The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 11:20:28 AM

Title: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 11:20:28 AM
i have just looked up the hours of sunrise and sunset for the Falkland Islands in late Dec and for London in late June.  The hours of daylight are the same in each case.  This is contrary to Rowbotham's assertions. Comments please? http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?month=6&year=2014&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1&n=136

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?month=6&year=2014&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1&n=136
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: jroa on December 29, 2013, 07:49:14 PM
The sun's orbit is closer to the North Pole in June and farther in December.  Of course London would have more daylight in June and The Falklands would have more daylight in December.  I don't see how this contradicts anything that Rowbotham observed.  Do you have an actual point to make? 
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 07:56:46 PM
the point being that hours of daylight at the summer and winter solstice for London and Stanley are the same.  this is CONTRARY to Rowbothams claim, that 52oN has more daylight at the Summer Solstice than 52oS.
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: jroa on December 29, 2013, 08:13:15 PM
I still do not follow what you are saying.  Can you quote the paragraph that you are having trouble understanding so that it can be clarified for you? 
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 08:33:41 PM
on p81 of Zetetic etc, Rowbotham writes "If the Earth is a globe, it is evident that Winter and Summer, and long an short days, will be of the same character and duration corresponding latitudes, in the southern as in the northern hemisphere.  But we find that in many respects there is a marked difference; for instance, in New Zealand, where the latitude is the about the same as in England, a remarkable difference exists int he length of day and night.  In the Cook's Strait Almanack, for 1848, it is stated, "At Welington, New Zealand, December 21, sun risies 4h 31m, and sets at 7h 29m, the day being 14 hours 58 minutes.  June 21st, Sun rises at 7h 29m, and sets at 4h 31m, the day being 9 hours and 2 minutes.  In England, the longest day is 16h 34m and the shortest day in 7h 45m.  Thus the longest day in NZ is 1h and 36m shorter than the longest day in england, and the shortest day in NZ is 1 hour and 17 m longer than the shortest day in England"

My post is that this assertion by Rowbotham is NOT supported by information I quoted in my first post on this topic.
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: jroa on December 29, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
Did you look up the times for that particular year mentioned in the book, or are you using modern times to try to discredit the 150 year old passage?
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 08:57:08 PM
I am coming to FE thinking with an open skeptical view.  The age of Rowbotham's assertion is not relevant.  Are you confirming that the duration of daylight in southern and northern latitudes of the same degree do not differ?
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 10:41:24 PM
jroa?  Are we agreed that Rowbothams assertion on unequal length of Solstices for equal degrees of latitude N ans S conflicts with the data i presented in my original posting?

Is the data wrong? or Rowbotham?
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2013, 10:45:52 PM
jroa?  Are we agreed that Rowbothams assertion on unequal length of Solstices for equal degrees of latitude N ans S conflicts with the data i presented in my original posting?
I would question your data. The links you've presented refer to future dates. They are most certainly not based on observation.
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 10:54:16 PM
I observed this source of sunrise and sunset in my own locality last night and this morning and it is exactly correct.

Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2013, 11:08:47 PM
I observed this source of sunrise and sunset in my own locality last night and this morning and it is exactly correct.
That says nothing about the website's 1848 data, does it?
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 29, 2013, 11:40:04 PM
There is NO relevance here to 1848 so lets get to the nub.

I have provided the links to a calculator of sunrise and sunset which gives estimates which directly contradict the assertions by Rowbotham on p81.  Even if it was true in 1848, the data says that this is NO LONGER the case.

My personal check of the data source is that it is accurate.  On the basis of proving it for myself, the source is reliable so far.

Are you actually able to provide proof of Rowbotham's p81 assertion? 
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: jroa on December 30, 2013, 01:40:58 AM
There is NO relevance here to 1848 so lets get to the nub.

I have provided the links to a calculator of sunrise and sunset which gives estimates which directly contradict the assertions by Rowbotham on p81.  Even if it was true in 1848, the data says that this is NO LONGER the case.

My personal check of the data source is that it is accurate.  On the basis of proving it for myself, the source is reliable so far.

Are you actually able to provide proof of Rowbotham's p81 assertion? 

Your claim is that the 1848 times are wrong.  What do you mean that the time is irrelevant?

Also, I sort of doubt your claims that you checked the sunset and sunrise times at your local.  Can you tell us where you live?  Can you even see the horizon there? 
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Tau on December 30, 2013, 04:07:04 AM
Hmm. This actually makes sense, considering that the honorable Doctor was using rather inaccurate technologies. It doesn't mean that he was a crackpot, just that the data he was using was incorrect.

This being said, I rather feel that it has little effect on Flat Earth Theory as a whole
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 30, 2013, 08:30:43 AM
Hi JROA, I have at NO time said the claims are wrong.  I have typed, typed and typed the same message in several different ways.

Rowbotham makes the claim that the sunrise and sunset times in the southern latitudes are significantly different to the sunrise and sunset times of northern latitudes.

I checked the times on the sources I provided and they contradict Rowbothams claim.  I live in Geelong, Victoria, Australia and my spot check corresponded to the source.  Geelong is in the southern edge of the main continent of Australia.

I have simply asked for confirmation or otherwise that you and the others here agree that either Rowbotham is wrong OR you or others can provide the proof that Rowbotham is right. 

Since this whole site is based on the premise that you should check for yourself, why dont you check for yourself by going outside and watching sunrise and sunset? 

Tsunami i am not inclined to agree with you.  The issue of sunrise and sunset needs to be clarified under the flat earth model.
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Tintagel on December 30, 2013, 04:22:11 PM
Rowbotham was also incorrect, in my opinion, about the altitude of the sun and moon.  Mathematically, his numbers don't jive - but that doesn't mean that the fundamental truth of the matter, that the earth is flat, is untrue.  I'll make note of sunrise/sunset times locally, however.  I'm at about 36 degree N latitude.
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Tau on December 30, 2013, 05:39:48 PM
Well what I'm saying is, why would they have to be different in FET? At least in my model, it makes more sense for them to be the same
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on January 01, 2014, 04:45:25 AM
Do you mind explaining why this is so Tsunami?  I looked at the info you link to but was unable to get an understanding of your thinking.

A prosperous 2014 to everyone reading
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Tau on January 02, 2014, 02:40:05 PM
Simple physics. When the Sun gets father away from the hub, it necessarily moves faster. Therefore, the length of the day can stay the same
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on January 03, 2014, 08:48:06 PM
Hi again Tausumi,

do you mean on a VxV/r principle that as the radius increases the V increases to maintain kinetic energy?
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Tintagel on January 03, 2014, 08:56:11 PM
Hi again Tausumi,

do you mean on a VxV/r principle that as the radius increases the V increases to maintain kinetic energy?

Something like that, but that runs contrary to the conservation of angular momentum that we see elsewhere in physics.  I believe there is an additional force at play here.  In the past I've called it an aetheric whirlpool, and some have postulated an additional set of celestial gears to account for this effect, allowing the sun to spin faster when the radius of its orbit is longer, and slower as the radius gets shorter.

I'm now in the celestial gears camp, myself - I've been an aether advocate in the past, and I don't discount its existence entirely, but the more study I do the more it becomes clear that the gears must exist.
Title: Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
Post by: Tau on January 03, 2014, 11:00:28 PM
Hi again Tausumi,

do you mean on a VxV/r principle that as the radius increases the V increases to maintain kinetic energy?

Something like that, but that runs contrary to the conservation of angular momentum that we see elsewhere in physics.  I believe there is an additional force at play here.  In the past I've called it an aetheric whirlpool, and some have postulated an additional set of celestial gears to account for this effect, allowing the sun to spin faster when the radius of its orbit is longer, and slower as the radius gets shorter.

I'm now in the celestial gears camp, myself - I've been an aether advocate in the past, and I don't discount its existence entirely, but the more study I do the more it becomes clear that the gears must exist.

Exactly. It doesn't defy conservation of angular momentum because the Sun is being propelled, either by the whirlpool or by the celestial gears.

If you want a real life example of a fluid moving faster as radius increases, look no father than a winding river. A river will deposit on the inward shore of a bend and erode the outward shore of the bend, because the water on the outside is moving faster.