Flat Earth (part 3): Round Earth VS flat Earth. Latest analysis of the “Flat Earth Theory” and conclusions

• The Moon’s uniform velocity and trajectory around the Earth should produce uniform effects on tides, but this is not the case. If the Moon has the gravitational pull attributed to it, why doesn’t it produce tides in lakes, lagoons and other bodies of stagnant water?

This can be read in Eric Dubay’s book where, as usual, we continue to meet important errors. First, neither the trajectory nor the speed of the Moon in its Earth orbit is uniform. The lunar orbit is elliptical, just like the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, so the distance of the Moon from the Earth varies between 363300 and 405000 Km. The same happens with its speed: when it approaches the Earth it moves at about 3873 Km and when it is far away at about 3470 Km, due to the acceleration and deceleration caused by terrestrial gravity.

What are tides? Those who are accustomed to life at sea or live near the coast know them well. Tides are the periodic and cyclic movements of ascent and descent of the oceanic waters (later we will add some nuances). The elevation of the waters is known as high tide and the descent as low tide. What factors influence these movements? Essentially two: the gravity generated by the Moon and, to a lesser extent, by the Sun and the centrifugal force produced by the rotation of our planet.

Selene, our Moon, is the one who mainly animates the movement of the tides. Let us remember the Newtonian formula of gravitation, according to which the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between bodies. Consequently, as Newton wisely established, when the Moon is closer to a certain terrestrial point, gravitational attraction increases in that region (because distances have been reduced) and high tide is produced, while in turn in the farthest points low tide is produced.

Every day two alternate cycles of two high tides and two low tides occur every 6 hours in most of our planet. How is it possible if the lunar orbit lasts approximately 24 hours? This is another evidence that the Earth rotates on itself, as this duplication of cycles is due to the centrifugal force associated with the Earth’s rotation (that which occurs out of our planet).

The Sun also has something to say on this issue. Its influence is 46% weaker than that of the Moon, evidently because it is farther away from the Earth. Yet its influence is there. In fact, the conjunction of the gravitational attractions of the Sun and the Moon is what causes living tides and dead tides. The first occur twice a month, every 15 days, at times when the Sun and Moon are aligned with the Earth, or in other words, when there is a full Moon or new Moon. In these moments, the gravitational attraction is maximum because the Moon’s attraction is added to those of the Sun. On the contrary, when the Sun, the Moon and the Earth form a right angle, or in other words, when the Moon is in the waning or rising quarter, the gravitational attraction is minimal and dead tides occur.

Another error incurred by Dubay is the absence of tides in lakes or inland seas. Although it is a more unknown phenomenon, they also occur because of the elements we have already mentioned, although it is true that they are more noticeable in those bodies of water of large dimensions. The more water there is, the more significant the tides are, which is why the coasts oriented towards the oceans are the main protagonists of this phenomenon (although it also depends on the orography of the coast). Even in the Mediterranean, with its splendid size, the tides are less palpable than in the oceans, so imagine what the tides will be like in lakes or in smaller inland seas. Precisely this factor is related to the fact that our knowledge about tides and the causes that produce them is so recent. The tides began to have a plausible interpretation very recently, specifically as a result of the advances made by Newton in the seventeenth century, although they began to be studied by Pytheas of Massalia in 300 BC. This is because the cradle of western civilization developed around the Mediterranean, where tides are less appreciable.

• Gravity has never been experimentally verified.

We have already provided some data and several explanations of phenomena that would be impossible if gravity were a myth. Is there any more proof of the existence of gravity? More like a few. Let’s see…

Newton’s gravitational theory was a great leap forward in understanding certain phenomena of the cosmos, such as planetary orbits. Let us remember that one of the three laws that Johannes Kepler established defined the orbit of planets as ellipses in which the Sun occupies one of the focal points (as we indicated in the previous post, the precise calculations of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe helped Kepler to elaborate his laws). However, these precepts required a more precise mathematical confirmation, which was finally provided by Isaac Newton. We have also nuanced that his law of universal gravitation, like many scientific laws, cannot explain everything without exception. In fact, although his postulate was the best tool for calculating the orbit of the planets of the Solar System, there was one question he could not resolve. The orbit of the first planet in the Solar System, Mercury, suffers from a deviation that could not be explained by Newtonian laws. When astronomers worked on this aspect, they realized that there was a minimal, almost absurd difference between the calculations and direct observations of Mercury’s orbit and its apparent position as seen from Earth. Mercury’s actual position seemed to change every year when it was measured in its perihelion at only about 5.75 arc seconds. Although it may seem a trifle, astronomers needed to solve this problem, since astronomy works with even more precise measurements.

Astronomers tried to consider the gravitational influences of the rest of the orbs of the Solar System, therefore they managed to explain much of that error, but a very tiny percentage of error still persisted. It was not until Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity that this error was completely solved. Mercury is the planet closest to the Sun, one of so many massive bodies that deform the space-time tissue around it, therefore, its gravitational field is the most intense, and this would be the cause of the distortion of its orbit.

Another prediction Einstein made from his theory is that the trajectory of light should also be diverted as it passes through the space region deformed by these massive astronomical objects. In this way, the influence of the mass of the Sun on the rays of light from other stars could be measured. These tests would be carried out by the astronomer and physicist Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944), discoverer on the other hand of the relation between the mass of a star and its luminosity, and Frank Watson Dyson (1868-1939) taking andvantage of the eclipse of May 29, 1919.

Taking advantage of that day’s total solar eclipse, both astronomers set out to observe the relative position of the stars of the Hyades Cluster in the constellation Taurus, whose visual lines were close to that of the Sun. To do so, Eddington travelled to Prince Island, located in the Gulf of Guinea, and Dyson went to Sobral, in the north of Brazil, ready to photograph the eclipse of the Sun and the effect of the gravitational field of the Sun on the luminosity of these stars. If the Sun deforms the surrounding space-time tissue, then the light rays of the Hyades should be deflected when they circulate close to the Sun, thus altering the apparent position of the stars, something that could be demonstrated by comparing the photographs taken by both astronomers. Both the Eddington’s observation, which was almost ruined by a group of clouds that dissipated at the last moment, and the one made by Dyson in Sobral undoubtedly confirmed Einstein’s theory. Indeed, the rays of light had deviated to the degree predicted by general relativity.

Further evidence in favour of relativistic gravity was also provided by Eddington. The physicist established the bases of the phenomenon known as redshift, which we already talked about in the previous post and which would be another prediction of general relativity. Eddington proposed that a ray of light leaving a massive body (a star for example) loses energy. It makes sense, because it has to abandon the gravitational field generated by its source, for which it needs to consume energy. This energetic expense entails a loss of frequency, or in other words, an increase of the wavelength (the distance between the crests of a wave), since they are inversely related magnitudes, and the consequent loss of luminous intensity. This is known as redshift and was first tested in 1925 in light emitted by Sirius B, a very dense star and, consequently, with a very intense gravitational field.

As if there were not enough evidence given, we will provide two more. One is Einstein’s rings, a type of light distortion generated by space-time deformations. Basically they are ring-shaped distortions of the light emitted by a distant galaxy called “source”. This phenomenon is generated when between the source and the observer there is another galaxy called “lens”, which is the one that curves the trajectory of the light rays, leaving us for posterity idyllic images of cosmic rings.

The last proof of gravity that we provide are gravitational waves, another phenomenon that predicted general relativity. However, this prediction, one of the few that remained to be demonstrated, was definitively confirmed a few years ago, in 2015. What are they? They are disturbances of the space-time but which propagate as waves at the speed of light and are generated by violent cosmic events involving huge energies or massive bodies. The first direct detection of these waves occurred on September 14, 2015 thanks to the strenuous efforts of the astrophysicists of the LIGO project (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory). Actually, since the 90’s there was already indirect evidence and hypothesis that predicted the existence of these waves, but it is not until more recently, when we have extremely precise instruments, that we have been able to measure these disturbances, because the truth is that they are very difficult to detect. So much so that we had to wait for a ferocious cosmic event such as the collision of two black holes of cyclopean masses located 1300 million light years from us. The fusion of both, which resulted in an even more massive black hole, triggered those gravitational waves that were measured by the LIGO detector, thus opening new doors to know more deeply the universe.

There is sufficient evidence to ensure beyond any doubt that gravity is a reality. Here are a few. Whoever continues in denial has either not investigated enough or prefers to live in ignorance.

Eratosthenes and crepuscular rays

• In the third century B.C. Eratosthenes of Cyrene presumably demonstrated the sphericity of the Earth through a well-known experiment with which he calculated the circumference of the planet. However, the results obtained are not due to the terrestrial sphericity but to crepuscular rays.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-194 B.C.) fulfilled the archetype of Greek philosopher and sage. In addition to philosophy, he mastered geography, mathematics, music, poetry and astronomy. It cannot be said that he wasted his time. For a time he directed the tragically disappeared Library of Alexandria, he elaborated several cartographies and a more precise calendar than those existing until his time, he is attributed with the manufacture of the armilar sphere, etc. But if Eratosthenes is known today is to determine the length of the Earth’s circumference and the inclination of the Earth’s axis with astonishing precision. Eratosthenes concluded after an experiment that we will tell next that the terrestrial circumference measured between 39000 and 45000 Km (today we know that it measures near 40075 Km) and calculated an inclination of the terrestrial axis of 23º51′ (today we know that it is of 23º3′ approximately).

How did Eratosthenes determine the circumference of our planet? It all began with a fact that really attract his attention. Somehow he knew that in Siena (present-day Aswan), Egypt, Sun’s rays strike perpendicularly in the wells of the locality during the midday of the summer solstices. It is not known exactly how he obtained this information, some think that he consulted it in one of the scrolls of the Library of Alexandria, others that he heard it from travelers coming from Siena and others that he checked it for himself. Be that as it may, it caught his attention, because in Alexandria sun’s rays strike at an angle of 7.2° during the midday of the summer solstice as he could calculate from the shadows cast by stakes and columns. In Siena, obviously, the objects did not cast any shadow, as the sun’s rays struck the Earth’s surface perpendicularly. What then did the Greek sage suggest? That this phenomenon was due to the enormous distance that separates us from the Sun and to the fact that its luminous rays strike the planet in parallel.

The calculation of the Earth’s circumference was a true show of genius. Eratosthenes imaginatively prolonged towards the center of the Earth the vertical of the column or stake in Alexandria that he used to measure the angle at which the solar rays struck and the same he did with the solar rays that struck vertically on the wells of Siena. In this way, and assuming that the sun’s rays strike the Earth parallel, the angle formed by the intersection between the vertical of the Alexandrian column and the well of Siena in the center of the Earth would be equal to the opposite internal angle, that is, that formed by the incidence of the sun’s rays on the Alexandrian column: 7.2º. This is also the value of the arc that separates Alexandria from Siena. On the other hand, Eratosthenes knew that the length between both localities was about 5000 stadia.

If our planet was a sphere as Eratosthenes conceived it and, consequently, each meridian or imaginary circle has an angle of 360º, then 7,2º of arc were equivalent to 1/50 part of the total of the meridian. This means that the total length of the meridian is 50 times 5000 stadia, i.e. 250000 stadia in total. The stade measure differed in Greek and Egyptian metrics, equivalent to 174 meters or 157 meters respectively, which would give us a measure in our metric system encompassed within the range we pointed out at the beginning. A measurement of the circumference of our planet extremely exact for the time, and more so considering that the most precise measurement of the Earth’s circumference has been obtained very recently with a much more advanced technology than the Greek…

Indeed, we must yield to the critics of the spherical Earth that Eratosthenes did not seek to demonstrate the sphericity of the Earth. In fact, he already started from the premise that the Earth was round, otherwise his calculations would be meaningless. Even so, what is certain is that his discovery is implicitly accompanied by the fact that the Earth is an orb.

However, flat earthers deny Eratosthenes’ contributions arguing he was confused by the crepuscular rays. Eratosthenes erroneously assumed that the Sun’s rays struck the surface in parallel, when the reality is that the Sun’s rays are divergent, as can be appreciated.

Crepuscular rays are an optical phenomenon that can be observed primarily at twilight or dawn. These solar rays seem to radiate from a specific point in the sky, from which they seem to diverge forming a sort of fan. It is curious, because they seem to widen more the closer they are to the observer, which already gives us clues to their true nature. They are most conspicuous at twilight and dawn because it is when the contrast of light and darkness is most pronounced, although they can also be visible at other times of the day when they pass through stained glass windows, banks of clouds, groves, etc. Their counterpart is the anti-crepuscular rays, although the latter are observed on the opposite side of the Sun in the sky. Crepuscular rays seem to converge on the Sun and anti-crepuscular rays in the opposite direction. However, their divergent appearance is nothing more than an optical and perspective illusion, although the composition of our atmosphere also influences since refracts, diffracts and reflects Sun’s rays. It is the same optical illusion as when we observe a train track getting lost in the distance: its rails, although parallel, seem to join at the vanishing point. A mere deception of our senses. It seems that another basic principle of perception has escaped to the flat earther Law of  Perspective. Our senses are not totally reliable.

Lunar eclipses, an unsolved problem

• Ptolemy was already able to predict eclipses based on its geocentric model, so no heliocentric model is necessary for this purpose. Also, in several occasions it has been described how, during lunar eclipses, the Sun and the Moon could be observed at the same time. However, for these eclipses to take place it is necessary that the Sun, the Moon and the Earth are aligned at an angle of 180º, so the Sun and the Moon should not be seen at the same time.

Effectively, Claudio Ptolemy was able to predict several lunar eclipses basing on his geocentric model. The problem is that his model became more and more complicated with the passage of time and showed more and more incongruities to try to explain the new astronomical findings that were being produced, so it was finally discarded by the simpler and more adjusted models of Copernicus, Galileo and others.

The Ptolemaic system or model was widely accepted from its time until the Copernican revolution. According to this model, which appears in the Ptolemy’s book Almagesto, the Earth would be located in the center of the universe and around it would orbit in different concentric spheres the Sun, the Moon, the known planets and the stars.

This cosmology contemplated a series of movements known as epicycles. Actually this concept was not devised by Ptolemy, but was already widely used by other Greek philosophers such as Hipparchus of Nicea and Apollonius of Perga. Epicycles were conceived as small circles in which planets rotated. In turn, these epicycles revolved around larger circles known as deferents. These concepts were necessary to explain the variations in the speed and direction of the movement of the stars. As we have mentioned, with the passage of time it became necessary to add more and more epicycles to adapt the new discoveries to the model, to such an extent that in the end it became physically and mathematically unsustainable. In fact, in scientific jargon there is the expression “adding epicycles”, which refers to the scientific malpractice of conveniently adjusting a theory to obtain predictions that fit the facts. Why then this desire to discredit the heliocentric model if it is also capable of predicting eclipses even in a simpler way?

That said, let’s see what happens to lunar eclipses. The lunar eclipse, or better known as Blood Moon, protagonist of hundreds of prophecies and superstitions, occurs when the Earth, Sun and Moon align. The Earth interposes itself between the Sun and the Moon, in such a way that a lunar eclipse is simply the projection on its face of the Earth’s shadow. The shadow projected by the Earth consists of two cone-shaped regions: the central region, known as the umbra or shadow region, and the peripheral or penumbra region. In this way, three types of lunar eclipses are distinguished:

• The partial eclipse, which is generated when a fraction of our satellite enters the shadow region.

• The total eclipse, which occurs when the Moon fully penetrates the shadow region.

• The penumbral eclipse, generated when the Moon only crosses the regions of penumbra. This is the least visible, since too much sunlight still reaches the penumbra region and, therefore, the Moon barely darkens.

The striking crimson colour that the Moon presents during total eclipses is due to a phenomenon of which we spoke at length in the previous post: atmospheric refraction, which causes the red wavelengths to be the ones that are essentially reflected on the lunar surface. If the atmosphere did not exist, the eclipsed Moon would not be visible because there would be no light reflection. Obviously, lunar eclipses occur when there is full Moon, from which a logical question arises: Why are there no lunar eclipses every month? This is because the plane of the lunar orbit around the Earth does not coincide with the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Thus, the plane of the Moon’s orbit is inclined about 5º with respect to the Earth’s orbital plane, so the Moon does not always coincide with the shadow projected by the Earth.

Is it inexplicable or does it have any mystery that the Sun and the Moon can appear at the same time during a lunar eclipse? Certainly not. In fact, we invite the reader to consult some table of lunar eclipses to realize at what time of day this phenomenon usually happens. Many times it happens at twilight. Again we go back to our previous post, in which we described that curious visual illusion according to which, when the Sun is setting on the horizon we are not seeing its real silhouette, but a mirage due to the refraction of light in our atmosphere. Consequently, it is nothing unusual that on some occasions both astronomical bodies can be visualized at the same time.

On the other hand, lunar eclipses can be wielded as evidence that our planet is spherical, not in vain if it had any other form the shadow it would cast upon the Moon would not be as we see it. Even so, lunar eclipses are still an ulcer in the stomach of flat earthers, because in their model there would be no place for it. If the Sun and the Moon orbit around the North Pole, located in the center of the flat Earth, there could never be an alignment between the three. In addition, and always according to flat earthers, the light emitted by the Moon does not come from the Sun, but is itself the source of that light, which would also have different characteristics to sunlight, so it is weird the traffic light behavior that our satellite has suddenly acquired. However, flat earthers have come up with a solution. It seems that during lunar eclipses there is a sort of shadowy object that stands between the Sun and the Moon. The limits of this imaginary body are less dense than the nucleus, so it would let the Sun’s rays pass through its periphery, thus giving the Blood Moon its red colour. Needless to say, as usual, flat earthers have not given a single piece of evidence in favor of this shadowy body.

Another proof of heliocentrism, terrestrial sphericity and rotation

It is posible that the reader may not have noticed a constant that can be observed in various sundials around the world, regardless of whether they are equatorial, horizontal or vertical. Well, the time lines or the radios that indicate the hours of these clocks are separated by angles of 15º. The motif is very simple and has been known for centuries. If the day consists of 24 hours and we live in a sphere formed by meridians or imaginary circles that have an angle of 360º, dividing 360 by 24 we obtain the angle that separates the hours. In this way we know that the shadow projected by the gnomon on the sundial travels 15º every hour. From here arises a serious problem that flat earthers conveniently forget to mention.

Sundials installed in the center of the North Pole of a flat Earth where the Sun orbits around it would correctly mark the time. The problem arises when sundials are in any other latitude. See the following diagram depicting a sundial installed in Valencia, Spain. Throughout the day, the shadow projected by the gnomon traverses uneven angles, making it impossible to measure the passage of time using sundials.

Antarctica, forbidden land

Possibly, Antarctica is the continent that has generated more conspiracies and suspicions. If we give them credibility, there would be an international pact that vetoes access to this continent to everyone except the scientific and military community, which would allow suspicion of something that is been plotted in the frozen desert and is only accessible to the elites. According to some, Nazi bases and redoubts would be hidden there, for others they would be extraterrestrial bases or the entrance to the center of the Earth. In short, something of such magnitude that if it were to be unveiled it would change the course of history. In the case of flat earther theses, the presumed secrecy around Antarctica is the true geographical situation of this land. The icy continent would not be located at the south pole of the spherical Earth, first of all because the Earth is not spherical. Antarctica really is terra incognita, a gigantic icy esplanade that begins with an impenetrable wall of ice that rises about 50 meters above sea level and surrounds the periphery of the planetary disk. Little or nothing is known about this territory, because according to flat earthers, it has not yet succumbed to the empirical scrutiny of the human being. Although it doesn’t seem to be the case at all; we would know something, although what we know doesn’t exactly invite us to venture beyond the frozen wall, because violent storms, hurricanes, snow, cold and hail are always there. Nothing else is known, although some flat earther groups assert with complete certainty that the extension of Antarctica is eternal, while the majority branch thinks that this territory extends to the beginnings of the dome that covers the Earth disc. This conception keeps interesting connections with the classic legends of lost worlds, full of dangers and/or wonders, hidden or forbidden for the common of mortals.

Flat Earth Society says that the frozen wall had been discovered by Royal Navy explorer and officer James Clark Ross (1800-1862), who was petrified by the sight of such impenetrable cliffs. First mistake. Ross’ first expedition to the Antarctic continent took place in 1841. However, 20 years earlier, in 1819 and 1821, the Russians Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev had already sailed the seas of the Antarctic Polar Circle, even locating what would ultimately be known as the Fimbul ice shelf.

But is Antarctica as vetoed as it is often stated on the Internet? All these suspicions began on 1 December 1959 with the publication of the Antarctic Treaty, a set of agreements that would be completed during the coming years. Antarctic Treaty sought to make Antarctica the last redoubt of peace between the world powers and the last natural virgin sanctuary. Among other issues, the countries adhered to the agreement are expressly prohibited from militarizing any part of the territory, carrying out military manoeuvres or installing military bases, unless these facilities have a clear scientific objective. The agreement also calls for international cooperation in scientific research and the protection of the Antarctica environment and biodiversity. The consequent lucubrations are obvious: Antarctica is then relegated solely to the scientific and military community.

Despite viral informations, however, Antarctica can be visited today and has been for decades. In fact, the main organization in charge of organizing tourism in Antarctica is IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators), founded in 1991. As indicated in its objectives, the organization was founded

“To advocate and promote the practice of safe and environmentally responsible travel to the Antarctic.”

IAATO, which operates under the legal framework of the Antarctic Treaty, organises both cruises and air travels. The latter have the advantage of taking the tourist to the interior of the continent for unforgettable panoramic views, although they are obviously more expensive. If anyone still has doubts about what we are saying, you can solve them by asking one of the 44367 tourists who approached the frozen continent between 2016 and 2017. On the other hand, it is true that these crossings take tourists to latitudes no higher than 70º S, so anyone who likes to complicate matters could object that the rest of the territory is forbidden for any ulterior motive, even because there is nothing beyond. Is there anyone who has dared to surpass those latitudes?

There were many expeditions that achieved such a feat. Some of the best known were the ones starring Ernest Shackleton. The first, known as the Discovery expedition, took him along with Doctor Edward Wilson and Captain Robert Falcon Scott to reach 82º17′ S latitude from the McMurdo Strait in 1902 after a very hard crossing of more than 1000 Km through the inclement Antarctic meteorological conditions. But this expedition was a child’s play compared to the one he would command shortly afterwards in his eagerness to be the first to conquer the southernmost point in the world (90ºS 0ºE). The second expedition, known as the Nimrod expedition, had as its objective to cover more than 2700 km until reaching the true geographic South Pole. The inclemencies and the meteorological punishments happened again with the determination to interrupt the expedition. Shackleton and company stayed a little more than 187 Km from reaching their objective in 1909, but having clearly surpassed the previous goal. Finally, who would conquer the geographical South Pole would be the Norwegian Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen in 1911.

They weren’t the only ones through Antarctica. We could mention the crossings of Vivian Fuchs and Edmund Hillary in 1958 (the second, in addition to crowning Everest, also reached the 90ºS latitude), those of Ramón Hernando de Larramendi and company in 2005-2006 and 2011-2012, that of Felicity Aston in 2012, the first woman to cross Antarctica, and even more impressive, alone (also reached 90ºS), or, more recently, that made by The Coldest Journey team in 2013. We see, therefore, that Antarctica is unrestricted and more explored than what flat earthers tell us. Not only that, if Antarctica did not have the geographical position it really has, all these expeditions would not have succeeded in crossing Antarctica and reaching the South Pole.

The climatic differences between the two poles also tend to confuse flat earthers, who ponder that, being polar regions, should have the same conditions. It is well known that the Antarctic continent is much colder than the Arctic region, which conditions the fauna and flora that inhabit each place. This difference lies in the geography of both regions. Antarctica, as we have mentioned, is a continent, that is to say, it is a gigantic mass of land, with the peculiarity of being covered by a thick layer of ice. The Arctic region, on the other hand, is made up of blocks of ice floating in the ocean, that is to say, it is basically an ocean surrounded by continents. Water is a more effective heat reservoir than land, absorbing 95% of solar radiation (the rest is reflected), while land can reflect up to 35%, so it keeps much less heat. Here is one of the reasons for these thermal differences. The other main reason is the ice surface that makes up both regions. Antarctica’s icy surface is estimated to be almost 8 times larger than that of the Arctic, thus increasing the so-called albedo effect, i.e. the percentage of radiation reflected by a surface of the radiation incident on it, an effect whose magnitude increases when the surface is clear and bright, like ice. For these reasons it makes sense that the South Pole can reach -62ºC of minimum temperature and in the Arctic -32ºC of minimum temperature at most.

Another gratuitous statement that is usually made is that the phenomenon of the Midnight Sun has not been demonstrated in Antarctica or other locations located in latitudes far to the south. It is said that all existing videos and images on this phenomenon correspond to the Midnight Sun of the northern hemisphere. Before proceeding to dismantle this fallacy let’s see what the Midnight Sun is.

This is an astronomical phenomenon that occurs during the summer solstice and nearby dates in northernmost latitudes (where the summer solstice begins on June 21) and, as we will see below, in southernmost latitudes (where the summer solstice begins on December 21). In fact, days with Midnight Sun increase as we approach 90ºN or 90ºS. It is a direct consequence of the translation of the Earth around the Sun and the inclination of the Earth’s axis about 23.5º (and, therefore, another evidence in favour of these facts). During these summer dates the Sun does not completely set on the horizon and, consequently, at 00:00 hours the Sun is still visible. Is there evidence of this in the southernmost latitudes? Of course. Below we provide a couple of time-lapse footage, the first made during 24 hours in the summer peak from Scott base, located on Ross Island (77ºS), and the second made during 5 days in March also in the Antarctic Polar Circle.