rattlesnake

"you haven't addressed my posts about people/civilians can go to the south pole" Yes, I have and will not repeat it.

"Science" and its political, ideological and cultural implications is absolutely a belief system, c.f. the post-Reformation era previously discussed here, and the role of the Jesuits in changing the "education" system in favour of heliocentrism (Copernicus was merely a pawn in this process). Furthermore, the Covid crisis demonstrated that social media "influencers" are often mere prostitutes which can be bought to push any message. So out of principle, I am wary of overnight celebrities such as Jeran Campanella, endorsed by the establishment media with a unilateral message repeated ad nauseam. I had never heard of him before and he is not a prominent Flat-Earth figure. Regarding your question, the answer, as is often the case, is nuanced. I can't give you a "yes" or "no" answer at this point. I honestly don't know if there is a 24-hour Sun in Antarctica. What I do know is that there appears to be strange inconsistencies in the Final Experiment footage, which I will share here if they are demonstrated. And most importantly, even if there is a 24-hour Sun in Antarctica, it doesn't change the concerns and issues discussed so far in this thread, and claiming it does is a logical fallacy. A 24-hour Sun works perfectly on a level plane model.

Heliocentrism is also a belief. Flat-Earthers say you can't venture out of allocated spaces in Antarctica. Exactitude (as a professor I admired once said) is essential.

I am not talking about the designated, allocated 1% of the territory, I am talking about free exploration of the remaining 99%. If any of these guys tried to go anywhere else than the designated 1%, they would not be allowed to. Only North Korea, to my knowledge, has similar restrictions. You can justify and rationalise that any way you like (danger, wildlife protection, whatever), that's cool, but those are simply facts.

I certainly don't disagree with that.

By "working model", I meant a small-scale reproduction of the basic principles and forces involved, as a demonstration. For example, there is a guy called Joseph Hanvey who reproduces the movement of the midnight Sun over a model of a flat Earth, which demonstrates the feasability of the principle. I know there is no way to reproduce the configuration of water bodies according to the heliocentric model, and by asking this rhetorical question, I merely wanted to recall that it is just a theory.

Here is the Antarctic Treaty for reference: https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/1959-Antarctic-treaty.pdf “The Antarctic Treaty area” referred to in the treaty is defined as “the area south of 60 degrees lattitude”. This is, effectively, the vast majority of the land, outside areas designated for tourism. Here is the link to the US Department of State Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty system: https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/ant/index.htm Tourism and other non-governmental activities: “The environmental protocol designates Antarctica as a giant natural reserve…”. Like in a military base, all activities and pathways in Antarctica must be approved. This in itself is remarkable and unique (with the exception of North Korea, probably). No motorised vehicles are allowed in order not to disturb wildlife: “Do not use aircraft, vessels, small boats, or other means of transport in ways that disturb wildlife, either at sea or on land.” Antarctica stretches across thousands of miles, which are virtually impossible to explore without a means of transport. And permits are required on top of that: To explore or traverse Antarctica, you not only need a permit, which entails a close examination of your purpose, parties, credentials, backing, etc., you must also submit a (very expensive) environmental impact statement and much more. Also, you’re required to avoid substantial amounts of land. This renders Antarctica explorations virtually impossible for anyone outside “official” sources. If you want to travel to Antarctica, you must complete the following form (DS-4131 “Advance Notification Form – Tourist and Other Non-Governmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area“): https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds4131.PDF Once you submit the form, “The Department of State, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), will then determine whether the expedition is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If we determine that the expedition falls under U.S. jurisdiction, we will provide information on how to proceed with the EPA and NSF documentation processes, which are mandatory under U.S. law.” https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/antarctica.html All this combined makes it virtually impossible to travel beyond the areas allocated to touristic routes, the vast territory south of 60 degrees lattitude. Also notable are the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, which amount to 1,373 sqm and whose access is strictly forbidden under any conditions.

You have already stated that you like facts. So do I. Here are a few facts: Here is the Antarctic Treaty for reference: https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/1959-Antarctic-treaty.pdf “The Antarctic Treaty area” referred to in the treaty is defined as “the area south of 60 degrees lattitude”. This is, effectively, the vast majority of the land, outside areas designated for tourism. Here is the link to the US Department of State Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty system: https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/ant/index.htm Tourism and other non-governmental activities: “The environmental protocol designates Antarctica as a giant natural reserve…”. Like in a military base, all activities and pathways in Antarctica must be approved. This in itself is remarkable and unique (with the exception of North Korea, probably). No motorised vehicles are allowed in order not to disturb wildlife: “Do not use aircraft, vessels, small boats, or other means of transport in ways that disturb wildlife, either at sea or on land.” Antarctica stretches across thousands of miles, which are virtually impossible to explore without a means of transport. And permits are required on top of that: To explore or traverse Antarctica, you not only need a permit, which entails a close examination of your purpose, parties, credentials, backing, etc., you must also submit a (very expensive) environmental impact statement and much more. Also, you’re required to avoid substantial amounts of land. This renders Antarctica explorations virtually impossible for anyone outside “official” sources. If you want to travel to Antarctica, you must complete the following form (DS-4131 “Advance Notification Form – Tourist and Other Non-Governmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area“): https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds4131.PDF Once you submit the form, “The Department of State, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), will then determine whether the expedition is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If we determine that the expedition falls under U.S. jurisdiction, we will provide information on how to proceed with the EPA and NSF documentation processes, which are mandatory under U.S. law.” https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/antarctica.html All this combined makes it virtually impossible to travel beyond the areas allocated to touristic routes, the vast territory south of 60 degrees lattitude. Also notable are the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, which amount to 1,373 sqm and whose access is strictly forbidden under any conditions.

This is by far the smartest thing you've said this year, Nick.

You are absolutely correct. Thank you for clarifying this.

No, I'm talking about a working model of a globe around which water is uniformly held to the surface. If no such model exists, then it is de facto a theory. And I think it is pretty fitting to say it is a theory that holds no water.

You spoke to the wrong guy there, Skeptic7 is on your side I respecfully recommend not getting too uptight, we are just a bunch of guys having a discussion, it's cool. And I am open to real counterpoints and solid arguments, out of principle I always strive to admit if I am proven wrong. "Belief, not fact": that's a bit rich coming from a heliocentrism proponent, even Copernicus doubted his theory.

At this stage I believe neither. Just posting a counter-point… and joshing a bit (some oversensitive types would say trolling). The main point, to me, is that even if a 24-hour Sun exists in Antactica, it doesn't prove anything, this has been overhyped and all over the MSM. The fact that this guy (whom I had never heard of TBH) claims this or that is notable but not too much importance should be given to it. Shock value, a couple of punchlines… but ultimately, this "final experiment" resolves nothing.

This is a possibility, yes.

Surely this has been reproduced on a small scale with a working model. I would be interested in seeeing that.

A "Final Experiment" not covered by the media. 18 months in Antarctica and no 24-hour Sun. 18 Months in Antartica - No 24 hour Sun.MP4

I was aware that they were making another video about this. The hype around it and media coverage was more a bad sign than anything else, to be honest. Anyway I have watched The Final Strawman Experiment, which, if it is actually not faked (some strange shadows and CGI glitches in there), indeed shows a constant Sun. This, as I said earlier here, is not incompatible with a level plane and does not resolve the incoherences of the heliocentric globe model such as absence of curvature or the impossibility of gravity holding water on a ball. The premise, which posits that showing a constant Sun in Antactica unequivocally proves the heliocentric model is real, is fallacious. Even if not fake, it debunks and/or proves nothing. Final Experiment - CGI.mp4

Still water doesn't curve.

It's a cruise itinerary. There are no tourist expeditions on the vast majority of the mainland.

No worries. The post-Reformation era is a very interesting period of history.

Correct.

For the third time in this thread: touristic routes are confined to outlying enclaves. The mainland is restricted by government-issued permits which are impossible to obtain.

Why We Are Not Allowed to Visit Antarctica https://brightside.me/articles/why-we-are-not-allowed-to-visit-antarctica-814786/#:~:text=The treaty states that Antarctica,delicate balance that exists there. If you're honestly interested in the topic, I can provide you with resources which explain how it is simply impossible to obtain the government-issued permit to visit. Nobody can go.

I'll check this out tomorrow.