'ers knew the same would happen.

So, you didn't really predict anything.

You just wrote, "I agree with Pete," and thought that agreement (not a prediction) was an EARTh-SHAKING PRONOUNCEMENT, worthy of another post.

Looks like Action80 didn't read my post from Page 1, dated June 1.
Looks like Action80 is also creating "quotes" and then assigning them to members that never said such "quotes."

But, I guess this could have been predicted of Action80 as well.
   

[Action80]

It's good to see that every prediction I've made in May turned out to be exactly correct.

You aren't unique or special...I predicted the same in this thread on June 1 and I believe most RE'ers and FE'ers knew the same would happen.

So, you didn't really predict anything.

You just wrote, "I agree with Pete," and thought that agreement (not a prediction) was an EARTh-SHAKING PRONOUNCEMENT, worthy of another post.

Looks like Action80 didn't read my post from Page 1, dated June 1.

I would absolutely love to. Why don't you link it and see if the link shows a post made on this thread on June 1, 2024.

Looks like Action80 is also creating "quotes" and then assigning them to members that never said such "quotes."

But, I guess this could have been predicted of Action80 as well.

I quoted direct posts made in this very thread.

I made no alterations to any of the language contained in those posts.

You are just a big liar.

[mahogany]

It's good to see that every prediction I've made in May turned out to be exactly correct.

You aren't unique or special...I predicted the same in this thread on June 1 and I believe most RE'ers and FE'ers knew the same would happen.

So, you didn't really predict anything.

You just wrote, "I agree with Pete," and thought that agreement (not a prediction) was an EARTh-SHAKING PRONOUNCEMENT, worthy of another post.

Looks like Action80 didn't read my post from Page 1, dated June 1.

I would absolutely love to. Why don't you link it and see if the link shows a post made on this thread on June 1, 2024.

Looks like Action80 is also creating "quotes" and then assigning them to members that never said such "quotes."

But, I guess this could have been predicted of Action80 as well.

I quoted direct posts made in this very thread.

I made no alterations to any of the language contained in those posts.

You are just a big liar.

- Go to Reply #14 of this thread. My post date is June 1, 2024.
- You indeed created the quote "I agree with Pete" and then attributed it to me by replying to me: "You just wrote "I agree with Pete"."

[Longtitube]

It should be fun to watch what develops, here and elsewhere.

You may be in the wrong community then. It is a different Flat Earth community which says the Midnight Sun is impossible. This community has always accepted the Midnight Sun in its models and portrays several mechanisms in its materials, which relay that the Antarctic midnight sun has been in Flat Earth models since at least the 1920's. Even in the classic Monopole model, the magnifying dome demonstration for the seasons appears to make a midnight sun.

It's also plausible that our official celestial model for Flat Earth, the  EA Model, could be extended predict a midnight sun. If the light of the sun actually takes the shape of something similar to the closed loops of magnetic field flux lines, it could be that the earth is interrupting the natural path of the Sun's light and that the rays on a larger scale could loop around and appear to be coming from the opposite direction to a distant observer.

If we take one of the upwardly bending light diagrams in the link above and simply extend the loop of one of the rays which intersect with the earth, it loops around and appears to be coming from an opposite direction.



This isn't new, and I have my own questions about the particulars of how this dipole shape would appear, but the above appears to demonstrate that a midnight Sun is not an impossibility in current constructs.

Thank you for the sketch, but it doesn't appear to have uploaded completely – there are no annotations to explain what we're looking at, where an observer would be or where the sun is.

[GMCDXX]

[Pete Svarrior]

You indeed created the quote "I agree with Pete" and then attributed it to me by replying to me: "You just wrote "I agree with Pete"."

It's so funny how obsessed you are with quote fixing. It's part of the old web forum culture, and it's nowhere neat as sinister as you describe it. You had so much time to learn how this place works, but, throughout so many years, across so many alts, you just can't let go of like 3 things.

You aren't unique or special in your prediction that this Antarctic trip would not end up really moving the needle in terms of RE theory or FE theory

And? How does that affect anyone I or anyone else has said here?

[Action80]

When mahogany writes, "I predicted the same thing in this thread on June 1," in response to Pete, he really isn't saying, "I agree with Pete."

Jesus, you can't make this stuff up!

[mahogany]

You indeed created the quote "I agree with Pete" and then attributed it to me by replying to me: "You just wrote "I agree with Pete"."

It's so funny how obsessed you are with quote fixing. It's part of the old web forum culture, and it's nowhere neat as sinister as you describe it. You had so much time to learn how this place works, but, throughout so many years, across so many alts, you just can't let go of like 3 things.

You aren't unique or special in your prediction that this Antarctic trip would not end up really moving the needle in terms of RE theory or FE theory

And? How does that affect anyone I or anyone else has said here?

Old web forum culture... love that one.

[AATW]

What makes you think that? As far as I can tell, the opposite happened - known FE grifters teamed up with known RE grifters to get a free holiday and steal a lot of money from fans

Some places were paid for. Which is what was stated from the start - not clear where that money came from, but I've seen no evidence of any impropriety. Other places have been crowdfunded but that isn't "stealing". If someone sets up a fundraiser for a holiday and people want to contribute then that's their business. Obviously in this case the reason wasn't just a holiday, it was to do certain experiments and those experiments have now been done. If people thought that those experiments were pointless then they didn't have to contribute. And if the trip didn't happen at all and people just ran off with the money then I'd agree that was fraudulent, but the trip did happen.

all in the name of an "experiment" that FE and RE agreed would produce a consistent outcome long in advance

This isn't true. The experiment was specifically picked because FE and RE did NOT agree on the outcome.
You and other people on here may not have disputed it but you aren't the FE authority - you've already said there isn't one. The FE people they were engaging with claimed there was no 24 hour sun in Antarctica, that's why that experiment was chosen. You may regard those FE people as grifters but...you said you're not the authority. Jeranism has already said he didn't expect the outcome - you may regard him as one of the grifters but he's been quoted on here before.

I don't know if A69 can, but I do  know you can - you've been here for these conversations, and your memory isn't THAT bad yet. In a critical failure scenario, you could have just scrolled up, which you inevitably would do... so, what gives?

I've never seen an explanation that I find satisfactory. You said something above about "the real effects of EA combined with internal reflection" but that's too vague for me to really understand what you think is goingon. There's Tom's diagram above which I don't begin to understand. In the bi-polar model the sun could orbit the north pole for 6 months and then the south pole for 6 months. That at least makes sense to me, but it would cause a load of other problems in terms of where the sun appears in different places. In the monopole model I don't understand how it could work. I'm happy to be educated if you have a detailed explanation.

[Action80]

Nobody here could ever really explain things enough to satisfy you, AATW.

It is not that multiple people haven't tried.

The wiki diagram for EA is pretty compelling.

[AATW]

Nobody here could ever really explain things enough to satisfy you, AATW.
It is not that multiple people haven't tried.

The explanations are always so vague. The best/worst example being Celestial Gravitation. The Wiki page about it literally just says that it might be a thing.

The wiki diagram for EA is pretty compelling.

Do you mean the one at the top of this page?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I don't know if it's "compelling" - it's certainly clear. And sure, it's the best explanation for sunset on a FE I've seen, you can have that.
But it doesn't help that further down the page you have the moon tilt illusion "explained" by EA when
a) It's an optical illusion and easy to prove it is, I have done that myself and
b) The diagram shows the light bending downwards in a shape like a rainbow - that's the opposite of what EA hypotheses.

And then you have the "Approximation" section which has an equation which has no derivation shown and which contains an unknown constant. It's not a well formed theory it is, at best, a hypothesis. And it is one which does a decent job of explaining sunset but if it can also explain a 24 hour sun in Antarctica then I have yet to understand how.

[Pete Svarrior]

I've seen no evidence of any impropriety.

If only your standards were this low for the tribe you don't like...

Other places have been crowdfunded but that isn't "stealing". If someone sets up a fundraiser for a holiday and people want to contribute then that's their business.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. And I'm not gonna hide this - to me, that makes you morally reprehensible. I'm sure you're devastated by that.

They were selling this trip to a dedicated fandom with the promise of finally delivering the "smoking gun" that will, once and for all, shut up those evil Flat Earthers. In reality, they went on a fancy holiday and made further money from the YT videos and exposure. The reality contradicts the promise, and we knew from the beginning that this would be the case - that's about as fraudulent as things get. It's completely predatory, and your only response is one of victim-blaming: "Well, if they're happy being scammed, then what's the problem? If they didn't want to get scammed, they just wouldn't pay up! "

Yuck.

This isn't true. The experiment was specifically picked because FE and RE did NOT agree on the outcome.
You and other people on here may not have disputed it but you aren't the FE authority - you've already said there isn't one. The FE people they were engaging with claimed there was no 24 hour sun in Antarctica, that's why that experiment was chosen. You may regard those FE people as grifters but...you said you're not the authority. Jeranism has already said he didn't expect the outcome - you may regard him as one of the grifters but he's been quoted on here before.

I despise the fact that you recycle old arguments like this, and just completely ignore any past disucssion on the same subject. Do you suffer from memory loss? We've gone through this loop so many times.

Extreme tl;dr version: if you wanna count these people as part of the FE camp, then I'm gonna start counting idiots who mix up velocity and acceleration as part of the RE camp.

After all, they're RE'ers just like you! There's just no gosh darn way to tell who's who! We must immediately solicit ₹1,00,00,000 to figure out if acceleration and velocity are the same thing or not. After all, some RE'ers think they are! Surely, this is the debate to end all debates!!!!11!!

I've never seen an explanation that I find satisfactory.

Right, but your personal satisfaction is not the litmus test here. I've never seen a RE model that I find satisfactory, either.

You did know, from day 0, that no true ScotsFE'er would find the results of this experiment to be valuable, and that's because you know that we expected the same outcome as you. You might not understand why that is, but that doesn't necessitate flying a bunch of grifters to Antarctica.

I'm happy to be educated if you have a detailed explanation.

Sorry, but you've firmly convinced me that that would be a waste of my time. You're just going to ask the same questions in 2 months time and insist that the conversation never happened, or that you didn't find it convincing. For all intents and purposes, you're a stochastic parrot.

The best/worst example being Celestial Gravitation. The Wiki page about it literally just says that it might be a thing.

Again - stochastic parrot. We've had this conversation before. You know what "gravitation" is, because you made it through compulsory education. Observations suggest that celestial bodies (you know what those are, right?) exhibit gravitation. It's that simple, and that's why the page is that simple. Could it be expanded? Probably, to questionable benefit. Is that high on the priority list? Of course not.

[Pete Svarrior]

But it doesn't help that further down the page you have the moon tilt illusion "explained" by EA when

Now you're just being dishonest. There's a pretty comprehensive page on this subject, which you blatantly haven't read. You looked at ONE illustration, didn't understand why it's there, and went "well duh that don't explain things."

It's an optical illusion and easy to prove it is, I have done that myself

It also has a supplemental page discussing your exact objection. Of course, you haven't read that either. You're entirely disinterested in learning anything, you just want to keep saying the same three things on repeat, for whatever reason.

Are you starting to realise why no one takes your content requests seriously? Why would we write new pages, just for you, if you won't even bother reading them?

[mahogany]

It should be fun to watch what develops, here and elsewhere.

You may be in the wrong community then. It is a different Flat Earth community which says the Midnight Sun is impossible. This community has always accepted the Midnight Sun in its models and portrays several mechanisms in its materials, which relay that the Antarctic midnight sun has been in Flat Earth models since at least the 1920's. Even in the classic Monopole model, the magnifying dome demonstration for the seasons appears to make a midnight sun.

It's also plausible that our official celestial model for Flat Earth, the  EA Model, could be extended predict a midnight sun. If the light of the sun actually takes the shape of something similar to the closed loops of magnetic field flux lines, it could be that the earth is interrupting the natural path of the Sun's light and that the rays on a larger scale could loop around and appear to be coming from the opposite direction to a distant observer.

If we take one of the upwardly bending light diagrams in the link above and simply extend the loop of one of the rays which intersect with the earth, it loops around and appears to be coming from an opposite direction.



This isn't new, and I have my own questions about the particulars of how this dipole shape would appear, but the above appears to demonstrate that a midnight Sun is not an impossibility in current constructs.

As previously mentioned, the Magnifying Dome Demonstration is a poor and inaccurate representation of our Earth's atmosphere. It's a desktop demonstration that uses a solid piece of magnifying glass as an attempt to pass off how sunlight patterns could behave; but we know that our Earth's atmosphere isn't made of a solid piece of magnifying glass. Seems like you're lowering the FE bar in a big way as an attempt to have a theory. It would be as if a Round Earther launched a model rocket in their backyard and then posted a YouTube video claiming the experiment as evidence of rocket engines working (propelling) in a vacuum and when questioned about it's accuracy saying that it's just a desktop model. 

There seems to be so much going on with Electromagnetic Acceleration, closed loops of magnetic field flux lines, and the earth interrupting the natural path of the Sun's light where the rays on a larger scale are looping around and appear to be coming from the opposite direction to a distant observer that I think it would be worthwhile for the authors of TFES Wiki to update the basic animation model with an updated animation model. The updated animation model could show how this theory works, from season to season, and how an observer in Antarctica would appears to be seeing 24 hours of the Sun.

The updated animation should also include the the tracking of the Moon and it's path from season to season.

I think that if the authors updated the animation model in this respect and also added it within the EA description that it could be a good visual aid.

[Action80]

mahogany, not once in this quoted explanation did Tom mention a dome of solid glass extending entirely to the surface of a flat earth plane.

You do not need to keep repeating this strawman in thread after thread.

[mahogany]

mahogany, not once in this quoted explanation did Tom mention a dome of solid glass extending entirely to the surface of a flat earth plane.

You do not need to keep repeating this strawman in thread after thread.

Here you go:
- This is a YouTube video that Tom has referenced before in another thread and refers to it again in his above post as "the magnifying dome demonstration."
- The model in the YouTube video that Tom references uses a solid piece of magnifying glass extending entirely to the surface of a flat earth plane.