Flat Earthers - Here is your answer ?

How much would it cost to mount an actual open sourced mission to the South Pole?

If somebody were to pay me $9.9 million in US currency I could do it. Give me about 9-12 months before departure. First thing I would do would be to reach out to the open source community and search all the citizens of the internet for a dream team of people who had the most to offer toward the success of the operation.

Basically, I would have to purchase a 2-year salary replacement so that the full team of people could participate in the operation without having to worry about how they will replace their current incomes. That little "safety net" is a big factor in buying loyalty of the team members. So I have heard rumblings on the internet of such a plan is being made ... but at the moment I can't remember which youtuber presented the plan to start a venture to the South Pole.

To be able to prove that you have actually visited the actual South Pole you would have to cross the continent and not simply go to the "pole" and return the same way you came in.

That should be a requirement of the mission.

This is a Damn good video, watch it!

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

It's not restricted.

And it's ridiculously easy to confirm when you're at the pole, besides all the flags there, and the base nearby, your compass will tell you as well, as will your GPS, both of which are a must on such trips.

a reply to: Chadwickus
But he's too busy and irreplaceable and stuff so...the Earth is flat.
It's probably Nixon's fault.

a reply to: Phage

I mentioned the ski trips in another thread and someone come back saying that they probably just take people to Alaska...

The stupid, it hurts!

a reply to: Chadwickus
Yeah.
But it's true that you can fool stupid people all of the time. Harder to fool people that look at the sky at night.

love what George Carlin calls them 'Nass holes' haha anyway this is a fun one too.

a reply to: awareness10

actully the limit is made from you...

sphere 3d
cirle 2d

you're cutting dimensions not adding!

the artists of 500 years ago added the 3rd dimension in reality rapresentation.. c'mon is not about ideology, again, is about facts and logic.. so sp please lets think about something more useful..

a reply to: matt1893

You seem bothered by the fact that i disagree with you.

Go on call me a derogatory name because i'm using my brain to question everything ive been force fed all my life. Really if it makes you feel better just do it.

a reply to: awareness10
Ok, use your brain to question this:

If you stand at Earth's north pole, Polaris is directly above you. If you stand at the equator, Polaris is on the horizon. If you are at a location between the north pole and the equator, Polaris occupies an intermediate position above the horizon. In other words, Polaris is a useful marker to help you determine where north is, and at what latitude you are located. Your latitudinal position is equal to the elevation above the horizon. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude ) Polaris is overhead at an altitude of 90 degrees. At the equator (zero degrees latitude) Polaris is at an altitude of zero degrees. The same is true for any location on Earth. For example, Cleveland, Ohio, is at a latitude of about 42 degrees north of the equator; Polaris can be observed at an altitude 42 degrees above the horizon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Why does the altitude of Polaris correspond to one's latitude in the northern hemisphere? How could this be if the Earth is flat?

For an observer at the north pole Polaris is overhead. Straight up. Observers at the equator have a horizontal/level line of sight to Polaris. That means they would be looking towards the observer at the north pole and Polaris simultaneously if the Earth were flat. How could that be?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: awareness10

For an observer at the north pole Polaris is overhead. Straight up. Observers at the equator have a horizontal/level line of sight to Polaris. That means they would be looking towards the observer at the north pole and Polaris simultaneously if the Earth were flat. How could that be?

Parrellex. Paralux. Parrelux. Pera... Parr...

Optical illusion, basically. Possible some distortion thrown in for good measure. Atmosphere and stuff.

a reply to: EvillerBob

So in other words, you don't have an explanation. Gotcha.

a reply to: EvillerBob
An illusion? Like day and night? Fascinating. Do go on, explain.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: EvillerBob
An illusion? Like day and night? Fascinating. Do go on, explain.

Hey, I never said I had all the answers. You need to field these questions to the experts.

I'd like to point out, though, that if Polaris is only 175km above the middle of the planet, then from the edge it would appear to be almost touching the ground while from the middle you would see it directly above you. Atmospheric variation and distortion accounts for why it appears to be a 45 degree angle at the so-called 45th, when it's actually only 3.2 degrees.

I'm currently considering whether this might be proof of a previously undiscovered concept known as "light gravity", a special kind of gravity that only effects light in certain circumstances, possibly generated by some so-far unknown mechanism.

I mean, sure, "scientists" say Polaris is a gazillion light years away, but those same scientists also say the world is round, so they're hardly a credible source.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Chadwickus
Yeah.
But it's true that you can fool stupid people all of the time. Harder to fool people that look at the sky at night.

Hah. Smart people would look at the sky in the daytime, when there's enough light to actually see stuff.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I'd like to point out, though, that if Polaris is only 175km above the middle of the planet, then from the edge it would appear to be almost touching the ground while from the middle you would see it directly above you. Atmospheric variation and distortion accounts for why it appears to be a 45 degree angle at the so-called 45th, when it's actually only 3.2 degrees.

Sweet. We'll pretend for a moment your idea is plausible. Why is Polaris not visible to the southern hemisphere?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: EvillerBob

I'd like to point out, though, that if Polaris is only 175km above the middle of the planet, then from the edge it would appear to be almost touching the ground while from the middle you would see it directly above you. Atmospheric variation and distortion accounts for why it appears to be a 45 degree angle at the so-called 45th, when it's actually only 3.2 degrees.

Sweet. We'll pretend for a moment your idea is plausible. Why is Polaris not visible to the southern hemisphere?

Very interesting question. It could be a side-effect of "light gravity". It's a fairly new field, there's a lot that isn't understood about it yet.

a reply to: EvillerBob
Sounds like a winner. Nothing in Space is even remotely where it appears to be.

I like your idea about refraction causing Polaris to only appear to correspond to one's latitude. That's quite a coincidence. A lot like magic!

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: EvillerBob
I like your idea about refraction causing Polaris to only appear to correspond to one's latitude.

I really shouldn't claim all the credit for it, it's just a possible idea that occurred to me. It might end up being a completely different mechanism responsible for the effect. We're pretty much breaking new ground with this thread.