Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2015, 11:17:17 PM »
Thank you, Tom, for this explanation.
I can't respond to it now, but will do in the next days.

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2015, 10:39:16 PM »
The expanded explanation is that the spotlight changes shape throughout the year due to refraction and the varrying height of the sun throughout the year.

[...]

Fact: Cold air is denser than warm air, and has therefore a greater refractive index.1

Fact: The sun is higher over the earth in its Northern Annulus and closer to the earth during its Southern Annulus.2

During Equinox the sun is positioned over the equator, the majority of its warmth spread over the ring of the equator. The sun is at it's middle point between hemispheres. The atmosphere in this area around the equator is at its highest temperature and therefore, since warm air has less of a refractive index than cold air, light can progress further through the atmosphere without bending towards the ground. This results in the spotlight of the sun conforming to the shape of the hottest areas. The end result gives the spotlight of the sun an oval shape taking up roughly one half of the earth:



When the Sun is over the North and at its highest altitude the spotlight is small and circular. This is because the sun is far from the earth and not heating the atmosphere up very much. At this time the entire Southern Hemisphere is in its Winter, and since cold air is denser than warm air, the refractive index is higher and light cannot proceed without being redirected into the earth. Since the earth is colder, the light is restricted to a smaller circle where summer exists in the North.

When the sun is over the South and close to the earth the sun is heating up the Southern Hemisphere, giving the spotlight a wide crescent shape. The shape is a crescent because when the sun is over the South it is winter in the North and the sun's light cannot penetrate the density of the Northern Hemisphere's winter.
Well, that actually made sense somehow... cold air has a higher refractive index than hot air, so the spot is not a perfect circle, it's a bit squeezed because the air is colder in the north and far south.

Except that the refractive index for air is around 1.00027 at 20°C (and 1 atm) and 1.00030 at -10°C (and 1 atm). That's a difference of less than 0.003% and yet you expect to believe that it's enough to transform the shape of the spot from a perfect circle to the oval represented in your picture?

But even then, let's say that it is the case. I'm still wondering why you would present such a picture and pretend that it accurately represents daylight during some time of the year.
Let's consider Australia. At latitude 30° south, Australia gets between a bit more than 10h and 14h of daylight, depending on the time of the year (winter solstice and summer solstice respectively). Yet, if I follow the 30° S latitude up to the spot in your picture, I count only 9h. It doesn't fit reality.

In fact, if you had to produce a spot that accurately represents the length of the day during the solstice of June, you'd get the spot in yellow (or something close to that) in the first attachment.
And in the second attachment, I drew the spot for the solstice of December (in red).

You're trying to tell me that the sun spot changes so drastically, only because of the 0.003% difference in the air refractive index change?

It's as I said on this thread or another one: to make FE theory work, you need magic. A magic sun or maybe a magic atmosphere. Probably both...

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2015, 11:22:53 PM »

Tom please show a version that also displays summer sunlight distribution for the southern/outer Hemiplane, and the mathematics that allow you to predict and create these illustrations.
How about you produce calculations to disprove it? Do you think you can just turn up here and demand our FErs spend hours humouring your every inane and lazy request because the ones at the other site are now bored of your trolling?

Debate is a two way thing. You'll get out what you put in. If you generate content, you'll receive substantiated replies. Lazy one liners will likely see you ignored.
I'm not sure if you know or agree with the concept of burden of proof.
And you can go about proving earth is round equally as vociferously as you demand we prove that it is flat.
The proof is found by following and measuring the position around the earth at different times,see sun rise and set tables,

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2015, 07:56:16 PM »
Well I see a lot of activity on other threads but still no answer to this one... I'm starting to believe that I uncovered a major flaw in FET which you cannot explain...

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 294
    • View Profile
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2015, 09:32:20 PM »
One thing I'm curious about... if the sun moves overhead at the Tropic of Capricorn during the southern summer solstice at 2,049mph, and 1,204mph at the Tropic of Cancer during the northern summer solstice, is this difference in speed noticeable?

*values based on known surface distance from n. pole.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2121
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2015, 09:52:37 PM »
Well, that actually made sense somehow... cold air has a higher refractive index than hot air, so the spot is not a perfect circle, it's a bit squeezed because the air is colder in the north and far south.

Except that the refractive index for air is around 1.00027 at 20°C (and 1 atm) and 1.00030 at -10°C (and 1 atm). That's a difference of less than 0.003% and yet you expect to believe that it's enough to transform the shape of the spot from a perfect circle to the oval represented in your picture?

But even then, let's say that it is the case. I'm still wondering why you would present such a picture and pretend that it accurately represents daylight during some time of the year.
Let's consider Australia. At latitude 30° south, Australia gets between a bit more than 10h and 14h of daylight, depending on the time of the year (winter solstice and summer solstice respectively). Yet, if I follow the 30° S latitude up to the spot in your picture, I count only 9h. It doesn't fit reality.

In fact, if you had to produce a spot that accurately represents the length of the day during the solstice of June, you'd get the spot in yellow (or something close to that) in the first attachment.
And in the second attachment, I drew the spot for the solstice of December (in red).

You're trying to tell me that the sun spot changes so drastically, only because of the 0.003% difference in the air refractive index change?

It's as I said on this thread or another one: to make FE theory work, you need magic. A magic sun or maybe a magic atmosphere. Probably both...

The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect:







As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 09:57:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3873
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2015, 01:58:49 AM »
As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.

The controversy is about as substantial and relevant as the Creationist-Evolutionist debate.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5689
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2015, 02:14:45 AM »
The controversy is about as substantial and relevant as the Creationist-Evolutionist debate.
So, rigidly dividing a 300-something-million nation (which also happens to be a third of the so-called western world) into thee major camps, with both sides of the debate often being given equal time in schools?



I mean, that's a pretty poor choice of words if you were trying to imply that there is no substantial or relevant controversy around the subject.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3873
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2015, 02:30:21 AM »
The controversy is about as substantial and relevant as the Creationist-Evolutionist debate.
So, rigidly dividing a 300-something-million nation (which also happens to be a third of the so-called western world) into thee major camps, with both sides of the debate often being given equal time in schools?



I mean, that's a pretty poor choice of words if you were trying to imply that there is no substantial or relevant controversy around the subject.

Well I am not about to let an Argumentum ad Populum determine the relevance of the contraversy. That being said there is no substantial contraversy. Evolution has a plethora of evidence to support it and creationism has a dearth. Everything else is noise.  The same can be said for the Midnight Sun "contraversy".
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5689
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2015, 02:43:16 AM »
How, then, do you define a controversy? I'm going with "a lot of disagreement and argument about something" - (your perception of) the amount of evidence available has nothing to do with it.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3873
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2015, 03:28:03 AM »
My point is more about relevance and substance, not about whether or not there is a controversy.  That there is a controversy about the midnight sun has no bearing on the truth of the matter: that it has been witnessed by thousands and thousands of people, studied, documented and modeled. 
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2565
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2015, 04:45:29 AM »
As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.
Only among those for whom it would be inconvenient to explain with their worldview.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5689
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2015, 05:18:56 AM »
My point is more about relevance and substance, not about whether or not there is a controversy.  That there is a controversy about the midnight sun has no bearing on the truth of the matter: that it has been witnessed by thousands and thousands of people, studied, documented and modeled.
Ah, so your remarks on the relevancy of the controversy can be thoroughly dismissed on the basis that they're irrelevant, since you're speaking from one camp of it with no pretension of objectivity?
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3873
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2015, 11:54:12 AM »
My point is more about relevance and substance, not about whether or not there is a controversy.  That there is a controversy about the midnight sun has no bearing on the truth of the matter: that it has been witnessed by thousands and thousands of people, studied, documented and modeled.
Ah, so your remarks on the relevancy of the controversy can be thoroughly dismissed on the basis that they're irrelevant, since you're speaking from one camp of it with no pretension of objectivity?

My comment was obviously editorial so do what you will. I have seen little evidence of any dispute with the midnight sun anywhere except on this forum.  That would make Tom's comment strictly true, but it does not lend the assertion that there is no Midnight Sun any credence.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2015, 06:01:40 PM »
Well, that actually made sense somehow... cold air has a higher refractive index than hot air, so the spot is not a perfect circle, it's a bit squeezed because the air is colder in the north and far south.

Except that the refractive index for air is around 1.00027 at 20°C (and 1 atm) and 1.00030 at -10°C (and 1 atm). That's a difference of less than 0.003% and yet you expect to believe that it's enough to transform the shape of the spot from a perfect circle to the oval represented in your picture?

But even then, let's say that it is the case. I'm still wondering why you would present such a picture and pretend that it accurately represents daylight during some time of the year.
Let's consider Australia. At latitude 30° south, Australia gets between a bit more than 10h and 14h of daylight, depending on the time of the year (winter solstice and summer solstice respectively). Yet, if I follow the 30° S latitude up to the spot in your picture, I count only 9h. It doesn't fit reality.

In fact, if you had to produce a spot that accurately represents the length of the day during the solstice of June, you'd get the spot in yellow (or something close to that) in the first attachment.
And in the second attachment, I drew the spot for the solstice of December (in red).

You're trying to tell me that the sun spot changes so drastically, only because of the 0.003% difference in the air refractive index change?

It's as I said on this thread or another one: to make FE theory work, you need magic. A magic sun or maybe a magic atmosphere. Probably both...

The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect
And this effect is supposed to explain not only the shift between the yellow spot and the red spot in my previous figures, but also why does this effect seems to work differently when it's summer or winter in any hemisphere... ?
Sorry if I'm not convinced. The alternative explanation - that you're wrong - is far more likely.

Quote
As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.
No, there isn't.

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2015, 09:13:56 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop link=topic=2241.msg57452#msg57452

The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect:

OK Tom. Please provide the model for your "large effect" over a few miles. Posting a picture of mirages is hardly the kind of effect you are claiming happens to sunlight as it meets the ground. In fact it seems downright dishonest to claim that a visual effect (caused by what happens to light as it passes through a boundary layer with a great temperature variation) could be responsible for the shape of the spotlight claimed by FE.

 Please provide the basis that allows you to create an illustration depicting the illuminated areas of the disk. It's cant be that hard if you were able to produce the illustration yourself.

All we want to do is cross reference the results of the model against observations we can make in reality. If your model can even get within a few minutes of reality, in any location on the surface,  I think it would stand as a great evidence for a flat earth. Do you not want the great conspiracy unraveled?

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2015, 10:43:03 PM »
Hi all,

I was curious to see how FEers defend their theory and posted a series of threads on this forum. I'm actually a bit disappointed, I thought the answers would be far more filled with details, and calculations, and graphs, and everything that would have proved that it's a solid thing. I have only found vague replies, if any, which didn't fully adressed the difficulties of FET or did it only superficially.

This thread is a perfect example of this.

As I'm now bored with this forum, this will be my last post. I consider that I have proven FET false on this thread. I'll still come back from time to time if there are any valid rebuttals to my refutation.

Take care!


Thork

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2015, 11:29:16 PM »
Hi all,

I was curious to see how FEers defend their theory and posted a series of threads on this forum. I'm actually a bit disappointed, I thought the answers would be far more filled with details, and calculations, and graphs, and everything that would have proved that it's a solid thing. I have only found vague replies, if any, which didn't fully adressed the difficulties of FET or did it only superficially.

This thread is a perfect example of this.

As I'm now bored with this forum, this will be my last post. I consider that I have proven FET false on this thread. I'll still come back from time to time if there are any valid rebuttals to my refutation.

Take care!
Your posts are full of 2 or three lines of text that take you a minute to write. And yet you expected responses "filled with details, and calculations, and graphs". Do you expect Flat Earthers to plough masses of time in to servicing the first thing that pops into someone's head? You get out what you put in. We also have a wealth of information on our wiki and library, where we have all those details. If you can't be bothered to read them, why would anyone bother to rewrite them all for you?

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2015, 08:43:27 PM »
Your posts are full of 2 or three lines of text that take you a minute to write.
That is how questions work Thork. The requested information is in the answer not the question.


And yet you expected responses "filled with details, and calculations, and graphs". Do you expect Flat Earthers to plough masses of time in to servicing the first thing that pops into someone's head?
2 things here:
1 - Both you and tom came up with graphics and made statements but neither one produced the supporting models. Presumably if you can generate the graphics you can also provide the models so we can do the same.

2 - Since the "council" is interested in doing a re-work (or whatever it ends up being) of ENAG and the current uderstanding of FET; this is a perfect opportunity to flesh out the supporting evidence as is advocated by Tom.

You get out what you put in.
You keep posting this statement as a fall back point. Have you considered that YOU (flatists) are getting out what YOU are putting in? The complete lack of fleshed out hypothesis is garnering the complete lack of belief and understaning form the RE side? Maybe if you guys (flatists) actually posted evidence there would be constructive discourse.


We also have a wealth of information on our wiki and library, where we have all those details. If you can't be bothered to read them, why would anyone bother to rewrite them all for you?
Incorrect. There is only a minuscule list of baseless assertions and their very half baked supporting ideas. More accurately your statement should be "There is a small amount of content in our library. We accept this as plenty of evidence even though we fully know none of it stands up to any amount of scrutiny when compared to actual observed phenomena. We will direct you there as though it makes our case for us when we are tired of dodging and escaping specific questions that we have no way to answer."


Now would you like to provide the model that explains the sunrise and sunset times on the flat earth? Or would you like to concede that you have no model to explain the question asked in Skeptoms' OP?

Re: The length of the day on a flat earth
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2015, 10:25:17 PM »
Just a small reminder that this post still has no answer.

Until then, it proves FET is false. There's a second post that does that too.