[MCToon]

Now, could we please return the the topic.  Would you three care to comment on the list of observations:

1. on the equinox the sun traces a very nearly straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. on the northern solstice the sun is very nearly directly almost overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. on the southern solstice the sun is very nearly directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.
4.  on the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth.
5.  on the equinox, for all locations on the equator, the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west.

I have some thoughts on #1 and a further correlated observation to add, but I would like to verify it's accuracy before moving forward.

OK. Let's say all that is true. The question is (and apologies if this has been dealt with elsewhere in the thread) how do we use that information to make a map?
Especially without making any assumptions about the shape of the earth.
Let's say I'm at one point on the tropic of cancer, you are on another and we have synchronised watches. You record when the sun is directly overhead at the solstice, I do the same.
So now we know how long the sun takes to get from one place to the other but we don't know it's speed. Are we assuming it stays at a constant speed?
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here but it's hard to do this without making some assumptions, the tricky part is agreeing on those assumptions.

Agreed, these observations say nothing about the constancy of the speed of the sun.  I don't think that particular thing will be much of an issue.  I have an idea of how we can start a map using these observations, but it's not fully expanded.  I have been cautious as I have considered this because I don't want to go down a path based on an observation, then find it's incorrect so I have to revise drastically.  Or worse, fall prey to a bias and try to shoehorn an observation to fit the map.

I have two more observations to add.  I will use the same criteria as previously: simple, easy to understand, easy to verify, non-contentious observations.

5. For all points at northern latitudes, when looking due north observers see the northern pole star, Polaris.
6. For all points at southern latitudes, when looking due south observers see the Southern Cross constellation.

Again, I'm not interested in belabored "prove this with documentation".  These are non-contentious observations seen by billions of people.  Simply point out if I am incorrect, or if this is worded poorly.

Here's the updated list:

1. On the equinox the sun traces a very nearly straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. On the northern solstice the sun is very nearly directly almost overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. On the southern solstice the sun is very nearly directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.
4. On the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth, except for the polar regions.
5. For all points in northern latitudes, when looking due north observers see the northern pole star, Polaris.  In the north polar region observers will see this by looking nearly directly up.
6. For all points in southern latitudes, when looking due south observers see the Southern Cross constellation.  In the south polar region observers will see this by looking nearly directly up.

[iamcpc]

Squirrel, Nostrand, iampc, et all:

If I linked to a moon calculator on tfes.org, with no source provided as to how these predictions were created, how they were created, or how accurate they are, then it would be dismissed out of hand. Am I wrong about that?

If you are claiming something about the sun, you need to provide evidence for all claims.

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?

If you made a claim that a mile was 5280 feet, with no source provided as to how this prediction was created, or how accurate it is. I need a link for the documents showing the world-wide mile project showing that everywhere on earth a mile is 5280 feet. What is so flipping difficult about that?

You have used the Pythagorean theorem in several of your post.

A claim that A²+B² = C². I'm going to need a source provided. An explanation as to how this prediction was created. I need a link of documents showing the world wide triangle project showing that for A²+B² = C² for all triangles with sides less than 6 inches for all over the world. What is so flipping difficult about that?

[Curious Squirrel]

Squirrel, Nostrand, iamcpc, et all:

If I linked to a moon calculator on tfes.org, with no source provided as to how these predictions were created, the evidence they were created on, or how accurate they are, then it would be dismissed out of hand. Am I wrong about that?

If you are claiming something about the sun, you need to provide evidence for all claims. One accuracy in sunrise times does not equal accuracy for sunrise direction for all points on the equator. If the calculator is anything like the NOAA Solar Calculator, then there are many different pattern-based algorithms involved.

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?

We've linked you all three of the above over the course of the last year though Tom. Yet you continue to demand that only a 'world-wide sun observation project' would fulfill your criteria? I think it's time I finally filed you personally into the 'troll' bin. It's been a good run. But your constant refrain is for more more more, while never giving any sort of reasonable request on what 'more' might be.

Good luck with this for everyone else however. I shall continue to lurk, as these conversations have been more interesting than not.

[markjo]

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?

Tom, those sun and moon calculators are not based on observations.  They are based on a mathematical models of the earth/moon/sun system and are validated against real world observations made by anyone who uses them to find out where and when the sun or moon will rise or set. 

Instead of demanding existing documentation (which, for all you know, could have been faked), why don't you organize your fellow FE'ers to test the predictions of these calculators yourselves.  There are even open source calculators that you can download to verify the maths.

[stack]

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?

Tom, those sun and moon calculators are not based on observations.  They are based on a mathematical models of the earth/moon/sun system and are validated against real world observations made by anyone who uses them to find out where and when the sun or moon will rise or set. 

Instead of demanding existing documentation (which, for all you know, could have been faked), why don't you organize your fellow FE'ers to test the predictions of these calculators yourselves.  There are even open source calculators that you can download to verify the maths.

You have to dig deep, but markjo is correct. They are constantly updated using real world observations as well as patterns and computational aid.

NOAA’s calculators (and most calcs/almanacs) currently utilize ephemerides derived by JPL’s ‘Horizon’ system. The main being DE430. Part of the ephemerides derived solar object positioning is through observation:

"The observational data in the fits has been an evolving set, including: ranges (distances) to planets measured by radio signals from spacecraft,[7] direct radar-ranging of planets, two-dimensional position fixes (on the plane of the sky) by VLBI of spacecraft, transit and CCD telescopic observations of planets and small bodies, and laser-ranging of retroreflectors on the Moon, among others. DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations.”

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris.html

It’s pretty much what astronomers do, among other things: They use calcs/almanacs to find out when and where to point their device to observe/study the celestial object(s) of interest. Observed variances from the calcs/almanacs are recorded into databases. Then when a new DE ephemeride is being developed, observations are “fitted” with the existing data in order to enhance accuracy.

There’s a bunch of documentation out there, just not super easy to find. I can post more, but we’re veering once again away from the intent of the OP.

[Tom Bishop]

DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations

Observations of what and from where?

Also, you ae wrong, the NOAA Solar Calculator is not based on DE102.

"The calculations in the NOAA Sunrise/Sunset and Solar Position Calculators are based on equations from Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus."
—NOAA Solar Calculator Website

Squirrel, Nostrand, iamcpc, et all:

If I linked to a moon calculator on tfes.org, with no source provided as to how these predictions were created, the evidence they were created on, or how accurate they are, then it would be dismissed out of hand. Am I wrong about that?

If you are claiming something about the sun, you need to provide evidence for all claims. One accuracy in sunrise times does not equal accuracy for sunrise direction for all points on the equator. If the calculator is anything like the NOAA Solar Calculator, then there are many different pattern-based algorithms involved.

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?

We've linked you all three of the above over the course of the last year though Tom. Yet you continue to demand that only a 'world-wide sun observation project' would fulfill your criteria? I think it's time I finally filed you personally into the 'troll' bin. It's been a good run. But your constant refrain is for more more more, while never giving any sort of reasonable request on what 'more' might be.

Good luck with this for everyone else however. I shall continue to lurk, as these conversations have been more interesting than not.

Provide the links then, if you have verified it. What reason is there to assume that the sun has been studied from all points along the equator at equinox?

Post the evidence.

[inquisitive]

DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations

Observations of what and from where?

Also, you ae wrong, the NOAA Solar Calculator is not based on DE102.

"The calculations in the NOAA Sunrise/Sunset and Solar Position Calculators are based on equations from Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus."
—NOAA Solar Calculator Website

Squirrel, Nostrand, iamcpc, et all:

If I linked to a moon calculator on tfes.org, with no source provided as to how these predictions were created, the evidence they were created on, or how accurate they are, then it would be dismissed out of hand. Am I wrong about that?

If you are claiming something about the sun, you need to provide evidence for all claims. One accuracy in sunrise times does not equal accuracy for sunrise direction for all points on the equator. If the calculator is anything like the NOAA Solar Calculator, then there are many different pattern-based algorithms involved.

Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?

We've linked you all three of the above over the course of the last year though Tom. Yet you continue to demand that only a 'world-wide sun observation project' would fulfill your criteria? I think it's time I finally filed you personally into the 'troll' bin. It's been a good run. But your constant refrain is for more more more, while never giving any sort of reasonable request on what 'more' might be.

Good luck with this for everyone else however. I shall continue to lurk, as these conversations have been more interesting than not.

Provide the links then, if you have verified it. What reason is there to assume that the sun has been studied from all points along the equator at equinox?

Post the evidence.

Please explain what you mean by all points, how many?

[iamcpc]

1. On the equinox the sun traces a very nearly straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. On the northern solstice the sun is very nearly directly almost overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. On the southern solstice the sun is very nearly directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.
4. On the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth, except for the polar regions.
5. For all points in northern latitudes, when looking due north observers see the northern pole star, Polaris.  In the north polar region observers will see this by looking nearly directly up.
6. For all points in southern latitudes, when looking due south observers see the Southern Cross constellation.  In the south polar region observers will see this by looking nearly directly up.

These observations will never be accepted. A perfect example is observation 1. To agree to that someone like Tom would require a worldwide equator study with thousands of pictures taken every mile, data logs, videos etc all along the equator.

Even if such a study existed he could easily take a look at one picture and make a claim such as he has already done in this thread that there is no proof that the sun is rising in the direction claimed in the observation.

Even if there is a compass in the picture someone would easily claim that there is no documentation that the compass is accurate.

Even if it was agreed that the compass was accurate then we could easily question the location along the equator that the observation/picture/measurement was taken.

Even if there is a compass in the picture and a GPS system in the picture someone would easily claim that there is no documentation that the GPS system is accurate.

Even if there is a compass and we agree the compass is accurate and a GPS system and we agree the GPS system is accurate there is no documentation that the observation/picture/measurement was taken on the day claimed.

Even if there is a date/time stamp on the picture/measurement/observation those can easily be altered.

Even if we all agree on the compass, the GPS, and the time stamp associated with the observation/picture/measurement are accurate how do we know that the observation/picture/measurement itself was not fake or an error.


Even if we all agree on the compass/gps/time/accuracy of the measurement how do we know the location is along the equator?
Even if we all agree on the compass/gps/time/accuracy of the measurement how do we know the day is the equinox?

This can go on ad infinitum



6 months later we have not even started talking about optical effects.
6 months later we have not even started talking about atmospheric refraction.
6 months later we have not even started talking about the limited perceptive abilities of the human optical/neurological systems.
6 months later we have not even started talking about optical refraction effects from the dome.
6 months later we have not even started talking about optical refraction effects from firmament.

All of this for one picture of a sunrise/sunset along the equator during the equinox.

[MCToon]

1. On the equinox the sun traces a very nearly straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. On the northern solstice the sun is very nearly directly almost overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. On the southern solstice the sun is very nearly directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.
4. On the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth, except for the polar regions.
5. For all points in northern latitudes, when looking due north observers see the northern pole star, Polaris.  In the north polar region observers will see this by looking nearly directly up.
6. For all points in southern latitudes, when looking due south observers see the Southern Cross constellation.  In the south polar region observers will see this by looking nearly directly up.

These observations will never be accepted. A perfect example is observation 1. To agree to that someone like Tom would require a worldwide equator study with thousands of pictures taken every mile, data logs, videos etc all along the equator.

Even if such a study existed he could easily take a look at one picture and make a claim such as he has already done in this thread that there is no proof that the sun is rising in the direction claimed in the observation.

Even if there is a compass in the picture someone would easily claim that there is no documentation that the compass is accurate.

Even if it was agreed that the compass was accurate then we could easily question the location along the equator that the observation/picture/measurement was taken.

Even if there is a compass in the picture and a GPS system in the picture someone would easily claim that there is no documentation that the GPS system is accurate.

Even if there is a compass and we agree the compass is accurate and a GPS system and we agree the GPS system is accurate there is no documentation that the observation/picture/measurement was taken on the day claimed.

Even if there is a date/time stamp on the picture/measurement/observation those can easily be altered.

Even if we all agree on the compass, the GPS, and the time stamp associated with the observation/picture/measurement are accurate how do we know that the observation/picture/measurement itself was not fake or an error.


Even if we all agree on the compass/gps/time/accuracy of the measurement how do we know the location is along the equator?
Even if we all agree on the compass/gps/time/accuracy of the measurement how do we know the day is the equinox?

This can go on ad infinitum



6 months later we have not even started talking about optical effects.
6 months later we have not even started talking about atmospheric refraction.
6 months later we have not even started talking about the limited perceptive abilities of the human optical/neurological systems.
6 months later we have not even started talking about optical refraction effects from the dome.
6 months later we have not even started talking about optical refraction effects from firmament.

All of this for one picture of a sunrise/sunset along the equator during the equinox.

You are totally correct.  Tom won't accept these.  That doesn't matter.  Regular people do.  Tom has been invited to participate, he has instead chosen to derail.  I have already counted him in the "approve" column for my observations as he has offered no objections.  I invite anyone to start a separate thread dedicated to discussing level of documentation required for all claims FE, RE, etc.  I would love to compare and contrast the levels required for EnaG book compared to what is often demanded in this and other threads.

I will continue this thread ignoring off-topic posts, I request everyone else do the same.

[Tom Bishop]

These observations will never be accepted. A perfect example is observation 1. To agree to that someone like Tom would require a worldwide equator study with thousands of pictures taken every mile, data logs, videos etc all along the equator.

You guys have yet to provide one documented observation on the equator. What are you talking about?

We operate on evidence here. No evidence? Then there is nothing to discuss!

You are totally correct.  Tom won't accept these.  That doesn't matter.  Regular people do.  Tom has been invited to participate, he has instead chosen to derail.  I have already counted him in the "approve" column for my observations as he has offered no objections.  I invite anyone to start a separate thread dedicated to discussing level of documentation required for all claims FE, RE, etc.  I would love to compare and contrast the levels required for EnaG book compared to what is often demanded in this and other threads.

I will continue this thread ignoring off-topic posts, I request everyone else do the same.

It's not a matter of me asserting that the observations are not good enough. It's a matter of there being no evidence at all for the phenomenon.

Any evidence at all will help. So far none has been presented for what is seen on the equator.

[MCToon]

I have a set of claims I wish to share.  These are not based on observations, they are based on predictions so fall into a different category.  However, like the observations, they are simple, easy to understand, easy to verify, and non-contentious.

I would like to claim these are true for all days of the year:
a. Before sunset in Aranuka island in Kiribati the sun has risen in Ganggo Hilia, Indonesia.
b. Before sunset in Ganggo Hilia, Indonesia the sun has risen in Nanyuki, Kenya.
c. Before sunset in Nanyuki, Kenya the sun has risen in Macapá, Brazil.
d. Before sunset in Macapá, Brazil the sun has risen in Quitsato Monument, Ecuador.
e. Before sunset in Quitsato Monument, Ecuador, the sun has risen in Aranuka island in Kiribati.

Note that these locations are all very close to the equator and are populated.  They are meant to be spaced close enough that the visible sun times overlap.  I have not yet done the work to confirm that the visible sun times do, indeed, overlap.  I will work on that later, or, if someone would be interested, help to provide that theoretical verification.  I also included a generalized claim of "all days of the year".  I think this is true, but for the FE map the important days are the equinoxes.

I will be working to create a list of locations on both tropics, and a few other latitudes.  Not sure which ones, +/-45 degrees maybe (yay, Minneapolis), +/-75 degrees maybe, antarctic/arctic circles maybe.  These may depend on the availability of locations at select latitudes.  The southern ones may be more sparse.

[iamcpc]

It's not a matter of me asserting that the observations are not good enough. It's a matter of there being no evidence at all for the phenomenon.

Any evidence at all will help. So far none has been presented for what is seen on the equator.

We have shown evidence which you then dismissed. This is an exercise in futility because a website can show a pole casting no shadow on the equator during the equinox and you can EASILY claim that there is no proof that this picture was taken during the equinox or that this picture was taken from the equator.

In this video, how do we know what direction the door is pointing in? How do we know that it is pointed exactly East?

How do we know the location of the images?
How do we know the time of the images?
How do we know the images have not been photo shopped?
ad infinitum
ad infinitum
ad infinitum



They sell travel packages for the equinox because things in cities on the equator.
https://www.indonesia.travel/us/en/event-festivals/watch-the-spring-equinox-in-pontianak-rare-moments-without-shadow

This has been documented in these links
http://www.en.netralnews.com/news/currentnews/read/19305/indonesia.will.experience.day.without.shadow.on.march.21


https://steemit.com/equator/@lone.ly12/the-rare-phenomenon-it-s-the-territory-of-indonesia-s-day-without-shadows-c9cf51a02140c



Here's another website from another city on the equator
https://bobs-spaces.net/2018/03/18/2018-march-equinox/



Here's another link about people on the tropics and the sun position directly overhead
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/on-the-solstice-people-in-the-tropics-cast-no-shadow-128133250/


here's another link about the sun being directly overhead
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/04/lahaina-noon-when-shadows-disappear.html




people gather around outside to measure that the sun is overhead. It's a known predictable phenomenon.

[Tom Bishop]

Shadow disappear when the sun is overhead. No disagreement here.

[stack]

Shadow disappears when the sun is overhead. No disagreement here.

What is your evidence for this?

[iamcpc]

Shadow disappears when the sun is overhead. No disagreement here.

According to these articles and observations that the phenomenon that a vertical pole cast no shadow (because the sun is "overhead") only occurs between the tropic of cancer and tropic of Capricorn. As someone who lives in North America I can honestly say I've never seen the phenomenon in North America nor have i know anyone who has seen the phenomenon in North America.

There are travel packages selling the ability to experience this phenomenon and they don't travel to New York.

[Tom Bishop]

Shadow disappears when the sun is overhead. No disagreement here.

According to these articles and observations that the phenomenon that a vertical pole cast no shadow (because the sun is "overhead") only occurs between the tropic of cancer and tropic of Capricorn. As someone who lives in North America I can honestly say I've never seen the phenomenon in North America nor have i know anyone who has seen the phenomenon in North America.

There are travel packages selling the ability to experience this phenomenon and they don't travel to New York.

That sounds like evidence that the sun travels between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer.

[iamcpc]

That sounds like evidence that the sun travels between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer.

It also sounds like these events take place at days and times and locations which are predictable which is the whole set of predictions/observations that had been widely accepted as understood by people of all earth shape views so why do you feel the need to nit pick them?

[Tom Bishop]

That sounds like evidence that the sun travels between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer.

It also sounds like these events take place at days and times and locations which are predictable which is the whole set of predictions/observations that had been widely accepted as understood by people of all earth shape views so why do you feel the need to nit pick them?

I feel that there is enough evidence that the sun travels between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, and that the sun moves in repeating patterns that may be predictable with trending to the locations of American and European astronomers.

The problem is that from that information it is a jump to declare that, therefore, on a certain day, the sun rises from exactly eastwards from a location on the equator in the middle of the pacific ocean.

[stack]

DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations

Observations of what and from where?

Also, you ae wrong, the NOAA Solar Calculator is not based on DE102.

"The calculations in the NOAA Sunrise/Sunset and Solar Position Calculators are based on equations from Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus."
—NOAA Solar Calculator Website

Actually, you are, in part, wrong, more misinformed than anything else. And yes, DE102 was an example of the magnitude of 'observation' that goes into the development of a DE - DE430 is what is used today.

What values feed the Meeus algorithims? Well, as referenced in his book you cited, he pulls from many values/data sources, of which include the ‘Astronomical Almanac’ and its supplements.

http://edukacja.3bird.pl/download/fizyka/astronomia-jean-meeus-astronomical-algorithms.pdf

Within which, as late as 2015, the Astronomical Almanac has continued to assimilate JPL’s DE ephemerides:

"2015   Jet Propulsion Laboratory's DE430/LE430 planetary ephemerides was adopted. The IAU 2012 resolution on the re-definition of the astronomical unit of length was implemented. Predicting magnitude and surface brightness of planets was updated to account for the geometry of oblate planets.”

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/asa_history.php

If you're looking for worldwide observations, they are part of what comes out of all these tools.

[Tom Bishop]

DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations

Observations of what and from where?

Also, you ae wrong, the NOAA Solar Calculator is not based on DE102.

"The calculations in the NOAA Sunrise/Sunset and Solar Position Calculators are based on equations from Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus."
—NOAA Solar Calculator Website

Actually, you are, in part, wrong, more misinformed than anything else. And yes, DE102 was an example of the magnitude of 'observation' that goes into the development of a DE - DE430 is what is used today.

What values feed the Meeus algorithims? Well, as referenced in his book you cited, he pulls from many values/data sources, of which include the ‘Astronomical Almanac’ and its supplements.

http://edukacja.3bird.pl/download/fizyka/astronomia-jean-meeus-astronomical-algorithms.pdf

Within which, as late as 2015, the Astronomical Almanac has continued to assimilate JPL’s DE ephemerides:

"2015   Jet Propulsion Laboratory's DE430/LE430 planetary ephemerides was adopted. The IAU 2012 resolution on the re-definition of the astronomical unit of length was implemented. Predicting magnitude and surface brightness of planets was updated to account for the geometry of oblate planets.”

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/asa_history.php

If you're looking for worldwide observations, they are part of what comes out of all these tools.

If he pulled from many sources, but you do not know which ones from where, then you cannot say that the sun algorithms are based on the JPL's proprietary ephemerides tools.

Furthermore, there does not seem to be a version of Astronomical Algorithms published in the last few years when the JPL tool was adopted. The copyright on the Astronomical Algorithms book you linked is from 1991.