[Nirmala]

If we stated that the sun was in this location at this place at this time, and that it disproved the globe earth model, we would be asked for evidence of that, too.

Why are you any different?

You seem to ask for proof or records of all places and all times based on direct observations. That is impossible to provide.

I am asking for exactly the same thing that would be asked of us if we made claims that the sun can be seen in certain places at certain times and locations which proved the Round Earth model wrong.

Try us.

And remember that we can always check your claims by contacting people all over the world through email or other means to test your claim, in addition to the calculators that have proven to be correct in my own experience so many times.

It is completely relevant to this discussion to question our evidence, ask for corroborating evidence, and to disprove it when you can. It also is reasonable to question the reasoning we use to make conclusions from that same evidence. It is not at all helpful to this discussion to dismiss any specific claim we make because we cannot provide you with an impossible amount of evidence to prove that those calculators are accurate at all times and all places.

By the way, I might not feel it is worth my while to gather corroborating evidence for the times of daylight posted in the initial post in this thread, or to prove or disprove any similar claims you might make, as I trust the date and time calculators. If you don't, that is of course your prerogative.

So....what are some times and places where observations or calculations of sunrise and sunset disprove the globe earth model? What is your source for those observations or calculations? And what is your reasoning for why those observations disprove the round earth?

In the meantime, it still seems quite revealing that there is no flat earth map that even comes close to consistently corresponding with the observed patterns of daylight, and the literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of flight paths and distances that are recorded and displayed on this site: http://flightaware.com/  There is huge gaping hole in the flat earth theory, and so far no one on here has provided even a roughly drawn sketch of a possible arrangement of the major land masses and ocean areas on a flat surface that even very loosely yet consistently corresponds to these sources of information. And yet a tilted globe does so with surprising accuracy. Therefore, which theory is more likely to be correct?

[inquisitive]

If we stated that the sun was in this location at this place at this time, and that it disproved the globe earth model, we would be asked for evidence of that, too.

Why are you any different?

You seem to ask for proof or records of all places and all times based on direct observations. That is impossible to provide.

I am asking for exactly the same thing that would be asked of us if we made claims that the sun can be seen in certain places at certain times and locations which proved the Round Earth model wrong.

So you are not making any claims that disagree with the round earth model. Interesting.

[Tom Bishop]

By the way, I might not feel it is worth my while to gather corroborating evidence for the times of daylight posted in the initial post in this thread, or to prove or disprove any similar claims you might make, as I trust the date and time calculators. If you don't, that is of course your prerogative.

I am willing to trust the research dateandtime.com has done to come up with their model for daylight. Can you link us to their observational research please?

[inquisitive]

By the way, I might not feel it is worth my while to gather corroborating evidence for the times of daylight posted in the initial post in this thread, or to prove or disprove any similar claims you might make, as I trust the date and time calculators. If you don't, that is of course your prerogative.

I am willing to trust the research dateandtime.com has done to come up with their model for daylight. Can you link us to their observational research please?

Why could you not look or ask them?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html

[Tom Bishop]

By the way, I might not feel it is worth my while to gather corroborating evidence for the times of daylight posted in the initial post in this thread, or to prove or disprove any similar claims you might make, as I trust the date and time calculators. If you don't, that is of course your prerogative.

I am willing to trust the research dateandtime.com has done to come up with their model for daylight. Can you link us to their observational research please?

Why could you not look or ask them?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html

I couldn't find any of their observational research on the url you linked. Can you point it out for us?

[inquisitive]

By the way, I might not feel it is worth my while to gather corroborating evidence for the times of daylight posted in the initial post in this thread, or to prove or disprove any similar claims you might make, as I trust the date and time calculators. If you don't, that is of course your prerogative.

I am willing to trust the research dateandtime.com has done to come up with their model for daylight. Can you link us to their observational research please?

Why could you not look or ask them?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html

I couldn't find any of their observational research on the url you linked. Can you point it out for us?

Such as?  Is there anything you believe to be incorrect?

[Tom Bishop]

Such as?  Is there anything you believe to be incorrect?

I asked for the observational data the model is based on. Surely they did not just assume that the earth was round and nothing more. Are you going to link the research for us or will you keep trying to tap dance your way out of this paper bag?

[inquisitive]

Such as?  Is there anything you believe to be incorrect?

I asked for the observational data the model is based on. Surely they did not just assume that the earth was round and nothing more. Are you going to link the research for us or will you keep trying to tap dance your way out of this paper bag?

I am sure you are more than capable of finding the information regarding the size and shape of the earth.

You would agree that measurements of the angle of the sun from different locations at different times shows the shape of the earth.  You should contact the dateandtime site for the details of where they obtain ther information from.  I look forward to you sharing their reply.

[Tom Bishop]

Stop avoiding. Research please.

[inquisitive]

Stop avoiding. Research please.

Why do you not want to provide details of the round earth that we can discuss?  You have provided no details to show it is anything other than round.  Any recent measurements?

[Nirmala]

Stop avoiding. Research please.

Here is the page on timeanddate that describes how to use their solar data: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html

From that page:

"Accuracy
Times are rounded to the nearest minute and should generally match closely with those listed in the annual Astronomical Almanac published jointly by H.M. Nautical Almanac Office in the U.K. and the Naval Observatory in the U.S.
A sample set of 150 records consisting of times for sunrise, sunset, and start and end times for civil, nautical, and astronomical twilight was compared with times listed in The Astronomical Almanac for 2007. Only two differed, both by only one minute, which means that just over 1.3 percent were different in that sample set."

And as for the Almanac mentioned, there is more info on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_Almanac

From that page:

"The Astronomical Almanac is the direct descendant of the British and American navigational almanacs. The British Nautical Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris had been published since 1766, and was renamed The Astronomical Ephemeris in 1960. The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac had been published since 1852. In 1981 the British and American publications were combined under the title The Astronomical Almanac."

More info is here: http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/publicat/asa.html

So these publications have been used by navigators and astronomers for 250 years to accurately predict the position of the sun, moon and other celestial objects. As you probably know, before GPS and similar technologies, sailors and explorers used celestial navigation to successfully navigate the world. In order for such a system of navigation to work, you need to know where the sun and other celestial objects will be at a specified time to a fairly high degree of accuracy, so these almanacs were tested over hundreds of years and found to be accurate. And furthermore, for the hundreds of years that celestial navigation has proven to be so reliable, it was based on the geographic position of celestial bodies over a globe. That entire system of navigation is based on the round earth model.

Here is an excerpt from this page on Wikipedia about celestial navigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_navigation

"Celestial navigation is the use of angular measurements (sights) between celestial bodies and the visible horizon to locate one's position on the globe, on land as well as at sea. At a given time, any celestial body is located directly over one point on the Earth's surface. The longitude of that point is known as the celestial body’s geographic position (GP), the location of which can be determined from (a year long observation of the stars at that location and subsequent shared) tables in the Nautical or Air Almanac for that year." (emphasis added)

So the almanacs were initially created from repeated observations until the calculators became accurate enough to be reliable.

Seems like a pretty reliable system overall. Do you see any flaws in their process?

[Nirmala]

Another source is this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_Tables_of_the_Sun

"Newcomb's Tables were the basis for practically all ephemerides of the Sun published from 1900 through 1983, including the annual almanacs of the U.S. Naval Observatory and the Royal Greenwich Observatory. The tables are seldom used now; since the Astronomical Almanac for 1984 they have been superseded by more accurate numerically-integrated ephemerides developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, based on much more accurate observations than were available to Newcomb. Also, the tables did not account for the effects of general relativity which was unknown at the time. Nevertheless, his tabulated values remain accurate to within a few seconds of arc to this day." (emphasis added).

So the calculators have even been improved to become more and more accurate over time based on more recent observations, although the earlier calculations were remarkably correct also.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Careful here Nirmala, lest they draw you off, see;
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5487.msg106775#msg106775

Citation needed, re-read the thread, incorrect, irrelevant, more information please?

The last one is particularly galling, as their favourite “read the Wiki” is a loose conglomeration of dark age babble and hilarious conjecture that gives them room enough to wriggle out of any attempt to nail them down on what they individually believe.

[Nirmala]

Careful here Nirmala, lest they draw you off, see;
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5487.msg106775#msg106775

Citation needed, re-read the thread, incorrect, irrelevant, more information please?

The last one is particularly galling, as their favourite “read the Wiki” is a loose conglomeration of dark age babble and hilarious conjecture that gives them room enough to wriggle out of any attempt to nail them down on what they individually believe.

Yes, I am expecting Junker to say something soon like, "Still no evidence for your position, then. Gotcha." or "I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to gain a better understanding of what's being discussed." And this post will probably be flagged for low content

[juner]

Careful here Nirmala, lest they draw you off, see;
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5487.msg106775#msg106775

Citation needed, re-read the thread, incorrect, irrelevant, more information please?

The last one is particularly galling, as their favourite “read the Wiki” is a loose conglomeration of dark age babble and hilarious conjecture that gives them room enough to wriggle out of any attempt to nail them down on what they individually believe.

Yes, I am expecting Junker to say something soon like, "Still no evidence for your position, then. Gotcha." or "I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to gain a better understanding of what's being discussed." And this post will probably be flagged for low content

I don't think it's low content when you bring up suggestions made by the FE side toward the RE side. It would be helpful if the RE side actually took that advice. It would help clear up many of their logical errors.

[Nirmala]

And once again, Junker manages to suggest that there are logical errors without actually detailing what they are and how to correct them.... I think I see a lapwing trying unsuccessfully to protect their own

[juner]

And once again, Junker manages to suggest that there are logical errors without actually detailing what they are and how to correct them.... I think I see a lapwing trying unsuccessfully to protect their own

Well, it's very clear the vast majority of RErs do not understand burden of proof. As it has been argued about recently in the upper fora, I'd suggest going and reading the threads. That is just one example. Given that your bias will likely keep you from admitting what is readily apparent, I would suggest keeping the thread on topic. Thanks!

[inquisitive]

And once again, Junker manages to suggest that there are logical errors without actually detailing what they are and how to correct them.... I think I see a lapwing trying unsuccessfully to protect their own

Well, it's very clear the vast majority of RErs do not understand burden of proof. As it has been argued about recently in the upper fora, I'd suggest going and reading the threads. That is just one example. Given that your bias will likely keep you from admitting what is readily apparent, I would suggest keeping the thread on topic. Thanks!

You need to give some specific examples of where proof is lacking.

At the same time please provide proof of measured distances that show a flat earth.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Nirmala (The Heron) and other members of the RE Collective (I like that Rama), have done an expert demolition job of the FE maps and “model” posted on the wiki, you know the wiki you keep sending people to when they want stuff clearing up. Only to hear that the maps are not meant to be accurate and don’t represent the “model” and indeed there isn’t anything close to a map especially if we are going to insist on using cartesian coordinates(?), and the times that we are told that sunset/sunrise happen around the world can’t be trusted as nobody we know was in Ulan-Bator to watch the sunset last Tuesday.

And all you can come up with is “Citation needed, re-read the thread, incorrect, irrelevant, more information please?”

As I type this it’s 16.52,  I will check the sunset time that is predicted for hear on the MET office (20.07 Leicester England by the way), get the rest of the community to do the same, see if we can all get a consensus on predicted sunset times.

[juner]

You need to give some specific examples of where proof is lacking.

I appreciate that RErs ask for evidence when they routinely refuse to provide any evidence for their claims. Alas, a brief look at the top threads in the upper fora will yield plenty of examples.

At the same time please provide proof of measured distances that show a flat earth.

I presume this is your attempt to keep the thread on topic, although you opened with an off-topic statement that when I specifically requested the thread stay on topic. Unless I've made a claim here that you want proof for, I'm not sure why you're addressing me. I came in this thread because I was called out in an off-topic post.

So, consider this a warning to all of you who can't seem to stay on topic.