/sci/ - Science & Math

I guess nobody here probably believes flat earth but I've already given up on /x/. You couldn't convince them that you yourself existed, even if you beat their asses to a pulp. I'm just wasting my breath, I suppose.

People never seem to realise that the horizon line is at your eye level when you look out at sea as shown in your pic. On the globe model, this would mean that the ocean actually rises to your eye level, before suddenly curving down.

But on the flat model, this is expected, because that's how our perspective works, it forces everything to converge into the horizon line.

This is an excellent video showing fundamental observations that don't match with the globe model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_dHmCM5MM

>>9684814
We got one!

>>9684819
20 iq reply

>>9684997
it was. Some of the stupidest shit I've heard

>>9685007
-why can't u fly over the south pole
-why do all flights in the southern hemisphere reroute north
-why are foreign space program publications laughably fake, see japan
-why do all other days in Genesis so accurately model natural life whereas day 2 describes the firmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

-the moon was lit, so why do we only have one video of it, and why is it so shitty
-why can't you travel to Antarctica
-why does imagery of the south pole look fake as fuck

if all it takes to invalidate this entire theory is an astronaut with an iphone then why hasn't anybody done it

>>9685038
Here's a better question. Who cares?

>>9684814
>unironically being this retarded

Obligatory CHL post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNvKpZmpSmY

>>9685038
Why are flat-earthers so incredibly bad at research?

>>9684819
>>9685007
>>9685066
>>9685078
>>9685260

SHILL OFF YOU FUCKING SHILLS.

Come on globalists, how do you explain the horizon being at eye level when you look out at the sea? Is the water really at your eye level? Is the earth curving upwards?

Don't be cowards.

>>9686322
Need a globe expert to answer this please.

>>9686322
*crickets*

What a shame, this place should be a haven for globe experts, and yet they cannot answer a simple question.

>>9686322
because that's literally where things large distances away are going to terminate. If the horizon terminated below eye-level then you'd probably see a pronounced curve perpendicularly as well.

>>9686396
Aren't things large distances away curving downwards at an ever increasing rate on the globe model? How can they always be at eye level?

>>9686402
wut?

>>9686432
If the earth is a globe, then it will be curving downwards away from you in every direction, so the horizon should always be lower than you.

>>9686473
not if the curvature is hardly detectable (which it is).

>>9685038
>-why do all other days in Genesis so accurately model natural life whereas day 2 describes the firmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament
Are you *actually* referencing the Bible as if it was a scientific publication?

>>9686476

What if I say it like this.

You're looking out into the ocean, the ocean is below you, it is below your eyes, and yet it appears to be at your eye level, it appears to be sloping up, how is this possible on the globe model where things should be sloping down?

>>9686483
You might find Wernher von Braun's gravestone interesting.

>>9686485
the ocean is still below you on a flat earth

>>9686506
Yes brainlet, I know that. The difference is that it is perfectly explained on a flat surface by perspective.

>>9686527
you don't know the basic principles of calculus, do you?

>>9685038
>-why can't u fly over the south pole

Liar. You can buy a ticket, fly not just over it but TO it, land there, get out, walk around and look at ice and rocks and some flags and a cute barber poll the company set up for selfies, sleep in a designer tent...

It costs out the ass, but you are free to do it if you can write them a check that won't bounce.

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole

>>9686555

>>9686556
Now, please admit that you are wrong about your claim that you cannot fly over the South Pole.

You can still cling to your retarded theory, or your trolling, whichever it is.

>>9686550
Newton is a distant relative of mine, does that answer your question?

Anyway, completely irrelevant. You're clearly a globe expert, please explain how the distant ocean which should be sloping down is at one's eye level.

Flat Earth blown the fuck out.I am going to post this in every Flat Earth thread until one of you morons can explain it.
NOTE: Where the guy that made it uses "altitude," read "elevation." He got sloppy in his language there. How far from the horizon Octans is depends on latitude, just as how far from the horizon Polaris is depends on latitude in the North.

>>9686562
Nowhere in your incoherent rambling did you state you can fly over Antarctica to the other side of the earth.

>>9686566
If you think its irrelevant then you clearly don't understand the basic principles of calculus.

>>9686566
>Newton is a distant relative of mine, does that answer your question?

>>9686566
Not the guy you were tlking to, but thius is a moronic argument to make. Standing on either a huge-ass sphere or a huge-ass disc, the horizon will appear the same -- a set of points between the sky and the land/sea that appears equidistant from you in all directions, barring nearby mountains or trees or shit.

In other words, a circle.

If you don;t believe it is a circle, ex-plain to me another way to construct a connected series of points that wraps 360 degrees around you and are equidistant to the limits of your ability to discern distance.

And, to preempt later foolishness, the same thing happens if you get in a rocket and go up -- whether the Earth is a sphere or a disc, you see the same shape -- a circle, which, as you gain altitude, is more and more noticeably "beneath" you.

>>9686574
There was nothing incoherent about that. You're being a buttblasted faggot right now.

>>9686572
This has already been explained. Octans is not a stationary constellation like Polaris is, so of course it can be seen in different countries at different times. You fail to mention that Octans is also most visible during October, when it shouldn't differ in visibility at all in the heliocentric model.

>>9686574
BRING MY FUCKING GOALPOSTS BACK HERE YOU ASSHAT.

>>9686575
Calculus is in my blood you imbecile. I'm still waiting for an actual argument.

>>9686582
Jealous.

>>9686583
If you're 6ft looking out at the ocean, then the ocean is already 6ft under your eyes, and it can only get increasingly lower and lower as it goes off into the distance, it doesn't matter how big it is, because the ocean will always be lower than you. Also, the horizon doesn't get lower the higher you go, ever been in a plane? Also gif related at 124,000ft in altitude.

>>9686586
Fail.

Octans is ALWAYS due south, from anywhere in the southern hemisphere, it contains the Celestial South Pole. But, as shown in the illustration, due South is in radically different directions.

How can a constellation in the sky always be due south, no matter where or when it is viewed from, in your flat Earth model?

Minor correction, Polaris is not a constellation, it is a star (with companions, but you can't see them with the naked eye that is very close to the North celestial pole. So it stays almost in the same place in the sky all night, every night, in the northern hemisphere.

>>9686584
>>9686587

Can you, or can you not, fly completely over Antarctica to the other side of the earth?

>>9686322

>>9686594
You don't absorb mathematical schema primordially, idiot. If you understood calculus then you would understand how the horizon could APPEAR to be at eye-level or why it could APPEAR to be straight and yet not be so.

>>9686594
>If you're 6ft looking out at the ocean, then the ocean is already 6ft under your eyes

Distance to horizon is about three miles, depending on your height and whether there is a slight hill or dip in the ground where you are standing. You think you can notice a difference of "6 feet below you" at thee miles?

>>9686601
You can, It has been done repeatedly. If you are too lazy to Google, let me know and I'll even do it for you, if you promise that, when I do, you will then admit that this part of your argument is wrong.

>>9686604
FUCKIN SAVED, that kills THAT idiot argument.

>>9686600
>How can a constellation in the sky always be due south, no matter where or when it is viewed from, in your flat Earth model?

I've just told you, it's because Octans moves, it is not in the same direction constantly. Why isn't Octans visible to all countries in the southern "hemisphere" at once like Polaris is, in the north?

>So it stays almost in the same place in the sky all night, every night, in the northern hemisphere.

Despite the many different movements the earth is making. Rotating on its axis, orbiting the sun at 66,600mph, the sun is orbiting the galaxy at 500,000+mph, and the galaxy is moving at a million plus mph. Just absurd. I bet you also believe that the north star will change in a few thousands years as well, how ridiculous is that? As if there's a star out there waiting to become our north star when Polaris gets bored.

>>9686604
That's hilariously bad. The camera is at different positions in each picture, it should be in the exact same place for a fair test.

>>9686608
Newton was an alchemist you heathen. He instilled his intelligence into his blood which I share today.

Calculus can also explain how the globe could APPEAR to be curved when it is in fact, flat.

>>9686609
Are you claiming that the earth will only slope 6ft in 3 miles? That's not how it works.

>>9686611
How would I go about flying over Antarctica to the other side of the earth in 2018? What flight do I book?

>>9686604
Of course the horizon appears lower when you go up? How does this prove anything?

>>9686637
Not true.

>>9686627
>going full Quasiluminous

>>9686617
>I've just told you, it's because Octans moves, it is not in the same direction constantly.

It is. every fucking person in the SOuthern Hemisphere can check it out for themselves. You fail.

>Why isn't Octans visible to all countries in the southern "hemisphere" at once like Polaris is, in the north?

It is: to all places in the Southern Hemisphere where it is night. As in the Norhtern Hemisphere, with Polaris, it is not visible in the day time. But all night, while it is visible, Octans is due south. You fail again.

So yeah, I'm going to post it in every one of these threads until one of you dumb fucks can explain it.

Protip: You can't.

>>9686622
Since nobody can be THIS stupid, troll confirmed.

>>9686647
Go higher still

>>9686663
>It is. every fucking person in the SOuthern Hemisphere can check it out for themselves. You fail.

Octans rotates around different positions/directions in the sky therefore it is in the same direction all the time? Makes no sense.

>But all night, while it is visible, Octans is due south. You fail again.

Why is it most visible in October, when Polaris is always visible?

>>9686637
The first one show that it is also lower than oyur "eye line" when standing at the beach. You have not gone up yet. earlier claims that the horizon is at eye level are incorrect, It is so close as to not be noticeable, but it is below eye level.

>>9686635
>Are you claiming that the earth will only slope 6ft in 3 miles? That's not how it works.


I am claiming that, in the erroneous flat earth model, it would not slope at all. And that thus the horizon would only be 6 feet below eye-level, which is tiny at 3 miles, but is not "at eye level" as the troll has been claiming.

>>9686667
You've just ousted yourself as a troll. That picture is ridiculous. Not only is the camera deliberately placed in different positions, it's also only on a flat surface once (the first photo).

>>9686692
If you repeat that experiment on a flat earth, would the result not be the same? Horizon appears lower when looking directly parallel to the ground the high up yo go

>>9686698
Perspective forces the horizon to always converge at eye level.

On the globe model, the sea should be sloping downwards exponentially, and yet it's at eye level. How is it going up?

>>9686703
Not if it's an infinite plane.

>>9686703
On a flat Earth the horizon would always appear at eye level, no matter how high you'd get.

>>9686635
A charter. Be prepared to pay out the ass, though. For obvious reasons, nobody flies a regularly scheduled service there. Some of the more obvious reasons are:

1) Flights over the Antarctic region have to carry survival gear for everybody on board. This is heavy and expensive.

2) No emergency airports for lanfding for way too long, which is a safety issue.

3) Population centers that would be connected by a great circle routs over the antarctic are few, and generally have very small populations, more economical to use the same "hub and spokes" system airlines use everywhere else.

But in any case, to you can fly into the South Pole as linked above, if you offer them enough money, I imagine the'll fly you out by going on across. Be ready to pay hu8ndreds of thousands, though, as they wind up with a plane badly out of position and, unless they have a plane full that wants to go with you, you'll be the only passenger -- their normal passengers want to go back where they started form, where they parked there car and shit. You're being too poor (or too smart) to spend that kind of money to do it is not evidence that it is impossible.

Also, I notice you've moved the goalposts again -- from "Can't Fly to the South Pole" to "Can't Fly Across Antarctica" to "Can't Buy a Ticket to Fly Across Antarctica." You will now claim that the addition of "On a Regularly Scheduled Airline Flight." finally proves something.

It doesn't.

>>9684690
obviously god set a render distance on the earth

>>9686635
There is no comercial flies because it would make no sense, but you can hire a private plane.
>inb4 the wealthy are in on it!
If that one guy could crowdfund a rocket, you can do it with your fucking trip. Lastly, Argentina is planning a route to go around Antarctica that would take 15 hours to get you to Sydney. Once it's up, you can do the math and realise this would be impossible on a flat Earth. Unless you're about to claim time distorts at the edges, in which case, I can't help you.

>>9686483
no
but people who consider it a book of science may be interested to see that irregularity

>>9686685
>>It is. every fucking person in the SOuthern Hemisphere can check it out for themselves. You fail.
>Octans rotates around different positions/directions in the sky therefore it is in the same direction all the time? Makes no sense.

It would make no sense IF it was what happened. It rotates around a point inside the constellation, the Southern Celestial Pole. It always does, and that is Due South, all night, every night, everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.


>Why is it most visible in October, when Polaris is always visible?

This is wrong. It is always visible in the southern sky, due south, whenever it is dark in the Southern Hemisphere. It is never visible in the Northern Hemisphere. Polaris is always visible at night in the Northern Hemisphere. It is never visible in the Southern Hemisphere.

October has nothing to do with it, though it may well be in October that the brightest stars in the constellation are furthest from the horizon during the dark hours in October. So the constellation may be easier to recognize then.

Unless you are going to stop arguing that observed phenomena that can be seen by anybody in the southern hemisphere are not real, and move on to explaining how you can have a north celestial pole and a south celestial pole, each only visible in their hemispheres, and the northern one is always due north while the southern one is always due south, then I'm done arguing side issues. Explain it under your model, please. Or admit you can't.

>>9686723
I have the money, send me a link to where this can be booked.

And since when did something dangerous/adventurous stop anyone? Why don't they just build a fucking airport? Why can't it be used like the North Pole is?

>Also, I notice you've moved the goalposts again -- from "Can't Fly to the South Pole" to "Can't Fly Across Antarctica" to "Can't Buy a Ticket to Fly Across Antarctica." You will now claim that the addition of "On a Regularly Scheduled Airline Flight." finally proves something.

I wasn't the poster who said you can't fly to the "south pole", I've stated you can't fly over Antarctica to the other side, which is still valid unless you can provide a link where I can book such an excursion?

The only real question I ever have with the flat earth side of things is what do they hope to gain by claiming there is a sphere instead of a flat earth?
Why should we care if its something stupid like a 'power' over the citizenry or whatever because that is all I've really seen.
The earth being a sphere or flat or a cube or nonexistant just doesn't have an effect on your day to day life so why should you care? Outside of some job that specifically interacts with it which is an incredibly small amount of people on the disc/planet we live on.

>>9686555
if you bought this flight and they flew you to some icy glacier, would you really be able to tell your actual geographic location?

also, try using gps in the southern hemisphere dickboy

>>9686745
>There is no comercial flies because it would make no sense,

>Argentina is planning a route to go around Antarctica that would take 15 hours to get you to Sydney

Both can't be true.

>>9686703
>>9686715
Of course, many flatists use a "Finite Plane" disc model. Finite plane and globe look pretty similar when we're talking about the horizon, Infinite Plane btfo by >>9686604

Finite disc does produce difference in what you see at the horizon and elsewhere as you ascend, they are more subtle and in addition to >>9686604 you'd need to measure some angles and stuff/

>>9686711
>On the globe model, the sea should be sloping downwards exponentially

Yep. And looky here!

>>9686604

>>9686760
Link already provided above -- ask them what they'd charge to do it. Since they are likely to laugh and hang up unless you can prove you are serious, and have the money, you might want to get your cash together in one pile.

Cheaper and simpler would be to book their flight for as early or late in the summer as they are flying, so you'll get maybe a few hours of darkness. The go outside and look straight up, find the South Celestial Pole, note it is now straight up, and do some math about angles and shit. Take your GPS and look at where you are. Before going, learn to use a sextant because GPS is part of the conspiracy.

Or go right at midsummer and notice what the sun does.

>>9686765
Look up how the sun is predicted to move around the sky at the South Pole at the time you are there and compare that to what you see.

As a control, look up how the sun should dwindle WAY into the distance and disappear. in the flat model, and see if it does that.

For funsies, take a compass and see what IT does. It should still point North pretty easily in the flat model. Be sure to come back and tell us about your trip.

>>9686769
Oh? Why not?

>>9686786
Second paragraph I fucked up -- being AT the pole is different enough from being in the polar region that mush of it makes no sense.

I retract that, I was in error.

See, flatbros, it does not hurt or anything to admit a point was wronf.

Best advice would center on comparing what the sun is predicted to do under flat and globe models with what you observe.

>>9686795
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

>>9686758
>It rotates around a point

Toroidal field emanates bi-hemisphere loops of magnetism around a center/north Polaris, hence two hemispheres of sky over an expanse.

Look at the magnetic field of the earth and compare it to a timelapse of the stars at the equator.

No, it is not the earth that is moving, it is the stars rotating around us. The fact you have to resort to something other than the earth to try and prove a globe shows how weak your model is. There's no measurable curvature and no measurable movement of the earth, so it has to be the stars that are moving.

>>9686817
Handwaving is not an explanation. Fail.

>>9686763

More resources, more land, it's evidence for intelligent design, that doesn't mean you have to be religious though.

>>9686825
But how would that have an effect on you in your daily life? Outside of maybe being religious. You would never be able to claim any extra resources or land that would be available as a normal citizen of any country.

>>9686322
>le eye level
How is this an argument, either way?

>>9686804
That is exactly how you could confirm where you are, which is what was asked.. You are at the southernmost point on a globe, you can tell because the sun is doing what it is predicted to do at that time under that model. It is doing NOTHING like what it would be predicted to do under the flat model, other than at the North Pole half a year earlier/later.

At that point, you either are where they say you are, on a globe, or you have to modify your already Rube Goldbergish theory to add that !!!they!!! have time travel.

>>9686829
Depends on the model. If the horizon drops below eye-level as you ascend, infinite plane is impossible. But few flatists still try and use infinite plane models anyway.

In looking at a disc vs a globe, the RATE at which it moves below eye level as you ascend is different, but that requires using math, which is not allowed in flat Earth discussions.

>>9686772
>>9686775

That picture you reference has already been BTFO, horrendously amateur.

>>9686797
Why would they go "around" Antarctica?

>>9686802
The 24 hour midnight sun doesn't exist in Antarctica, there's a timelapse video of it which is completely fake. Why would they have to fake it I wonder?

>>9686822
No argument. Fail.

>>9686828
Great point. Who cares if we've been lied to about where we live?
t. Cuck

>>9686845
Well you still live where you live you just don't live on an orb you live on a disc or whatever instead? If you live in the UK you still live in the UK, so how does it impact you?
If the reasoning is that being lied to you makes you mad that is okay, I just don't understand personally.

>>9686829
Because it proves that the horizon will obscure things that are far into the distance even though the horizon isn't actually higher than what it is blocking. Hence globalists thinking that boats go over a curve or the sun rises from below the horizon, it's just perspective at play.

>>9686851
If the earth is flat then it completely invalidates so much of current day science, how are you on /sci/ if you don't see that? This is why ball believers get so angry about flat earth, they cannot accept scientific authority being wrong.

>>9686841
>That picture you reference has already been BTFO, horrendously amateur.

It is a fast and dirty amateur set up, but the fact that you do not understand what it is showing you does not invalidate it.

>>>9686797 (You)
>Why would they go "around" Antarctica?

Because they want to get from point A to Point B,and safety concerns make flying directly over a poor choice. Alternative factor they may be using -- "Sightseers! Fly with us to get beautiful vies of Antarctica! Sure, we'll charge you lots extra, but rich tourists pat extra for shit all the time." They may use a more subtle sales pitch than mine. Neither of those reasons contradict the fact tat commercial flights over the pole make no economic sense.

>>>9686802 (You)
>The 24 hour midnight sun doesn't exist in Antarctica, there's a timelapse video of it which is completely fake. Why would they have to fake it I wonder?

You say. I say you are retardedly wrong.

But go look.

I'll wait.

BIf you are standing there, you can look and see for yourself -- does the sun dwindle into the distance and disappear like flatists say it will from any point deep in Antarctica around the summer solstice? Or will it circle low over the horizon,never setting, just like it does in the Northern Hemisphere, deep in the arctic, in the northern summer and as predicted by the globe model to happen in the south as well?

That answers what I was asked about how you'd know where you were.

At this point you move the goalposts again, I guess.

>>9686845
>No argument. Fail.

I don;t have to, and will not, refute gibberish. Make a point or admit you are wrong. Or post more gibberish, I guess.

>>9686836
you can't start arguments with only two possible contradictory conclusions with "if x conclusion is true then y" because in either direction, that means you're assuming one of the two conclusions in your hypothesis

direct imperial observation leads to questions about what we've been lead to believe and answers to those questions are the only way forward

>>9686864
humans have an innate science forming capacity and the ability to form (often incorrect) explanatory theories for what we observe about the world. it has happened countless times in history specifically with significant scientific implications, and really the only way forward is to hope that somebody comes along later to fill in whatever inconsistencies left in you've concluded. remember when we thought the solar system was heliocentric?

>>9686845
>Who cares if we've been lied to about where we live?

Goalpost shifting again. The question was not "why should we care," the question was "What's in it for them to fool us.

>>9686858
Incoherent posts are nothing new from flatists, but this is amazing.

>>9686877
>remember when we thought the solar system was heliocentric?

lol fuck i meant geocentric. you get the idea

>>9686877
There are two models under discussion, with two radically different predictions of what the sun will be seen to do in the sky at midsummer from deep in the Antarctic region.

Yeah, if you go there and it does neither, I guess you should come up with a new third model.

But if you see something other than what EITHER model under discussion predicts, that would be evidence against that model. What everyone who has been there has seen agrees with the prediction of the globe model, and is radically different from what is predicted by the flat model. But if you want to badly enough, go look, see if you notice something they missed.

>>9686877
>remember when we thought the solar system was heliocentric?
>>9686887
>ol fuck i meant geocentric. you get the idea


See, flatists, admitting a mistake is, again, painless.

>>9686572
OK, supper time has arrived. Looks like I'll still be posting this in the next thread. See you then.

>>9686572
>introducing random bullshit to invalidate a theory what would be utterly trivial to disprove using any piece of evidence gathered from the accepted model of the world

will flatheads ever recover

>>9686872
>It is a fast and dirty amateur set up, but the fact that you do not understand what it is showing you does not invalidate it.

I know it's trying to prove something it can't, so it has no choice but to cheat, but it's glaringly obvious. The horizon always remains at eye level no matter your height. The horizon should never be at your eye level on the globe model even if you were standing up because it has to slope down in every direction.

>safety concerns

Like what? What makes flying over the north pole so much safer than the south "pole"?

>any point deep in Antarctica

As if you can go deep into Antarctica in the first place. Show me a video of the 24 hour midnight sun in Antarctica, there should be thousands.

>>9686875
Again, no argument. If you can't accept the electromagnetic nature of reality that's your problem. You can stick with your useless gravitational, dark matter universe.

>>9686876
>What's in it for them to fool us

What do governments want? Power? Control? I think that's pretty obvious. A globe earth makes this much easier because there's nowhere else to go. It also means limited resources which the monetary system relies upon. A population who doesn't believe in a higher power is also much easier to control. It's a genius psy-op.

>>9686877
The earth is at the center of the "universe", the cosmic microwave background radiation confirmed this (which is really just detecting electromagnetism).

>>9686879
You believe ships disappear over a curve?

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to 4Chan: prankster intellectuals who troll to test your knowledge and debate skills, literal Bible interpreters, and recently most proliferately: the juvenile-level troller.

None of them provide any evidence of phenomena that *require* a flat Earth model to explain, but rather place the onus on you to prove the round Earth (again, and again, and again, ...) while disavowing any science or proofs put forward. They will post memes that ostensibly 'prove' some flaw in the round Earth model, but containing geometry, maths, logic, and facts so absurdly wrong that you are compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge. Mostly though they will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you're a faggot and you prove me right." By responding, you've taken the bait.

It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of stupid posts, and the anonymous mask of 4Chan removes culpability for the prankster and enables this crap. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

>>9687656
the third group should be labelled "literal schizos" like this guy

>>9686627

@9687656
The burden of proof isn't on anybody

see >>9686877

>>9686769
>reading comprehension

>>9686841
>Why would they go "around" Antarctica?
Because they need to be at a safe distance of an airport at all times in case something goes wrong. They're also making a stop in some small island to improve tourism.

>>9686760
Go rent a private plane then. You'll need a metric ton of money because going over Antarctica is a logistic nightmare.

>>9686914
>What makes flying over the north pole so much safer than the south "pole"?
It's smaller. You can go over the North Pole and still be at a safe distance of an airport at all times, even then, only a handful of planes can do it and wasn't authorised until recently.

>As if you can go deep into Antarctica
Other anon has already destroyed you in this point. He even told you where to book a fly there. That's why you moved the goalpost from flying "to" to flying "over" Antarctica.

>electromagnetic nature of reality
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA