Thank you, I stumble across a good idea every now and then.
I can see Tom posting about his stretchy mile concept that he tried to use in the airliner thread. Let's suppose Tom is correct (and that I understand him correctly) and a mile isn't always the same due to some unseen geometric distortion. I'd be willing to wager a large sum of money that if you distorted the distances in the "hemiplanes" to account for the speed of the Sun/length of the day, the resulting geometry sans imaginary distortion would fit very nicely on an oblate spheroid. In fact, it would literally pull itself into a spherical shape.
But the sunrise and sunset times across the world are a perfect match for what RET predicts.
But the sunrise and sunset times across the world are a perfect match for what RET predicts.
Source?
But the sunrise and sunset times across the world are a perfect match for what RET predicts.
Source?
The MILLIONS (possibly BILLIONS) of people who look out of the window each day and see that their clocks agree with sunrise and sunset predictions...which have evidently been made using RET assumptions.
If sunrise and sunset calculators such as TimeAndDate.com were wrong - if my nightly TV weather forecaster - if my phone - produced sunrise and sunset times that DIDN'T agree with the actual times that the sun rises and sets...don't you think there would be MANY questions being asked?
How come not one scientist - not one curious person EVER came forward to say "Hey! The sun rose 2 hours later than it should today?!?".
If you doubt that the sun rises and sets on time - you've gone *WELL* beyond the bounds of reasonable doubt.
But the sunrise and sunset times across the world are a perfect match for what RET predicts.
Source?
Can you show that it's not?
Or better yet, can you show us, using any flat earth model you choose, what movement of the sun could produce a day at Stanley, Falkland Islands that has over 16 1/2 hours of daylight and zero hours of true darkness, the balance being made up of deepening twilight that never fades to true darkness?
Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Yes! Very easily!
There is a lot of explanation on their page: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html)
Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Yes! Very easily!
There is a lot of explanation on their page: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html)
Where does it say anything about the Round Earth model on that page?
QuoteOr better yet, can you show us, using any flat earth model you choose, what movement of the sun could produce a day at Stanley, Falkland Islands that has over 16 1/2 hours of daylight and zero hours of true darkness, the balance being made up of deepening twilight that never fades to true darkness?
The Monopole map and model is used for visualization purposes only.
Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Yes! Very easily!
There is a lot of explanation on their page: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html)
Where does it say anything about the Round Earth model on that page?
That's just an introduction...the software documentation for SOFA is where that stuff happens.
Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Yes! Very easily!
There is a lot of explanation on their page: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html)
Where does it say anything about the Round Earth model on that page?
That's just an introduction...the software documentation for SOFA is where that stuff happens.
I don't see the "SOFA" anywhere on that page. Why isn't it listed on the about page if you think that this is what it is based on (not to say that SOFA is based on a Round Earth model, either)?
Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Yes! Very easily!
There is a lot of explanation on their page: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html)
Where does it say anything about the Round Earth model on that page?
That's just an introduction...the software documentation for SOFA is where that stuff happens.
I don't see the "SOFA" anywhere on that page. Why isn't it listed on the about page if you think that this is what it is based on (not to say that SOFA is based on a Round Earth model, either)?
I feel like I link this to you every time, without any actual success in you doing anything with it. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation) are the equations for figuring out sunrise/set times based on a round Earth. Show us timeanddate.com no longer agrees with these calculations, and you might have an actual case against it based on more than 'nuh uh'. I would love to show you they work, but the math is a touch over what I'm comfortable with, and I don't really feel like figuring it out. But surely you must be able to. How else would you know with such surety that the round Earth math constructs don't work?
I have. Why do you think I feel the math is beyond me? But that is exactly what is claimed to be in use by these sites. If you wish to prove them wrong, there you go. I don't understand 'no final solution is presented' as it's right there, plain as day. Find the numbers through those equations, and that gives you what you are looking for. I don't know how you can honestly say "This doesn't give me an equation for sunrise/set times" when it quite clearly does. It requires more than just a single equation, but that doesn't make it any less of an equation to find sunrise/set times. Everything is there to see what your times are supposed to be and compare them with timeanddate.com to see if it's been 'adjusted based on observations' you'll just have to do a little work. As I said, I would love to, but I can't make a good heads or tails of it overall. Maybe 3DGeek could crunch some numbers there for us if you can't or won't.Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Yes! Very easily!
There is a lot of explanation on their page: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html)
Where does it say anything about the Round Earth model on that page?
That's just an introduction...the software documentation for SOFA is where that stuff happens.
I don't see the "SOFA" anywhere on that page. Why isn't it listed on the about page if you think that this is what it is based on (not to say that SOFA is based on a Round Earth model, either)?
I feel like I link this to you every time, without any actual success in you doing anything with it. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation) are the equations for figuring out sunrise/set times based on a round Earth. Show us timeanddate.com no longer agrees with these calculations, and you might have an actual case against it based on more than 'nuh uh'. I would love to show you they work, but the math is a touch over what I'm comfortable with, and I don't really feel like figuring it out. But surely you must be able to. How else would you know with such surety that the round Earth math constructs don't work?
Read through your link in its entirety, it says clearly that the general equation does not work unless 10 other equations are considered. No final solution is presented. We are left to assume that everything works out in the end.
Can you show that timeanddate.com is based on a Round Earth model rather than any sort of pattern-based equation?
Yes! Very easily!
There is a lot of explanation on their page: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html)
Where does it say anything about the Round Earth model on that page?
That's just an introduction...the software documentation for SOFA is where that stuff happens.
I don't see the "SOFA" anywhere on that page. Why isn't it listed on the about page if you think that this is what it is based on (not to say that SOFA is based on a Round Earth model, either)?
I feel like I link this to you every time, without any actual success in you doing anything with it. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation) are the equations for figuring out sunrise/set times based on a round Earth. Show us timeanddate.com no longer agrees with these calculations, and you might have an actual case against it based on more than 'nuh uh'. I would love to show you they work, but the math is a touch over what I'm comfortable with, and I don't really feel like figuring it out. But surely you must be able to. How else would you know with such surety that the round Earth math constructs don't work?
Read through your link in its entirety, it says clearly that the general equation does not work unless 10 other equations are considered. No final solution is presented. We are left to assume that everything works out in the end.
Well, you can go and download the SOFA software - it's right there. The code contains all of the equations they use. I'm kinda sceptical that you'd be able to work through them all in detail - but there is nothing being hidden away or covered up anyplace. I've used SOFA in some flight simulation products - and it does reproduce realistic sunrise/sunset times, moon positions and phases...everything you see out there in the real world.This is honestly the root of the problem we appear to be having. Tom seems to be thinking there should be this nice, simple little string behind these calculators since it's so easy to use from an end user standpoint. When in reality that's just good programming at work, and everything going on 'behind the scenes' is far more complicated because it's not representing a simple system.
The IAU would not get away with publishing stuff that doesn't work - and there are a ton of astronomical papers that cite their work.
So I guess you either have to take someone's word for it - or start diving into the software.
But what SOFA does isn't something as simple as plugging the time of day and your latitude/longitude into a few lines of math to get the sunrise time. It computes the orbits of all of the planets, moons, etc - it even 'fixes' the errors made by Isaac Newton in the orbit of Mercury. When it calculates sunrises and sunsets - it's even making the teeny-tiny adjustments for refraction.
It's an extremely comprehensive piece of software...but it's not simple!
Well, you can go and download the SOFA software - it's right there. The code contains all of the equations they use. I'm kinda sceptical that you'd be able to work through them all in detail - but there is nothing being hidden away or covered up anyplace. I've used SOFA in some flight simulation products - and it does reproduce realistic sunrise/sunset times, moon positions and phases...everything you see out there in the real world.This is honestly the root of the problem we appear to be having. Tom seems to be thinking there should be this nice, simple little string behind these calculators since it's so easy to use from an end user standpoint. When in reality that's just good programming at work, and everything going on 'behind the scenes' is far more complicated because it's not representing a simple system.
The IAU would not get away with publishing stuff that doesn't work - and there are a ton of astronomical papers that cite their work.
So I guess you either have to take someone's word for it - or start diving into the software.
But what SOFA does isn't something as simple as plugging the time of day and your latitude/longitude into a few lines of math to get the sunrise time. It computes the orbits of all of the planets, moons, etc - it even 'fixes' the errors made by Isaac Newton in the orbit of Mercury. When it calculates sunrises and sunsets - it's even making the teeny-tiny adjustments for refraction.
It's an extremely comprehensive piece of software...but it's not simple!
Tom, these equations are all being done rapidly by these calculators and simulators when you enter in your location and the date. This is the process the computer goes through. This is part of why I at least find it amusing when you claim things like "It's been adjusted to match observations" since you don't seem to understand the full extent of what is actually going on behind the scenes. It's not as simple as changing a number here or there, these programs have an incredible amount of interwoven data.
void iauLdsun(double p[3], double e[3], double em, double p1[3])
{
double em2, dlim;
/* Deflection limiter (smaller for distant observers). */
em2 = em*em;
if ( em2 < 1.0 ) em2 = 1.0;
dlim = 1e-6 / (em2 > 1.0 ? em2 : 1.0);
/* Apply the deflection. */
iauLd(1.0, p, p, e, em, dlim, p1);
}
Before you bait me into discussing SOFA, which may be off topic to the method used for timeanddate.com, please show where on the timeanddate.com website it is stated that they are using SOFA.
Well, you can go and download the SOFA software - it's right there. The code contains all of the equations they use. I'm kinda sceptical that you'd be able to work through them all in detail - but there is nothing being hidden away or covered up anyplace. I've used SOFA in some flight simulation products - and it does reproduce realistic sunrise/sunset times, moon positions and phases...everything you see out there in the real world.This is honestly the root of the problem we appear to be having. Tom seems to be thinking there should be this nice, simple little string behind these calculators since it's so easy to use from an end user standpoint. When in reality that's just good programming at work, and everything going on 'behind the scenes' is far more complicated because it's not representing a simple system.
The IAU would not get away with publishing stuff that doesn't work - and there are a ton of astronomical papers that cite their work.
So I guess you either have to take someone's word for it - or start diving into the software.
But what SOFA does isn't something as simple as plugging the time of day and your latitude/longitude into a few lines of math to get the sunrise time. It computes the orbits of all of the planets, moons, etc - it even 'fixes' the errors made by Isaac Newton in the orbit of Mercury. When it calculates sunrises and sunsets - it's even making the teeny-tiny adjustments for refraction.
It's an extremely comprehensive piece of software...but it's not simple!
Tom, these equations are all being done rapidly by these calculators and simulators when you enter in your location and the date. This is the process the computer goes through. This is part of why I at least find it amusing when you claim things like "It's been adjusted to match observations" since you don't seem to understand the full extent of what is actually going on behind the scenes. It's not as simple as changing a number here or there, these programs have an incredible amount of interwoven data.
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.Well, you can go and download the SOFA software - it's right there. The code contains all of the equations they use. I'm kinda sceptical that you'd be able to work through them all in detail - but there is nothing being hidden away or covered up anyplace. I've used SOFA in some flight simulation products - and it does reproduce realistic sunrise/sunset times, moon positions and phases...everything you see out there in the real world.This is honestly the root of the problem we appear to be having. Tom seems to be thinking there should be this nice, simple little string behind these calculators since it's so easy to use from an end user standpoint. When in reality that's just good programming at work, and everything going on 'behind the scenes' is far more complicated because it's not representing a simple system.
The IAU would not get away with publishing stuff that doesn't work - and there are a ton of astronomical papers that cite their work.
So I guess you either have to take someone's word for it - or start diving into the software.
But what SOFA does isn't something as simple as plugging the time of day and your latitude/longitude into a few lines of math to get the sunrise time. It computes the orbits of all of the planets, moons, etc - it even 'fixes' the errors made by Isaac Newton in the orbit of Mercury. When it calculates sunrises and sunsets - it's even making the teeny-tiny adjustments for refraction.
It's an extremely comprehensive piece of software...but it's not simple!
Tom, these equations are all being done rapidly by these calculators and simulators when you enter in your location and the date. This is the process the computer goes through. This is part of why I at least find it amusing when you claim things like "It's been adjusted to match observations" since you don't seem to understand the full extent of what is actually going on behind the scenes. It's not as simple as changing a number here or there, these programs have an incredible amount of interwoven data.
We don't know WHAT method that website is using for its calculations. There is no transparency. There have been hundreds of attempted equations and methodologies for predicting astronomy.
Why should we assume that it is using a geometric model rather than a pattern based model? There is NO information on that website telling us what method is in use.
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.
Now I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.
Why not just tell us if you think you know where the information comes from?QuoteNow I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*
Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used? Where does it say that its using the other equation you linked? You are not providing any information on source material, just random equations which timeanddate.com does not even claim to use.
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.
Why not just tell us if you think you know where the information comes from?QuoteNow I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*
Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used? Where does it say that its using the other equation you linked? You are not providing any information on source material, just random equations which timeanddate.com does not even claim to use.
Because I couldn't remember where it came from offhand. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg114944#msg114944 <-- there is the relevant post in the earlier thread.
Oh right, I should probably link his rebuttal to your only refutation here as well considering how weak yours was to begin with. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg115584#msg115584
As for SOFA, 3DGeeks claim followed from him saying his research showed that the api provided by timeanddate here (https://www.timeanddate.com/services/api/astronomy-api.html) is the same as that provided by SOFA. I mean, I suppose you could argue timeanddate don't use the api they themselves provide, but that would require actual evidence either in the nature of showing a discrepancy, or something else.
The sources for the Almanac are then given, by the Almanac. You seem to be pretending that it's required for timeanddate to specifically give it's equation, instead of being able to show it's accurate according to other proven methods and equations, so you can be assured of it's accuracy based on those. In the real world that is not the case, a source referencing a trusted source backing up it's data means the presented data is trustworthy, at least to most normal people I know. Note, this is specifically about *data* not conclusions about said data, before you go getting ideas. Since timeanddate and the Almanac are both strictly about data, that's being shown.Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.
Why not just tell us if you think you know where the information comes from?QuoteNow I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*
Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used? Where does it say that its using the other equation you linked? You are not providing any information on source material, just random equations which timeanddate.com does not even claim to use.
Because I couldn't remember where it came from offhand. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg114944#msg114944 <-- there is the relevant post in the earlier thread.
Oh right, I should probably link his rebuttal to your only refutation here as well considering how weak yours was to begin with. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg115584#msg115584
As for SOFA, 3DGeeks claim followed from him saying his research showed that the api provided by timeanddate here (https://www.timeanddate.com/services/api/astronomy-api.html) is the same as that provided by SOFA. I mean, I suppose you could argue timeanddate don't use the api they themselves provide, but that would require actual evidence either in the nature of showing a discrepancy, or something else.
I can only assume that you are feigning ignorance now because what you linked does not provide a source for where or what timeanddate.com is getting their data from, only a claim that the results will be similar the values given in The Astronomical Almanac.
I don't see the word SOFA anywhere on the api page you provided for timeanddate.com.
The sources for the Almanac are then given, by the Almanac. You seem to be pretending that it's required for timeanddate to specifically give it's equation, instead of being able to show it's accurate according to other proven methods and equations, so you can be assured of it's accuracy based on those. In the real world that is not the case, a source referencing a trusted source backing up it's data means the presented data is trustworthy, at least to most normal people I know. Note, this is specifically about *data* not conclusions about said data, before you go getting ideas. Since timeanddate and the Almanac are both strictly about data, that's being shown.
Did I say it should be there? I said 3DGeek said his research showed the api is the same as the one given out by SOFA. Ask him how hie figured that out, although I would presume Google had a hand.
I've told you my personal observations match timeanddate.com. Multiple others in the linked threat have told you that. 3DGeek has told you that. A number of others in the thread the last time the website came up confirmed it as well. The linked thread showed what the Almanac was based upon, you even objected yourself to the fact it was using computer equations even though it notes it also used observations to confirm it's equations. YOU are the one who keeps attempting to shift burden of proof to some document you claim must exist showing observations from every location on the globe for the equations, when the accuracy of it's predictions has been confirmed in numerous locations by multiple people upon these very fora. Since you can't believe any of us, go out and test it yourself. It's not difficult. Go. I'll wait while you gather observations for a few days. Feel free to spin up the equation and see how close timeanddate comes while you're at it.The sources for the Almanac are then given, by the Almanac. You seem to be pretending that it's required for timeanddate to specifically give it's equation, instead of being able to show it's accurate according to other proven methods and equations, so you can be assured of it's accuracy based on those. In the real world that is not the case, a source referencing a trusted source backing up it's data means the presented data is trustworthy, at least to most normal people I know. Note, this is specifically about *data* not conclusions about said data, before you go getting ideas. Since timeanddate and the Almanac are both strictly about data, that's being shown.
Why are you lying and trying to claim that it is known where timeanddate.com got its data then?
IF the timeanddate.com data is similar to the Astronomical Almanac data (no examples were given) and IF timeanddate.com is accurate for what is seen in reality (again, no one has found any observations to show that this is the case) then it just moves your burden of proof to show that the Astronomical Almanac data is derived from a geometric equation rather than a pattern based equation.QuoteDid I say it should be there? I said 3DGeek said his research showed the api is the same as the one given out by SOFA. Ask him how hie figured that out, although I would presume Google had a hand.
Why are you arguing for something which you do not know the answer for? If you are arguing in favor of SOFA then I expect you to have answers.
I've told you my personal observations match timeanddate.com. Multiple others in the linked threat have told you that. 3DGeek has told you that. A number of others in the thread the last time the website came up confirmed it as well. The linked thread showed what the Almanac was based upon, you even objected yourself to the fact it was using computer equations even though it notes it also used observations to confirm it's equations. YOU are the one who keeps attempting to shift burden of proof to some document you claim must exist showing observations from every location on the globe for the equations, when the accuracy of it's predictions has been confirmed in numerous locations by multiple people upon these very fora. Since you can't believe any of us, go out and test it yourself. It's not difficult. Go. I'll wait while you gather observations for a few days. Feel free to spin up the equation and see how close timeanddate comes while you're at it.
So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.
Sure - I have an observation. I spent nearly two years in Kenya (Nairobi, to be exact) as a young teenager. Nairobi is just 88 miles from the equator. In spring and fall, the sun rose in the East and set in the West and crossed so nearly vertically overhead that shadows disappeared from tall buildings. I vividly recall one time when my mother and I walked to a local swimming pool in the noon-day heat (yeah - "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun) - it was very noticeable that you could find no shade from tall buildings on either side of the road. She took the trouble to explain why this is, despite the axial tilt of the round earth. In summer and winter, the earth's axial tilt causes the sun to track to the north or south by around 23 degrees from the vertical...just as you'd expect at the equator of a round earth.
I never argued it. You asked "Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used?" I told you that was an assertion by 3DGeek that he found their api was the same as the one SOFA gives out. No more, no less. You're the one who apparently took me telling you it three times to figure out what I was saying, when 3DGeek said it clearly in the very first post he made mentioning it that his research had shown him this information. Do you actually read and try and comprehend what is being said? Or just look for the first part you can attempt to pick apart, however bad you are at doing that?
This is why I wonder if you actually read what's written sometimes Tom. There were a number of people in that thread who mentioned they had observed timeanddate being accurate, and not the one you just linked to. The one I just linked to in my post. The one that talked about the Almanac. Multiple people in that thread said they had confirmed it for their locations. Go look for the Almanac if you need that information that badly. I have never claimed 'mountains of evidence' and I've even told you exactly that in another thread. You're the one who can't be bothered to take the observations of others it appears. You're the one who apparently can't be bothered to go out and look yourself. I've also offered forth the equation that the website would be based on. Does it match? If it doesn't I'd be more than happy to go digging deeper. But when your only response to these objects amounts to 'but are you suuuurrrreeeee' I'm not all that interested in doing more work when you don't seem interested in putting forth any effort from your end to meet me halfway. I've given you the tools to check. If you can't make use of them, say so and I'll look. But simply dodging the question isn't going to get you anywhere on this point.I've told you my personal observations match timeanddate.com. Multiple others in the linked threat have told you that. 3DGeek has told you that. A number of others in the thread the last time the website came up confirmed it as well. The linked thread showed what the Almanac was based upon, you even objected yourself to the fact it was using computer equations even though it notes it also used observations to confirm it's equations. YOU are the one who keeps attempting to shift burden of proof to some document you claim must exist showing observations from every location on the globe for the equations, when the accuracy of it's predictions has been confirmed in numerous locations by multiple people upon these very fora. Since you can't believe any of us, go out and test it yourself. It's not difficult. Go. I'll wait while you gather observations for a few days. Feel free to spin up the equation and see how close timeanddate comes while you're at it.
We are constantly told that there are mountains of data to rely on. You are referencing a thread where I spent many pages posting the same request for the "proven" Round Earth claims about the sun over and over. I believe it was 3D who eventually made a claim along the lines of that he proved something about the sun at the equator himself when he was 13 years old. His quote:So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.
Sure - I have an observation. I spent nearly two years in Kenya (Nairobi, to be exact) as a young teenager. Nairobi is just 88 miles from the equator. In spring and fall, the sun rose in the East and set in the West and crossed so nearly vertically overhead that shadows disappeared from tall buildings. I vividly recall one time when my mother and I walked to a local swimming pool in the noon-day heat (yeah - "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun) - it was very noticeable that you could find no shade from tall buildings on either side of the road. She took the trouble to explain why this is, despite the axial tilt of the round earth. In summer and winter, the earth's axial tilt causes the sun to track to the north or south by around 23 degrees from the vertical...just as you'd expect at the equator of a round earth.
This was the only piece of observational evidence presented in the thread, no one being able to present any of the observational evidence which we were told that RET is based upon. For quite a while I kept asking for the professional observations which were claimed to exist and none could be found. 3D had to resort to the old "I proved it myself when I was 13 years old" in face of embarrassment, and now you reference 3D's claim here as some kind of shining beacon of achievement.
This is an example of why the arguments presented by your particular generation of REers are so terrible. We have seen better effort.QuoteI never argued it. You asked "Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used?" I told you that was an assertion by 3DGeek that he found their api was the same as the one SOFA gives out. No more, no less. You're the one who apparently took me telling you it three times to figure out what I was saying, when 3DGeek said it clearly in the very first post he made mentioning it that his research had shown him this information. Do you actually read and try and comprehend what is being said? Or just look for the first part you can attempt to pick apart, however bad you are at doing that?
You challenged me to "take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else." If you are challenging this then I expect that you have some kind of knowledge that the timeanddate.com data uses or relies on SOFA. If you really had no idea whether it was related or not then you should have just remained quiet.
Why are we even arguing about this?
Let's look at the steps in this debate to see how Tom seeks to derail things:
* We find a problem that FET cannot explain. Either real world sunrises and sunsets match RET or they don't.
* If they match RET then parts of the FE world will experience wild temperature variations compared to what one would expect.
* If they DON'T match RET - then everyone would know it because software like SOFA and TimeAndDate and HUNDREDS of other sunrise/sunset calculators would all be incorrect...and quite clearly they are not.
This is a slam-dunk...the world is round.
So what can Tom do? Initially he ignored it - but when I posted my list of debate topics where the FE'ers had abandoned them - Tom clearly saw he needed to "up his game" and following that discussion - he's started to "connect" on some of these threads.
So he comes to this thread and looks for any way he can to derail the argument. The only place he sees an opportunity is to claim that "real world" sunrise and sunset times MIGHT not match RET.
He has ZERO proof of this - none, zip, nada.
This is insanely unlikely. Mankind has had the means to calculate these times since the ancient Greeks...and ALL of those methods are RET based.
Tom is therefore claiming that of the bazillions of times people have used sunrise/sunset calculators - nobody ever noticed that they are WILDLY incorrect. For the argument I propose to be incorrect, the "real world" sunrise/sunset times would have to be many, MANY hours wrong.
It would be like 3am - and the sun would come up...people would be amazed...they'd check any of a dozen sunrise/sunset calculators and they'd say "6am" (or whatever).
How would nobody be aware of this insane and disastrous error over the course of the last 3,000 years or so?
But - does Tom defend this?
No - he goes off on a tangent demanding ridiculous proof for an impossible assertion. I provide that proof (even though it's not needed) and he focusses on smaller and smaller nits.
These are the actions of a very desperate man folks.
He's holding on to his precious flat earth theory by a finger...and it's slipping away.
We're past the point where we'd say "SUCH-AND-SUCH GOES WRONG" and he comes up with some elaborate theory that explains why - and instead he falls back on the ever-expanding crazy degrees of doubt.
The deal here is that sunrise and sunset times that people see out there in the real world DO agree with RET math...of this there is no realistic doubt - only Tom-induced-craziness-doubt.
So - focus on the thing here:
Can FET explain why the speed of the sun across the distorted maps of the FE world either doesn't change (resulting in FE sunrise/sunset times disagreeing with VERY well established algorithms like SOFA) - or can FET explain why we don't see crazy temperature inconsistencies - or can FET explain how nobody ever noticed the sun rising several hours from when it should according to the math that's been used to calculate them for 3,000 years or more?
That's the issue here - it really doesn't matter whether some specific website uses some specific piece of software. That's NOT the realms of doubt here.
Why are we even arguing about this?
Let's look at the steps in this debate to see how Tom seeks to derail things:
* We find a problem that FET cannot explain. Either real world sunrises and sunsets match RET or they don't.
* If they match RET then parts of the FE world will experience wild temperature variations compared to what one would expect.
* If they DON'T match RET - then everyone would know it because software like SOFA and TimeAndDate and HUNDREDS of other sunrise/sunset calculators would all be incorrect...and quite clearly they are not.
This is a slam-dunk...the world is round.
So what can Tom do? Initially he ignored it - but when I posted my list of debate topics where the FE'ers had abandoned them - Tom clearly saw he needed to "up his game" and following that discussion - he's started to "connect" on some of these threads.
So he comes to this thread and looks for any way he can to derail the argument. The only place he sees an opportunity is to claim that "real world" sunrise and sunset times MIGHT not match RET.
He has ZERO proof of this - none, zip, nada.
This is insanely unlikely. Mankind has had the means to calculate these times since the ancient Greeks...and ALL of those methods are RET based.
Tom is therefore claiming that of the bazillions of times people have used sunrise/sunset calculators - nobody ever noticed that they are WILDLY incorrect. For the argument I propose to be incorrect, the "real world" sunrise/sunset times would have to be many, MANY hours wrong.
It would be like 3am - and the sun would come up...people would be amazed...they'd check any of a dozen sunrise/sunset calculators and they'd say "6am" (or whatever).
How would nobody be aware of this insane and disastrous error over the course of the last 3,000 years or so?
But - does Tom defend this?
No - he goes off on a tangent demanding ridiculous proof for an impossible assertion. I provide that proof (even though it's not needed) and he focusses on smaller and smaller nits.
These are the actions of a very desperate man folks.
He's holding on to his precious flat earth theory by a finger...and it's slipping away.
We're past the point where we'd say "SUCH-AND-SUCH GOES WRONG" and he comes up with some elaborate theory that explains why - and instead he falls back on the ever-expanding crazy degrees of doubt.
The deal here is that sunrise and sunset times that people see out there in the real world DO agree with RET math...of this there is no realistic doubt - only Tom-induced-craziness-doubt.
So - focus on the thing here:
Can FET explain why the speed of the sun across the distorted maps of the FE world either doesn't change (resulting in FE sunrise/sunset times disagreeing with VERY well established algorithms like SOFA) - or can FET explain why we don't see crazy temperature inconsistencies - or can FET explain how nobody ever noticed the sun rising several hours from when it should according to the math that's been used to calculate them for 3,000 years or more?
That's the issue here - it really doesn't matter whether some specific website uses some specific piece of software. That's NOT the realms of doubt here.
We have had many threads about this. I ask for the observations of the sun that Round Earth Theory relies upon for its sun models and no reports can be found. The only observational evidence was you claiming to have proved it when you were 13 years old. Why should we believe that there are hidden mountains of professional observations?
Round Earth Theory does not rest upon your 13 year old observations, I am afraid. If you cannot provide the observations which back up a Round Earth mathematical model, then we cannot accept those sources as impeachable evidence.
If you cannot see the importance of having observational evidence to back up an algorithm, then we are done talking here. We have been asking the same question for years.
You have not shown that timeanddate.com or SOFA are accurate, or that they rely strictly on a Round Earth geometric model of the solar system for the predictions. You have a steep uphill climb for your positive claims.
Why are we even arguing about this?
Let's look at the steps in this debate to see how Tom seeks to derail things:
* We find a problem that FET cannot explain. Either real world sunrises and sunsets match RET or they don't.
* If they match RET then parts of the FE world will experience wild temperature variations compared to what one would expect.
* If they DON'T match RET - then everyone would know it because software like SOFA and TimeAndDate and HUNDREDS of other sunrise/sunset calculators would all be incorrect...and quite clearly they are not.
This is a slam-dunk...the world is round.
So what can Tom do? Initially he ignored it - but when I posted my list of debate topics where the FE'ers had abandoned them - Tom clearly saw he needed to "up his game" and following that discussion - he's started to "connect" on some of these threads.
So he comes to this thread and looks for any way he can to derail the argument. The only place he sees an opportunity is to claim that "real world" sunrise and sunset times MIGHT not match RET.
He has ZERO proof of this - none, zip, nada.
This is insanely unlikely. Mankind has had the means to calculate these times since the ancient Greeks...and ALL of those methods are RET based.
Tom is therefore claiming that of the bazillions of times people have used sunrise/sunset calculators - nobody ever noticed that they are WILDLY incorrect. For the argument I propose to be incorrect, the "real world" sunrise/sunset times would have to be many, MANY hours wrong.
It would be like 3am - and the sun would come up...people would be amazed...they'd check any of a dozen sunrise/sunset calculators and they'd say "6am" (or whatever).
How would nobody be aware of this insane and disastrous error over the course of the last 3,000 years or so?
But - does Tom defend this?
No - he goes off on a tangent demanding ridiculous proof for an impossible assertion. I provide that proof (even though it's not needed) and he focusses on smaller and smaller nits.
These are the actions of a very desperate man folks.
He's holding on to his precious flat earth theory by a finger...and it's slipping away.
We're past the point where we'd say "SUCH-AND-SUCH GOES WRONG" and he comes up with some elaborate theory that explains why - and instead he falls back on the ever-expanding crazy degrees of doubt.
The deal here is that sunrise and sunset times that people see out there in the real world DO agree with RET math...of this there is no realistic doubt - only Tom-induced-craziness-doubt.
So - focus on the thing here:
Can FET explain why the speed of the sun across the distorted maps of the FE world either doesn't change (resulting in FE sunrise/sunset times disagreeing with VERY well established algorithms like SOFA) - or can FET explain why we don't see crazy temperature inconsistencies - or can FET explain how nobody ever noticed the sun rising several hours from when it should according to the math that's been used to calculate them for 3,000 years or more?
That's the issue here - it really doesn't matter whether some specific website uses some specific piece of software. That's NOT the realms of doubt here.
We have had many threads about this. I ask for the observations of the sun that Round Earth Theory relies upon for its sun models and no reports can be found. The only observational evidence was you claiming to have proved it when you were 13 years old. Why should we believe that there are hidden mountains of professional observations?
Round Earth Theory does not rest upon your 13 year old observations, I am afraid. If you cannot provide the observations which back up a Round Earth mathematical model, then we cannot accept those sources as impeachable evidence.
If you cannot see the importance of having observational evidence to back up an algorithm, then we are done talking here. We have been asking the same question for years.
You have not shown that timeanddate.com or SOFA are accurate, or that they rely strictly on a Round Earth geometric model of the solar system for the predictions. You have a steep uphill climb for your positive claims.
We have multiple people in multiple threads confirming they have observed timeanddate.com to accurately predict their local sunrise/set times. Fact. Stop it with this red herring of 3DGeeks statement.
We have presented evidence from the Almanac (that timeanddate states to agree with) that it's equations are confirmed with many years of observational data. You refuse to accept it.
You appear to be looking for a catalogue of a bunch of observations taken to confirm these equations. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but assuming such a thing exists, it's unlikely to be in a digital format. The records would have been taken and kept by the IAU and predecessor associations. Assuming such data is even on the list to be digitized, it's likely a very low priority to do so for their own records, much less for public records.
We've both presented you tools to show it's not working with known equations, and those equations themselves show that they are based upon the heliocentric globe model.
This you can't pretend, because FE doesn't even have a map for them to be using, much less a working model of the objects in the sky. In the distance thread it was inadmissible for the GPS if it was based on RE coordinates, but suddenly you don't care when the same is used here? Bollocks my good sir. Bollocks.
Yeah - in a world where FET was REMOTELY credible (Trust me, it's not) - then scientists would be working very hard to collect data to prove one model or the other.
The truth is that you guys are seen as complete idiots by 99.999% of the world - and nobody would remotely consider collecting data to "prove that the world is round" - we already have photos from the moon, long distance air flight...all of the DOZENS of other things that have proven conclusively that the Earth is round.
If you want people out there with theodalites and stop watches - then you're going to have to do that yourself.
The ACTUAL proof works like this:
1) We assume the null hypothesis: "The World is Round".
2) We use this fact to create software like SOFA and it's ilk.
3) We test it against the real world to make sure it works.
4) It does work.
5) We call it done.
If at step (4) we found even the SLIGHTEST inconsistency - then we have to go back and look at our initial hypothesis.
Here is an actual example of that happening:
1) Sir Isaac Newton came up with the laws of motion and the law of gravitation.
2) It was used to write equations describing the path of the planets across the skies.
3) It was checked against telescopic observations to see if they matched.
4) They did match...so scientists and engineers began to rely on Newtons' laws.
BUT THEN:
5) Horror of horrors! Careful observation of the motion of the planet mercury showed that it's orbit "precessed" in ways that Newton's laws could not explain.
6) There was much concern that Newton may have gotten things very slightly wrong - or that astronomers had somehow missed another planet or something.
7) Albert Einstein discovers relativity.
8) New equations of motion are made to improve on Newton's theories.
9) These new equations match not only the motion of all of the other planets - but also show why the Sun's gravity causes subtle bending of space-time which PERFECTLY explains the motion of Mercury.
10) Scientists now use Newton's work only as approximations - and use Einstein's work where it matters.
But nobody is making lots of observations to "prove" Newton or Einstein's results. That was done a century ago. Once a scientific fact is well established, we can stop worrying about it unless some weird anomaly appears.
So IF at ANY TIME someone finds that the sun rises an hour too soon - then you can trust me that there will be a bazillion scientists with theodalites and stop-watches collecting data.
But the RE model works PERFECTLY - it explains everything we see around us - there is not one single thing that even hints at it being incorrect - so why the heck would anyone waste time and money measuring sunrises and sunsets?
The fact is that if you want FET to be accepted widely, YOU are the ones who have to collect the data.
Remember - you're not trying to convince your believers - if you want your theory to be more widely accepted, YOU are the ones who have to collect data and find some "smoking gun" flaw in RET's predictions.
Not only can you not do that (evidently) - you can't even come up with a coherent explanation for the tides or sunsets or compasses or airline flight times or how the moon looks in the southern hemisphere or how lunar eclipses work or the phases of the moon or how the stars rotate in the southern hemisphere or what powers the sun or why pinhole cameras don't exhibit your "alternate perspective".
You act as though it is the job of RE'ers to prove you wrong - but in truth, the onus is on you to find even one tiny scrap of evidence that RET is wrong.
Yeah - in a world where FET was REMOTELY credible (Trust me, it's not) - then scientists would be working very hard to collect data to prove one model or the other.
The truth is that you guys are seen as complete idiots by 99.999% of the world - and nobody would remotely consider collecting data to "prove that the world is round" - we already have photos from the moon, long distance air flight...all of the DOZENS of other things that have proven conclusively that the Earth is round.
If you want people out there with theodalites and stop watches - then you're going to have to do that yourself.
The ACTUAL proof works like this:
1) We assume the null hypothesis: "The World is Round".
2) We use this fact to create software like SOFA and it's ilk.
3) We test it against the real world to make sure it works.
4) It does work.
5) We call it done.
If at step (4) we found even the SLIGHTEST inconsistency - then we have to go back and look at our initial hypothesis.
Here is an actual example of that happening:
1) Sir Isaac Newton came up with the laws of motion and the law of gravitation.
2) It was used to write equations describing the path of the planets across the skies.
3) It was checked against telescopic observations to see if they matched.
4) They did match...so scientists and engineers began to rely on Newtons' laws.
BUT THEN:
5) Horror of horrors! Careful observation of the motion of the planet mercury showed that it's orbit "precessed" in ways that Newton's laws could not explain.
6) There was much concern that Newton may have gotten things very slightly wrong - or that astronomers had somehow missed another planet or something.
7) Albert Einstein discovers relativity.
8) New equations of motion are made to improve on Newton's theories.
9) These new equations match not only the motion of all of the other planets - but also show why the Sun's gravity causes subtle bending of space-time which PERFECTLY explains the motion of Mercury.
10) Scientists now use Newton's work only as approximations - and use Einstein's work where it matters.
But nobody is making lots of observations to "prove" Newton or Einstein's results. That was done a century ago. Once a scientific fact is well established, we can stop worrying about it unless some weird anomaly appears.
So IF at ANY TIME someone finds that the sun rises an hour too soon - then you can trust me that there will be a bazillion scientists with theodalites and stop-watches collecting data.
But the RE model works PERFECTLY - it explains everything we see around us - there is not one single thing that even hints at it being incorrect - so why the heck would anyone waste time and money measuring sunrises and sunsets?
The fact is that if you want FET to be accepted widely, YOU are the ones who have to collect the data.
Remember - you're not trying to convince your believers - if you want your theory to be more widely accepted, YOU are the ones who have to collect data and find some "smoking gun" flaw in RET's predictions.
Not only can you not do that (evidently) - you can't even come up with a coherent explanation for the tides or sunsets or compasses or airline flight times or how the moon looks in the southern hemisphere or how lunar eclipses work or the phases of the moon or how the stars rotate in the southern hemisphere or what powers the sun or why pinhole cameras don't exhibit your "alternate perspective".
You act as though it is the job of RE'ers to prove you wrong - but in truth, the onus is on you to find even one tiny scrap of evidence that RET is wrong.
Why are you trying to divert this discussion?
If you can't present the evidence showing that those equations are unimpeachable then they are not unimpeachable. Your argument that we should just accept them without question is terrible.
We have simply requested the data behind the work so that we can see it have been verified as accurate and all you can seem to do is throw a fit. Quite telling.
The RE guys are giving Tom WAY too many areas to call into question your data and not discuss the actual topic. Keep it simple and talk fundamentals.I don't think Tom will agree with (1) because he doesn't know what a map of FE looks like. I don't think he'll agree with (2) because the sun has to do some kind of weird spiralling loop in order to reproduce the seasons and changing day lengths throughout the year.
Tom, my original assertion was that the southern "hemiplane" should be much colder due to the fact that the sun has a larger area to heat. A few simple questions.
1) What is the overall shape of the flat Earth? The pics from space seem to indicate round. Would you agree with that?
2) Do you agree that the sun travels in a circular, regular orbit?
3) Do you agree that some people live in the southern "hemiplane"?
Yes, these are simple. Yes, they may have been asked before, but I want to know what you're current understanding is before proceeding. Trying to build a foundation of agreed upon points.
We have multiple people in multiple threads confirming they have observed timeanddate.com to accurately predict their local sunrise/set times. Fact. Stop it with this red herring of 3DGeeks statement.
The only other observational reports that were presented were some random RE posters who chimed in stating "werks for me!!" in the heat of conversation. It is quite sad that you see this as evidence.QuoteWe have presented evidence from the Almanac (that timeanddate states to agree with) that it's equations are confirmed with many years of observational data. You refuse to accept it.
What evidence?QuoteYou appear to be looking for a catalogue of a bunch of observations taken to confirm these equations. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but assuming such a thing exists, it's unlikely to be in a digital format. The records would have been taken and kept by the IAU and predecessor associations. Assuming such data is even on the list to be digitized, it's likely a very low priority to do so for their own records, much less for public records.
How can you assume that these catalogs exist if we can't find any trace or reference to them?QuoteWe've both presented you tools to show it's not working with known equations, and those equations themselves show that they are based upon the heliocentric globe model.
It has not been shown that the equations are based on a Heliocentric globe model, or that they are accurate. Stop lying.QuoteThis you can't pretend, because FE doesn't even have a map for them to be using, much less a working model of the objects in the sky. In the distance thread it was inadmissible for the GPS if it was based on RE coordinates, but suddenly you don't care when the same is used here? Bollocks my good sir. Bollocks.
GPS or Round Earth coordinates have not been discussed here.
The RE guys are giving Tom WAY too many areas to call into question your data and not discuss the actual topic. Keep it simple and talk fundamentals.I don't think Tom will agree with (1) because he doesn't know what a map of FE looks like. I don't think he'll agree with (2) because the sun has to do some kind of weird spiralling loop in order to reproduce the seasons and changing day lengths throughout the year.
Tom, my original assertion was that the southern "hemiplane" should be much colder due to the fact that the sun has a larger area to heat. A few simple questions.
1) What is the overall shape of the flat Earth? The pics from space seem to indicate round. Would you agree with that?
2) Do you agree that the sun travels in a circular, regular orbit?
3) Do you agree that some people live in the southern "hemiplane"?
Yes, these are simple. Yes, they may have been asked before, but I want to know what you're current understanding is before proceeding. Trying to build a foundation of agreed upon points.
The evidence is in the SOFA source code - which you can freely download from the link provided. If you read through the 60,000 lines of software code, you will, with 100% certainty find a buttload of equations that relate to the round earth and heliocentric model of the universe. That's your evidence, go ahead and read it. See you in a couple of years.
We know SOFA is reliable because it's been TESTED...it's used by the International Astronomical Union - the professional and academic body that oversees all astronomy around the globe. These are the guys who decided that Pluto should not be called "A planet" - the people who determine the acceptable names for newly found stars and planets. Every single astronomer in the world relies on them. If SOFA was inconsistent with RET then the world would be ablaze with the news. Instead, it's been considered the gold standard for ephemeris calculations for over 20 years.
The evidence is that people can use it reliably for pointing telescopes at stars and planets all over the world and at any time of the night...it works for radio telescopes...it's used all over the place.
If you're expecting to find a giant table of sunrise and sunset times, measured with a stopwatch and compared against the times predicted by SOFA - then you're not going to be in luck. That's not how the world works.
Instead, look at a photograph of a distant galaxy taken by some ungodly huge telescope on top of a mountain in South America - and note that the telescope is pointing in the right direction to take that photo because it uses SOFA to figure that out.
YOU CAN go look at the SOFA software...and if you think you have the intellectual capability to understand the equations then I STRONGLY urge you to do so. But it ain't simple. This is a very comprehensive thing.
Yes, with a few minutes of research to find one example of an article that specifically cites the astronomical constants used by the IAU programmed into SOFA: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/432/4/3431/1008592/Relativistic-effects-and-dark-matter-in-the-Solar (https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/432/4/3431/1008592/Relativistic-effects-and-dark-matter-in-the-Solar)
and also:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-012-0086-6
but really just all of these:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2874842261205802644&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en
//
But also, for those watching, note that Tom's question was redundant: 3DGeek gave "data showing that SOFA has made accurate predictions" in his post, but now that Tom has asked for some, he has opened the possibility of then dismissing without cause any actual data that is provided. This could be described as 'moving the goalposts' or 'willful ignorance.'
The papers are not specifically about showing the accuracy of SOFA or IAU equations. Please copy and paste any relevant sections rather than directing us to a bunch of random articles which contain the word IAU.Have you tested timeanddate.com yet?
Where is SOFA tested in any of this?in response to a set of papers that cited it in reference to successful observations. These constitute successful tests, but Tom has ignored this to press the challenge.
That's fine if those are his answers. It is a place to start. Gotta have a starting point of things he will accept and work from there.
From the perspective of a critical discussion, in assertive speech acts – or speech acts to be reconstructed
as assertives – two types of commitment are to be distinguished, which have different procedural
consequences. First, there are assertives advancing a standpoint, or an argument that in the
course of the discussion becomes a substandpoint. These assertives create the specific
commitment that constitutes a burden of proof. Second, there are assertives performed to
establish a starting point for the discussion. These assertives create commitments that can be
used in the argumentation and concluding stages of the discussion. They have the same function
as the formal dialectical concessions, albeit that in a critical discussion such concessions are
made by both parties and the commitments they create can be used in both defending and
attacking a standpoint. Since these assertives can only serve as a starting point when – and
because – they are mutually agreed upon, they do not carry a burden of proof.
The RE guys are giving Tom WAY too many areas to call into question your data and not discuss the actual topic. Keep it simple and talk fundamentals.
The papers are not specifically about showing the accuracy of SOFA or IAU equations. Please copy and paste any relevant sections rather than directing us to a bunch of random articles which contain the word IAU.
Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.
SOFA is a collection of algorithms. We need to know which ones are accurate and which ones are not. Perhaps the ones that are pattern based are accurate and the ones that are geometric have accuracy issues.Yes it probably exists. Why should it exist in any location you can see or access? You also failed to address any of the points raised about how quickly the community would jump on issues. Lastly, as he's said multiple times before, 3D does in fact use this software on a fairly regular basis. But that's ok. You don't trust anyone but yourself. Did you check sunrise against the equation today? Or just gonna continue to cry about how we can't know it's accurate without doing any of your own tests to show the inaccuracy?
You are continually denying the need for basic evidence for the accuracy of SOFA. You prefer imagining that if there was an issue that you would have heard about it rather than looking for the infornation yourself. Are you a contributor or astonomer who is using SOFA? How do you know how accurate it is? Are all algorithms 100% accurate or are only certain ones mostly accurate?
It is absurd to think that a wide collection of celestial algorithms are entirely accurate in all implementations considering on the previous page we saw references that 10 complex algorithms are required to get daylight times based on a geometric model. Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.
Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.
Tom, what should such data look like in your opinion?
The OP presents a really simple idea -- according to the current FE map, southern hemisphere really should freeze because of how much the sunlight would scatter over that area. This is one of ~1 billion other issues with your little "theory". Until you have an actual response to this, we can count this as yet another loss for flerfers.
Yes it probably exists. Why should it exist in any location you can see or access? You also failed to address any of the points raised about how quickly the community would jump on issues. Lastly, as he's said multiple times before, 3D does in fact use this software on a fairly regular basis. But that's ok. You don't trust anyone but yourself. Did you check sunrise against the equation today? Or just gonna continue to cry about how we can't know it's accurate without doing any of your own tests to show the inaccuracy?
Yes it probably exists. Why should it exist in any location you can see or access? You also failed to address any of the points raised about how quickly the community would jump on issues. Lastly, as he's said multiple times before, 3D does in fact use this software on a fairly regular basis. But that's ok. You don't trust anyone but yourself. Did you check sunrise against the equation today? Or just gonna continue to cry about how we can't know it's accurate without doing any of your own tests to show the inaccuracy?
Even if the time of sunrise equation was accurate with what happened in reality (the people who present these types of equations sure don't like to talk about accuracy), we still do not know whether that particular equation, one of 76 others, is geometric or pattern based yet. Why do you think that simply looking at the time of sunrise is a valid test? The sun has done the same thing for hundreds of years. Don't you think it is possible to create an equation based on its previous patterns?
Looking through their PDF on time, they do have some equations listed. They are "geometric." (Trig) The equation below factors in the Earth's "out of roundness" when converting barycentric dynamic time to terrestrial time to an accuracy of 50 microseconds. Barycentric times factor in relativistic effects. (i.e. time dilation) I feel this should put your mind at ease about this not being a "pattern" based application. The application includes 7 different time standards, including geocentric and atomic. Can we get this thread back on track now???
The OP presents a really simple idea -- according to the current FE map, southern hemisphere really should freeze because of how much the sunlight would scatter over that area. This is one of ~1 billion other issues with your little "theory". Until you have an actual response to this, we can count this as yet another loss for flerfers.
Looking through their PDF on time, they do have some equations listed. They are "geometric." (Trig) The equation below factors in the Earth's "out of roundness" when converting barycentric dynamic time to terrestrial time to an accuracy of 50 microseconds. Barycentric times factor in relativistic effects. (i.e. time dilation) I feel this should put your mind at ease about this not being a "pattern" based application. The application includes 7 different time standards, including geocentric and atomic. Can we get this thread back on track now???
You listed one of the 7 time scales used in the 77 equations. What does that say about the sunrise time equation, the timescale used, and whether the sunrise time equation is geometric or pattern based?
Until you have an actual response to this, we can count this as yet another loss for flerfers.
Ok, I read through a bunch of their tech docs. First, there is no "tell me when the sun will rise" function that I can find. (Nor any reference to anything of the sort) I've seen examples for calculating time, position of the planets, etc. Definitely not using a table as everything is using a calculations to determine time/position. Which frankly, is sort of to be expected. You aren't going to have a database of positions/times going out an arbitrary amount of time because you'd have to calculate those at some point anyways. The math is definitely going to be quicker than doing a data read from a table and you save storage space.
In terms of accuracy, their software is accurate down to the microarcsecond. To give you an example of that, take the circle of the sky, divide it up into 3600 degrees. That is an arcsecond. Now, take one of those 3600 slices and divide that into a million tiny slices. (pie shaped to be exact) That is the accuracy they are dealing with. Extremely accurate.