Are you saying that days of an equinox are the only days that the FE version of the experiment ever work properly? Why is it that the RE version works just fine on any day of the year?
Actually, the method described in the article works for RET as well. There are several ways to get your latitude, that is only one of them.
You are right, Tom, it does say equinox. I mis-applied the wiki latitude formula to a time that wasn't at equinox. My bad.
Can you please explain how it works on a flat earth? The north pole for example is 6215 statute miles from the equator. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the flat earth right over the equator on equinox then its elevation angle would be 25.8 degrees at the poles. Real observations show the sun to be right on the horizon during the equinox at both poles simultaneously.
How does the flat earth model explain it? How has TFES derived its latitude formula?
To me, the observations are explained by the spherical earth heliocentric model.
Yes, I didn't read you OP carefully enough. I believe that the posts I made were correct, but I missed the "Knowing that as you recede North or South
from the equator at equinox".
But, as you continue on to ask, how does the Flat Earth explain the angles at the poles and
to complicate matters Tom Bishop believes that the correct FE continental layout is the bipolar one as in:
Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent. There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze. |
But getting information on the sun's movement means wading through
But, be warned, you might it a rough ride with all these "Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" and some "interesting" ideas about astronomy.
The diagram on p 30 of Sea-Earth Globe and the "explanation" on pp 32,33 explain some of the sun's movement:
TWO POLES.
Fig, 25 The question has been asked, If the sun crosses from the northern circuit to the southern, how is it so little difference is observable in its positions? The above diagram (Fig. 25) will help the student to understand this more intricate part of the subject; but we must remember that there is a great difference between the motions of the solar orb, and the motions of light which proceed in every direction away from it. The motions of the celestial bodies we have already explained in connection w ith Fig. 22; and we have also shewn that the equator is a broad belt of vertical rays, and not a mere “imaginary line.”
We will refer to Fig. 25. A t the vernal equinox the sun is at E in the morning at 6 a.m. Its height travelling round with the etherial currents, is seen at the same moment by an observer at A. Now an observer always sees an object in the direction of the rays entering the eye; and the curve of about 6,000 miles from E to A is so great, that for the last few miles the rays seem to come to A in a straight line in the direction from H. Hence he sees the sun’s image rise “due east,” not north-east, proving that light travels in great curves.
In the same way observers at a, and at M, see their dffferent sun images at I and at T ; but it is self-evident that the orb of the sun itself cannot be in these various positions at one and the same time. Six hours later the sun itself arrives from E to A, and it may happen that then its swirl outwards from N drives it into the southern current, and it goes round with that current in the direction of the arrow until it arrives at p, when its light, preceding it in a great curve, the sun’s image is again seen at H from A. It then goes round with the southern currents, daily, contracting its circle in a fine spiral until it arrives at 23 1/2° S. when, having lost its further southern tendency or swirl, electrical and magnetic forces, doubtless under intelligent supervision, drive it again northwards. Similar explanations apply to the moon, and to the planets, but with different periods, owing to their different altitudes, as already explained in a former article.
|