8 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

It overcomes gravity.  The bird's wings (or the engine of a plane) generate the power to create lift.  A helium balloon rises because of buoyancy, which is very different from lift.

So the helium balloon is not subjected to gravity? Only the birds? 

One thing that always puzzles me....

 

Lots of our world leaders hate each other, but for some reason, guys like Putin and Xi and previously Saddam and Muammar---even the mullahs of Iran and that little chubby guy with the bad haircut in North Korea---all agree to keep word of the flat Earth secret. I guess we'd all panic if we knew walking or driving too far in one direction, and we'd fall off.

 

I assume Earth isn't the only flat celestial object, and maybe Jupiter and Uranus are also flat. I fear Zeus and Bokonon and Thor and Allah are just lining up the pieces in order to play a giant game of Tiddywinks, with the Big Dipper the cup.

24 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

So the helium balloon is not subjected to gravity? Only the birds? 

Both the helium balloon and the bird are subject to gravity, but they have different means (buoyancy vs lift) of (temporarily) overcoming gravity.

11 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

then all humanity suffers some weird hallucination when looking at large bodies of water?

 

Still water doesn't curve.

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Still water doesn't curve.

I don't think you know much about water.

 

of course water appears to "curve" due to gravity.   Gravity actually bends the fabric of space as well.  Gravity keeps pretty busy and its affects are felt unimaginably far away.

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Still water doesn't curve.

 

Yes it does.....you can measure the twice daily tides in a cup of tea with a laser interferometer......get a grip.

 

But consider the Great Lakes....

 

Tides in the Great Lakes are measurable.

 

The Great Lakes experience microtides, caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon and Sun, just like oceans. However, because the Great Lakes are relatively small bodies of water, their tidal range is typically less than 5 centimeters. 

12 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

YOU more than anyone here should be familiar with it and have been the first to watch it❗I learned about it a couple months back and watched the expected results (for everyone other than FLERF ilk) as soon as it came out.

 

Please watch the vid below for detailed background about it, how it was arranged and what led up to it. 

 

https://youtu.be/cLHTe_ORjLc?si=a-uMRIuwrXovZ-80

 

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.

 

 

A "Final Experiment" not covered by the media.

 

18 months in Antarctica and no 24-hour Sun.

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I don't think you know much about water.

 

of course water appears to "curve" due to gravity.   Gravity actually bends the fabric of space as well.  Gravity keeps pretty busy and its affects are felt unimaginably far away.

 

 

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

the impossibility of gravity holding water on a ball.

 

Why is it an impossibility?

 

Gravity, in classical theory, acts on anything that has the property of mass.

 

A cubic meter of water has a mass of 1000kg......so on Earth it is pulled toward the Earth's centre with a force of 10,000N.......that is every single cubic meter.....and you think that is not enough to keep it on Earth??????

 

 

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

Water always remains level. ....NO IT DOESN"T......but the effects on small bodies of water are staggeringly small.....that does not mean they are not there.

11 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

some strange shadows and CGI glitches in there

Green screen filter accidentally left "on" in the settings of the recording device, cuz these guys almost always record indoors with a green screen so by default leave it "on". The FLERF guy talking obviously has something green on his jacket. This miscue happens often when not utilizing a green screen and is easily explained by anyone familiar with making such vids. 

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Water always remains level. ....NO IT DOESN"T......but the effects on small bodies of water are staggeringly small.....that does not mean they are not there.

 

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

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Green screen filter accidentally left "on" in the settings of the recording device, cuz these guys almost always record indoors with a green screen so by default leave it "on". The FLERF guy talking obviously has something green on his jacket. This miscue happens often when not utilizing a green screen and is easily explained by anyone familiar with making such vids. 

 

This is a possibility, yes.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

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

Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that small bodies of water can exhibit tidal behaviors under controlled conditions. One notable study is “Experimental Evidence of Multiple Equilibria in a Tidal Resonator” by H.J. van der Berg and L.R.M. Maas, published in 2013. This research involved a laboratory tank designed to study the Helmholtz response of a semi-enclosed tidal basin co-oscillating with the adjacent sea. The experiments revealed multiple equilibria and complex behaviors in the water body, providing insights into tidal dynamics in confined basins.

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

18 months in Antarctica and no 24-hour Sun.

No video proof nor any kind of proof❓ Just his word. C'mon❗Just had some really well known and dedicated FLERFS there with 360 degree vids as proof and they confirm, but some doofus in a room claims he was in Antarctica for 18 months and is somehow supposed to convince anyone or mean anything ⁉️ Is this guy actually more convincing to you❓🤔 I certainly hope not Snake. 

 

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

but some doofus in a room claims he was in Antarctica for 18 months

 

Reads........ his mom's basement.

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

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

Complete rubbish. Try thinking for yourself and not believing the rubbish the grifters tell you.

"Since 1987, we have flown modern day explorers to the interior of Antarctica to experience truly unique landscapes and take on incredible adventures. We will work closely with you to create your own a once in a lifetime journey. We offer several experiences around our main camp at Union Glacier to match your specific interests."

"We offer two ways to reach the southernmost point on earth, by air and by ski. Fly to 90° South aboard a ski-equipped aircraft or embrace the spirit of early explorers with one of our challenging ski expeditions to the South Pole."

Here's the website.

https://antarctic-logistics.com/2016/08/29/blue-ice-airfields/

This can't be made up. It's your brain that is having a problem. Like the existence of god. People believe this because it's what they've been told to believe and accept it as fact. Never proven as the flat earth has never been proven. Earth is an oblate spheroid and god doesn't exist. Now prove I'm wrong! 

This is Union Glassier ice runway. 

 

This is where Union Glassier is.

 

 

https://antarctic-logistics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/blue-ice-runway-ug.jpg

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

No video proof nor any kind of proof❓ Just his word. C'mon❗Just had some really well known and dedicated FLERFS there with 360 degree vids as proof and they confirm, but some doofus in a room claims he was in Antarctica for 18 months and is somehow supposed to convince anyone or mean anything ⁉️ Is this guy actually more convincing to you❓🤔 I certainly hope not Snake. 

 

Prove they were not there, Can you? Otherwise it's time for you to admit you are wrong. It's sad you believe these grifters you are obviously watching on YT and parroting their ridiculous debunking of what is a fact that has been witnessed by 100's of thousands of people. Time for a bit of introspection. As for going to the vast majority of Antarctica how many people do you think have been to the vast majority of the interior of Canada, Alaska, Australia for example. Not that many. It's dangerous. You can die. I'm guessing you believe in god. Is this correct? Have you watched the videos showing a 24 hr. sun in summer in Antarctica? My guess is you haven't and if you have you're probably holding on for dear life to your rubbish belief to say it's fake, once again believing the grifters. Belief not fact.

3 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

No video proof nor any kind of proof❓ Just his word. C'mon❗Just had some really well known and dedicated FLERFS there with 360 degree vids as proof and they confirm, but some doofus in a room claims he was in Antarctica for 18 months and is somehow supposed to convince anyone or mean anything ⁉️ Is this guy actually more convincing to you❓🤔 I certainly hope not Snake. 

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Prove they were not there, Can you? Otherwise it's time for you to admit you are wrong. It's sad you believe these grifters you are obviously watching on YT and parroting their ridiculous debunking of what is a fact that has been witnessed by 100's of thousands of people. Time for a bit of introspection. As for going to the vast majority of Antarctica how many people do you think have been to the vast majority of the interior of Canada, Alaska, Australia for example. Not that many. It's dangerous. You can die. I'm guessing you believe in god. Is this correct? Have you watched the videos showing a 24 hr. sun in summer in Antarctica? My guess is you haven't and if you have you're probably holding on for dear life to your rubbish belief to say it's fake, once again believing the grifters. Belief not fact.

 

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.

 

3 hours ago, Will B Good said:

Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that small bodies of water can exhibit tidal behaviors under controlled conditions. One notable study is “Experimental Evidence of Multiple Equilibria in a Tidal Resonator” by H.J. van der Berg and L.R.M. Maas, published in 2013. This research involved a laboratory tank designed to study the Helmholtz response of a semi-enclosed tidal basin co-oscillating with the adjacent sea. The experiments revealed multiple equilibria and complex behaviors in the water body, providing insights into tidal dynamics in confined basins.

 

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.

Water cannot be round, whatever than means?

 

Each molecule of water has a gravitational force line that is a vector to the Earth's center of mass, along with lesser forces to other water molecules. On a spherical Earth, the force lines of adjacent molecules that are equidistant from the Earth's center of mass are not parallel. Water molecules on exact opposite sides of the world are aimed at each other, just as a guy standing somewhere in the US has his feet violating a Thai rule by having the soles of his feet facing Thais directly (Fortunately there's ~8000 miles of Earth blocking the view.)

 

If you've ever watched a boat sail off into the distance, especially a tall ship, you will note the hull first moves out of sight, while the masts remain visible. That is because your line of sight cannot follow the Earth's curvature.

 

I'm really a little embarrassed for the species that anyone is still having this discussion in 2024.

https://nineplanets.org/the-planets-in-order/

This thread keeps going round and round, but I think the main argument went flat several pages ago.

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Complete rubbish. Try thinking for yourself and not believing the rubbish the grifters tell you.

"Since 1987, we have flown modern day explorers to the interior of Antarctica to experience truly unique landscapes and take on incredible adventures. We will work closely with you to create your own a once in a lifetime journey. We offer several experiences around our main camp at Union Glacier to match your specific interests."

"We offer two ways to reach the southernmost point on earth, by air and by ski. Fly to 90° South aboard a ski-equipped aircraft or embrace the spirit of early explorers with one of our challenging ski expeditions to the South Pole."

Here's the website.

https://antarctic-logistics.com/2016/08/29/blue-ice-airfields/

This can't be made up. It's your brain that is having a problem. Like the existence of god. People believe this because it's what they've been told to believe and accept it as fact. Never proven as the flat earth has never been proven. Earth is an oblate spheroid and god doesn't exist. Now prove I'm wrong! 

This is Union Glassier ice runway. 

 

This is where Union Glassier is.

 

 

 

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.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

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.

You should do some research. SA Expeditions for example will get you to the South Pole. 90⁰ south. All you have to do is pay the money and prepare your gear.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Prove they were not there, Can you? Otherwise it's time for you to admit you are wrong. It's sad you believe these grifters you are obviously watching on YT and parroting their ridiculous debunking of what is a fact that has been witnessed by 100's of thousands of people. Time for a bit of introspection. As for going to the vast majority of Antarctica how many people do you think have been to the vast majority of the interior of Canada, Alaska, Australia for example. Not that many. It's dangerous. You can die. I'm guessing you believe in god. Is this correct? Have you watched the videos showing a 24 hr. sun in summer in Antarctica? My guess is you haven't and if you have you're probably holding on for dear life to your rubbish belief to say it's fake, once again believing the grifters. Belief not fact.

Hey Din...you misfired and quoted the wrong guy in your response here...ME. As @rattlesnake so kindly and promptly pointed out earlier.

 

 

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

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.

Fair enough 👍