The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 3DGeek on November 10, 2017, 05:07:20 AM

Title: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 10, 2017, 05:07:20 AM
[EDIT: I got "lines of longitude" mixed up with "lines of latitude"...all better now!]

There are two equinoxes per year - on March 20th and September 22nd...give or take a day because of leap years.

All places on the same line of longitude see the sun at it's highest point at noon on that day (unless they are in some crazy time-zone screwup).

At that moment, the sun is due north or south of the zenith of the sky depending on whether you are north or south of the equator.

This means that lines of longitude in FET must be straight north/south lines.

That disproves the "bipolar" map because it has curved lines of longitude.  On the equinox, some places on Earth would see the sun somewhat to the east or west of the zenith.

That leaves us with a unipolar map as the ONLY possible FE map.  It could be either the current (discredited) unipolar map - or it could be one with the south pole in the middle and an "ice wall" around the north pole.

Sadly, we know that the unipolar map can't be true because the Southern cross constellation can't be south of every place in the southern hemisphere at once...and a similar argument would apply with the "inverse unipolar" map and Polaris.

Hence the unipolar map can't be true either.

Since no bipolar map can have straight lines of longitude - and there are only two possible unipolar maps, neither of which work...it can only be that the world isn't flat.

(Probably Tom will tell us that magic perspective fixes this - light rays tying themselves into pretzels, yadda, yadda.)
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: devils advocate on November 10, 2017, 01:29:17 PM
As has been mentioned before, a "like" option would be a great addition to this site and were it to happen this post would get one.

The crazy thing is that whilst the structural shape of earth could be a problem to observe the bit on top, the bit we live on should offer no such problems.

Thus the failure of FET to produce a map, even a basic one that fits with what we SEE (stars, moon phases, sun patterns etc etc) just furthers my belief that this site is populated by "out" RE's and those other round earthers in the closet of disbelief masquerading as FE's. Oh and those trolls who just love a wind up.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Rama Set on November 10, 2017, 02:25:41 PM
I think the OP meant that all lines of longitude must straight north south lines.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Nosyfox on November 10, 2017, 03:57:50 PM
In addition to Rama Set's comment to the excellent post by 3D (once again...),  may I clarify another point of understanding. At equinox, the sun generally is not a its highest at noon : this depends on the localisation of the considered place within its time zone, as well as on the value of the time equation (see wikipedia for more details if needed) which is about 7mn (plus or minus) at the time of equinoxes.
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 04:17:00 PM
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 04:24:20 PM
There are two equinoxes per year - on March 20th and September 22nd...give or take a day because of leap years.

All places on the same line of latitude see the sun at it's highest point at noon on that day (unless they are in some crazy time-zone screwup).

At that moment, the sun is due north or south of the zenith of the sky depending on whether you are north or south of the equator.

...

(Probably Tom will tell us that magic perspective fixes this - light rays tying themselves into pretzels, yadda, yadda.)

Actually, I am just going to politely ask you yet again (maybe not you specifically, it just feels like I've asked you guys hundreds of times for this) for reports or basic evidence that these assertions are true.

Until this matter is satisfied there is really nothing for us to talk about. I may as well go over to the My Little Pony forum and talk about the governance of a hypothetical world filled with magic ponies if I am going to engage into your hypotheticals.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 04:30:11 PM
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.
This is why these threads will never get anywhere. "Common knowledge/experience" isn't accepted by the FE side. They'd rather have an experiment with shoddy documentation so long as it supports their view. Anything opposing it will be held to the highest of standards though.

I can confirm the website is accurate to within 1 minute for every day I've looked at it, from every location I've looked at it or had an acquaintance look. This includes West coast USA, Midwest USA, Australia, Ireland, and the UK. This suggests a very good degree of accuracy, such that it shouldn't matter how they arrive at their numbers, they are correct to within an acceptable margin.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 04:36:46 PM
This is why these threads will never get anywhere. "Common knowledge/experience" isn't accepted by the FE side.

You are bringing us a hypothesis and demanding that we explain it. Do you have no sense of reason?

None of this "I proved it myself the other day" or "I proved that myself when I was a 13 year old child" baloney that gets posted either. Thanks.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 10, 2017, 04:43:42 PM
This is why these threads will never get anywhere. "Common knowledge/experience" isn't accepted by the FE side.

You are bringing us a hypothesis and demanding that we explain it. Do you have no sense of reason?

None of this "I proved it myself the other day" or "I proved ithat when I was a 13 year old child" baloney either.
You do not accept tables of night and day times if they include predictions. You are not even claiming they are wrong, just that they are not sufficient proof for you to explain how your theory accounts for what I assume you accept.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 04:46:05 PM
This is why these threads will never get anywhere. "Common knowledge/experience" isn't accepted by the FE side.

You are bringing us a hypothesis and demanding that we explain it. Do you have no sense of reason?

None of this "I proved it myself the other day" or "I proved ithat when I was a 13 year old child" baloney either.
*You*, are the only one claiming the timing of the day length on the equinox is a hypothesis. Give a solid standard of evidence, and hold everything to it including Rowbotham. As it stands you hold us to a higher one, and him to a far lower one. As I explained in the thread we were discussing theodolites in when you asked us to address the substance rather than the age.

*You* are the one saying reporting that the sites times are correct whenever measured isn't enough. What do you expect? Rowbotham's are barely more than that in many cases. How would we even present more than that? It's a table telling us what we should see. There's not much to do beyond confirm or deny it.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 05:03:58 PM
*You*, are the only one claiming the timing of the day length on the equinox is a hypothesis.

You guys have been unable to find evidence for this since the original forum was started in 2007. When this thread is started the request for basic evidence for the asserted phenomena quickly halts any further discussion. The problem is not with us.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 05:14:18 PM
*You*, are the only one claiming the timing of the day length on the equinox is a hypothesis.

You guys have been unable to find evidence for this since the original forum was started in 2007. When this thread is started the request for basic evidence for the asserted phenomena quickly halts any further discussion. The problem is not with us.
I have testimony from no less than four people that the times given on that site are accurate, from an equal number of places around the globe including one in the southern hemisphere. You demand more evidence that those times are accurate. What more is there to give?

You decry the equinox being a roughly 12 hour day as a hypothesis. Yet not a single source that talks about it disputes this idea. You demand evidence for something viewed as common knowledge, because it derails the thread and prevents you from having to talk about the 12 hour day across the world.

What is your standard for evidence for any of this? Because we've met the one set by Rowbotham.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 05:22:40 PM
*You*, are the only one claiming the timing of the day length on the equinox is a hypothesis.

You guys have been unable to find evidence for this since the original forum was started in 2007. When this thread is started the request for basic evidence for the asserted phenomena quickly halts any further discussion. The problem is not with us.
I have testimony from no less than four people that the times given on that site are accurate, from an equal number of places around the globe including one in the southern hemisphere. You demand more evidence that those times are accurate. What more is there to give?

You decry the equinox being a roughly 12 hour day as a hypothesis. Yet not a single source that talks about it disputes this idea. You demand evidence for something viewed as common knowledge, because it derails the thread and prevents you from having to talk about the 12 hour day across the world.

What is your standard for evidence for any of this? Because we've met the one set by Rowbotham.

Referencing the angry RE noobs who post "timeanddate werks for me!" in these discussions is not a good source of evidence.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: douglips on November 10, 2017, 05:26:09 PM
All places on the same line of latitude see the sun at it's highest point at noon on that day (unless they are in some crazy time-zone screwup).
longitude?

Applies throughout your argument, I believe.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 05:31:17 PM
*You*, are the only one claiming the timing of the day length on the equinox is a hypothesis.

You guys have been unable to find evidence for this since the original forum was started in 2007. When this thread is started the request for basic evidence for the asserted phenomena quickly halts any further discussion. The problem is not with us.
I have testimony from no less than four people that the times given on that site are accurate, from an equal number of places around the globe including one in the southern hemisphere. You demand more evidence that those times are accurate. What more is there to give?

You decry the equinox being a roughly 12 hour day as a hypothesis. Yet not a single source that talks about it disputes this idea. You demand evidence for something viewed as common knowledge, because it derails the thread and prevents you from having to talk about the 12 hour day across the world.

What is your standard for evidence for any of this? Because we've met the one set by Rowbotham.

Referencing the angry RE noobs who post "timeanddate werks for me!" in these discussions is not a good source of evidence.
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 10, 2017, 05:31:52 PM
You guys have been unable to find evidence for this since the original forum was started in 2007. When this thread is started the request for basic evidence for the asserted phenomena quickly halts any further discussion. The problem is not with us.
What evidence coud you want that hasn't been provided?
We have provided predictions from major organisations, historic references to the equinox being of equal night and day, personal verifications from around the world.
Do we need to get people with a telling the time licence who also don't make predictions?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 05:55:42 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 05:57:28 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.
Define "record of observation" in this case. Just so we're 100% on the same page here. Because what had been provided could be considered roughly equivalent to a verbal record of observation for five independent observers in most courts.

Defining a duration over which they must take place would also be useful.

Edit: Giantturtle also appears to have supplied one in the other thread.

http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 10, 2017, 06:10:20 PM
Tom, Would a webcam of these locations be sufficient?

Squirrel, is it possible your friends are lying about seeing twelve hour days so they don't have to share their Nobel prize with you?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 06:19:31 PM
Tom, Would a webcam of these locations be sufficient?

Squirrel, is it possible your friends are lying about seeing twelve hour days so they don't have to share their Nobel prize with you?
Not even talking about equinox here, just the validity of timeanddates sunrise/set times. All I'm looking to show is it's accurate enough to be trusted based on observations from around the Earth. Thus showing times listed for equinox are correct.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 06:33:17 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.
Define "record of observation" in this case. Just so we're 100% on the same page here. Because what had been provided could be considered roughly equivalent to a verbal record of observation for five independent observers in most courts.

Defining a duration over which they must take place would also be useful.

Find an independent resource to support your arguments.

Quote
Edit: Giantturtle also appears to have supplied one in the other thread.

http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag

When did the UK invent the time machine?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Nosyfox on November 10, 2017, 06:41:04 PM
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 06:57:56 PM
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

Definition? Common knowledge? Hmm. No. Basic evidence for this phenomena is still required to turn it into anything more than a hypothesis.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: inquisitive on November 10, 2017, 07:00:50 PM
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

Definition? Common knowledge? Hmm. No. Basic evidence for this phenomena is still required to turn it into anythibg more than a hypothesis.
Check timeanddate.com for details.  That's an independent source.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 07:01:38 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.
Define "record of observation" in this case. Just so we're 100% on the same page here. Because what had been provided could be considered roughly equivalent to a verbal record of observation for five independent observers in most courts.

Defining a duration over which they must take place would also be useful.

Find an independent resource to support your arguments.

Quote
Edit: Giantturtle also appears to have supplied one in the other thread.

http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag

When did the UK invent the time machine?
"Independent resource" means what? Records by people I don't know? Just how should I aquire said records without knowing them? I have four sources asked to compare true sunrise/set with the times given on timeanddates.com whenever they could during a month. Each reported for at least five days that those times were accurate to within the error margin given as best they could tell. How is this inadmissable?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 10, 2017, 07:08:03 PM

When did the UK invent the time machine?

Is that not evidence? Claims from multiple observatories within two major organisations, not disputed anywhere but here and samples personally verified by eight people around the world on a fundamental fact.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 07:19:26 PM
Check timeanddate.com for details.  That's an independent source.

That's a calculator. It provides predictions, not observations.

When emailed on how the data is generated timeanddate.com cited proprietary methodology. They refused to tell us if it is even based on a Round Earth model, or whether it is merely pattern based.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 07:22:12 PM

When did the UK invent the time machine?

Is that not evidence? Claims from multiple observatories within two major organisations, not disputed anywhere but here and samples personally verified by eight people around the world on a fundamental fact.

Those are predictions, not observations. We don't even know whether the predictions are created based on a Round Earth model, let alone how accurate they are.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 07:30:32 PM

When did the UK invent the time machine?

Is that not evidence? Claims from multiple observatories within two major organisations, not disputed anywhere but here and samples personally verified by eight people around the world on a fundamental fact.

Those are predictions, not observations. We don't even know whether the predictions are created based on a Round Earth model, let alone how accurate they are.
How they got them is presently irrelevant. I have seen no statements that those times are actually incorrect by anyone. I have personally verified them for some dates, and have verification on their accuracy from four other sources around the Earth as well. Thus, it seems safe to accept them as accurate unless you have counter evidence. Thus any FE model must be able to account for the sun times they predict, which neither currently do. As is the subject of the OP.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 10, 2017, 07:42:50 PM
Those are predictions, not observations. We don't even know whether the predictions are created based on a Round Earth model, let alone how accurate they are.
They would have to be several hours off for the data to not prove the hole in your theory.....

But if you would like an independent review of the data, you and I are independent, we could do that. We could either stand outside or use webcams of anywhere in the world.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Nosyfox on November 10, 2017, 09:27:30 PM
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? ...(cut)... what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

Definition? Common knowledge? Hmm. No. Basic evidence for this phenomena is still required to turn it into anything more than a hypothesis.

No, this is definitely not "hypothesis", nor "common knowledge". This is only based on the definition of longitude. But maybe you don't know how longitude is defined on earth? At least your answer leads us to believe it. According to you, what do mean the sentences :" place X and place Y have the same longitude", and "the longitude of Z is 90 deg W" ?
We have to agree on the definition of longitude (and of latitude, of course) if we want this discussion to be fruitfull. Maybe there are different definitions for FE and RE, but in any case we have to know them to continue discussing (this concerns everybody in this thread, not only you and myself).
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 10, 2017, 11:09:41 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: inquisitive on November 10, 2017, 11:17:47 PM
Check timeanddate.com for details.  That's an independent source.

That's a calculator. It provides predictions, not observations.

When emailed on how the data is generated timeanddate.com cited proprietary methodology. They refused to tell us if it is even based on a Round Earth model, or whether it is merely pattern based.
Do not use the plural 'us', we know it is just you.  Do you agree the numbers match reality?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 11:19:32 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

We generally accept evidence from all  sources.

Over the years we have seen evidence that NASA and co. seem to be running a phony space program, however, and so a source from them will be looked at in a dim light.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: inquisitive on November 10, 2017, 11:20:51 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

We generally accept evidence from all sources.

Over the years we have seen evidence that NASA and co. seem to be running a phony space program, however, and so a source from them will be looked at in a dim light.
Who is this 'we'?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 10, 2017, 11:38:47 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

We generally accept evidence from all  sources.

Over the years we have seen evidence that NASA and co. seem to be running a phony space program, however, and so a source from them will be looked at in a dim light.
Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2017, 11:47:19 PM
Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 11, 2017, 12:27:54 AM
Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.
I entered this discussion offering that information. Which you summarily dismissed out of hand. I brought it forth as evidence to the validity of timeanddate when you once more brought it into question. How is that not the correct time to offer forth such evidence that had been being collected for the past month? Would you prefer I open a new thread just for to that? Seemed unneeded when it was already the subject of one in progress at about a time I felt I had a decent number of observations. This smells like you looking for a way to discredit it because you don't like it if I'm being frank. Which is frequently your modus operandi.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2017, 05:25:33 AM
Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.
I entered this discussion offering that information. Which you summarily dismissed out of hand. I brought it forth as evidence to the validity of timeanddate when you once more brought it into question. How is that not the correct time to offer forth such evidence that had been being collected for the past month? Would you prefer I open a new thread just for to that? Seemed unneeded when it was already the subject of one in progress at about a time I felt I had a decent number of observations. This smells like you looking for a way to discredit it because you don't like it if I'm being frank. Which is frequently your modus operandi.

Are you even listening to yourself? The only evidence for Round Earth celestial accuracy (assuming that timeanddate is even based on RET) is the evidence you collected with your friends last month? 
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 11, 2017, 05:38:24 AM
Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.
I entered this discussion offering that information. Which you summarily dismissed out of hand. I brought it forth as evidence to the validity of timeanddate when you once more brought it into question. How is that not the correct time to offer forth such evidence that had been being collected for the past month? Would you prefer I open a new thread just for to that? Seemed unneeded when it was already the subject of one in progress at about a time I felt I had a decent number of observations. This smells like you looking for a way to discredit it because you don't like it if I'm being frank. Which is frequently your modus operandi.

Are you even listening to yourself? The only evidence for Round Earth celestial accuracy (assuming that timeanddate is even based on RET) is the evidence you collected with your friends last month?
Where did I ever say it was the only evidence? Where did I ever in this discussion say it was for RE celestial movement? You questioned t&d accuracy again. I presented that I had asked a few people to check it's accuracy for me in their varied locales for the past month. Which I had done specifically because of the last time this came up. You instantly state it isn't valid because reasons, despite it being exactly the sort of first hand evidence you are always looking for. So stop moving the fucking goalposts.

I think it's time to go through your bible and go piece by piece to show exactly what's wrong with every one of his "experiments" when held to the same standard, just like I recently did to his theodolite stuff in a thread you have vanished from after I did so. It was very cathartic and I should have some time after my vacation.

Slightly more on topic, the other forum has some wonderful imagery for how the sun has to shine at various times in the year for each rough model, and I'm gonna dig those up (or make my own) for this thread too I think.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: douglips on November 11, 2017, 07:21:56 AM
Folks, slow the heck down. I kind of think I broke this wide open on the other Q&A thread.

There exists a website you can go to to get crowdsourced photovoltaic generation data.

You might have to sign up for an account to see all the pages, they limit how many pages an individual person can see because it's got to be a fairly expensive website to host.

From that site you can find solar installations all over the place.

Here's one in Enschede Netherlands, where on 22 September of this year it was predicted that sunrise would be 7:18 AM, and sunset 7:30 PM.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20170922
In case they rate limit all of you people from hitting their website and melting it, here's the data from near sunrise:
22/09/17   7:30AM   0.003kWh   0.001kWh/kW   15W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:25AM   0.002kWh   0.001kWh/kW   4W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:20AM   0.001kWh   0.000kWh/kW   0W   0W   0.000kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:15AM   0.001kWh   0.000kWh/kW   0W   -   -   -   -   -   -   


And here's the data from near sunset:
22/09/17   7:30PM   10.954kWh   3.580kWh/kW   2W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:25PM   10.953kWh   3.579kWh/kW   0W   0W   0.000kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:20PM   10.953kWh   3.579kWh/kW   0W   0W   0.000kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:15PM   10.953kWh   3.579kWh/kW   0W   0W   0.000kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:10PM   10.953kWh   3.579kWh/kW   11W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:05PM   10.952kWh   3.579kWh/kW   22W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:00PM   10.951kWh   3.579kWh/kW   33W   24W   0.008kW/kW   -   -   -   -   

The "Teams" feature on that page gives you a great way to find different locations. For example, here's someone in Australia:
https://www.pvoutput.org/list.jsp?id=5847&sid=4691
Clicking "map" shows this guy is in Cairns.
timeanddate.com says 6:06 AM and 6:12 PM for sunrise/sunset.

Sunrise:
22/09/17   6:40AM   0.048kWh   0.009kWh/kW   252W   192W   0.036kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   6:30AM   0.016kWh   0.003kWh/kW   96W   78W   0.014kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   6:20AM   0.003kWh   0.001kWh/kW   36W   -   -   -   -   -   -   

Sunset:
22/09/17   6:00PM   21.648kWh   4.005kWh/kW   12W   24W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   5:50PM   21.644kWh   4.004kWh/kW   60W   66W   0.012kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   5:40PM   21.633kWh   4.002kWh/kW   96W   120W   0.022kW/kW   -   -   -   -   

OK, so we have Netherlands and Australia, both with 12 hour days.

But Cairns is kind of North, so let's try South Australia.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=3332&sid=2590&dt=20170922
Millicent, Australia, 37 degrees south latitude.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2157652?month=9&year=2017
Predicted sunrise/sunset:
5:58 - 6:04

Sunrise data:
22/09/17   6:30AM   0.029kWh   0.009kWh/kW   180W   180W   0.055kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:25AM   0.014kWh   0.004kWh/kW   96W   96W   0.029kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:20AM   0.006kWh   0.002kWh/kW   48W   48W   0.015kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:15AM   0.002kWh   0.001kWh/kW   24W   -   -   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   

Sunset data:
22/09/17   6:05PM   14.725kWh   4.476kWh/kW   -   -   -   20.8C   -   1.192kWh   484W   
22/09/17   6:00PM   14.725kWh   4.476kWh/kW   -   -   -   20.9C   -   1.158kWh   465W   
22/09/17   5:55PM   14.725kWh   4.476kWh/kW   -   -   -   21.0C   -   1.116kWh   938W   
22/09/17   5:50PM   14.725kWh   4.476kWh/kW   -   -   -   21.0C   -   1.067kWh   655W   
22/09/17   5:45PM   14.725kWh   4.476kWh/kW   12W   12W   0.004kW/kW   21.1C   -   1.019kWh   1,159W   
22/09/17   5:40PM   14.724kWh   4.475kWh/kW   12W   12W   0.004kW/kW   21.1C   -   0.959kWh   492W   
22/09/17   5:35PM   14.723kWh   4.475kWh/kW   24W   24W   0.007kW/kW   21.2C   -   0.917kWh   636W   

These things all show a bit of a lag from sunrise to the point where power is actually flowing off of the panels, and they lose power before sunset, but it's clear that power is generated for about 11.5 hours in all these places.

This website has approximately a million such locations recorded.

Now that we have millions of independent observations of equinox actually meaning equinox, can we move on to the next thing, please?

It's also clear by looking at other dates, that timeanddate.com sunrise and sunset times are accurately predicted. Can we stop questioning that as well please?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 11, 2017, 04:02:40 PM
Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

We generally accept evidence from all  sources.

Over the years we have seen evidence that NASA and co. seem to be running a phony space program, however, and so a source from them will be looked at in a dim light.

So why do you reject the evidence of "me and my friends"?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Mark_1984 on November 11, 2017, 04:47:44 PM
Tom, why don’t you check the times for sunrise and sunset at your own location, and verify them for yourself ?  You’ll find the predictions accurate.  I think it’s safe to assume that timeanddate.com don’t know your location, so haven’t fiddled the numbers just to convince you.

As an aside, seafarers have had these predictions available for years and years in the Nautical Almanac.  Long before the invention of computers and the internet, and have used them to navigate successfully.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 11, 2017, 05:01:42 PM
There exists a website you can go to to get crowdsourced photovoltaic generation data.

...
These things all show a bit of a lag from sunrise to the point where power is actually flowing off of the panels, and they lose power before sunset, but it's clear that power is generated for about 11.5 hours in all these places.

This website has approximately a million such locations recorded.

Now that we have millions of independent observations of equinox actually meaning equinox, can we move on to the next thing, please?

This is PERFECT!   Very clever!   I tip my virtual hat to you!

So now we have EXACTLY the kind of evidence that Tom seems to be demanding.   Actual scientific measurements of when the sun was or was not above the horizon at a bunch of different places.

Hence we can now prove the angle of the sun above the horizon for any date we choose using Lambert's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert%27s_cosine_law).

Ooohhh Tom's not going to like the consequences of THAT!   We can blow huge holes in all sorts of his crazy ideas from there!

(Not least "magic perspective"!)

@Tom: See my signature, below!
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: douglips on November 11, 2017, 05:12:25 PM
I think the most interesting aspect of this is that these people don't care about flat earth or round earth, they just want to generate photovoltaic power and share data about it.

It just so happens that they've accidentally installed solar observatories all over the world and connected them up to the internet.

So there can't be any motivation question about whether they're in the conspiracy or whatnot, they just want to generate power.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 11, 2017, 05:18:21 PM
I think the most interesting aspect of this is that these people don't care about flat earth or round earth, they just want to generate photovoltaic power and share data about it.

It just so happens that they've accidentally installed solar observatories all over the world and connected them up to the internet.

So there can't be any motivation question about whether they're in the conspiracy or whatnot, they just want to generate power.

Oh - don't worry, they'll soon end up in the "conspiracy theory" bucket.   Actually, I've recently been accused of being a part of the conspiracy too.  I'm hoping they'll know which government agency I should be applying to to claim my "hush money"...as you can tell, I have been working VERY hard to hide the fact that the Earth is flat!

  ^^^^ This is a joke...OK?

Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 11, 2017, 05:34:40 PM
I just created an account with PVoutput.org - and gave them a $15 donation to get full access to their service.

Here is what they are:

* An Australian website that collects and records real-time data from "photovoltaic" power generation sites around the world.  Basically they can tell you how much energy each of about a million sites is collecting right this minute - or at any time in the past.

* Because they start generating power from about 15 minutes after sunrise until 15 minutes before sunset - we can figure out the sunrise and sunset times  for any of a million places in the world on any day of the year we choose.  Even on a cloudy day, they generate SOME power.

* These are not just government sites (although some are) - mostly they are small businesses and individuals with solar panels on the roofs of their homes that have appropriate internet power monitoring.

* Each location has a country and a zip-code - as well as a location on a map.

So using this, we have direct evidence of sunrise and sunset times.

We can use this data to demonstrate CONCLUSIVELY that the equinox is a real thing.   It can no longer be denied.

So...having demolished Tom's original objection - and his demand for good data - we're back to the original thread.

Neither the unipolar nor bipolar maps can explain the location of the sun on the equinox.

The Earth is therefore Round.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: douglips on November 11, 2017, 05:54:17 PM
I'm still waiting to hear what "direct proof" would consist of. I was looking for a video of the sunrise and a PV power meter but I can't find any such thing.
Would one person with solar panels be able to confirm when power starts flowing with respect to sunrise? Or does every individual have to do it? Does this still not count because there are oceans where there are no PV installations?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 11, 2017, 07:07:23 PM
Tom, why don’t you check the times for sunrise and sunset at your own location, and verify them for yourself ?  You’ll find the predictions accurate.
He wants the records from people who read clocks for an official body.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 11, 2017, 07:19:10 PM
Tom, why don’t you check the times for sunrise and sunset at your own location, and verify them for yourself ?  You’ll find the predictions accurate.
He wants the records from people who read clocks for an official body.

...because all official bodies can get dumped into the giant conspiracy bucket if all else fails...yeah.  Smart!
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: douglips on November 11, 2017, 08:03:49 PM
Hey, what about this?
I'm a pilot who lives in California, and I regularly check the sunrise and sunset times on timeanddate.com, and often am flying right at sunset or sunrise. I therefore have personally confirmed with about N=100 that time and date sunrise and sunset times are accurate for the San Francisco bay area, and for the LA Basin, and for Las Vegas (just east of California) and for the Lake Tahoe region. So I have personally validated the predictions of timeanddate.com for California.

timeanddate.com for Eureka:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/eureka
Predicted sunrise on 10 November: 6:58 AM
Predicted sunset: 5:02 PM

Needles:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@5376358
Predicted Sunrise 6:08 AM
Predicted Sunset 4:36 PM

So, we have a 50 minute bound for predicted sunrise over the entire state of California, and a 30 minute bound for predicted sunset.

If you look at CalISO's output graph, you can see renewables:
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html#Renewables
Here's a snapshot of 10-November-2017's renewables graph, the curve for solar starts ramping up at about 6:20 AM, and finishes ramping down by 5 PM.
EDIT: I left out this  image link:
https://imgur.com/a/VMJpg


No matter where you look, you can't find an error of more than 15-20 minutes.

So everywhere on earth, you get ABOUT 12 hours of sunlight on the equinox.

How exact does it have to be before you admit that this global phenomenon "equinox" which is NAMED FOR WHAT IT IS, ACTUALLY IS WHAT IT IS?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: devils advocate on November 11, 2017, 08:12:03 PM
Thanks 3DGeek and douglips, this is fantastic real world evidence, untainted and not American-centric thus well out of the NASA get-out clause. Great stuff!!  ;D
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 11, 2017, 08:50:25 PM
Thanks 3DGeek and douglips, this is fantastic real world evidence, untainted and not American-centric thus well out of the NASA get-out clause. Great stuff!!  ;D
Please - don't thank me!  Thanks are solely due to doublips for an astoundingly useful breakthrough.

If anyone else can think of any similar web sites, that would be extremely useful.

Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: devils advocate on November 11, 2017, 09:21:09 PM
Thanks 3DGeek and douglips, this is fantastic real world evidence, untainted and not American-centric thus well out of the NASA get-out clause. Great stuff!!  ;D
Please - don't thank me!  Thanks are solely due to doublips for an astoundingly useful breakthrough.

Well you started the thread and Douglips gave us further iron proof. No-Homo you guys are fucking awesome. The fact that it's only Tom daring to touch this one says it all; FE have hung out the sacrificial lamb again!

Proof of the equinox has been delivered, proof that the equinox cannot be explained by either FE map has been delivered so its back to the grindstone FE, find us a map that fits with our empirical observations please.

 :D
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Rounder on November 11, 2017, 11:23:23 PM
This is PERFECT!   Very clever!   I tip my virtual hat to you!
So now we have EXACTLY the kind of evidence that Tom seems to be demanding.   Actual scientific measurements of when the sun was or was not above the horizon at a bunch of different places.
Proof of the equinox has been delivered, proof that the equinox cannot be explained by either FE map has been delivered so its back to the grindstone FE, find us a map that fits with our empirical observations please.
I am just as impressed with the quality of this evidence as the rest of the RE participants in this thread, but I think celebrations are premature.  The fact that on the day of the equinox one observes equal length day and night periods everywhere in the world has been known for literally thousands of years, but nevertheless that hasn't been enough for Tom.  I don't know why anybody thinks this new evidence will turn the tide. 

All it really does is confirm the RE position to those already on the RE side, and presents new evidence that must be explained away by the FE side.  I look forward to those explanations.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: devils advocate on November 11, 2017, 11:43:37 PM

I am just as impressed with the quality of this evidence as the rest of the RE participants in this thread, but I think celebrations are premature.  The fact that on the day of the equinox one observes equal length day and night periods everywhere in the world has been known for literally thousands of years, but nevertheless that hasn't been enough for Tom.  I don't know why anybody thinks this new evidence will turn the tide. 

All it really does is confirm the RE position to those already on the RE side, and presents new evidence that must be explained away by the FE side.  I look forward to those explanations.

Watcha Rounder,

Yeah I agree that the chance of turing the tide is minimal HOWEVER, it does take away one of Tom's key deflections; "where's the proof" (for what we all see everyday/monthly/annually etc) at least this should get us back on track on FE answering the question rather than stalling on dubious points within.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2017, 06:11:22 AM
Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.

Your data does not really make any sense. Look at what you posted:

Quote
Here's one in Enschede Netherlands, where on 22 September of this year it was predicted that sunrise would be 7:18 AM, and sunset 7:30 PM.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20170922
In case they rate limit all of you people from hitting their website and melting it, here's the data from near sunrise:
22/09/17   7:30AM   0.003kWh   0.001kWh/kW   15W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:25AM   0.002kWh   0.001kWh/kW   4W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:20AM   0.001kWh   0.000kWh/kW   0W   0W   0.000kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:15AM   0.001kWh   0.000kWh/kW   0W   -   -   -   -   -   -   
...

But Cairns is kind of North, so let's try South Australia.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=3332&sid=2590&dt=20170922
Millicent, Australia, 37 degrees south latitude.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2157652?month=9&year=2017
Predicted sunrise/sunset:
5:58 - 6:04

Sunrise data:
22/09/17   6:30AM   0.029kWh   0.009kWh/kW   180W   180W   0.055kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:25AM   0.014kWh   0.004kWh/kW   96W   96W   0.029kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:20AM   0.006kWh   0.002kWh/kW   48W   48W   0.015kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:15AM   0.002kWh   0.001kWh/kW   24W   -   -   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   - 

15 minutes after sunrise Netherlands reads 0.004kW/kW and 15 minutes after sunrise Australia reads 0.042kWh. Why the big difference? So where is the sun really? How do we know that these either of these areas were not experiencing twilight?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2017, 06:15:57 AM
Furthermore, your data does not even show a full 12 hour days. You assert that "it's clear that power is generated for about 11.5 hours in all these places." This is a clear discrepancy to the Round Earth model. Aside from the fact that you do not consider twilight in your assertion, the sun is supposed to be above the horizon for a full 12 hours according to the calculators. What gives?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: douglips on November 12, 2017, 06:29:30 AM
Which is it? Does power get generated by twilight, or does power not get generated for a few minutes after sunrise?

If it's consistent at every latitude, that still tells you something about what the equinox is.

How about at the next equinox, you and I can go outside and validate the predicted timeanddate.com sunrise and sunset times, and we can get someone with solar panels to show us their production curve, and we'll have some actual data about how solar panels behave?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Mark_1984 on November 12, 2017, 06:50:04 AM
Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.

Your data does not really make any sense. Look at what you posted:

Quote
Here's one in Enschede Netherlands, where on 22 September of this year it was predicted that sunrise would be 7:18 AM, and sunset 7:30 PM.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20170922
In case they rate limit all of you people from hitting their website and melting it, here's the data from near sunrise:
22/09/17   7:30AM   0.003kWh   0.001kWh/kW   15W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:25AM   0.002kWh   0.001kWh/kW   4W   12W   0.004kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:20AM   0.001kWh   0.000kWh/kW   0W   0W   0.000kW/kW   -   -   -   -   
22/09/17   7:15AM   0.001kWh   0.000kWh/kW   0W   -   -   -   -   -   -   
...

But Cairns is kind of North, so let's try South Australia.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=3332&sid=2590&dt=20170922
Millicent, Australia, 37 degrees south latitude.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2157652?month=9&year=2017
Predicted sunrise/sunset:
5:58 - 6:04

Sunrise data:
22/09/17   6:30AM   0.029kWh   0.009kWh/kW   180W   180W   0.055kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:25AM   0.014kWh   0.004kWh/kW   96W   96W   0.029kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:20AM   0.006kWh   0.002kWh/kW   48W   48W   0.015kW/kW   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   -   
22/09/17   6:15AM   0.002kWh   0.001kWh/kW   24W   -   -   19.7C   -   0.042kWh   - 

15 minutes after sunrise Netherlands reads 0.004kW/kW and 15 minutes after sunrise Australia reads 0.042kWh. Why the big difference? So where is the sun really? How do we know that these either of these areas were not experiencing twilight?

Tom, you’re showing a lack of understanding of solar cells.  Different sized farms, different efficiencies, different latitudes will all give different levels of power generated. The key data is when the power generated rises above 0. This dictates the start of dawn.

Anyway, like I said before, go stick your head out of the window and check the time of sunrise and sunset yourself, and compare the with the on line data.  Or perhaps you think there is some conspiracy to make your watch at different speeds at different times of the day ?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 12, 2017, 11:38:23 AM
Here are free online logs from dutch sailors observing the green flash over a period of five years, the flash is the green light at the exact moment the sun sets with time date and location of each sighting. As you can see the observations from the log book match the predictions of time and date.com for the day and month despite the year being no longer calculated.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40670728?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 12, 2017, 01:06:41 PM
Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.

Either way - what matters is that all of the solar power plants at the same longitude started generating power at about the same time.

That would indicate that the sun is at about the same angle relative to the horizon - be it a bit above or a bit below doesn't matter.

This would mean that the line of longitude must be straight - which destroys your bipolar map...and indeed any map that doesn't have STRAIGHT lines of longitude.

The only way to have a singular North Pole and straight lines of longitude is in the old unipolar map.

Quote
15 minutes after sunrise Netherlands reads 0.004kW/kW and 15 minutes after sunrise Australia reads 0.042kWh. Why the big difference? So where is the sun really? How do we know that these either of these areas were not experiencing twilight?

The amount of energy that they make will be different because each site has a different number of solar panels - and possibly different amounts of cloud or rain.

The ONLY important thing is that they both started generating power at the same time...which indicates that the sun got high enough in the sky to start generating power in the morning (and low enough in the sky to stop) at the same time - meaning that the sun was in more or less the same position above or below the horizon at that moment.

That's enough to prove a straight line of longitude and that's enough to defeat Flat Earthism based around the bipolar map.  Defeating the unipolar map is child's play.

Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 12, 2017, 01:29:11 PM
Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.
Am I the only one who saw that Douglips just got Tom Biship to post a round earth diagram. >.<
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2017, 02:53:57 PM
Which is it? Does power get generated by twilight, or does power not get generated for a few minutes after sunrise?

If it's consistent at every latitude, that still tells you something about what the equinox is.

How about at the next equinox, you and I can go outside and validate the predicted timeanddate.com sunrise and sunset times, and we can get someone with solar panels to show us their production curve, and we'll have some actual data about how solar panels behave?

The data you posted shows that very little power is being generated. Why is anyone to assume that the sun is actually above the horizon? That is not a clear conclusion.

There seems to be missing time there, as you yourself admit that the panels are only producing power for 11.5 hours. If the solar panels started creating power ONLY if the sun was above the horizon, then they should be producing power for 12 hours. The calculators say the sun should be above the horizon for 12 hours. With the addition of twilight in consideration the panels should be producing power for over 12 hours; yet it is under that figure.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2017, 02:55:23 PM
Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.
Am I the only one who saw that Douglips just got Tom Biship to post a round earth diagram. >.<

Arguing against the RE hypothesis isn't the same as arguing for something else.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 12, 2017, 03:00:44 PM
The data you posted shows that very little power is being generated. Why is anyone to assume that the sun is actually above the horizon? That is not a clear conclusion.

There seems to be missing time there, as you yourself admit that the panels are only producing power for 11.5 hours. If the solar panels started creating power ONLY if the sun was above the horizon, then they should be producing power for 12 hours. The calculators say the sun should be above the horizon for 12 hours. With the addition of twilight in consideration the panels should be producing power for over 12 hours; yet it is under that figure.

It really doesn't matter.  If these panels all start generating power when the sun is X degrees above the horizon then the time when the sun reaches that angle on the equinox is roughly the same for all power plants that are at the same longitude.   It doesn't matter whether this is just before, or just after sunrise.   It's perfectly possible for them to start generating power only when the sun has risen a little above the horizon - at very shallow angles, the glass covering on the panels will reflect sunlight away rather than allowing it to pass through.

Of course, in your world, the sun is ALWAYS over the horizon by at least 20 to 30 degrees but somehow the photons that are travelling in a straight line from the sun to the solar panels are...I dunno what...magically perspectivized away.

Hmmm - don't you owe us a new thread on that one **STILL**?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2017, 03:01:25 PM
Here are free online logs from dutch sailors observing the green flash over a period of five years, the flash is the green light at the exact moment the sun sets with time date and location of each sighting. As you can see the observations from the log book match the predictions of time and date.com for the day and month despite the year being no longer calculated.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40670728?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

You linked me to a pay site that gives a 4 page preview when signing up. Please produce the information.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2017, 03:03:58 PM
It's perfectly possible for them to start generating power only when the sun has risen a little above the horizon - at very shallow angles, the glass covering on the panels will reflect sunlight away rather than allowing it to pass through.

If you have to resort to that argument then you may as well admit that this assessment is insufficient.

Quote
Of course, in your world, the sun is ALWAYS over the horizon by at least 20 to 30 degrees but somehow the photons that are travelling in a straight line from the sun to the solar panels are...I dunno what...magically perspectivized away.

Hmmm - don't you owe us a new thread on that one **STILL**?

I don't owe you anything. I have describe the matter on numerous occasions and you can take your off topic rants to another thread.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: GiantTurtle on November 12, 2017, 03:19:42 PM
Arguing against the RE hypothesis isn't the same as arguing for something else.
Well the earth must be a shape, discarding Columbus pear shape hypothesis an argument against a round earth is an argument for a flat earth. But do you mean you are not arguing for one shape of the earth or another?
But it doesn't change the fact that when explaining the twilight, your definition was given in a diagram of the sun descending past the horizon of a round earth.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Rama Set on November 12, 2017, 03:28:17 PM
Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.
Am I the only one who saw that Douglips just got Tom Biship to post a round earth diagram. >.<

Arguing against the RE hypothesis isn't the same as arguing for something else.

If you argument is to be taken as valid, the data supporting it must also be valid. The data you provided is for a RE. Is your argument valid?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 12, 2017, 03:56:36 PM
Here are free online logs from dutch sailors observing the green flash over a period of five years, the flash is the green light at the exact moment the sun sets with time date and location of each sighting. As you can see the observations from the log book match the predictions of time and date.com for the day and month despite the year being no longer calculated.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40670728?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Where are the actual logs? I see a reference to them - but not the actual data.   That sounds fascinating.   The "Green Flash" phenomenon is understood in RET (although it's very hard to observe in practice)...this would be a great "Disproof" of FET...and I'd love to hear Tom dance around explaining it using "magic perspective".
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: douglips on November 12, 2017, 07:17:33 PM

If you have to resort to that argument then you may as well admit that this assessment is insufficient.



I readily admit that I do not yet have evidence that the panels are not producing power during twilight, nor do I have evidence for how long after sunrise it might take for them to start producing power.

If I were to demonstrate that solar panels generate no power until 15 or 20 minutes after observed sunrise would that satisfy you? If not, please let me know what proof would satisfy.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Mock on November 13, 2017, 12:06:24 AM
Just really quick, since I should be sleeping and don't have much time:

I think that if someone could visualize the positions and power outputs on a map with a Lat/Long grid, it might clear up the argument a bit. I might have time to do it tomorrow (European) night, but if anyone else feels like it in the meantime, feel free.

And douglips, you really are a genius for coming up with the solar cell thing :>
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: mtnman on November 13, 2017, 03:59:08 AM

And douglips, you really are a genius for coming up with the solar cell thing :>
Ditto, agreed with that comment.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Mark_1984 on November 13, 2017, 05:30:54 AM
You see what’s he’s done. You started with a discussion about and equinox. They can’t answer that, so they discredited a trusted data source, which they could easily check for themselves by looking out of the window. Now they’re arguing the toss about solar cells.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 13, 2017, 01:13:31 PM
You see what’s he’s done. You started with a discussion about and equinox. They can’t answer that, so they discredited a trusted data source, which they could easily check for themselves by looking out of the window. Now they’re arguing the toss about solar cells.

Yeah - we're familiar with the tactic.

Looks like Tom has given up his claim to be able to explain the passage of photons from sun to eye at sunset.  Kinda what I expected.
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: Xfires on November 13, 2017, 01:47:50 PM
Are then actually any FET people on this site that are willing to discuss how they actually believe this stuff?
Title: Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
Post by: 3DGeek on November 13, 2017, 09:11:39 PM
Are then actually any FET people on this site that are willing to discuss how they actually believe this stuff?

Not so far.

I'm a little surprised that nobody is leaping to explain sunsets using the "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.   Tom says that he doesn't believe it anymore - but I'm surprised that nobody else latched onto it.